Posted on 03/10/2002 4:34:44 PM PST by eclectic
(March 11) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell is surely correct in pointing out that Israel's current policy has not succeeded in curbing terrorism. But Powell has suggested no alternative policy. Surely the US cannot expect Israel simply to absorb terrorist attacks without any response.
In light of the willingness of suicide bombers to die in the process of killing Israelis, the traditional methods of deterrence and retaliation seem insufficient. To succeed, Israel must turn the Palestinian leadership and people against the use of terrorism and the terrorists themselves. One way to do this is to make terrorists directly bear the responsibility for losses inflicted on the Palestinian cause as a direct result of their terrorism.
Here is my proposal. Israel should announce an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation against terrorist attacks. This moratorium would be in effect for a short period, say four or five days, to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy. It would also make it clear to the world that Israel is taking an important step in ending what has become a cycle of violence.
Following the end of the moratorium, Israel would institute the following new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume. It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.
The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action. The soldiers would simply be acting as the means for carrying out a previously announced policy of retaliation against a designated target.
Further acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations. The "waiting list" targets would be made public and circulated throughout the Palestinian-controlled areas.
If this automatic policy of destroying targets announced in advance is carried out with the full support of the entire government, including those who are committed to a resumption of the peace process, a clear message will be sent to the Palestinian people: Every time terrorists blow themselves up and kill civilians, they are also blowing up one of their own villages.
Over time, the Palestinian residents of these villages will place the blame where it should be placed: directly on the Palestinian terrorists who engaged in terrorism against Israel with full knowledge the consequence would be the destruction of their homes. Those villagers whose homes were coming up on the list would have an incentive to pressure the terrorists to desist.
An alternative approach would be to announce in advance that Israel is prepared to give back most of the occupied territory in the event of peace - which it has already essentially done - but every act of terrorism will result in an automatic and permanent decrease of a specific portion of the land mass that eventually would constitute the Palestinian state.
Again, this decision would have to be announced in advance with the approval of all Israeli parties who would be involved in a peace deal. The land that would be surrendered by the future Palestinian state to Israel in response to every terrorist act would be immediately annexed to Israel and be deemed a permanent part of the Jewish state, ceded to it by the deliberate acts of the terrorists.
This would send a clear message that every act of terrorism will hurt the Palestinian cause, making a reality out of President George W. Bush's statement following the terrorist murder of Daniel Pearl: "[Terrorists] need to know that these crimes only hurt their cause."
For this policy to work, it must have the advance approval of the US government. If Israel carries out this policy after a moratorium on retaliation and full notice to the Palestinians, it should not be criticized for doing so. If the entire world knows this is the policy and that it will be enforced automatically, and that the decision whether to trigger it in any given case rests completely with those who would engage in acts of terrorism against Israel, then pressure will be brought to bear on Palestinian terrorists to refrain from their intended actions.
For this policy to work, it must be accompanied by a genuine effort to reopen realistic peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. Such a double-edged policy would contribute to two noble causes at the same time: helping to reduce terrorism and promoting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
(The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age.)
I hope not, otherwise Israelis might as well cut the losses now and fold.
The notion of leveling Palestinian villages is not a new one. Tom Friedman in "From Beirut to Jerusalem" says some new settlements in the occupied territories are already built on leveled villages.
Dershowitz's plan is also built on a fatal flaw--that Arafat is in control. He's not. No one is. Arafat couldn't stop the bombings/shootings even if he wanted to.
Well, you may be right. But I think Sharon's goal is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories. Otherwise, why would he be building settlements there in the first place, given that they are so hard to defend and only allow Palestinians to shoot Israelis without leaving home?
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.