The occasion of Yassir Arafat’s release from Israeli captivity
in Ramallah was celebrated by a very odd cast of characters. Most
of the world’s media joined in, along with the U.S. State
Department and the governments of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, and
the other usual suspects. Conspicuous by their absence from the
celebration were most Palestinians. Arafat’s usual supporters
apparently thought that he betrayed his six murderous followers who
were surrendered to an American and British team of wardens. The
six, suspected of the assassination of Israel’s tourism minister
some months ago, were wanted by the Israelis, and Arafat traded
them for his personal freedom. The fact that they may be murderers
didn’t seem to matter to the Palestinians.
The media just couldn’t get enough of him. The interviewers
threw one softball after another, giving Arafat the chance to call
the Israelis “Nazis” and “racists.” Only one interviewer even
bothered to ask whether he would now renounce suicide terror
bombings and got screamed at for his trouble. Arafat shouted
something like, “You’d better watch what you ask.” Arafat
apparently doesn’t think that’s a legitimate question. But on that
question rests any credibility for the “peace process” Messrs. Bush
and Powell seem wedded to.
The aftermath of the Israeli incursion into the West Bank will
be measured in Ariel Sharon’s Tuesday meeting with President Bush.
Mr. Sharon is bringing with him a detailed plan for peace, and what
the Israelis believe is documentary proof of Arafat’s personal
involvement in terrorist training and action, including bombing
murders of Israeli women and children. Sharon is coming to meet
with the President at the same time that Secretary of State Colin
Powell is publicly demanding that Sharon negotiate with Arafat,
which Sharon has refused to do. Upon his release from Ramallah,
Arafat also said that he will not negotiate with Sharon.
The Bush-Sharon meeting also follows the Arab League’s
announcement that its member nations will boycott the summer peace
summit Mr. Powell is straining to set up unless the Israelis
withdraw entirely from all West Bank areas occupied since 2000.
That means not only a military withdrawal, but the newer
settlements as well. In this atmosphere, can any progress toward
peace be made?
Not bloody likely. As this column has said many times, peace is
about winners and losers, not about “process.” Processed peace is
like processed cheese. It’s a poor substitute for the real thing.
When the belligerents decide that war is no longer a road to
achieving their goals, they make peace. Before that, there can be
maneuvering, but not peace.
The summer summit is supposed to bring together the major Arab
nations, their Palestinian surrogates, and the Israelis to at least
begin serious peace talks. The fact that the summit is not to be
attended by heads of state — the conference is supposed to be at
the “foreign minister” level — means that no one attending will
have the authority to do more than present his nation’s demands and
reject others’. But it is perfectly obvious that the Palestinians
have not decided against war. From the moment of Mr. Powell’s
arrival in Arafat’s compound in Ramallah to the events of this past
weekend, America has been rewarding Arafat’s reign of terror. The
Palestinians now have no reason to decide against war which for
them means continuing the terror. It is working for them. Why
should they quit?
The situation on our side of the equation is even bleaker. Last
Sunday, Mr. Bush’s foreign policy team announced that America
favors establishment of a Palestinian state with Yassir Arafat as
its leader. Messrs. Bush and Powell seem to have decided that their
continued failure in obtaining Arab support for the Iraq campaign
means that they have not pushed the Israelis around enough. This is
their substitute for demanding that the Arab nations take some
responsibility for the murderous actions of their Palestinian
hirelings. This approach has escalated to the point at which Mr.
Bush risks a serious breach of our relationship with Israel.
If Mr. Bush believes he can name the head of a Palestinian
state, does he also think he can tell the Israelis who should be
their head of state? If Arafat won’t negotiate with Sharon, and we
grant Arafat the status as head of the non-existent Palestinian
state, how can Arafat be expected to negotiate with Sharon? This
delusional diplomacy is wrong, all wrong.
Mr. Arafat is, was, and always will be a terrorist. He refuses
to renounce terror bombings of civilians, and won’t even say that
Israel has a right to exist. (Yes, I know he made a weasel-worded
statement that sounded something like that at Camp David. But he
rejected the Camp David deal, and never clearly said anything about
Israel’s right to existence as a nation.) We are trying to force
our ally, a democracy that was established by international law and
U.N. mandate, to accept a terrorist as a partner in peace without
even demanding the terrorist abandon his most execrable strategy.
This is simply irrational and contrary to our moral position as the
leader in the war against terrorism.
It’s not too late to abandon the delusional diplomacy. All we
have to do is say that no party can be admitted to the summer
summit unless it is represented by its head of state. Moreover, the
price of admission for each of them is to renounce terror in both
English and his native language. Mr. Bush can renounce Arafat and
bar him from the conference on the basis of the evidence Mr. Sharon
carries of Arafat’s personal involvement in terror. And then the
Arab nations, not Arafat, can negotiate with Israel as an equal
among nations. Unless we make these decisions and demands, we may
as well save everyone the trip.
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in
the first Bush administration, and now appears as a talking warhead
on MSNBC and the Fox News Channel.
