President Bush's much-anticipated speech on the Middle East has signalled a new willingness to engage with the conflict there, but at the cost of a quite unbalanced approach, far more critical of the Palestinian leadership than of Israel's policies in the occupied territories. By demanding a "new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born", Mr Bush has accepted the Israeli interpretation of the conflict and tilted US policy towards Israel's allies within his administration.
In doing so he may have jeopardised the opportunity to generate a new peace process capable of reversing the trend towards deeper violence over recent months. It is debatable whether the US on its own could ever have turned the situation around in this way. It needs to work closely with Arab states, the European Union and the United Nations to achieve its objectives. That will be all the more the case after this speech. The initial reaction to it yesterday from these other players was cautious, emphasising the positive aspects of what Mr Bush had to say about an eventual settlement rather than the unbalanced set of demands he made on the Palestinians and Israel. They need to be more critical in private as they assess the impact of what he had to say.
There was no mention in the speech of the proposals put forward by Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt for a new land-for-peace agreement. Nor did it refer to the international conference called for by the European Union at the weekend summit in Seville. Instead two thirds of the speech concentrated on a detailed set of requirements for reform of the Palestinian Authority and the replacement of its leadership. Palestinians are called on to "build a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty." This will require new legislative, judicial, security and constitutional institutions. "If Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine", according to Mr Bush. In contrast an Israeli pullback to positions held before the rebellion began in September 2000 would happen "only as we make progress towards security."
There is no understanding here that the Israeli occupation itself generates insecurity and terrorism. Only reciprocal action by the Israelis to withdraw can encourage the political reform process called for by Mr Bush. It is unrealistic and disingenuous to expect Palestinians to create a fully functioning democratic order while still under occupation and before even an unprecedented "provisional independent state" is achieved. It is also their own democratic right to choose their leadership. European states must press home these points in order to rebalance such a lopsided US policy at the Group of Eight meeting in Canada this week if they are to retain credibility as interlocutors. The same applies to the Arab states, as they respond to it. None of these holds a particular brief for Mr Yasser Arafat or the existing Palestinian Authority, which is badly in need of renewal and change. But unless the same kind of pressure is exerted on Israel as on the Palestinians this conflict will become more dangerous.