Count me as one who is highly skeptical about the chances for success of the “road map” to peace in the Holy Land as currently conceived. In fact, I have always been troubled by any characterization resembling a “peace process” for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which, almost by definition, is an invention of the internationalists in the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and certain corners of our Department of State who oppose the Bush Doctrine for the war on terrorism, recoil from the use of terms like “axis of evil” and, in fact, usually do not see a positive role for the use of American power in the world.
What is it that differentiates Palestinian terrorism from the other sources of terrorism with which we have been in a state of war for the past ten years? When has a cease-fire without surrender ever worked in truly restoring or establishing peace? In Europe after World War I? In Korea? There is no “peace process” in the Middle East, nor can there be one, in my opinion, until Yasser Arafat is totally removed from Palestinian leadership, Israel’s right to exist is unconditionally acknowledged, and the Palestinians unilaterally and unconditionally disavow terrorism as a political weapon. In short, there is no peace and no security without victory, and for President Bush to invest his enormous prestige in a process that has no credibility on the ground is a risk that should not be taken.
