Tag: violence

It is no small thing that the civilized world is rallying to Israel's side in its vigorous efforts to stamp out the Palestinian attacks. In the face of a no-nonsense President Bush, it seems that Arafat is no longer persuading anyone with his empty promises. And despite the protests of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it appears that Arafat will finally be compelled to call a halt to the terrorism.

The recent developments in U.S. Mideast policy are nothing short of stunning. Over the past few days, in unusually blunt and unequivocal language, President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have left no doubt that they have had it with Yassir Arafat's duplicity regarding the violence directed at Israel. And in Tuesday's order freezing the financial assets of organizations allegedly linked to Hamas, there is also no doubt left that the day is past when we will prevaricate regarding funding for Palestinian terrorists. Yet, while most are viewing these welcome actions in terms of support for Israel ? and it certainly is that ? we also believe that they are key to our continuing war against terror.

In principle, we disagree with the notion of U.S. public support for a Palestinian state. The record is clear that, whatever Yasir Arafat and his crowd may claim to the Bush Administration, the Palestinians have no present intention of living as a peaceful neighbor with Israel.

Prime Minister Sharon is being roundly criticized in his own Likud Party by those who are disenchanted with his policy of "restraint." Indeed, it would now appear that former Prime Minister Netanyahu would win a vote for leadership of the Likud if it were held today. Plainly, there is much frustration with the continuing violence and the failure of Mr. Sharon to bring an end to it.

For the second week running the Monitor is forced to postpone a celebration of the death last month of one of the wickedest Jews to walk the earth in this or any other generation. The continuing fallout over outgoing New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Deborah Sontag's novella-length rewrite of recent Middle East history leaves no choice but to put away the streamers and the silly hats and reschedule the party for the next column.

One reading Deborah Sontag's front-page article in the July 26th issue of The New York Times could well understand the calls one hears lately for Jews to suspend their Times subscriptions over its outrageous coverage of the Middle East. Ms. Sontag's piece is transparent revisionism which well serves the seeming omnipresent effort to shift the blame for the collapse of Camp David from the Palestinians to something systemic to the Middle East conflict. It almost seems that Ms. Sontag and others now hawking the same line are following a scenario scripted by Arafat lieutenants intent on minimizing Israeli concessions at Camp David and thereby set the stage for the next phase of negotiations.

One of the critical points to be made about the international monitor dispute is being overlooked. No one would suggest that the mission of the monitors would be to prevent violence by force of arms. Rather, it is widely assumed that they would monitor the respective elective efforts of Israel and the Palestinians to observe a cease-fire.

The almost universal calls for ?solidarity? with Israel following in the wake of Reform leader Eric Yoffie?s announcement of the suspension of youth trips to Israel has underscored a curious dimension to the politics of the left. While the Sarid and Beilin crowd talk about American Jews demonstrating their support for the Jewish state, they continue to rail against Prime Minister Sharon for not agreeing to an immediate resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians despite the continuing violence, and for not ordering an immediate end to all construction on the so-called ?settlements.? Despite the lessons of the collapse of Oslo and the obvious and cynical refusal of Yassir Arafat to end the violence, the left persists in attacking Mr. Sharon for insisting that the violence must stop as a precondition to renewed talks. They would reward violence with political concessions while the prime minister would not.

Despite the terrible news late Monday of the driveby murders of Dan Yehudah of Chomesh and Doron Zisserman of Einav and other terrorist acts, there is the definite sense that there is an overall lessening of Palestinian violence. While we do not delude ourselves into thinking that the so-called cease fire is essentially anything other than Arafat?s latest ruse, one would have to be inhuman not to take some comfort in the fact that at least for the short run, less people will die or be maimed. And, because we think that a cease fire is in Arafat?s short term interest, we believe that one will take hold. Yet at the same time, while we savor the respite of sorts, we must also focus on the dangers that are already emerging.

As The Jewish Press is about to go to press Tuesday evening, Hamas spokesmen are still declaring that they have no intention of adhering to a cease-fire. Whether Arafat was serious or not when he declared a cease-fire the other day, the bottom line is that none is in the immediate offing. Yet one gets the sense that the Palestinians are indeed inching towards an interruption of hostilities.

President Bush's heretofore steadfast message to Yasir Arafat - that the Palestinian leaders' abandonment of the peace table in favor of the battlefield will not be rewarded - is consistent with what we continue to believe is the only road to peace.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has steadfastly refused to renege on his pledge that Israel will not negotiate in the face of continuing Palestinian violence and terror.

There is no question that in the aftermath of the IDF's operation in Beit Hanoun, the Bush Administration has stepped up its involvement in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.