Next, The Details

In his two major speeches on the Middle East, April and Monday, President Bush has said with more clarity than any predecessor has that a peaceful future for the region requires democracy. In fact, two democracies – one Israeli, one Palestinian – living as neighbors, wary but respectful of each other.

This seems a small thing and hardly new, with the Oslo peace accord nearing its 10th anniversary. Mr. Bush, though, makes an important point, perhaps the only point worth making at this time of starting over: terrorism and retaliation may have wrecked Oslo, but its goal of separation and coexistence is the only rational outcome.

The president’s speech Monday was more broad outline than details. The broad outline, however, gives both sides much to do. The Palestinians need to elect new leaders through open and violence-free elections, they need new institutions to ensure the rule of law, new security structures that keep peace rather than abet suicide bombers. The Israelis were not given a pass, either: they must help the Palestinians build a democratic state by releasing frozen revenues, by ending settlement building in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and by resolving the issues of Jerusalem and refugees.

It is significant that Mr. Bush on Monday did not mention the name of Yasir Arafat in calling for new Palestinian leadership. He has made no secret of his belief, shared by a great many in the Middle East and elsewhere, that there is little hope for peace with Mr. Arafat in charge, but it is wise not to make this failed leader a rallying point for those who prefer violence to peace. Perhaps, the president seems to be saying, this new Palestinian leadership can include – include, but not consist solely of – Yasir Arafat demonstrating new leadership skills.

Criticism of Mr. Bush’s speech focuses upon its lack of details, the absence of a specific sequence of events that will lead to two coexisting states within three years. This criticism presumes that Monday’s speech was the last Mr. Bush will give on the subject.

There certainly will be more speeches; more importantly, there will be much lower-profile work by his foreign-policy team. Both sides require a specific schedule of matching concessions that will lead directly to the creation of a democratic Palestinian state. First on that schedule must be an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank that is directly linked to Palestinian establishment of effective security institutions. Free elections and military occupation are incongruous, but Israel cannot be expected to withdraw in absence of guarantees that the West Bank will not become the world’s largest terrorist training camp.

Most importantly, the lack of details in Mr. Bush’s speech does not prevent Israel and the Palestinians from providing them for themselves; the reliance on the United States both sides express so readily on this matter borders on the infantile. If two democratic states are ever to live as neighbors, wary but respectful of each other, this would be a good place to start.