WASHINGTON — It was hardly a surprise that a broad spectrum of Jewish leaders praised President George W. Bush’s new vision for Mideast peace; most of them could have written it.
Monday’s speech, which called for “new leadership” for the Palestinians, stunned Jewish leaders who had awaited it with trepidation based on leaks suggesting the administration would seek to move quickly toward provisional Palestinian statehood.
“It was a welcome and fair vision of the future of the Middle East,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “None of the anxieties that some of us had were realized. I believe the American Jewish community will overwhelmingly welcome this president’s vision of the future.”
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said Bush’s plan provides “a very realistic blueprint that could lead to a meaningful process. It establishes preconditions based on the historical fact that democracies don’t go to war with one another.”
Hoenlein rejected complaints from some right-of-center groups based on Bush’s call for an eventual end to the Israeli “occupation” and for a freeze on settlements.
But Hoenlein also said that the devil will be in the details as the administration fleshes out Monday’s outline.
“The key is how this vision is implemented,” he said. “The important thing will be getting the E.U., the Russians and the Arab states to work with the administration and to push the Palestinians.”
That will be a tall order. Despite widespread unhappiness with Arafat, few observers expect Arab and Muslim governments to openly support the U.S. effort to bring down the curtain on the Arafat era.
A senior administration official, briefing reporters after Monday’s speech, ducked the question of whether Arab allies were on board.
“The partners, I think, understand our position, and they certainly want a change in the circumstances in the Middle East,” the official said.
The success of the speech will depend on intensified U.S. mediation, said Steven Spiegel, a UCLA political professor and chair of the Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center. “If the administration is really committed to working with the Palestinians to have new leadership, and with the Israelis to react in a positive manner, then we have a shot at having a real peace process,” he said. “If it’s just another speech, we’re in real trouble.” Not every Jewish analyst was happy.
Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, said that the President’s plan “is dead on arrival because it makes so many false assertions and assumptions.”
Bush, he said, is still “rewarding terrorism. He is saying to the Palestinian leadership that ‘you should be given something for your efforts.'”
But most Jewish leaders expressed surprised pleasure at the speech.
During a conference call of community leaders around the country, “the mood was almost euphoric,” said an official with one major Jewish group. “It was almost as if the President was reading from our talking points.”
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, probably gritting his teeth, called the President’s speech a “serious contribution” to peace. But Arab and Muslim groups in Washington didn’t bother with such niceties.
American Muslims for Jerusalem dismissed the address as a “cut and paste” speech.
The group expressed disappointment that “U.S. Middle East policy has been hijacked by pro-Israel extremist groups within the U.S. and the Israeli government.”
In a statement, the group charged that the President just repeated “Ariel Sharon’s talking points.”
“There were a number of positive aspects to President Bush’s proposals for peace and stability in the Middle East,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “These positive initiatives include the demand for a freeze on Israeli settlement activity, increased humanitarian assistance, an end to the Israeli occupation based on U.N. resolutions, and a call for freedom of movement for ordinary Palestinians.”
But he said the speech “fell short of offering a clear vision of the ultimate destination. Core issues such as the status of Jerusalem and existing Israeli settlements, final borders and the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, were not addressed in a way that offers hope for a just and comprehensive settlement to the Middle East conflict. It was the failure to address these vital issues that brought us to the current impasse.”
The Arab-American Institute, while acknowledging the “clear effort by the President to demonstrate compassion with the Palestinian people,” said that the “overlay of neo- conservative ideology had the net effect of canceling out any understanding that may have been displayed.”