|
 n
the past few weeks, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has been
urging the U.S. to refrain from making any diplomatic gestures to
the Palestinians until Palestinian violence ceases absolutely. The
vision Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out in Kentucky last
week corresponded with Sharon's request. Powell clarified that no
diplomatic progress will come about before a complete ceasefire
takes place. However, a careful examination of the Palestinian-Israeli
diplomatic front reveals that the Israeli PM has been exempting
himself from the very same requirement.
According to
reports in the Israeli media, Israeli officials periodically engage
in low-level and back-channel diplomacy with Palestinian officials,
despite the ongoing Palestinian violence. Furthermore, Palestinian-Israeli
diplomacy is apparently not restricted to secret negotiations. The
latest example to date is the speech Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres delivered to the U.N. General Assembly on November 15th.
In that speech,
the Israeli foreign minister declared that "there is support
for a Palestinian independence, support for a Palestinian state."
These statements were made despite the fact that Sharon's demand
for seven quiet days was not met. In fact, a Palestinian terror
attack took place in Israel only three days prior to Peres' speech.
Peres used
the disclaimer that the content of his speech was "not yet
a formal policy of the government of Israel." Shimon Peres
is the second highest-ranking official in Israel's unity government,
and many argue that he is also the single most important element
holding it together. The U.N. is the hub of official policy in the
realm of international relations. If Peres's statements to the U.N.
do not represent Israel's formal policy than what does? Clearly,
Sharon's policy is to engage the Palestinians diplomatically even
as terror and violence continues, while demanding the US to refrain
from doing so.
To excuse this
contradiction, officials from Sharon's office claimed that Peres's
statements supporting Palestinian independence were not coordinated
with the Prime Minister. However, reports from Israel recount the
contrary. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the
content of Peres's speech was coordinated twice with Sharon's people.
In recent weeks,
Sharon has been implying that American diplomatic initiatives in
the region are aimed at winning the Arab world's support for the
broadest possible U.S. coalition to fight terrorism. Sharon even
alluded that the U.S. applies a double standard: Fighting terrorism
while rewarding the Palestinians who themselves engage in such actions
against Israeli civilians. He suggested that such an approach is
dangerous since it supports those in the Middle East who argue that
there is bad terror and good terror. Last month, Sharon went as
far as calling on the U.S. not to "appease" the Arab world
by selling Israel out. Yet, Sharon is not abiding by his own demands
— he is engaging the Palestinians diplomatically amidst ongoing
terror and violence.
America's war
on terrorism is planned on many levels and is intended to encompass
numerous spheres of action. President Bush has been assertive and
resolute with a clear message of zero tolerance to terrorism anywhere
and in any way, shape, or form. His approach has been clear: Regimes
and leaders must choose between fighting terror and being an accessory
to it. He also made clear that, based on these premises, Palestinian
leaser Yasser Arafat must first wage war against terrorism and prove
that he is indeed opposed to such actions before receiving political
and diplomatic credits.
Secretary of
State Powell reiterated this stance in his November 19th speech
— his first comprehensive address on the Middle East. Powell
conditioned a U.S. diplomatic engagement on an Israeli-Palestinian
ceasefire (in accordance with the Mitchell Report and the Tenant
Plan). He stated, "Terror and violence must stop, and stop
now." The statements were clear, unequivocal, and free of any
double standard.
Sharon's de
facto line of policy does not follow his own precondition of complete
secession of Palestinians violence prior to negotiations. Hence,
the resentment he has been expressing towards U.S. diplomatic initiatives
is groundless. Therefore, and especially in light of Powell's latest
address (which Sharon spoke well of), it is incumbent upon the Israeli
prime minister to focus on the policy that is coming out of his
own government before criticizing the U.S.'s policy.
|
