|
 srael
suffers its worst terrorist act in the current spate of violence
— 20 youths killed at a beachfront Tel Aviv disco. Secretary of
State Colin Powell urges Israel not to retaliate and continues to
criticize Israeli settlements. Such is a recipe for more violence
— not peace.
This is not
the first time Powell has encouraged Israel to break its policy
of retaliating against the acts of violence committed on its people.
The first time Israel allowed that principle to be broken came in
1991. As a diversionary move that came in a conflict to which Israel
was not a party, Saddam Hussein of Iraq fired some 40 Scud missiles
at the Jewish state. Israeli pilots were ready to retaliate, but
they refrained. The architects of America's Gulf War — President
George Bush and Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff — convinced Israel that America would take care of Saddam.
Never mind that now, more than ten years later, Saddam Hussein is
still in power with even more lethal weapons in his arsenal. Now,
in the wake of the latest terrorist attack, Powell is once again
urging Israel to refrain from retaliating. "I would encourage
[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] to keep having this measured
response so that we don't get into another cycle that takes us off
into, frankly, worse than just another direction of terror, but
into an abyss that we might not be able to get out of," Powell
assured Israel on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday.
So the world
is to believe Powell, who failed to finish the job against Saddam
Hussein a decade ago, that he can protect Israeli lives. Somehow
Powell seems to miss the fact that since then-Prime Minister Ehud
Barak offered Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority,
the greatest concessions ever, including shared control of Jerusalem,
the Middle East has been spinning into the exact "abyss"
of which he is so afraid. Maybe it's time to reorder the thinking
of Powell — almost identical to that of the Clinton administration
which preceded him.
Key to Powell's
ideas is the so-called Mitchell Report. That document follows a
policy of evenhandedness that diplomats like so much. The Palestinians
are blamed for launching the campaign of violence that began in
late September. Israel is faulted for its policy of settlements
in the West Bank. "Let's try to build on the Mitchell report,
which gives us a way out of this," Powell said. Yet if it is
evenhandness which can bring an end to the Middle East violence,
why did it start in the first place? Why didn't the seven years
of Clinton's evenhandedness avert the terrible violence that has
rocked the region since last fall?
The answer,
while nobody wants to say it, is that evenhandedness doesn't work.
Since Arafat signed the first Oslo Peace Accord with Yitzhak Rabin
in 1993, he has gained land, an army, and an ample supply of American
funds. Through thick and thin, Arafat has almost without interruption
continued to receive funds from the United States and from governments
around the world. This flow of money has continued despite the PA's
importation of thousands of illegal weapons — many of them being
used in the current campaign — and the incitement of violence on
official PA media outlets and in the schools.
For many years,
when some raised questions about this incitement in the PA, the
Clinton administration brushed off such talk. Focusing on such things
would serve as an obstacle to the peace process. Only by ignoring
reality could the peace process move forward, which it did until
Arafat was finally forced to show his cards.
Numerous voices
— Democrats mainly, but their critiques echoed by Tim Russert on
NBC — now fault the current administration for failing to emulate
the Clinton administration's desperate grasp for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Rather than offer a cogent explanation for why the administration
tried this, Powell now says the current crew is just as willing
to meddle in the Middle East as the prior one. "We have been
actively engaged from day one of the Bush administration,"
Powell said defensively.
What the administration
did fail to do is sell their policy of non-involvement. The administration
could have simply said that it supported its ally, Israel, and would
not deal with the Palestinian Authority until it ceased fomenting
violence in the region. Instead it allowed American funds to still
flow to Arafat, and when Israel used F-16 jets against the PA several
weeks ago, Powell came down hard on Israel. When someone like Arafat
sees America coming down hard on Israel for striking back against
an act of violence, he sees that as a green light to keep the violence
up. After all, Powell is so interested in implementing the Mitchell
Report, maybe he'll force Israel to abide by it. So, contrary to
protestations the other way, Powell's statements actually lead to
more violence — not an end to it.
Some have seen
irony in the fact that the current Bush administration is facing
saber rattling from Saddam Hussein, whom the prior Bush administration
failed to eradicate. The truth is that there is no irony. Saddam
Hussein sees America continuing to prop up his ally Arafat, despite
the violence he is perpetrating, and senses weakness. Arafat, in
turn, is emboldened by the American inability to subdue Saddam Hussein.
Others in the region, such as the Kuwaiti foreign minister, know
which way the wind is blowing; hence, his statement in defense of
Friday's suicide bombing. More such evenhandedness and Powell may
find the rest of the region in an even worse abyss than he imagines.
|
