The Paradigm
President Bush’s paradigm for the Road Map is that the Israelis and the “Palestinian people”led by Abu Mazen are on the same side of a divide seeking peace, security and a two-state solution. Hamas is on the other, fighting both Israelis and Palestinians to “wreck the ‘peace process’.” Let us assume, for the moment, that he is right (suspending disbelief) and consider the implications for security and for”the people.”
Israel is led by a government elected by and responsible to its own citizens and meets its obligations to the international community.
President Bush’s paradigm for the Road Map is that the Israelis and the “Palestinian people”led by Abu Mazen are on the same side of a divide seeking peace, security and a two-state solution. Hamas is on the other, fighting both Israelis and Palestinians to “wreck the ‘peace process’.” Let us assume, for the moment, that he is right (suspending disbelief) and consider the implications for security and for”the people.”
Israel is led by a government elected by and responsible to its own citizens and meets its obligations to the international community.
As a quasi-legal matter, the Palestinians have a Parliament, whose term expired in 1999 and never had a bill signed into law; a “Rais”, Arafat, whose term, such as it was designed to be, also expired in 1999; and a Prime Minister appointed by the”Rais”, but with only such powers as the “Rais” permits. Extra-legally, they have 17 security services, most involved at least obliquely in terrorism and most loyal to the “Rais” (a terrorist), not the PM (a “reformed”? terrorist and Holocaust denier), and a wide range of openly terrorist organizations including, but not only, Hamas. Who leads”the people”? Who are”the people”? What do “the people” want? Who cares? And under the circumstances, why is the President so interested in giving them a country?
Think of it like the Austrians, or even the Germans, around 1943. Enthusiastic backers of Hitler in his rise, and claiming victim status by 1945, during the war some of “the people” suffered various levels of disillusionment even as many others still faithfully served the Reich. The Allies didn’t seek out a liaison from the “occupied” governments and didn’t ask “the people” what they wanted. While Hitler ruled, nothing political was possible. After Hitler, everything was. Is the analogy too old? It works with Iraq as well. Amb. Bremmer came after the battle for Baghdad, not before.
Not to put Yasser and Adolph, or Yasser and Saddam on the same plane, but the analogy works. Until the guns are solely in the hands of a government that controls itself and its constituent parts, and that is declared and held responsible for what its citizens and its army do, the ldquo;the people” are irrelevant, though perhaps in need of rescue. And if we accept the President’s formulation that Abu Mazen is on the same side as Israel, no one should have trouble with Israel wiping out the terrorist infrastructure and liberating the Palestinians so that peace and security can be achieved after the war.
Shut Up: Mimicking French President Chirac’s criticism of Central European support for the U.S. in Iraq, Italian PM Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters France, “missed a good opportunity to shut up,” in response to French criticism of his decision not to meet Palestinian leaders during his trip to Israel. French FM de Villepin said Berlusconi had “not satisfied the European position” by holding talks only with PM Sharon. “I went (to Israel) as the prime minister of Italy. There’s no way France can issue criticism over something that was the sole right and responsibility of the Italian prime minister.” Berlusconi made his remarks as Italy prepares to take over the EU presidency in July. We look for the EU to take a turn for the better.