April 05, 2002

The Wall Street Journal's editors

The Wall Street Journal's editors find a "silver lining" in Bush's cave-in on the Israeli offensive, and say that it will be worth it if it allows him to "re-focus the war on terror back on Iraq." Peggy Noonan thinks there wasn't a cave-in at all: the speech was "good good good." And Glenn Reynolds seems to be leaning toward the view that's it's all part of a clever Machivellian strategy.

I hope all of them are right. Despite the "silver lining" (the hint that future policy will focus on Iraq, Syria and Iran as a "terror problem" for the US as well as for Israel) I have to say I remain as pessimistic as the WSJ editors, who write:

Mr. Bush's speech did also at least recognize "Israel's right to defend itself from terror," which presumably means further military action if the suicide bombings continue.

Nonetheless, Mr. Bush has now committed his own prestige to solving the unsolvable Arab-Israeli conflict. While denouncing Mr. Arafat for failing to control terror, the President still props him up as the Palestinian Israelis are supposed to negotiate with. Mr. Arafat has never confronted terror, not even when he promised after Oslo, but we are supposed to believe that he will now that world pressure has forced Israel to back down one more time.

For the bombings to stop, Mr. Arafat will have to disband the terror wing of his own Fatah organization that he's spent the past 18 months building up. Syria and Iran will have to stop arming Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist bombing sources. And Egypt and the Saudis will also have to use their leverage on the Palestinians, especially by threatening to cut off their money. Just to repeat this list shows how preposterous it is.

All the more so if Colin Powell now wastes his own and American credibility by begging Mr. Arafat to cooperate. The only terms Mr. Sharon has set for resuming negotiations with Mr. Arafat is an end to the violence--hardly unreasonable. If Mr. Powell now waters even that basic demand down, as European elites and the State bureaucracy will insist, then the U.S. will truly be rewarding terror.


Doesn't "rewarding terror" undercut the whole anti-terror idea, even if it makes it easier to attack terrorist sponsors somewhere else? Offering concessions while suicide attacks continue remains a spectacularly bad idea.

Zinni met with Arafat last night. No details yet, but I suppose we'll know soon enough. Does anyone believe that his mission has a ghost of a chance of success? The sponsors of the suicide bombers have made it crystal clear that they have no intention of stopping the attacks under any circumstances, whether or not Arafat utters the increasingly meaningless words "cease fire."

Posted by Dr. Frank at April 5, 2002 11:11 AM | TrackBack