BUSH AGREES TO A TIMETABLE...FOR ISRAEL: FresnoZionism.org critiques an article about an 8 month timetable drawn up by the Bush administration.

One particularly interesting question raised: "How is it legitimate for the Palestinians to demand something in return for…stopping terrorism?"

Apparently it is a sign of our times that no one seems to find it odd that the cessation of the murder of civilians is something that has to be bargained for.

My own thoughts:

o If a timetable according to the White House is a bad thing in Iraq, why is it good for Israel, especially when--according to Israeli officials--there is no 'conditionality': Israel must fulfill its obligation regardless of what the PA does or does not do.

o According to the article, Condoleezza Rice "hoped to draw up a blueprint, or "rubric," that both sides would commit to, possibly in writing." Possibly in writing? Just how seriously is the Bush administration taking this?

o Then you have this:

"Both sides agreed to benchmarks," said a senior U.S. official involved in the discussions. "The benchmarks give everyone an incentive. One side gets security. The other side gets greater (freedom) of movement."

Another American official said initial reports that the benchmarks would exchange freedom of movement for increased security were inaccurate. "The purpose is to create a clear basis on which to help track these particular issues," she said.

If the Whitehouse does not know what the goal is, who does?

o Abbas would be required to "take specific measures to begin curbing rocket fire by militants." How is the US going to measure "curb"--just how many rockets fired into Israel will be acceptable?

If the Whitehouse feels pressure to take an active role and be evenhanded, that is no reason to look foolish doing it.

Technorati Tag: Israel and US.