OPINION:
Palestinians And The Strategy Of Terror
Targeting Civilians In Hopes Of Inciting A Strong Reaction From Israel
By Yoav J. Tenembaum, political analyst
TEL AVIV, Israel--The latest terrorist attacks perpetrated by Palestinians against Israeli civilians have both tactical and strategic backgrounds. Every day, several attacks against Israeli civilians take place within Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza; others are foiled by Israeli security forces. According to Israeli diplomatic and security sources, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat--and the whole Palestinian leadership--wants to incite Israel to react strongly to these terrorist attacks. His intention was to gain points while the Arab League was in session in the Jordanian capital of Amman. That's why Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon refrained from retaliating up until the end of the summit. Beyond that--and this point has not been mentioned by Israeli sources- -the United Nations Security Council was to vote on a Palestinian resolution calling for the sending of an international force to the West Bank and Gaza "to defend Palestinians against Israel."
An intensive Israeli diplomacy managed to avert this Palestinian move. Although nine members voted in favor, five European states abstained and the United States vetoed the resolution by voting against it. It may not be too difficult to assume Israel's restraint in the face of this daily terrorist campaign was aimed in no small part to help in reaching this result, which has been most welcome by the Israeli government. That would make sense. After all, a national security policy ought to combine diplomatic considerations and purely defense matters, adapting it to the prevailing circumstances and general national goals. Israel's policy toward Palestinian-led violence has a diplomatic and security dimension. From the outset, Sharon has said that, contrary to his predecessor, Labor's Ehud Barak, he would not consent to negotiate with the Palestinians until and unless Palestinian violence and terrorist attacks were to end. His defense policy has yet to crystallize. The attacks on Palestinian targets in Ramallah and Gaza, contrary to what many observers believe, does not provide sufficient evidence of the new Israeli government's defense policy. We shall have to wait and see.
In any event, Israel is faced with an enemy, which, though sincerely convinced of its case, plays by different rules. The targeting of civilians as the main objective rather than byproduct of an attack is something which used to characterize the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the past and is certainly typical of Hamas. Further, the suicide bombers among the Palestinians represent a totally alien phenomenon in Jewish culture. According to Israeli sources, the Palestinian Authority and Arafat himself are behind this violent campaign right from the start of this new so-called Intifida.
The question, to be sure, is hardly whether Arafat is in control but rather whether, if he wanted, he could be in control. The answer to that is apparently yes. Indeed, Arafat has created this new Frankenstein and seems to be unwilling to control it. That, of course, is a charitable interpretation of the situation. When it comes to Israel, the rhetoric of Arafat's Fatah mainstream Palestinian movement and that of the more extreme Palestinian groups is very similar. It's a rhetoric of defiance, hate and violence. Although the Hamas and Islamic Jihad are more open and explicit in their wish to see Israel's destruction, some of Arafat's own men, when they speak in Arabic, refer to the creation of a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., the destruction of the state of Israel) as a strategic goal. Beyond that, the propaganda campaign launched by the Palestinians, the Arab and part of the Muslim world has overtones reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.
Arafat's own claim that Israel has been using depleted uranium against Palestinian civilians, his wife's claim that Israel has been poisoning the wells in Palestinian-controlled areas, are just two examples. The Arab League Summit itself provided further examples of this phenomenon. Syrian president Bashar Assad has said that "Israeli crimes are worse than those of Nazi Germany." Coming from the leader of one of the most totalitarian states on earth, one is tempted to say Orwell was mistaken only chronologically. One wonders why, if the Palestinians and Arabs in general think they have such an ironclad case, they have to resort to this type of Orwellian propaganda.
The Arab League summit was a gathering of the most cohesive group of dictatorial regimes in the world. The Palestinian people live under one of the most corrupt and authoritarian governments in the Arab world. Perhaps the day will come when the Arab people and the Palestinians themselves will live under more enlightened regimes, in which the rhetoric of hate and destruction is replaced by that of moderation and reconciliation. But that will entail not only a radical internal change in political culture but also an acute modification of attitudes toward the very existence of Israel and Israelis.
YOAV J. TENEMBAUM is a Tel Aviv-based journalist and political analyst. His views are not necessarily those of BridgeNews, whose ventures include the Internet site www.bridge.com/. OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, BridgeNews, 3 World Financial Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com.