The violence in Israel goes on, as does the debate over the fate of Palestinians. It was with great interest that I read Reem Assil's response to my viewpoint regarding Palestinian-Israeli violence. First off, I'd like to applaud the measured and well-thought response. Far too often on this campus, debate is replaced by self-righteous mud-slinging, and the only thing proven is that yes, there is a lot of mud to go around. Ms. Assil correctly identifies that with a "vibrant, intelligent, and genuine Palestinian leader" the Palestinians could make progress in their dream of having a modern functioning state. I couldn't agree more. And I also agree that Israeli action has retarded rather than promoted Palestinian economic and social progress. Israeli policy often hurts the average Palestinian no more than it does the terrorists themselves. The task of accurately targeting terrorists and guerilla fighters in an urban setting is a very difficult one, and often Israeli blockades do more to impede honest salesmen than brain-washed terrorists.
Assil also raises the issue of Yasir Arafat's power, or rather the lack of it. It must be remembered that Israel has done more than any other nation, including Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, to increase Arafat's power. After all, he was supposed to be able to rein in the terrorists. The Israelis gave him money, guns, and the mandate to round up all suspected terrorists. When he failed to do so (the task may have been an impossible one, more on that later) the Israelis accepted, somewhat gleefully, that he was, after all, useless and that there was no further reason to deal with him. This is why Sharon now refers to Arafat as "irrelevant."
Thousands of Palestinians now gather outside his bunker to demonstrate that Arafat, to them, is far from irrelevant. But that misses the issue. Israelis only have one simple goal: they want the terror to stop. And terrorists have an even simpler goal: they want to kill. Certainly, they may have or think they have higher motives, but a suicide bomber is more an enemy of Arafat and the Palestinians than he is an enemy of Sharon and the Israelis. When time passes and no terror occurs, the Israelis give territory. Remember: the Israelis want nothing more complex than security. It's what they have achieved with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan through winning wars and making peace. If Arafat cannot stop terror, then he has literally nothing to offer the Israelis. If he has nothing to offer them, then why should anyone negotiate with him? He becomes an impediment to the peace process.
Arafat himself acknowledges that terror does not help the Palestinian cause. In one short year the Palestinian Authority went from world sympathy and the White House lawn to a cold shoulder and a few demolished police stations. Despite Sharon's urging, George Bush is unwilling to abandon Arafat because there is no alternative Palestinian leader. Arafat will not step down from his position of authority. His attitude has become clear: There is no Palestinian state without Arafat in charge. He will delay and hold on to power as long as possible, as Israel elects one Prime Minister after another. The Israelis, thoroughly disgusted with his lack of progress against terror and his arms deals with Iran, will not speak to him. In the meantime, Israelis and Palestinians die in ever increasing numbers.
Who then is holding up the creation of the Palestinian state? Is it Sharon, who has actually said he supports the idea and has advocated the creation of a Palestinian state since the '80s? Is it Bush, who wants a Palestinian state so he can score political points at home and abroad? Or, as it is clear, is it Arafat himself? If Arafat valued the creation of a state more than his own skin, he would have stepped down long ago, and given the Palestinians the "vibrant, intelligent, and genuine Palestinian leader" that Assil and all the Palestinians desire and desperately need. He wrongs the Palestinians, he wrongs the Arab nation as a whole, by refusing to face his own failures and to step down as the discredited would-be-statesman that he is.
Tal Dibner is a senior majoring in history and political science.
