| From The Wall Street Journal’s most excellent free daily website,
Opinion BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, December 3, 2001 Arafat: Terrorist or Victim? Israel attacks targets near Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Gaza City, in retaliation for Saturday night's suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa, which killed 25. On yesterday's interview shows, something of a debate broke out within President Bush's cabinet. On CNN's "Late Edition," Secretary of State Colin Powell put forth the view that Arafat was a victim of the attacks: "I spoke to Chairman Arafat last night right after the first bombing in Jerusalem but before Haifa, and I made it clear to him that he had to act because not only was this a terrible attack against innocent Israelis, a terrible act of terror, but it was also an attack against him, it was an attack against his authority, it was an attack against Palestinian leadership, and it was an attack that he could not overlook." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, had this to say on NBC's "Meet the Press," when host Tim Russert asked him, "Do you think that Yasser Arafat is a terrorist?": "I think that Yasser Arafat has--it's not for me to characterize him, but if one looks historically, he has been involved in terrorist activities. We all know that. That's been his background." One datum that argues for the Rumsfeld view: After the spring suicide bombing of a Tel Aviv disco, which killed 21, Arafat wrote a letter to the dead terrorist's family, which the Middle East Media and Research Institute translated: "With hearts that believe in Allah's will and predetermination, we have received the news about the martyrdom of the martyr. . . . Al-Hotary, the son of Palestine, whose noble soul ascended to . . . in order to rest in Allah's Kingdom, together with the Prophets, the men of virtue, and the martyrs. The heroic martyrdom operation . . . who turned his body into bombs . . . the model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homeland." Really, though, it doesn't much matter if Arafat is condoning terrorism because he wants to or because he's too weak not to. Either way, it's plainly fatuous to talk about negotiating "peace" with him; he simply will not deliver anything of the kind. Saturday's atrocities render untenable the White House's post-Sept. 11 approach of keeping Israel at arm's length, treating terrorism against Israelis as if it were qualitatively different from terrorism against Americans, and uttering platitudes about the "cycle of violence." (When was the last time an Israeli suicide bomber blew up a Palestinian bus?) And indeed, the New York Post reports that "after months of finessing the issue, the White House now seems ready to consider the Israeli argument that Arafat is just like the Taliban--someone who harbors terrorists, rather than a legitimate partner for peace." This could complicate the White House's antiterror coalition-building efforts, putting our Arab "friends" in an awkward spot. Then again, so what? It's not as if the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia have offered much help, or even much public support, since Sept. 11, and Arab anti-American carping was already bound to increase when the war spreads to Arab countries. What's more, most Arab governments face their own threats from Islamist terrorists. For them actually to undermine the war on terror would be suicidal. Arab leaders have long demonized Israel and America in order to give their own people a scapegoat and divert attention from their own corrupt and tyrannical rule. If they now find themselves in a tough spot, well, they deserve it. |
The Case Agianst Israel's Enemies by Alan Dershowitz 
Coming from England and particularly from the BBC, MUST BE SEEN VIDEO! ANOTHER MUST SEE VIDEO |