Who Speaks for the President? And What are They Saying?
The debate that began yesterday and was heavily discussed both at neo-neocon and at Kesher Talk continues this morning. LGF links to a Reuters story about the President's radio address and concludes its "a farce" because the President refused to directly call on Abbas to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. Neo-neocon links to the same story and concludes that Bush is "pretty clear about... placing the ball in the Palestinian court" to take the next step.
The key paragraphs from the transcript are these two:
Now that Israel has withdrawn, the way forward is clear. The Palestinians must show the world that they will fight terrorism and govern in a peaceful way. We will continue to help the Palestinians to prepare for self government and to defeat the terrorists who attack Israel and oppose the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian state.
We remain fully committed to defending the security and well-being of our friend and ally Israel. We demand an end to terrorism and violence in every form because we know that progress depends on ending terror. And we will continue working for the day when the map of the Middle East shows two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and security.
Everything turns on what President Bush means by "progress depends." Does that mean, as neo-neocon thinks it means, that Israel is under no obligation to make further concessions until the Palestinians begin to fight terrorism? Or is it, as Charles seems to think, just the usual anti-terror platitude substituting for a genuine call to action? We have no idea. But the radio address is never the place to make nuanced policy statements, and so it's unsurprising that it would be vague.
Arguably the real significance of the Reuters story is that it proves yet again that the State Department is actively taking an implicit but very clear anti-Israel stance through leaks, media framing, and actual policies. Whether that stance in opposition to President Bush or merely in tension with him does nothing to prove that it doesn't exist:
U.S. officials said there would likely be a hiatus in peace negotiations while both sides got a grip on security issues. "It is not such a bad thing if we have a cooling-off period," said one State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said the United States was encouraged both sides had managed to rein in militants during the withdrawal and that Hamas had largely "behaved."
This is a unique combination of poor strategy, moral equivalence, and outright stupidity. It's poor strategy because "cooling-off periods" (a) are used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to rearm and (b) last only until Hamas and Islamic Jihad think they've rearmed enough to start murdering Israelis again. It's repugnant moral equivalence because it implies that Jewish militants - at worst a couple of deranged young men denounced across the Israeli political spectrum - are no different in quantity or quality from the hundreds of Palestinian terrorists who blow up school-busses and cafes. And it's stupid because Hamas only "behaved" themselves for a week so they could call for the total extermination of all Jews in Israel this morning.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
The key paragraphs from the transcript are these two:
Now that Israel has withdrawn, the way forward is clear. The Palestinians must show the world that they will fight terrorism and govern in a peaceful way. We will continue to help the Palestinians to prepare for self government and to defeat the terrorists who attack Israel and oppose the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian state.
We remain fully committed to defending the security and well-being of our friend and ally Israel. We demand an end to terrorism and violence in every form because we know that progress depends on ending terror. And we will continue working for the day when the map of the Middle East shows two democratic states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and security.
Everything turns on what President Bush means by "progress depends." Does that mean, as neo-neocon thinks it means, that Israel is under no obligation to make further concessions until the Palestinians begin to fight terrorism? Or is it, as Charles seems to think, just the usual anti-terror platitude substituting for a genuine call to action? We have no idea. But the radio address is never the place to make nuanced policy statements, and so it's unsurprising that it would be vague.
Arguably the real significance of the Reuters story is that it proves yet again that the State Department is actively taking an implicit but very clear anti-Israel stance through leaks, media framing, and actual policies. Whether that stance in opposition to President Bush or merely in tension with him does nothing to prove that it doesn't exist:
U.S. officials said there would likely be a hiatus in peace negotiations while both sides got a grip on security issues. "It is not such a bad thing if we have a cooling-off period," said one State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official said the United States was encouraged both sides had managed to rein in militants during the withdrawal and that Hamas had largely "behaved."
This is a unique combination of poor strategy, moral equivalence, and outright stupidity. It's poor strategy because "cooling-off periods" (a) are used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to rearm and (b) last only until Hamas and Islamic Jihad think they've rearmed enough to start murdering Israelis again. It's repugnant moral equivalence because it implies that Jewish militants - at worst a couple of deranged young men denounced across the Israeli political spectrum - are no different in quantity or quality from the hundreds of Palestinian terrorists who blow up school-busses and cafes. And it's stupid because Hamas only "behaved" themselves for a week so they could call for the total extermination of all Jews in Israel this morning.
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
