During her recent trip to the Middle East, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for having taken “important steps” against terrorism.
This statement, in addition to others made by senior members of the Bush administration, has produced considerable disquiet among those committed to fighting terror and devoted to the realization of a secure and sovereign Jewish state.
In the past, the Bush administration publicly acknowledged that Israel should not be expected to negotiate with the late PA leader Yasser Arafat because he was duplicitous and remained committed to employing armed violence as a principal vehicle by which to achieve his goals. Yet today it maintains that Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, is a worthy partner with whom Israel can achieve a settlement.
Would this were the case. The facts on the ground, however, tell a different story.
Certainly, Abbas is more diplomatically astute than was Arafat, but in reality they are birds of a feather. Never at any time has Abbas declared his objection to terror on moral grounds. While he repeats the mantra that terror is counter to Palestinian interests, he at once unequivocally declares that he has no intention of dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, including even elements of Fatah, the terrorist subsidiary of his own organization.
Abbas has pleaded with those who organize suicide bombings – Hamas and Islamic Jihad – to take part in his government, and has even invited Hamas terrorists to join his security forces. Would President George W. Bush authorize his administration to negotiate with a leader who was trying to enroll Osama bin Laden’s killers to join his army?
Following the London terror attacks, Prime Minister Tony Blair stated it was a delusion to believe socioeconomic status alone was responsible for the growth of terror. It is an evil ideology, he said, which breeds in the religious, educational and social structure of certain societies which act as incubators for terror. And the fact of the matter is that the PA today remains one of the world’s greatest breeding grounds for transforming human beings into lethal weapons.
DESPITE THE culture of terror perpetuated by the PA, the US provides substantial grants to the PA and recently authorized for it a major portion of the $3 billion annual package being provided by the G8 of industrialized nations. It is troubling that these grants were not accompanied by a caveat that the PA first be obliged to dismantle the terror infrastructure, end the incitement and ensure these funds be monitored in a transparent manner to guarantee they will not once more be funneled into terror activities or the secret bank accounts of corrupt Palestinian officials.
It is thus incumbent upon Bush to ensure that the provision of these funds is made conditional on the PA undertaking corrective measures to curtail terror.
The road map, to which Israel has committed itself, visualizes the goal of a Palestinian state existing peacefully side by side with Israel. But as Israel withdraws from Gaza and northern Samaria, terrorism is again escalating. Israeli civilians have been subjected to mortar and rocket attacks, and suicide bombers have been dispatched to commit carnage and create mayhem.
Under such circumstances the creation of what could only be described as a terror state controlled by virtual warlords would only send a message to terrorists the world over that terror does indeed pay.
In his efforts to reassure the Israeli public, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been quoting Bush that Israel should be entitled to retain the major settlement blocs in the context of a final settlement. However, Rice has recently been giving particular emphasis to the fact that this would depend on Palestinian consent, which will undoubtedly not be forthcoming.
It is critical for the president to voice unqualified support for Israel’s retention of these settlement blocs, which are of existential importance to the Jewish state’s very future.
MEANWHILE, Abbas continues to reiterate that no solution can ever be found to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse unless Israel agrees to the “right of return” of the descendents of the Arabs who fled the region during the 1948 war. This is more an ideological than a political position, reflecting a determination never to come to terms with Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.
“The right of return” is, in fact, a prescription for the demographic destruction of the Jewish state. Accordingly, it would be highly constructive for the president to forthrightly and explicitly restate that there is no validity to the Palestinian demand for the right of return.
Israel needs the moral and political backing the US alone can provide.
In view of the domestic turmoil Israel is enduring with the displacement of thousands of citizens from their homes, and due to the increasing statements emanating from figures in the Bush administration which might imply a return to the discredited policies of moral equivalency (whereby the distinction between the terrorists and their victims is frequently obfuscated), this is the appropriate moment for Bush to speak out and convey words of reassurance to the Israeli public.
This would, furthermore, also be a good time to send a message to the world reiterating that the US will never come to terms with those who have still to learn that the appeasement of evil and terror is a prescription for disaster.
The writer is president of American Values. This piece is derived from a letter to Bush co-signed by the writer and Isi Leibler.
Tags: Israel