ADVERTISEMENT

For weeks, Arabs and Jews alike have been fretting over George W. Bush's latest Big Idea for the Middle East. Everyone knew the U.S. President liked the idea of a Palestinian "provisional state." But no one had any idea what the term meant. Would the Palestinians be allowed their own provisional army? Or a provisional airport? And would they get back the Karine A so they could receive provisional cargo shipments from their provisional allies in Tehran and Baghdad?

Moreover, hawks asked, didn't the West just go to Afghanistan to wipe out a terrorist state? Did it really need to create a potential replacement -- even a provisional one -- in the Middle East?

These questions now seem academic. As predicted, Mr. Bush spoke of a "provisional state" in his speech yesterday. But his preconditions for its creation seem unattainable in the short or medium term:

(a) "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror."

In a poll a month ago, the Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre asked 1,200 Palestinians: "Which Palestinian personality do you trust the most?" Number one, with 25% support, was Yasser Arafat, the inveterate terrorist whom Mr. Bush clearly wants the Palestinians to dump.

Number two, with 9%, was Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Hamas terrorist group. Number three, with 6%, was Marwan Barghouti, a former peace partner who is in an Israeli jail because of his recent involvement in terrorist activity. Notice a pattern?

(b) "I call upon [Palestinians] to build a practising democracy ..." The Palestinians are the inheritors of an Arab culture profoundly hostile to Western democratic forms. There are 21 nations in the Arab league. None can be described as a multi-party democracy: The Palestine Mr. Bush envisions would be the first. And while there is some evidence the Palestinians have become hungry for freedom thanks to their close proximity to Israel, experiments in Arab democracy have been tried and failed too often in the past few decades for anyone to entertain much hope.

As for Mr. Arafat, what's in it for him? Recall that under the Oslo agreements, Mr. Arafat was supposed to stand for election no later than 1999. He ignored that deadline and chose to rule as an unelected dictator -- even though he would have then been a lock to win. Why would he call elections now that his support has plummeted and he just might lose?

(c) "... based on tolerance and liberty." To say "tolerance" is to imply "tolerance for Jews." But Palestinian Mullahs preach the extermination of Jews to appreciative congregations. Palestinian children, weaned on years of anti-Semitic propaganda and biased textbooks, regard the Israelis as bloodsuckers. And Palestinian landowners who sell land to Jews get the death penalty. A million Arabs live and vote peacefully in Israel. Presumably, a Palestine brimming with "tolerance and liberty" would allow some Israeli settlers to have the same privileges in the newly created state. Does that sound likely?

But look beyond Mr. Bush's rather hopeless preconditions, and you find an even more fundamental flaw in his plan: It isn't really new. It's simply Oslo with different words.

Recall that under Oslo I and Oslo II, the basic idea was to set up a democratic Palestinian Authority while leaving the thorny negotiations over borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements until the Palestinians had shown they could be trusted with a nation-in-embryo. The imagined sequence was (1) democratic statelet; (2) negotiation of a "final settlement;" (3) full statehood.

What does Mr. Bush give us? Well, skip through all the stuff about "transparency" and "accountability" and you get to a key line: "With a dedicated effort, this state could rise rapidly.... The final borders, the capital and other aspects of this state's sovereignty will be negotiated between the parties, as part of a final settlement."

In other words, what the President has proposed is Oslo III. His only value added is that he raises the democratic bar to an impossible height and substitutes some vague creature called "provisional statehood" for the PA statelet we know and hate.

It is easy to see why Mr. Bush has attempted this quick fix: Everyone in the world is telling the Americans they must get more involved in the Middle East. But Mr. Bush cannot paper over the fact that the Palestinians are still a long way from renouncing terror and embracing pluralism. To bring peace to the Middle East, it will take more than the creation of a new noun phrase.

EXCERPT FROM BUSH'S REMARKS:

"Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.

I call upon them to build a practising democracy based on tolerance and liberty.

If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence.

And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbours, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state ... "