Opinion: After Arafat

President Bush's blunt dismissal of Yasser Arafat was welcome. The Palestinian leader rendered himself irrelevant to the future of the Middle East peace process through his own actions, and it was about time Washington became less diplomatic in saying so. After turning down a promising peace agreement at Camp David less than two years ago, Arafat fomented a new intifada and allowed his Fatah political movement to become more directly entwined with terrorism. At this point, Arafat probably is incapable of reversing the cycle of violence even if he wanted to.

So President Bush had good reason to assert that "peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born." At the same time, our government needs to be realistic about what a post-Arafat Palestinian leadership will look like. Any would-be Palestinian leader who becomes too closely identified with the United States is likely to lose credibility at home. Conversely, President Bush may have revived Arafat's sagging popularity among his own people by publicly ostracizing him. In the long run, our real interest should be in ensuring certain behavior -- including genuine democratic reforms and a renunciation of terrorism -- from Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be.

In one sense, the Bush administration is making seemingly contradictory demands of the Palestinians. The president called on them to "build a practicing democracy" as a prerequisite to peace. But a truly democratic process is likely to lead to the election of Arafat or some other leader whom Washington has decreed to be unacceptable. Most of Arafat's likely successors also have checkered pasts that include periods of cooperation with Israeli authorities, as well as periods of dalliance with those who commit acts of violence against Israel.

President Bush set out a vision in which a provisional Palestinian state could coexist with Israel within three years, but he has not yet charted a course for getting to that point. He should set out for the Palestinians the concrete steps he expects their current and future leaders to take. He should be equally specific in detailing Israel's responsibilities. In his speech last week, the president called for a freeze on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and he suggested Israel eventually will have to withdraw from much of the land occupied since 1967. However, he backed away from his earlier demands for an end to the current Israeli military action in the West Bank, and he set no timetable for an end to the broader crackdown that leaves Palestinians incapable of carrying out the political and economic reforms being demanded of them.

In tossing Arafat overboard, President Bush broke free from the tired formula that repeatedly has failed to bring peace to the Middle East. However, the absence of Arafat will not necessarily lead to the presence of a more realistic peace plan. To move the Israelis and Palestinians beyond the terrible violence and degradation, Washington's will have to set out a more detailed plan that focuses on deeds, not personalities.

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright