U.S. Must Follow Up on Proposal

With his new blueprint for defusing the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, President Bush is accepting far more responsibility than he initially sought for ending violence in the Middle East. But for the plan to work, Bush may have to take on far more responsibility yet.

In a nod to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Bush argued that negotiations on the major issues dividing Israel and the Palestinians should come only after comprehensive reform and the election of “new leaders” in the Palestinian Authority--presumably meaning the removal of its current leader, Yasser Arafat.

But such reforms, difficult under any circumstances, may not be possible without vastly intensified U.S. involvement in the grueling work of restructuring Palestinian institutions and nurturing political alternatives to Arafat. Meeting the tests Bush established in his speech could carry him into the kind of “nation-building” for which he frequently criticized the Clinton administration.

“I don’t see any other alternative; otherwise, the Palestinians themselves won’t take reform seriously,” said Gary J. Schmitt, executive director of the Project for a New American Century, a hawkish think tank. “It’s not on the scale of rebuilding Japan or Germany, but there is certainly the case that this is nation-building.”

Similarly, Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said after the speech: “Now that the president has dictated the terms, America has a responsibility through continued engagement to help achieve the results.”

Though fiercely blunt at points--particularly in the call for Palestinians to elect new leaders--the speech was notable as much for what Bush didn’t say.

The president offered no hints of U.S. views about the possible final settlement of the underlying issues dividing the two sides, from the ultimate borders of a Palestinian state to where Palestinian refugees might be allowed to resettle.

Bush was much more specific on the internal reforms he expectsbefore negotiations on those issues can proceed. He called on the Palestinians to write a new constitution, invest their parliament with “the full authority of a legislative body,” devolve more specific powers to local officials, develop independent courts, accept an “externally supervised effort” to rebuild their security services and hold “fair multi-party local elections by the end of the year, with national elections to follow.”

Above all, he urged the Palestinians to produce “leaders not compromised by terror.”

Yet even on this front, Bush left several key points vague. He offered no hint of how the U.S. will proceed if the Palestinians don’t reform their leadership. And although he strongly suggested that Arafat should be removed, he never mentioned him by name--a point senior administration officials noted after the address.

Nor did Bush specify when he would ask Israelis to take the steps he urged on them: withdrawing military forces from the West Bank positions they now hold, freezing new activity in settlements in the occupied territories and providing Palestinians more freedom of movement. All of those moves Bush conditioned on “progress on security,” a phrase that Sharon and Arab leaders are likely to define in very different terms.

Though the address generally drew praise from Democrats as well as Republicans, the few notes of criticism focused on unanswered questions. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is exploring a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, charged that the speech was too “one-dimensional” and too focused on internal Palestinian reform.

“I don’t think it brings us very far at all,” he said. “I agree that ... reform and transition is important.... But I don’t think there is enough vision in here of [a final agreement] that will allow politicians ... on all sides to hold on to.”

Yet it was precisely that focus on internal Palestinian reform that drew the loudest applause from Jewish groups, leading conservatives and some Democrats. Amplifying the theme from his earlier addresses, Bush moved the demand for Palestinian change to the center of the Mideast peace process.

That emphasis brought Bush back in line with U.S. conservatives. As the president in recent months has oscillated between denouncing Arafat and urging restraint on Sharon, the right has grown uneasy with his policy in the region--an uneasiness that intensified as recent reports indicated that Bush in this address would support the declaration of a provisional Palestinian state.

Bush did, in fact, embrace that idea. But by demanding fundamental internal reform before the U.S. would support such a state--in effect by making the provisional state conditional--Bush drew praise from a wide range of conservatives, including neoconservatives such as Schmitt, religious conservatives such as televangelist Pat Robertson, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

In the region, the heavy stress on reform as the precondition toward progress on Palestinian statehood represents a gamble. On the one hand, analysts say, Bush is trying to wean average Palestinians away from Arafat by offering the prospect of their own state--with a more vibrant economy and clearly defined civil liberties--if they install new leadership.

On the other hand, this approach risks generating restiveness among other Arab countries and increased violence from Palestinian extremists by asking so little of Israel in the short run and offering an extended timeline for an independent Palestine. In his address, Bush said an accord might be reached in three years “with intensive effort by all of us.”

In the months ahead, one critical question may be whether the combination of foreign pressure and aid that Bush envisions can produce enough tangible improvement in the day-to-day lives of Palestinians to outweigh disappointment over the deferral of progress toward independence and statehood.

With his sweeping vision of a transformed society, Bush seemed to be setting himself in competition for the hearts and minds of average Palestinians--offering order and prosperity as an alternative to the nationalism and grievance that have defined Palestinian public life for decades.

After all of Bush’s hesitance about assuming too much responsibility in the region--an instinct still visible Monday in the lack of specifics about next steps--the real test may be whether he has the stomach and the stamina to carry that competition through the inevitable reversals ahead, some of them sure to be measured in blood.

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this report.