RESPONDING TO YASSER NYPOST Saturday,October 21,2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just two days after Yasser Arafat agreed at Sharm el-Sheikh to curtail Palestinian attacks against Israel, the Middle East yesterday once again exploded in violence. And, once again, it was Arafat's forces and followers who initiated the bloodshed. So much for Bill Clinton's summit of the peacemakers. Arafat's Tanzim militia opened fire on Israeli soldiers in the West Bank town of Nablus. Earlier, thousands of Muslim worshippers left their Friday prayers and began throwing firebombs and stones at Israeli troops. Israel's response was swift, firm - and entirely appropriate in the face of live weapon fire and Molotov cocktails. That nine Arabs were killed and scores of others wounded may sound harsh - but Israel has a legitimate right to self-defense given the unprovoked attacks that were intended to kill. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, showing more patience than should be expected, last night said he would give Arafat until the end of this weekend's summit of Arab nations to halt the violence. If the attacks persist, he said, "we will take time out to re-evaluate the peace process." It's about time. Especially since the Clinton-Gore administration seems to be playing right into Arafat's hands by bringing in the international community - including such notorious foes of Israel as French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine. Arafat, the Israelis reportedly are convinced, has decided to abandon the Oslo process. So he has given the green light to violence that, he believes, will lead to new diplomatic pressure - especially if Europe is brought into the act. As the left-wing Israeli paper Haaretz noted, "the minute parties other than the Americans are involved, Arafat profits." So what does Washington do? Reach out to the very parties that want to help Arafat achieve what he couldn't win at Camp David. Meanwhile, Arafat's planned violence continues apace: Contrary to his promises at Sharm, the top Hamas terrorists recently freed from his prisons remain at large. And, say the Israelis, Arafat's own security chiefs, Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, have played a direct role in fomenting the latest violence. Yet the Clinton-Gore administration refuses to point a finger of blame, preferring to maintain the fiction that it can serve as an honest broker. (Apparently, the lesson of the bombing of USS Cole hasn't hit home yet.) "At some point," says State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, "we may decide to comment on how each party's been carrying out its obligations. But at this particular stage, we don't think that would be useful." (Translation: Al Gore still needs to carry Michigan, with its large Arab-American voting bloc.) But the events of the past few weeks should confirm: Yasser Arafat is not a legitimate partner for peace, if indeed he ever was. As Barak noted last night, Israel was "prepared to consider unprecedented ideas" - even unwise ones, in our view - to reach agreement. Arafat turned his back and chose instead the path of war. In such circumstances, Israel is under no obligation to show restraint.
|
