Washington -- In history one man can make a difference. This is
the insight that has provoked historians to confect what is called
the Great Man theory of history. For instance, had there never been
a Napoleon Bonaparte, Europe would have remained an eighteenth
century theme park far into the nineteenth century. Had there never
been an Adolf Hitler, Europe would have remained a nineteenth
century theme park far into the twentieth century or at least until
Josef Stalin made his move on Central Europe. Incidentally, who
would have stood up to Stalin in, say, 1940? I suppose the
challenge would have fallen to Winston Churchill, but without
Hitler's remilitarization of Germany to provoke Churchill's
resistance in the 1930s there might not have been a Churchill in
the British government. Would the French have stood up to Stalin?
Would the Germans under one of their post-war liberals?
I doubt it. Great men of evil character spread evil, and great
men of good character oppose them. Yasser Arafat is a man who has
made a difference, and the difference has led to violence and
carnage, anarchy and war. He is the great man of evil character and
he has yet to run up against a great man of good character equal to
the task of eliminating him. Possibly Israel's Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon can rise to the occasion. Last week, Israel's Vice Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert suggested killing Arafat as "one of the
options" in dealing with him.
There is no doubt the Israelis could kill him. In response to
Palestinian terrorist organizations' murder of civilians within
Israel, the Israeli military has been killing terrorist leaders.
The chief terrorist leader is Arafat, and his whereabouts are never
a secret. A surgical strike with missiles would end Arafat's
mischief.
The Israelis have been contemplating another option. For over a
year they have considered grabbing Arafat and shipping him out of
his West Bank headquarters to another country. This would not be
the first time Arafat's penchant for mischief and mayhem has led to
his reluctant departure from a country. Since 1967 he has been
forcibly removed from five countries, all of them Arab. Jordanians,
Lebanese, and Syrians have all forced him from their country, and
he has always landed in another Arab jurisdiction. Now the Israelis
contemplate shipping him abroad, but where to send him?
Allow me to offer a solution. There is another Arab country
where Arafat has yet to reside and where the large Arab population
unquestionably would welcome him. I suggest Prime Minister Sharon
rise to the challenge, demonstrate that he is one of history's
Great Men, and send Arafat to France. The Palestinian has a wife in
Paris and a friend in Jacques Chirac. The two could have long
lunches together. They could even negotiate. Both love to
negotiate. Over the years as Arafat has "negotiated," thousands
have died. Not as many people will die if Arafat is out of the West
Bank, but in Paris negotiating can be very agreeable nonetheless,
especially with so suave a negotiator as Chirac. Possibly the two
might also invite Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder into their
negotiations.
For forty years Arafat's leadership in the Middle East has been
a bloody string of murders and insurrections. From the massacre of
Israeli athletes in the 1972 Olympics to the shipment last year of
arms from Iran to the Palestinian territories on the ship Karin
A, Arafat has been a leader of terror even as he has presented
himself to the civilized world as a serious statesman. With his
recent ambush of Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Abbas he has
revealed himself to be anything but a serious statesman. He is a
fanatical opponent of peace in the Middle East and of Israeli
nationhood. The Israelis should send him to Paris. Then let us see
what M. Chirac will do with him.
topics:
Military, Iran, Israel
