http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- FIGHTING has broken out in the Middle
East, we read. This use of passive phrasing, almost universal in media
reports on the violence in Israel, is a way of deliberately expressing
agnosticism about the cause of the fighting. It is a scandal. It is akin to
writing that on Sept. 1, 1939, war "broke out" on the German-Polish frontier.
Few wars break out spontaneously. And certainly not this one. Does anyone
believe that Ehud Barak, who went to Camp David and offered the Palestinians
peace terms of breathtaking generosity, would be starting a war? Does anyone
believe that the most dovish government in Israeli history, feeling itself
just inches away from concluding a permanent peace, would initiate gun
battles?
The plain fact is that Yasser Arafat, thrown on the diplomatic defensive by
rejecting Barak's offer (to the astonishment and dismay of the American
mediators), has done what he has always done: resort to violence to regain
the initiative and, most important, mint new underage martyrs--on world
television--to regain the international sympathy he had forfeited by turning
down peace at Camp David.
His pretext was that the Sept. 28 visit to the Temple Mount by Israel's
leader of the opposition so offended Islam that the faithful erupted in
violence. The audacity of this claim is astonishing. Yes, the Temple Mount is
the third-holiest place in Islam. But it happens to be the single most holy
place for Jews. Why does the Muslim claim so trump all others that Jews may
not set foot on their most sacred site, their Mecca?
The war that followed was as spontaneous as a Havana demonstration. The
preacher at the al-Aqsa mosque called at Friday prayers to "eradicate the
Jews from Palestine." Official Palestinian television began playing over and
over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993 showing young
people out in the streets throwing stones.
In case one still didn't get the message, Voice of Palestine radio began
playing patriotic war songs. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a
general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street. With Arafat's
chief political lieutenant on the West Bank orchestrating the militias, war
then "broke out."
The doves are stunned. Avraham Burg, speaker of the Israeli parliament and
one of the architects of the Labor government's bend-over-backward peace
proposals, writes perplexedly, pathetically: "Do we really understand what is
going on? After everything was given, there are still demands on the other
side."
"Suddenly we discovered," he continues plaintively, "that what we mean by
peace--which is mutual reconciliation--is not being met by the other side."
Suddenly? Where has he been for seven years? Seven years during which Arafat
built his "police force" into a 40,000-man army now unleashed on Israel.
Seven years during which Arafat repeatedly said that the peace process was
one option and that if he did not get everything he wanted there was another.
Seven years during which his state-controlled television, radio, newspapers
and now children's textbooks inculcated in his people an antisemitism and
anti-Zionism so virulent that it has succeeded in producing a new generation
bred on reflexive hostility to Israel.
Seven years during which he repeatedly called for "jihad" for Jerusalem.
Well, it has now arrived. That is the meaning of the current fighting.
This is, as the Palestinians openly call it, a war for Jerusalem. Not, as the
world press has reported endlessly and fatuously, an expression of
Palestinian "frustration." Frustration with what? Israeli occupation? It
ended years ago; 99 percent of Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser
Arafat. Over territory? Barak has conceded virtually the entire West Bank.
Over political subordination? Barak offered full recognition of the first
independent Palestinian state in history.
The Palestinians are less frustrated than emboldened. Emboldened by an
Israeli government so desperate for peace it has given up "everything," as
Burg admitted. Emboldened by the fecklessness of Burg and his colleagues, so
impervious for so long to empirical evidence of Palestinian implacability
that in this moment of supreme crisis they admit openly to disorientation.
Emboldened by an American administration so craven that it refuses to condemn
Arafat for cynically starting this war, indeed for repeatedly violating his
single obligation under Oslo: the renunciation of violence.
"After everything was given," laments Burg. Yes everything, except one last
thing: the Temple Mount. Why, Barak went wobbly even on that. He offered to
relinquish sovereignty over Judaism's holiest site and internationalize it
under the U.N. Security Council.
Arafat refused. He demands ownership--the audacity is breathtaking--of
Judaism's holy of holies. Hence this war.
It is not spontaneous. And it is not without direction. Arafat knows what he
wants, and he is prepared to sacrifice as many of his own people as it takes
to get it. Preferably on television.
Comment on Charles Krauthammer's column
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
