Posted on 04/20/2003 5:28:01 AM PDT by SJackson
The capture in Baghdad of Palestinian arch-terrorist Abu Abbas reportedly came as a total surprise to him. He apparently believed he was still safe in the Iraqi capital, even after the disappearance of his patron, Saddam Hussein. Abu Abbas first made headlines in 1985 when he hijacked the Italian Achile Lauro cruise ship, from whose deck he had shot and thrown overboard an elderly, wheelchair-bound American doctor, Leon Klinghoffer. The victim's only crime was being Jewish. This always made it difficult for PLO apologists to explain how the cold-blooded murder of a helpless old man could possibly mesh with a so-called fight for freedom. Genocidal hate for all Jews is a far likelier motive.
Abu Abbas eventually found himself in Italian custody, but the Italians, fearing terrorist retribution, quickly let him go, despite a sentence of five consecutive life terms. So much for deterring terror via the legal system. Italy, incidentally, has now asked for his extradition. Abu Abbas's apprehension should be a feather in Washington's cap and should help it make the case for why it was so vital to go after Saddam.
Granted, Abu Abbas is no bin Laden, but he does chart an undeniable and indelible connection between Saddam and some of the world's most reprehensible terrorists. During his years under Saddam's protection, Abu Abbas was by no means in retirement. He served as the conduit through which Saddam channeled considerable funds to families of suicide bombers in Israeli-controlled areas. Abu Abbas was key in terror's money trail. Although for now bin Laden is still at large, Abu Abbas's arrest proves that terrorists can be caught.
Removing Abu Abbas from the scene should be cheered by all who abhor terror and cherish peace. The Palestinian Authority, however, has yet again failed the litmus test. Rather than express relief that a cowardly killer like Abu Abbas may be brought to justice, it issued a sharply worded demand that the Americans free the murderer forthwith.
This indicates a great deal more than meets the eye. The Palestinians, who never fail to issue wan condemnations of terror outrages which might taint their image, could have been expected to distance themselves from Abu Abbas. It would have been the logical move, even if insincere and self-serving, especially following the unequivocal American victory in Iraq and on the eve of the road map's publication. Instead, the Palestinian authority took the trouble to remind all and sundry that the Oslo Accords gave Abu Abbas a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Authority spokesmen took to the airwaves to make their point. Thus Saeb Erekat, who may soon be appointed to Mahmoud Abbas's new Palestinian Authority cabinet, stressed on American TV that "the 1995 agreement, signed by the late Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, specifically conferred immunity for all acts committed in the Palestinian struggle before 1993." Indeed, Abu Abbas was allowed back into Gaza by Israel under the Oslo Accords. The agreement's champions assured us at the time that he had turned over a new leaf and has renounced terror. The post-Oslo bloodshed, and Abu Abbas's role in bankrolling mass homicide, of course tell a different story.
But that is only one aspect of the absurdity to which Oslo had plunged Israel. The Americans themselves, in rejecting the Palestinian argument for Abu Abbas's immediate release, pointed out that the US is not bound by Oslo's terms and that Abu Abbas had been captured in Iraq and not in Israel or the territories it controls.
Presumably then, Abu Abbas's downfall could have been averted had he stayed in Israel's backyard and not shifted the venue of his operations. It's one thing to mastermind the murder of Israelis, but quite another to run afoul of the US. This is not the only instance of a double standard, even at the precise time when the US pursues terror kingpins in Iraq.
The very expectation on Washington's part that Israel greet the new Palestinian government with confidence-building measures smacks of a similar double standard. In the past few days alone, Israeli security forces foiled a number of planned suicide bombings. Israeli citizens are still imperiled and the US itself urges its nationals to avoid this country. Yet it is Israel that is being encouraged to prove that it is not making life too difficult for a Palestinian regime that remains essentially unreformed.
It's doubtful that had Saddam appointed his No. 2 prime minister and vetoed his cabinet appointments, the US would have heralded such a farce as a regime change. Israel is now expected to make tangible concessions to the No. 2 appointed by Arafat. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were to prove enlightened and empowered beyond Israeli and American dreams, his summary anointment is a far cry from the process of democratization that we were led to expect was central to the Bush administration's new paradigm for peace in the region. We do not believe that avoiding democratization can work. But even if one were to pin all hopes on Mahmoud Abbas, such a plan could work only if the mistakes of Oslo are not repeated namely, demanding little of the Palestinians and premature concessions from Israel.
I agree. The US has gone to war twice in the last two years regarding terrorism. But we always urge restraint when Israel justifiably needs to kick some terrorist ass.
Sounds like poetic justice.
I thought Rush had stated that Klintoon had signed the Oslo agreements? I wonder if Klintoon will be demanding their release?
You sound happy about that.
And as a corollary, may the world realize that finally, nowhere is safe for any terrorist, past or present. We will find them in the cities of our enemies. We will bomb them out of the caves of the deepest mountains. We will blast them out the strongest bunkers made by Germans. And we will blaze them off the surface, any surface -- with Daisy Cutters and Moabs. They can run, but there is no hiding.
To our troops conventional and otherwise: happy hunting!
A little help here!
As a witness not as a party who was bound by the agreement.
As an example, you may sign the marriage license as a witness but the ties of matrimony do not bind you. Of course if you sign knowing that the wedding is a fraud you could be in trouble.
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.