Losing the way on the Mideast road map?

The so-called “road map” for an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord hastily unveiled by President Bush last Friday may have been a politically timely effort to help British Prime Minister contend with mounting domestic opposition to his courageous stance in favor of war with Iraq. If so, it will join a long list of putative prescriptions for Mideast peace that have been motivated by considerations other than the one that should really matter: Will it actually conduce to a just and durable peace between Israel and her Arab enemies?

Regrettably, the answer in this case is likely to be as negative as were the results of its precursors dating back at least to the Oslo Accords. The reasons are explained with characteristic lucidity by Cal Thomas in the following column published in today’s Washington Times.

We can only pray that the present plan for euchring Israel into making territorial concessions to a still-unreformed Palestinian Authority will go by the wayside shortly after Saddam does. Unless changes are made to the road map so as to conform it with the “vision” for Mideast peace that President Bush laid out last June, however, the elimination of one terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iraq could enable Israel’s enemies in the European Union, the United Nations, the Russian Federation and the U.S. State Department (a.k.a. “the Quartet”) to create yet another — in the Arab Palestinian areas.

President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair – both stalwarts in urging the United Nations to live up to its numerous resolutions on Iraq – changed the subject for a moment last week by announcing their support for a “road map” they say can bring peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The announcement was timed to help Blair’s falling political support, but the “road map” won’t bring peace because it has been created with the wrong political coordinates – that what Israel does or does
not do affects the behavior of Palestinian terrorists.

Both Bush and Blair praised the naming of a Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Maazen), by Yasser Arafat. Abbas, whom some have labeled a “moderate,” is a Holocaust denier who has called for the murder of Israelis. In a 1983 book, Abbas claimed fewer than 1 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis (not 6 million, the figure generally accepted) and that Zionist leaders conspired with the Nazis in order to gain international sympathy for Zionism. Only the worst anti-Semite would believe such a fantasy.

In a June 24, 2002, speech about the Middle East, President Bush said that Palestinian Arabs must “elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.” Using the president’s definition, Mahmoud Abbas is not such a leader. In a March 3 interview with the Arab newspaper Alsharq Al-Amat, Abbas characterized recent discussions he had with several Palestinian terrorist groups: “We didn’t talk about a break in the armed struggle .. It is our right to resist.” Abbas suggested that all territory on the West Bank belongs to Palestinians and should be defended with armed force.

Even more dangerous to Jews, to Israel and to U.S. interests in the Middle East is the suggestion by Bush and Blair that the “road map” can be implemented “as progress is made toward peace.” This is a troubling phrase, because the language suggests that Israel might be forced to make new and dangerous concessions in response to token or insincere moves by Arafat. Since Palestinian and Hamas terrorists have conducted homicide bombings against Israeli civilians, why shouldn’t they be required to stop and renounce terror before Israel lowers its guard?

Blair and Bush spoke about “democracy” and “free and honest governments.” But there is only one democratic, free and honest government in the region, and it is Israel’s. Blair went on about the need for a “Palestinian leadership that acts decisively against terror and builds democracy.” Nice words, but there is no evidence that Arafat and his deadly conspirators have ever considered stopping terror, which is their preferred instrument to eradicate Israel and its democracy from the region. Arafat has his own “road map,” and there is no exit marked “Israel” on it.

The Bush-Blair “road map” is designed to be adopted even before the Palestinian Authority has met the president’s own conditions for statehood. It was the same after the Oslo accords. Palestinians failed to live up to a single provision of the document, which Arafat signed. That didn’t stop Western nations from keeping the pressure on Israel to make further concessions.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell testified last week before a House committee, he said it was Palestinian attacks on Israel and a lack of Palestinian peace proposals that have kept progress from being made toward a peace agreement. So why isn’t the pressure on Arafat to halt the attacks for good instead of on Israel to make more compromises that could lead to its own extermination?

U.N. Resolution 242 requires “the termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

The new Palestinian prime minister is not about any of this. To him, force remains an active strategy, and his denial of the Holocaust is sufficient evidence – if more is needed – that neither he nor any other Palestinian leader has any intention of implementing the Bush-Blair “road map” unless it leads to hell for Israel and the Jews.