Jerusalem, May 25, 2001
Securing Peace
(Excerpt from Editorial: Tuesday, May 22, 2001)
We jot these thoughts down as events in the Middle East take yet another
turn for the worse from Friday's suicide attack on an Israeli mall, to
Israel's retaliatory air attack against Palestinian command installations,
to Mr. Arafat's declaration at the Arab League summit that the "decisive
battle for Palestine" has begun. All of this is worrisome, so much so that
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has reportedly described the
situation as the worst Israel has faced since independence.
The problem for Israel is basically twofold. First is the security crisis.
The 80 odd Jewish deaths Israel has sustained during the past eight months
of violence may seem comparatively trivial by American standards. Yet
given Israel's tiny population, it is the equivalent of 25 Oklahoma City
bombings. No democratic country should be expected to tolerate this level
of violence against its citizens.
Yet it is here that Israel is faced with its second crisis - a crisis of
legitimacy. For while Israel easily could put an end to Palestinian
aggression, it is held back by the consideration that such a move might
prompt devastating Western condemnation and possibly sanctions. As a
result, Israel generally stays its hand, always calibrating its responses
lest they be condemned as "disproportionate." This was true under Ehud
Barak and basically remains so under Ariel Sharon.
The upshot is "the cycle of violence" Secretary Powell so plaintively
deplores. The Palestinians have made it plain they will not stop fighting
until 100% of their demands have been met. As Israel cannot acquiesce in
this, it has no choice but to defend itself. The West is thus faced with
two choices: demand Israeli capitulation or force the Palestinians to stop
shooting. In war as in politics, there is no third way.
As matters now stand, the only likely way in which the violence is going to
end is if Israel brings it to an end. Israel will have to use its forces
to seize Palestinian arms caches and do everything practicable to ensure
that Palestinians will not be able to use their territories as safe havens
for a guerrilla war. Harsh as this scenario may sound, it would bring the
violence swiftly to an end and - if history is a guide - make an equitable
negotiated settlement possible.
President Bush has made it clear that he will stand up for his friends, not
least those in crisis. We hope that he has the courage to do so over the
objections of his Secretary of State.
Jerusalem, May 25, 2001Securing Peace
(Excerpt from Editorial: Tuesday, May 22, 2001)
We jot these thoughts down as events in the Middle East take yet another
turn for the worse from Friday's suicide attack on an Israeli mall, to
Israel's retaliatory air attack against Palestinian command installations,
to Mr. Arafat's declaration at the Arab League summit that the "decisive
battle for Palestine" has begun. All of this is worrisome, so much so that
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has reportedly described the
situation as the worst Israel has faced since independence.
The problem for Israel is basically twofold. First is the security crisis.
The 80 odd Jewish deaths Israel has sustained during the past eight months
of violence may seem comparatively trivial by American standards. Yet
given Israel's tiny population, it is the equivalent of 25 Oklahoma City
bombings. No democratic country should be expected to tolerate this level
of violence against its citizens.
Yet it is here that Israel is faced with its second crisis - a crisis of
legitimacy. For while Israel easily could put an end to Palestinian
aggression, it is held back by the consideration that such a move might
prompt devastating Western condemnation and possibly sanctions. As a
result, Israel generally stays its hand, always calibrating its responses
lest they be condemned as "disproportionate." This was true under Ehud
Barak and basically remains so under Ariel Sharon.
The upshot is "the cycle of violence" Secretary Powell so plaintively
deplores. The Palestinians have made it plain they will not stop fighting
until 100% of their demands have been met. As Israel cannot acquiesce in
this, it has no choice but to defend itself. The West is thus faced with
two choices: demand Israeli capitulation or force the Palestinians to stop
shooting. In war as in politics, there is no third way.
As matters now stand, the only likely way in which the violence is going to
end is if Israel brings it to an end. Israel will have to use its forces
to seize Palestinian arms caches and do everything practicable to ensure
that Palestinians will not be able to use their territories as safe havens
for a guerrilla war. Harsh as this scenario may sound, it would bring the
violence swiftly to an end and - if history is a guide - make an equitable
negotiated settlement possible.
President Bush has made it clear that he will stand up for his friends, not
least those in crisis. We hope that he has the courage to do so over the
objections of his Secretary of State.