By JAMES TARANTO
Bush to Arabs: Put Up or Shut Up
Speaking to the
American Enterprise Institute last night, President Bush explained why the road
to Middle East peace goes through Baghdad:
Success in Iraq could . . . begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.
Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders. True leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.
Here's the most crucial passage: "The Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and [to] state clearly they will live in peace with Israel."
It was just under a year ago that Vice President Dick Cheney went to the Middle East on a tour of allied nations that was widely regarded as a failure. "In one Arab nation after another," the Associated Press reported at the time, "Cheney has found leaders primarily focused on resolving the corrosive Israeli-Palestinian crisis, no matter how much he tries to change the subject to a tougher stand on Baghdad."
As we argued, these leaders were acting in bad faith when they made their demands for peace. With a few exceptions (Anwar Sadat in the 1970s, King Hussein in the '90s), Arab leaders have never had any interest in making peace with Israel; the perpetual state of conflict is too useful to them, with Israel (and often America) serving as an all-purpose scapegoat to divert public attention from their own misrule. These leaders also preferred containment of Saddam to liberation of Iraq, which they feared would bring democratic pressures to bear on their own countries.
So when Cheney went to talk about Iraq, they changed the subject, making a preposterous demand: First, solve one of the world's most intractable problems, and then maybe we'll talk about liberating Iraq. If diplomacy is the art of changing the subject, leadership is the art of sticking to it. The administration did so, and the Arab allies all eventually got on board--not because they wanted to, but because they wanted to be on the winning side.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum: In the course of their unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to save Saddam Hussein, a bunch of Arab leaders went on the record in support of peace with Israel. And what do you know, President Bush is taking them at their word. Instead of being pulled into the "peace process" quagmire, the president is demanding that the Arabs finally begin behaving responsibly--which is the true precondition for peace in the Middle East.
This is of a piece with Bush's decision, in the face of carping about American "unilateralism," to turn Iraq into a test of the United Nations' seriousness and relevance. The man certainly has a knack for calling the bluff of his adversaries.
