Enough [excellent editorial]

Jerusalem Post ^ | Sep. 10, 2003

[yonif]

The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative.

No one seriously argues with the fact that Arafat was preventing Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister he appointed, from combating terrorism, to the extent that was willing to do so. Almost no one seriously disputes that Abbas on whom Israel, the US, and Europe had placed all their bets failed primarily because Arafat retained control of much of the security apparatus, and that Arafat wanted him to fail.

The new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less. Under these circumstances, the idea of exiling Arafat is gaining currency, but the standard objection is that he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah.

If only three countries Britain, France, and Germany joined the US in a total boycott of Arafat this would not be the case. If these countries did not speak with Arafat, it would not matter much who did, and however much a local Palestinian leader would claim to consult with Arafat, his power would be gone.

But such a boycott will not happen. Only now, after more than 800 Israelis have died in three years of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, has Europe finally decided that Hamas is a terrorist organization. How much longer will it take before it cuts off Arafat? Yet Israel cannot accept a situation in which Arafat blocks any Palestinian break with terrorism, whether from here or in exile. Therefore, we are at another point in our history at which the diplomatic risks of defending ourselves are exceeded by the risks of not doing so.

Such was the case in the Six Day War, when Israel was forced to launch a preemptive attack or accept destruction. And when Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And when Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in Palestinian cities after the Passover Massacre of 2002. In each case, Israel tried every fashion of restraint, every plea to the international community to take action that would avoid the need for "extreme" measures, all to no avail. When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right.

Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself.

Arafat's survival and power are a test of the proposition that it is possible to pursue a cause through terror and not have that cause rejected by the international community. Killing Arafat, more than any other act, would demonstrate that the tool of terror is unacceptable, even against Israel, even in the name of a Palestinian state. Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders.

In this respect, there is no distinction, beyond the tactical, between him and Hamas. Europe's refusal to utterly reject him condemns Palestinians, no less than Israelis, to endless war and dooms the possibility of the two-state solution the world claims to seek.

While the prospect of a Palestinian power vacuum is feared by some, the worst of all worlds is what exists now: Terrorists attack Israel at will under the umbrella of legitimacy provided by Arafat. Hamas would not be able to fill a post-Arafat vacuum; on the contrary, Hamas would lose the cover it has today.

A word must be said here about the most common claim made by those who would not isolate Arafat, let alone kill him: that he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. Even if Arafat was chosen in a truly free election (when does his term end?), which we would dispute, this does not close the question of his legitimacy.

Whom the Palestinians choose to lead them is none of our business, provided it is a free choice, and provided they do not opt for leaders who choose terror and aggression. So long as the Palestinians choose such a leadership, it should be held no more immune to counterattack by Israel than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were by the United States.

We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafat's survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves.

[yonif]

Ping.

[roses of sharon]

Then do it! Israel can do what it wants, what is stopping them?

The Roadmap was the last gasp of the West, Bush promised Blair he would support a new Pal PM, he did, and Abbas blew it.

Certainly Powell will have words, he is a diplomat for god's sake.

The US congress will support Israel, and so will Bush.

[Uncle Miltie]

If you can't hold Arafat accountable for decades of terrorism, who can you hold to account?

OTOH, wouldn't it be nice to make it look like a Hamas job?

[APRPEH]

yoni
make a calculation....
what happens the day ararat is ex'ed? not from the perspective of the world...who cares
from the perspective of war vs. negotiation... are the arabians more likely to fight it out for control of the gangs and cash or what else?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafat's survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves.

An excellent editorial.

[SpyGuy]

It's time for civilized countries to stop negotiating with terrorists. The only way to deal with terrorists is to exterminate them.

Israel should declare war on Palestine and the countries that fund and support the terrorists (just as we have done). It should not be a police action. It should not be a limited engagement. It should be a TOTAL WAR, up to and including the use of tactical nuclear weapons on the capital cities of the states sponsoring terrorism.

History has shown that the only way to achieve long-term peace following a conflict, is to wage total war until the enemy leaders are wiped-out and their people are beaten into submission.

[yonif]

US wants Arafat to be not harmed by Israel.

[roses of sharon]

Things have changed.

Do you think Sharon would or could kill Arafat?

[TomServo]

I was just wondering a few hours ago when Israel was gonna take the gloves off and utterly wipe them out. What in the hell is holding them back?!?!?!

I haven't been this PO'ed in years...

[APRPEH]

it isnt going to happen... the idf has been bush-whacked and colinized

[Spok]

One of the most admirable traits of the IDF is its ability to act-boldly and competently. Nothing is constraining the miltants from promulgating violence. Nothing will gain the support of the anti-Israeli liberal press. Israel has nothing to lose by killing Arafat, and they should do it as spectacularly and openly as circumstance will permit.

[TomServo]

colinized

I thought you'd mispelled a word until I realized what you were saying. And I don't disagree with it, either.

[yonif]

Yes. Sharon has went on record, years before become PM, that he should have killed Arafat when he had the chance.

[Snardius]

It may be that Arafat has determined that his fate is sealed and he intends to be martyred by the Israelis. Up until now, the Israelis have not cooperated with him...I think now they intend to grant him his wish.

[Snardius]

Do you think Sharon would or could kill Arafat?

You can get anyone, anywhere whacked if you know the right people and don't care about the blowback.

[BOBTHENAILER]

When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right.

Great post.

[Starrgaizr]

The US has been asking for "restraint" for years, and the more Israel shows restraint, the more dire the security situation becomes. I agree with the JPost -- if Israel is going to be condemned anyway, why not act decisively? What is the worst that will happen? Europeans recalling diplomats? I don't think Pres. Bush will abandon Israel.

[Arrowhead1952]

Only now, after more than 800 Israelis have died in three years of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, has Europe finally decided that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Talk about having their head in the sand.... or where the sun won't shine.

[yonif]

UN sends "peacekeepers" into Israel, as the US, not wanting to take Israel's side after Israel's IDF operation, does not veto the UN Security Council resolution.