Don't Free a Terrorist

After years of saying that he had given up terrorism and was seeking peace with the Jewish state, Yasser Arafat has proven that he is still a terrorist. Documents that the Israeli army has seized in Palestinian Authority (PA) offices in Ramallah and elsewhere show that Arafat had personal involvement in supporting and directing attacks against innocent Israelis during the course of the current war. The New York Times reported that documents seized by the Israeli army had Arafat’s signature approving payments to militants who are know to have been involved with terrorist attacks. The documents show that Arafat personally approved payments of as little as $350, which bolsters Israeli claims that he has detailed personal control of his terrorist network. Israel has declared Arafat an “enemy” and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon refuses to negotiate with him.

Unfortunately, under pressure from the U.S., Israel has decided to allow Arafat out of his shattered compound in Ramallah where he has been holed up with fellow terrorists, among others, since the Israeli invasion of the de facto Palestinian capital a month ago. This decision was an unfortunate one by Israel. By allowing Arafat out of his cage, he will be able to continue directing terrorist activities and postponing even longer the time when his people will have a state of their own.

The Palestinian people deserve a better leader, one who can rein in militant Palestinian factors and prepare an increasingly radicalized population for eventual peace with Israel. Unfortunately, the PA has spent the years since it gained power inculcating hatred in its children for Israel and for Jews through schools and official media. A large proportion of the Palestinian population now supports suicide bombings, and that attitude will not change until a leader arises who will give the Palestinians hope for eventual reconciliation.

Israel may have let Arafat out to quiet demands from the U.N. that it allow a fact-finding mission to investigate the Jenin refugee camp, which Israel invaded last month. Although Palestinians have charged that a massacre took place in the camp, there is no evidence to suggest that any such massacre happened. The camp was a center for terrorist activity, and the Israelis took heavy losses in the fight there. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers were killed during house-to-house fighting. Palestinian terrorists had booby-trapped many houses and streets in the camp and reportedly used non-combatants as shields. Israel used bulldozers to knock down parts of the camp to clear the way for soldiers to enter and capture holdouts. Palestinians claim that hundreds of non-combatants were killed in the fighting, but only approximately 50 Palestinian bodies have so far been recovered—and many of those were armed young men. The U.N. mission is therefore unnecessary and likely to exacerbate the situation; because of its composition, its report is likely to be very critical of Israel. The U.N. has an abysmal record of impartiality when it comes to Israel, and the planned mission is likely to be another attempt by Arab nations to hijack the U.N. in their continued efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state.

For now, the Israeli initiative to build a fence in the West Bank to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks is the best option. On April 14, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote an op-ed in the New York Times advocating that a fence be built to include 80 percent of the Israeli population living in the West Bank and that a security buffer zone be established in the Jordan Valley. The Israeli cabinet has already given instructions for construction on a fence to start. Although such a barrier is anathema to some Israelis because it excludes many Jewish communities which have grown up in the West Bank, it will protect Israel from a continued terrorist assault. Israel must also protect its citizens in those West Bank settlements that a fence cannot encompass. Only by showing the terrorists that Israel will not give in under fire will the Israelis be able to negotiate a political settlement. But the fence is merely a short-term solution.

In the long term, the Palestinians must be given the resources to rebuild their shattered infrastructure and society. That money must not go to terrorists, but should be used to shore up the Palestinian health system and ensure electricity and drinking water to residents of shattered cities. Only by giving the Palestinians something to hope for will the terrorist elements of their society be quashed.

The newly uncovered documents prove what many have believed all along—that Arafat is only an impediment on the road to eventual peace. By building a fence and enforcing a cooling-off period, Israel is on the right track toward a just settlement.

Dissent: No Time to Hold Out on Peace

As fighting in Israel and the Occupied Territories continues to simmer, it was heartening to see at least one peaceful compromise—Israel agreed to lift the siege of Yasser Arafat’s Ramallah headquarters in exchange for America and Britain monitoring the imprisonment in a Palestinian jail of six wanted men.

Yet the Staff argues that Israel should have held out for a better deal, even though Israel’s own justification for surrounding Arafat’s headquarters was the presence of the terrorists inside. The Palestinians refused to turn the six men over to the Israelis, and the Israelis refused to leave them in Palestinian hands. In a stalemate in which neither side could offer a deal without seeming to concede to the other, intervention from the U.S. and Britain allowed progress to be made without either side losing face. The Staff has consistently called in the past for more American attempts to resolve the conflict; it is puzzling that the Staff recoils when a mutually beneficial settlement to one problem is finally reached.

More understandable, though no less disturbing, is the Staff’s position that Israel was right to reject a United Nations fact-finding mission to investigate the recent fighting in Jenin. The Staff says that the U.N. is biased against Israel. And to a very limited extent, the Staff is right; many of the countries in the U.N. certainly see Israel as the aggressor, rather than the victim, in the Palestinian conflict—though it is far from certain that this perspective would prevent any investigative mission from honestly evaluating the facts. In a conflict riddled with misunderstanding on both sides, an international investigation presents the best opportunity for common ground in the debate over the facts.

If the Staff wishes to deny the U.N. the chance to investigate human rights abuses in Jenin, it must envision a limited role indeed for the worldwide organization. If the U.N. should not investigate potential human rights abuses and massacres, what group would the Staff choose for such an important task? And if the fact that Israel is the target of the inquiry particularly troubles the Staff, why should Israel be evaluated by a different organization than other nations? The United Nations is imperfect, as are all institutions, but creating an ad hoc commission packed with Israel’s allies would hardly allow a legitimate investigation.

The Staff’s endorsement of a fence to separate Israel proper from the West Bank completely glosses over the root of the conflict and will only be counterproductive towards an eventual settlement. Building a cage around the West Bank will only reinforce the Palestinian people’s sense of alienation and despair.

Last Saturday, Palestinians dressed as Israeli soldiers infiltrated a settlement and killed four people, including a five-year-old girl. In response, on Monday Israeli soldiers dressed as Palestinian civilians infiltrated Hebron and opened fire on Palestinian police. Though the fighting in Israel has diminished in recent days, the war goes on. The Staff would continue to play the politics of brinkmanship; we would prefer small but significant steps toward peace.

—David M. DeBartolo ’03, Anthony S.A. Freinberg ’04,

Blake Jennelle ’04, Nicholas F. Smyth ’05, and Ben J.Toff ’05