Is it possible to support a Palestinian state without encouraging terrorists elsewhere?It’s a well argued article that makes a strong case for discarding the road map to peace and adopting a much more hard-headed approach to the problem.
The road map offered a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. But everyone who knew the players involved and the history of the region also knew the road map didn't really represent an achievable solution. It looked like a political concession: America would support, diplomatically and financially, the creation of a Palestinian state.
To some the road map may have been seen as a wise move in the run up to the war in Iraq, a small concession: little would probably come of it but it would please the Europeans and make America look a little better to the Arab world.
However, as the article points out, it was a concession under duress:
George W. Bush is the first American president to use the words "Palestinian" and "state" in the same sentence. Bill Clinton never went so far. Bush didn't do this because the Palestinians are suddenly more deserving of a homeland. He did so because they violently demanded it.More and more, it looks like attempting to implement the road map has done little other than embolden those organisations working hardest for a Palestinian state. That would be fine, if it wasn’t for the fact that those groups are not democratic political parties, they are terrorist organisations with an agenda that goes far beyond the two-state solution.
As Michael Totten says,
We can fight and discourage terror and also work toward a two-state solution. But we can't do both at the same time. And we certainly can't make a Palestinian state the priority.I think he’s right.
