An Undeserved Backlash

As a Republican, I am always more than a little astonished at some of the reaction President Bush's speeches get, in both the domestic and the foreign press. Among the worst examples of Bush-bashing I have seen so far have occurred in response to the President's recent remarks that the Palestinian people must elect new leadership if it wishes to see progress in peace negotiations with Israel.

Denunciation of the President's words has been swift and sure. In the July 9 issue of The New York Times, columnist Khalil Shikaki notes that neither Arafat nor the Palestinian people "will yield to curt demands from Washington or anywhere else." BBC world affairs editor John Simpson has noted that, in a meeting with "senior civil servants," Bush's speech was denounced as "puerile," "absurdly ignorant," and "ludicrous."

The thinking that underlies such denunciations is as follows: Bush's words betray contempt for democracy by implying that the Palestinian people are not sufficiently intelligent to elect their own leader. But such thinking shows a poor understanding of democracy of the sort one would hardly expect to find among New York Times columnists and senior British diplomats.

President Bush has nowhere called for the destruction of the Palestinian Legislative Council. He has simply said, in the cagey and cautious language of good diplomacy, that Israel and the United States cannot work with the current Palestinian leadership--most particularly Yasser Arafat--and that if the Palestinian people want to see the creation of a Palestinian state, they must elect leaders with whom the United States and Israel can negotiate.

Put simply: Palestinians can elect whomever they choose. But the simple fact that the Palestinian people have elected Yasser Arafat--or anyone else, for that matter--does not mean he will be welcome in Washington or Jerusalem.

Thus, President Bush has not in any way undermined the right of the Palestinian people to choose its own leaders. Palestinian voters are perfectly free to elect Arafat. But as the average Palestinian makes decisions about whom to vote for, he should consider carefully that Israel and the United States consider Arafat a persona non grata before casting his ballot.

What is assumed in this most recent criticism of Bush's handling of foreign affairs is a bizarre view that international politics is a Miss Manners garden party, governed by a universally accepted standard of etiquette. At no time in world history has international politics actually functioned this way. International politics is quite frequently a cutthroat affair. And Arafat's throat has, mercifully, been cut.

Indeed, President Bush's discreet call for Yasser Arafat's removal as leader of the Palestinian people were not all that new. Arafat's stature with the Sharon government has long been in free fall, even if that government has only recently asserted that Arafat will be displaced not by Israeli "aggression" but by the ballots of his own people.

Indeed, Shakiri notes that Arafat's approval rating has dropped from 75 percent in May of 1996 to a low of 35 percent this May. Even the Egyptian and Saudi governments--hardly great supporters of Bush and Sharon--are now urging Arafat to settle for a ceremonial role in the Palestinian government, as his credit in American and Israeli eyes has declined to nothing.

Thus, Bush's speech calling for new Palestinian leadership only reiterates the conclusion the Palestinian people have already reached themselves: that Arafat has achieved nothing in negotiations with Israel and that he must be replaced if the peace process is to proceed. Indeed, Bush's speech can be seen as heroic in that it proclaims publicly conclusions that many observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have already reached privately.

How Arafat's total loss of status is not evident to the British diplomats who met with the BBC's John Simpson is beyond my power to comprehend. Indeed, European leaders seem stuck in 1993 when it comes to their views of Yasser Arafat: they seem not to have noticed how Arafat's failure to control or even attempt to control terrorism over the past two years of intifada have only discredited him as a leader. Now that Israel has finally seen fit to annex land for every person killed or injured in a suicide bombing, no Palestinian can doubt that the intifada has been a total loss for the Palestinian people and that the pre-intifada status quo will be nearly impossible to restore.J.R. Wilheim is a Columbia College senior concentrating in religion and history.