NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
October 18, 2001
Assassinations
The murder yesterday of the Israeli tourism minister Rehavam Zeevi leader of the small secular party furthest to the right in the Israeli Knesset was a huge setback for prospects of a binding ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian "nation" -- on which in turn depends even the modest Arab and Muslim co-operation needed to advance the allied war strategy. The Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon made forceful threats and held Yasser Arafat directly and personally responsible for what had happened. He immediately rescinded orders to withdraw Israeli roadblocks around Hebron Nablus and Ramallah. More ominously Shimon Peres the foreign minister and Mr. Sharon's more "dovish" coalition partner allowed himself to be quoted telling Jack Straw the British foreign secretary what he thought of the situation. "If Arafat doesn't take the matters in hand everything will go up in flames." Mr. Peres is seldom guilty of overstatement. Worse it became obvious that Israeli public opinion had shifted instantly to a much harder line. And Israel unlike the countries around it is a democracy in which the people have a say. The victim was the first cabinet member ever to fall to a Palestinian terrorist hit. The manner in which he was killed -- in a hotel corridor by guns with silencers fired by men who knew how to make their escape -- added to the outrage. For there is much speculation in Israel as I write that the hitmen were able to get through to their target because Israel had just lifted its roadblocks. It brought home as few other events could that there is a huge price for Israel to pay the moment it agrees to relax its security. Moreover this was "a murder announced" for several known members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) had publicly vowed to perform a high level "execution" only the previous week and were proving themselves as good as their word. Jerusalem's Hyatt hotel site of the murder offered the killers a number of advantages as Danny Rubinstein wrote in Ha'aretz Israel's leading daily. "The Hyatt is known as an important meeting place for Arabs in East Jerusalem. The hotel is situated near Jerusalem's northern entrance to Palestinian-controlled territory of the West Bank. Most of the hotel's staff is Arab including several members of the management. ... Arabs entering the hotel do not draw attention." In other words the people who commissioned the murder were willing to risk future access to one of the few first-class venues where Arabs in Israel are still welcome. This is the equivalent of soiling one's own nest it implies a total abandonment of restraint. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the assassination. Their website says it was a retaliation for the assassination of the PFLP's late leader Abu Ali Mustafa in late August. Mustafa was killed by a missile fired through his office window from an Israel Defence Force helicopter in late August in the city of Ramallah. Let me take this opportunity to correct an impression I left in a column at the time. I previously believed Palestinian sources who said that "Abu Ali" was no longer involved in terrorist activities that he had become a kind of "elder statesman" to the Palestinian cause and a respected adviser who was informally in frequent contact with many officials in the Palestinian Authority. A well-informed man who told me that he could understand dozens of other Israeli "hits" said this one was a mystery to him that he thought the Israelis had made a terrible mistake that would escalate tensions. I have since been persuaded that the Israeli security service Shin Bet was right to allege that Mustafa was directly involved in the planning of car bombings against Israeli targets; moreover that he was an important middleman between Yasser Arafat's civil administration and the militant terrorists who have consistently appeared to act hand-in-glove with Mr. Arafat's diplomacy. The successor to Mustafa as head of the PFLP is Ahmed Sadat a man who openly espouses terrorist intentions. It was his appointment that gave the show away. By late last evening with Israel's security cabinet meeting it was clear there was cross-party agreement on several immediate steps. Israel would make his ability to turn over the murderers and planners of the attack a condition for any further dealings with Yasser Arafat. The Israelis would also demand the extradition of Ahmed Sadat and would attempt to liquidate his whole organization. The Israeli Defence Force was meanwhile planning a military retaliation on a very large scale in the event Mr. Arafat failed to give his total co-operation. This of course puts America and Britain right on the spot. Prime Minister Tony Blair almost certainly with President George W. Bush's blessing had only this weekend met with Mr. Arafat in London promising aloud his own support for the creation of a Palestinian state. That great pressure was being put on Israel to agree to such a thing was evident in a counter-proposal made by Ariel Sharon just before the murder of Rehavam Zeevi. Mr. Sharon had expressed a willingness to accept a Palestinian state on several strict conditions: that it be demilitarized that Israel have control of its borders that Israel be allowed to patrol the airspace above it. These Israelis of most parties agree are the minimum conditions for Israeli security in the short to medium term. Mr. Sharon was signalling that in return for agreement to these terms Israel would be willing to decamp from all post-1967 settlements in the West Bank except those in the suburbs of Jerusalem; and to withdraw its right to control road traffic within and between the West Bank and Gaza. My impression is that the Bush administration is presently ignoring the "Israel lobby" in Washington having decided that U.S. national interests take absolute priority while America is under attack. However the survival of Israel and peace in the West Bank and Gaza are among the absolute priorities of the "war on terrorism". It follows from observed events that President Bush had "delegated" Prime Minister Blair to "broker" the fastest possible settlement of differences between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. And that the United States would then act as arbitrator taking whatever appeared as the most workable arrangement and forcing it down the throats of both parties. Mr. Bush's dealings with Mr. Sharon had been less than cordial as evidenced by a telephone conversation between them leaked in Israel soon after the Sept. 11 catastrophes. In this Mr. Bush had told Mr. Sharon flatly that he was (at the time) the only national leader except Muhammed Omar who had failed to respond favourably to specific U.S. requests. Mr. Sharon has since been shocked repeatedly by U.S. impatience with his spontaneity. But in the present circumstances it is hard to imagine that the U.S. would be able to restrain Israel even if it tried. The American "tut tut" to Israel for having itself followed a policy of assassinations and now harvesting the result sounded unconfident and hollow at a moment when the U.S. was finding itself obliged to enter upon such a policy in Afghanistan. In normal warfare between legitimately constituted states an assassinations policy is the height of foolishness. But in this strange war it makes perfect sense -- since we can assume that all the Western leaders are themselves already targeted. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top