I actually disagree...

Submitted by alanH (United States), Jun 25, 2002 at 13:04

a rarity when it comes to Daniel Pipes... I think the article doesn't take into account the political realities of the situation...and I think within those realities Bush did a good job. I think he set *conditions* upon the Palestinians before they can get their state...likely conditions that will never be met, but conditions nonetheless.

I think the "pawns" comment referred to how the Palestinians are treated by other Arabs...and to that extent it's true. I would agree that Bush was inacurate in characterizing the situation as one where the "people" want peace and the leadership has been the problem. However, it puts the ball in the Palestinian's court. It's up to the people to prove that they are not supportive of terrorism.

I don't see the moral equivalence, either. He never said it was Israel using the Palestinians as pawns. Moreover, the repeated insistence upon who has to leave this equation makes it clear that there's no moral equivalence being described.

When you add to this a number of other comments, notably about the other Arab countries and references to their hateful media, and specific countries like Syria and what they need to do, I think he did ok. Not perfect, but hardly as bad as I was fearing.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".