Posted on 03/23/2002 1:16:50 AM PST by xm177e2
Of course not.
Arafat has never tried to negotiate with Israel without threatening acts of terror. He has never honored the promises he made during negotiations. He never will. His organization, the PLO, was founded on the principle that terrorism could destroy Israel, and it has never altered its course.
Arafat is a terrorist. The PLO police have carried out attacks against Israelis. The Fatah Tanzim have carried out attacks against Israelis. Now the Fatah Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades are carrying out suicide bomb attacks against Israelis. For the first time ever, Arafat himself is directing suicide bomb attacks.
Arafat is not interested in peace. Just before this latest round of peace talks set to be moderated by Zinni, his organization the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades carried out a gruesome suicide bomb attack, killing three people. He is not interested in peace, that is something Bush must accept.
If Arafat will not work for a just peace between Israel and Palestine, Bush needs to find someone who will. Perhaps Abdullah from Jordan could administer to the territories. He's one of the least-crazed Arab leaders, and he happens (not coincidentally) to share a border with the West Bank of Israel. Israel could come to an agreement with him similar to that of Oslo--he gets to put a certain number of "police" (really soldiers) inside the territories, but no armor or planes or missiles or rockets or artillery. And he would take over from the PLO, and become responsible for everything they are doing now. The PLO and it's sub-groups (force 17, Fatah Tanzim militia, Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades) would be outlawed (as would Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, etc.). Jordan would oversee the West Bank, the subject of Gaza could be one of three things, autonomous, Jordan-ruled, or Israel could work out a similar arrangement with Egypt, but that's a topic for another post.
Israel would threated to implement the "transfer" of West Bank Palestinians if they did not comply with Abdullah's rule (or if Abdullah did not honor the terms of the agreement). This would be the "stick," to accompany the "carrots," promises to end all military action against the Palestinians (Jordan would be expected to carry out all military action against Palestinian terrorists), and (when the terror stops), promises to remove the checkpoints. As terror attacks diminished, and as Jordan created some semblance of law and order within the territories, peace might be possible. But it will never be possible with Arafat.
What Israel must do. Israel must close down all of the settlements, withdraw behind her borders, and unilaterally cease all retaliatory attacks on Palestinians and all operations against them. If the terror continues for a full month after Israel stops retaliating, then it must call upon President Bush to act.
What Bush must do. Bush has to give a speech in which he declares Arafat to be a terrorist, and he must say he expects Arafat never to reform. He must say Israel's patience is at its end, but that one final attempt at peace is possible (and that is the Jordanian plan). He spoke forcefully before to denounce the "Axis of Evil" and the Taliban, now he must speak forcefully and take forceful action against Arafat, the enemy of peace.
The only question is whether Bush would want to work towards this plan first, or first try to topple Saddam. I would suggest moving against Saddam first, because nation-building takes far longer than regime-whacking, and both building up Palestine and Iraq could be done simultaneously.
I've come to the conclusion that only this or transfer will bring peace to the Middle East, and transfer (forcibly ejecting Palestinians from the territories) is not really a feasible option (it's not nice, either).
Establishing peace in the Middle East would also make Bush look really good, it would win him a large amount of credit from moderates on the world stage, which is necessary if he wants to work multilaterally towards other foreign policy goals.
If Arafat is gone, and the Palestinians feel sufficiently threatened with transfer (if they don't shape up), I think peace is possible. If it's not possible, there's always transfer--and if Israel plays it's cards right, the Palestinians will have only themselves to blame for it.
But if you wanted to carry out the transfer, first you would have to exhaust the possibilities for peace. And first you would have to try what the peaceniks want (unilateral withdrawal), just to force them to shut up.
But if the plan fails, Israel will be able to go to the world and say "see, we tried EVERYTHING--everything you suggested--now you see, transfer is the only solution." The Palestinians would have to understand that this plan is really a plan to legitimize transfer--then they would be more likely to actually try to make peace.
The whole point is to force their hand, to force them to choose their destiny. Right now, things look bleak, it looks like they'll just continue with the intifada indefinitely. The Palestinians have to see what they COULD have, and then they have to see they could lose it all. That will force them to act. Just think--maybe there would be a large march in the streets against terrorism (if they knew terrorism would lead to their expulsion).
Either way Israel wins--the terror ends, or the Palestinians are expelled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.