Dr. Frank's What's-it

Reuel Marc Gerecht makes yet

Reuel Marc Gerecht makes yet another strong case against appeasement of suicide bombers, their supporters, and their figurehead. Noting Arafat's assertion (all too true, no doubt) that accepting the Camp David proposals would have amounted to a death sentence at the hands of his own people, Gerecht writes:

What in the Palestinian kamikazes' psychological makeup makes the Bush administration believe that they are going to be more pragmatic than Arafat was in 2000? Or is Arafat supposed to be more willing to die for "peace" now than he was then? Arafat has consistently encouraged and endorsed suicide-bombings as blessed work. At what future point in negotiations is Arafat supposed to turn to wannabe martyrs and tell them that their holy war against the Jewish state is wrong? Even if Arafat wanted to, how could he even begin to construct the ethical argument to quiet the passions that he has unleashed?

The Bush administration seems to believe that there is some rational switch inside the Palestinian national movement, which has now elevated holy-war kamikazes to iconic status, that if flipped would make it a committed convert to the sober Western gradualism inherit in the Tenet, Mitchell and Oslo peace plans.

The administration's approach follows the appeasement logic of the Clinton and first Bush administrations. That is, Israeli concessions will eventually slake the Palestinian recourse to terrorism. The administration appears to believe--the State Department certainly does--that Israel's military response to terrorism actually provokes further terrorism (the "cycle of violence").

This is a more meaningful and apt formulation of the problem than the oft-mentioned one of "wobbliness." It's true that there have been stern words for Arafat in Bush's speech and subsequent statements. But all the stern words in the world will make little difference if they are but a prelude to further concessions, to further rewards for unrepentant terrorist activity, to further appeasement. If they are not such a prelude, it will be the first time.

Tony Adragna has it right: Bush, "walking a tightrope between the State Department and DoD," lost his balance because of the recent round of unexpectedly brutal suicide attacks. His speech attempted to restore this "balance," by giving everyone a bit of what they wanted to hear. (In this sense, it was rather "Clintonian.") At best, the balancing act may buy a little time, at least until it becomes clear that the Powell mission has failed-- if there is, in fact, anyone to whom this is unclear. At some point, though, the administration will have to make a choice. None of the options are particularly enticing, but if they, like their predecessors, choose appeasement, they will in effect be giving the green light to further suicide attacks. Again.

Posted by Dr. Frank at April 8, 2002 11:07 PM | TrackBack