THE REGION: A shorter, uglier Bin Laden
By Barry Rubin
(April 11) In a 1930s gangster film, Edward G. Robinson plays a tough, ruthless mobster. He has a sentimental side but makes a career of breaking every law or promise, and of killing anyone who stands in his way.
At the end, the police besiege his hide-out. Outwardly, he thunders defiance at them, but then turns toward the camera and whines for sympathy, sobbing, "Can this be the end of little Rico?"
The scene shows the sniveling coward inside the murderous bully, but also that things didn't have to turn out this way. He was once a little boy, beloved of his mother. Still, he chose to be that way. Now it was too late.
No one expected the audience to rise to its feet and shout, "Wait! Little Rico must be saved!"
Not so, at least up to a point, with Yasser Arafat. It was Arafat who decided, after all, that he preferred to behave like a shorter, uglier version of Osama bin Laden.
Arafat is a man who has been a practicing terrorist since around 1965, with occasional vacations. By "terrorist" I mean someone whose explicit political strategy is to kill the maximum number of civilians by any means possible.
Is it really necessary - yes, unfortunately it is - to remind everyone once again that he rejected the Camp David proposal and Clinton plan, launched an unprovoked war on Israel, and broke his promises to implement 10 different cease-fires?
Do we really have to repeat - yes, I guess we do - that he disclaimed responsibility as his own bodyguards, security forces, and party militia staged scores of terrorist attacks? That he insisted he was trying to stop violence, though he never fired or demoted anyone for such behavior? That he issued "cease-fire" calls in English-language press releases that were never mentioned in the media he controlled? That he claimed to arrest terrorists who were later seen walking the streets and who even planned new attacks?
Have most people forgotten - yes, apparently they have - that this is the man who slapped US president Bill Clinton in the face on two occasions, then broke his promises to Clinton and secretary of state Madeleine Albright to stop the violence?
What is President George Bush supposed to do, fly to Ramallah, kneel down at Arafat's feet, offer him anything he wants, and beg him to make peace?
IN THIS context, I keep thinking about a horribly chilling yet fascinating scene that took place recently in Afghanistan. Two Central Intelligence Agency operatives were questioning a group of captured Arab al-Qaida terrorists.
One intelligence officer asked, "Why did you come here [to Afghanistan]?"
One of the prisoners answered, "To kill you!"
And then they jumped him and battered him to death. His colleague barely escaped with his life.
This is not some game here, or intellectual exercise, or misunderstanding that can be cleared up with goodwill, conversation, or the granting of an infinite number of chances. It is a war, and only the terrorist side's defeat - or as close as one can come to that goal - could possibly convince them that they have made some terrible, fundamental error that requires a change in their goals and behavior.
Does this sound too harsh?
If so, it may be because of the following misconceptions that often seem to dominate the international discussion of this situation. (But before reading a half-dozen brief examples, note that neither Israel nor the US government are fooled by these claims and, most importantly, such distortions will have relatively little effect on actual events on the ground.)
* Those who want to give Arafat an infinite number of chances fail to understand that he has neither the intention nor the ability to make peace. The performance of both himself and his movement is no accident, but reflects their deepest goals and values.
These observers want to stage an endless series of experiments carried out at the cost of Israeli lives, and which would have the effect of getting many Palestinians killed also.
* They assume that a weaker party would never attack a stronger one because it knows it would lose. Thus, they mistakenly assume that Israel has to be the aggressor. The problem is that the Palestinian side believes itself to be stronger because of its methods, intransigence, steadfastness, and the expected support of outsiders.
This follows a half-century-old pattern.
* They believe that anyone would want to end an occupation and gain independence as fast as possible on any reasonable terms. Thus, they mistakenly assume that Israel wants to hold onto the West Bank and Gaza, and also that once Israel agrees to withdraw, the conflict will end. They ignore the fact that Israel made such an offer two years ago and it was rejected. Moreover, if this belief were true, Arafat would have made a real compromise offer, and the occupation could have ended any time in the past 30 years.
* They believe that Arafat cannot be a terrorist because he is the leader of a people, or at least that this feature should be ignored because of his political status. Thus, Arafat has become the world's most privileged terrorist, who is neither held responsible for his deeds nor forced to pay for them.
Yet they neglect the reality that it is precisely because of his goals, priorities, and methods that he does not lead a country.
* They believe that people become suicide bombers or terrorists due to poverty, patriotism, or frustration. In fact, those who most often commit such acts would rather have the occupation continue so they can try to destroy Israel rather than achieve a compromise solution. Moreover, suicide bombers do not spring up spontaneously but are created by the indoctrination of Arafat's movement and media, as well as by the incitement in certain mosques. In the Middle Eastern equivalent of child molestation, recruiters prey on naive youngsters to mold them systematically into suicide bombers. These cynical recruiters, of course, never carry out suicide operations themselves.
If you don't believe that these cult-type policies can create such behavior, reflect on the mass suicide of Americans at Jonestown, and later by the flying saucer sect.
* The observers believe that violence is no solution, but this was precisely the dominant view in Israel for many years. The problem is that the Palestinian leadership does not believe this idea. The only way to show them otherwise is to defeat their war of aggression.
The urge to finance the terrorist offensive against Israel - which, in effect, is what European funding does - and to "save" Arafat only encourages a continuation of violence and a belief that it does work.
Getting Arafat out of his bunker without forcing him to implement a real cease-fire will not promote peace, it will guarantee continuing war and suffering.
Demanding that Israel make unilateral concessions or defend itself with both hands tied behind its back is immoral and ridiculous
By Barry Rubin
(April 11) In a 1930s gangster film, Edward G. Robinson plays a tough, ruthless mobster. He has a sentimental side but makes a career of breaking every law or promise, and of killing anyone who stands in his way.
At the end, the police besiege his hide-out. Outwardly, he thunders defiance at them, but then turns toward the camera and whines for sympathy, sobbing, "Can this be the end of little Rico?"
The scene shows the sniveling coward inside the murderous bully, but also that things didn't have to turn out this way. He was once a little boy, beloved of his mother. Still, he chose to be that way. Now it was too late.
No one expected the audience to rise to its feet and shout, "Wait! Little Rico must be saved!"
Not so, at least up to a point, with Yasser Arafat. It was Arafat who decided, after all, that he preferred to behave like a shorter, uglier version of Osama bin Laden.
Arafat is a man who has been a practicing terrorist since around 1965, with occasional vacations. By "terrorist" I mean someone whose explicit political strategy is to kill the maximum number of civilians by any means possible.
Is it really necessary - yes, unfortunately it is - to remind everyone once again that he rejected the Camp David proposal and Clinton plan, launched an unprovoked war on Israel, and broke his promises to implement 10 different cease-fires?
Do we really have to repeat - yes, I guess we do - that he disclaimed responsibility as his own bodyguards, security forces, and party militia staged scores of terrorist attacks? That he insisted he was trying to stop violence, though he never fired or demoted anyone for such behavior? That he issued "cease-fire" calls in English-language press releases that were never mentioned in the media he controlled? That he claimed to arrest terrorists who were later seen walking the streets and who even planned new attacks?
Have most people forgotten - yes, apparently they have - that this is the man who slapped US president Bill Clinton in the face on two occasions, then broke his promises to Clinton and secretary of state Madeleine Albright to stop the violence?
What is President George Bush supposed to do, fly to Ramallah, kneel down at Arafat's feet, offer him anything he wants, and beg him to make peace?
IN THIS context, I keep thinking about a horribly chilling yet fascinating scene that took place recently in Afghanistan. Two Central Intelligence Agency operatives were questioning a group of captured Arab al-Qaida terrorists.
One intelligence officer asked, "Why did you come here [to Afghanistan]?"
One of the prisoners answered, "To kill you!"
And then they jumped him and battered him to death. His colleague barely escaped with his life.
This is not some game here, or intellectual exercise, or misunderstanding that can be cleared up with goodwill, conversation, or the granting of an infinite number of chances. It is a war, and only the terrorist side's defeat - or as close as one can come to that goal - could possibly convince them that they have made some terrible, fundamental error that requires a change in their goals and behavior.
Does this sound too harsh?
If so, it may be because of the following misconceptions that often seem to dominate the international discussion of this situation. (But before reading a half-dozen brief examples, note that neither Israel nor the US government are fooled by these claims and, most importantly, such distortions will have relatively little effect on actual events on the ground.)
* Those who want to give Arafat an infinite number of chances fail to understand that he has neither the intention nor the ability to make peace. The performance of both himself and his movement is no accident, but reflects their deepest goals and values.
These observers want to stage an endless series of experiments carried out at the cost of Israeli lives, and which would have the effect of getting many Palestinians killed also.
* They assume that a weaker party would never attack a stronger one because it knows it would lose. Thus, they mistakenly assume that Israel has to be the aggressor. The problem is that the Palestinian side believes itself to be stronger because of its methods, intransigence, steadfastness, and the expected support of outsiders.
This follows a half-century-old pattern.
* They believe that anyone would want to end an occupation and gain independence as fast as possible on any reasonable terms. Thus, they mistakenly assume that Israel wants to hold onto the West Bank and Gaza, and also that once Israel agrees to withdraw, the conflict will end. They ignore the fact that Israel made such an offer two years ago and it was rejected. Moreover, if this belief were true, Arafat would have made a real compromise offer, and the occupation could have ended any time in the past 30 years.
* They believe that Arafat cannot be a terrorist because he is the leader of a people, or at least that this feature should be ignored because of his political status. Thus, Arafat has become the world's most privileged terrorist, who is neither held responsible for his deeds nor forced to pay for them.
Yet they neglect the reality that it is precisely because of his goals, priorities, and methods that he does not lead a country.
* They believe that people become suicide bombers or terrorists due to poverty, patriotism, or frustration. In fact, those who most often commit such acts would rather have the occupation continue so they can try to destroy Israel rather than achieve a compromise solution. Moreover, suicide bombers do not spring up spontaneously but are created by the indoctrination of Arafat's movement and media, as well as by the incitement in certain mosques. In the Middle Eastern equivalent of child molestation, recruiters prey on naive youngsters to mold them systematically into suicide bombers. These cynical recruiters, of course, never carry out suicide operations themselves.
If you don't believe that these cult-type policies can create such behavior, reflect on the mass suicide of Americans at Jonestown, and later by the flying saucer sect.
* The observers believe that violence is no solution, but this was precisely the dominant view in Israel for many years. The problem is that the Palestinian leadership does not believe this idea. The only way to show them otherwise is to defeat their war of aggression.
The urge to finance the terrorist offensive against Israel - which, in effect, is what European funding does - and to "save" Arafat only encourages a continuation of violence and a belief that it does work.
Getting Arafat out of his bunker without forcing him to implement a real cease-fire will not promote peace, it will guarantee continuing war and suffering.
Demanding that Israel make unilateral concessions or defend itself with both hands tied behind its back is immoral and ridiculous
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.