|
|
||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
The fifty-ton
rationale for cutting Arafat loose By Avi Davis January 7, 2002 Is there now really any doubt? Despite heated denials by leaders of the Palestinian Authority, its naval force was caught en flagrante in one of the most substantial weapons hauls in modern memory. There it was, a ship registered in the name of the Palestinian Authority, commanded by a Palestinian naval officer, carrying several Palestinian crewmembers and seeking to unload 50 tons of weaponry to an undisclosed location. The final destination for this cargo could not have been clearer if the crew had paraded around the deck with red, black and green T-shirts emblazoned with the PLO logo. Yet Maj. General Anthony Zinni, meeting with Arafat at the very moment the news broke, felt confident enough, by the end of the meeting, to declare that "conditions are right for progress to be made in easing tensions." What, we might ask, did Arafat put in his drink to coerce such a ludicrous statement? Within hours even left-wing Israeli papers were announcing that a shipment of this size and cost (the figure of $15 million was suggested) would need the approval of the highest echelons within the Palestinian Authority and almost certainly of Arafat himself. The seizure of the Karine A leaves little doubt that while peace may be on the Palestinians' lips, it is war and vengeance, that percolates in their thoughts. Anthony Zinni's tepid response, coupled with the modest wrist slapping administered by State Department's Richard Boucher, were not the reactions of incautious or incompetent men. On the contrary, these are tough professionals chosen for their abilities to hurdle obstacles and bring antagonists to the negotiating table. The problem with American mediation is rarely ever the messenger but rather in the way the message is packaged. Wilsonian thinking, a valiant crusade for the peace of the world, still dominates U.S. foreign policy. Generations of Americans have unquestioningly accepted peace making as a sacred American duty, convincing themselves that every international problem can be resolved with the proper application of American influence and mediation. But there are situations in the world that are so intractable that they do not lend themselves to resolution. The Palestinian - Israel conflict is one of them. The two sides simply do not speak the same diplomatic language. The current Palestinian leader is a man who views a peace agreement as a mere tactic in an ongoing military struggle. A predilection for double-talk has shredded his credibility, rendering his signature essentially worthless. Much of his senior leadership and would-be successors are in the same league. They are, by and large, men who have never understood that fulfilling an agreement can both build trust and secure the crucial political capital needed to advance an agenda. Israeli leaders on the other hand, while certainly far from perfect, have appreciated Israel's precarious political and diplomatic international position and therefore are under constant pressure, both internally and externally, to abide by their written agreements. This is the reason both of Israel's recent right-wing prime ministers, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, vociferous opponents of the Oslo peace process, found themselves nominal advocates of it once they came into office. It is the reason Israel was scrupulous in fulfilling to the letter U.N. resolution 425, calling for Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 1999. To his credit George W. Bush, who watched the collapse of Bill Clinton's interventionism, revealed an instinctive grasp of the limitations of diplomacy and initially rejected an activist role in the Middle East. While the events of September 11, altered his perspective, today the reasons for continued mediation are becoming increasingly unclear. The same moderate Arab regimes that once demanded an even-handed U.S. approach to the Middle East have yet to demonstrate any commitment to America's war against terrorism. By offering even-handed mediation, Bush only gives Arafat the benefit of a safe harbor while getting nothing in return. Those failed returns could well be on his mind as American Middle East policy begins to resemble a crumbling dynasty with each failed emissary only frittering away further the patriarch's hard won fortune and prestige. But it is not only American prestige that is on the line. It is also the safety and security of a trusted ally who must now find its own way to deal with a terrorist threat as serious as any faced by America. The world has learned that Arafat will only make tough choices when deprived of comfortable alternatives. Taking away 50 tons of his toys may help. But casting him adrift, exposed to the vagaries of the political winds and with no further access to diplomatic cover, may well be the only way to make him pay attention. Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
|
|
 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© 2001-2002 Koret Communications Ltd. All rights reserved. Terms of Use. |
