Posted on 02/16/2004 7:31:19 PM PST by yonif
In the midst of a "war against terrorism," three US government employees are murdered in a terrorist attack. The local authorities side with the terrorists, covering up facts, blocking an investigation and helping the perpetrators get away with it. Yet the US continues to give some financial aid and diplomatic support to that regime.
The story of the murder of three US security men in Gaza last October 15 is typical of the bizarre events in the Middle East, events that get taken for granted.
Here's the story. Let's examine some broader lessons drawn from it.
On October 15, 2003, a three-vehicle convoy of American SUV mini-vans drove into Gaza carrying US State Department personnel. Their mission was to interview Palestinians for Fulbright scholarships to study or teach in the US. They were escorted by Palestinian Authority police. But explosive charges laid in the road were blown up by terrorists watching from nearby. Three Americans were killed and one injured.
Lesson 1: It would have been reasonable to expect outrage in the Arab world against the terrorists, along with many articles on how the US has helped the Arab world, and so on.
While Jordan's government condemned the attack, there is a general rule in the state- controlled Arab media: Nothing positive can be said about America. By systematically ignoring or distorting US actions that help Arabs or serve Arab interests, the region's dictatorships deliberately construct anti-American attitudes.
The reaction: In highly-publicized actions PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei telephoned condolences to the US government, promising the perpetrators would be caught. PA leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack as a "terrible crime." At the same time, of course, Arafat has been implementing a terrorist strategy ever since the year 2000, after he rejected a peaceful solution that would have ended the Israeli occupation and created a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
The PA made no perceptible effort to find out who had perpetrated the attack, and how. On the contrary, it let evidence be destroyed at the attack site and sabotaged American investigation attempts.
Lesson 2: The PA's attitude to this case is similar to the treatment of Israel in such matters. There are well-publicized public statements by PA leaders condemning terrorism, while no attempt is made to stop it. Indeed, incitement to commit such acts is daily carried on by schools, the media, preachers in mosques, and even PA officials.
Even Edward Abington, a former US diplomat who became the PA's American lobbyist, admitted American officials "were charging that Arafat is dragging his feet on [this] investigation because the people who did it may get too close to Fatah," the group he heads.
FINALLY, this month, the PA put four men on trial for relatively minor offenses – not first-degree murder – in connection with the attack on the Americans. It was a closed military tribunal, with no evidence made public.
But two points were clear: PA statements showed these were not the main perpetrators; and they tried to excuse the crime by insisting that the attackers' target was an Israeli tank.
How the person triggering the bomb confused a convoy of PA police vehicles and clearly marked diplomatic SUVs with a tank was left to the imagination.
Lesson 3: The trial was a cover-up. The real issues: Who financed and aided these people? Who were the masterminds? What relations do they have with PA officials? Obviously, the PA's main concern has been to hide its own encouragement and involvement in terrorism, as is its practice regarding terrorist attacks on Israelis.
The ultimate outcome may also be the same: Those convicted get quietly released after a few months to return to their terrorist activities.
The US complained, in the words of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, that "[The PA] have not conducted a full, thorough and genuine investigation."
The people on trial are not all those who were involved, and the proceeding "doesn't really resolve the issue of who killed the Americans, and whether they are being punished."
Lesson 4: US experience during the peace process era as well as afterwards – as in this case – shows that the Palestinian leadership does not seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict even if that would provide them with a state.
President George W. Bush's immediate reaction to the October attack was to say: "Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms." Secretary of State Colin Powell told Prime Minister Qurei that US help on getting a Palestinian state would come if and when there was a really serious attempt to eliminate terrorism.
Yet even faced with this prize and the relatively simple task of proving their good intentions regarding the Fulbright murders case, the PA did not try to fulfill its commitments.
The bottom line: Like those responsible for murdering 1,000 Israelis since 2000, the murderers of the Americans will go free because the Palestinian leadership helps and protects them.
The writer is a former Fulbright scholar, director of the GLORIA Center, and co-author of the recently published Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography.
Why should they, when the State Department will continue rewarding them with bribes and political support? And Richard Boucher is one of the worst offenders.
If you give a dog rewards for certain patterns of behavior, naturally the dog will continue doing it. So will most people.
The State Department won't even punish the terrorists for killing their own people, let alone killing ordinary American citizens or Israeli women and children.
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.