To me it is Vietnam all over again. As American troops invaded an enemy town or village they sustained casualties even as they were victorious. Shortly thereafter they withdrew – until a new round of enemy activity necessitated a renewed visit in force to the town.
I have always believed that Israel should use a negotiating model based on Panama (Panama-U.S.), Hong Kong (China- UK) and Macau (China-Portugal), where extensive negotiations took place before comprehensive agreements were signed and trial periods of years allowed the parties to see if they could live under the new pact. Any other approach would foster negotiations with recriminations, and violence on a daily basis.
Let us return to Mr. Abbas to try to understand who is he and what we should expect from him. In preparing my autobiography, Journey Through the Minefields, I came across the program of the September 12, 1993 White House lawn ceremony marking the signing of the Oslo accords. I was shocked to be reminded that the third speaker that afternoon was Abu Mazen (Mr. Abbas). I had forgotten that Abu Mazen, a product of the KGB, was a graduate of Lumumba University in Moscow where he received his doctorate. His thesis was the “relationship between Nazism and Zionism.”
This Holocaust denier was Mr. Arafat’s constant partner – the latter a gangster in military uniform with a gun in his belt, the former a well-dressed intellectual who provided the cerebral contributions to terror. He advocates an end to murder of Jews based not on morality but for the sake of public relations. He seeks to bring terror groups within his administration – a classic case of the fox guarding the chicken coop – but shows a great distaste for disarming them.
Meanwhile, we hear nothing about an end to incitement. His platform is totally Mr. Arafat’s – Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, a so-called right of return for Palestinians, elimination of both the security fence and settlement activity, etc.
Ambassador Dore Gold points out that at Camp David it was none other than Abu Mazen who passionately prevented compromises on the issue of the Temple Mount and refugees.
Mr. Sharon may have his reasons for pressing on with his plan, even in the face of a new demographic study showing that the Arab population problem is not as critical as long thought (2.4 million Arabs as opposed to 3.8 million). But it is nothing less than an act of faith to proceed as though unilateral disengagement will somehow deflect future draconian pressure on Israel. President Bush, with one eye on his place in history, will find it increasingly difficult not to succumb to the world’s standard for “peace” – which would necessitate a full Israeli withdrawal.
There is too much at stake to trust any one person’s intentions, even those of a friend like President Bush. Besides, Bush will not be president forever, nor will Ariel Sharon be prime minister in perpetuity. Withdrawal, once it takes place, is irreversible short of war, while the words and commitments of Mr. Abbas are reversible days if not hours.
The absence of true reform in the Palestinian polity, along with continued corruption, incitement, terror – and no true disarmament – indicates that Israel has no partner for peace and no reason to initiate unilateral concessions. Disengagement today, absent the factors mentioned above, is a guarantee for a full war in a few years.
Mr. Abbas is not the savior or the solution, but the problem. He is Mr. Arafat in a suit. .Let us not be complacent. Nothing has changed.