No hope for peace until Arabs want it

March 13, 2002

Editorial

The Bush administration in recent months has shown a clear-sighted understanding of the causes of the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed: The rejection by Yasser Arafat of a negotiated settlement and his resort to violence that, to any rational person, seems aimed at the goal of eradicating the state of Israel. But last week the not-so-clear-sighted State Department appeared to gain the upper hand in Bush administration policy. It was all too predictable. Last December, after murderous suicide-bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa seemed to finally bring disillusionment in Washington with business as usual with Arafat, we noted on these pages: "No doubt we will soon again hear calls for 'both sides' to end the fighting, appeals for an end to 'the cycle of violence.' " And that is exactly what we've heard in recent days.

Of course the world is dismayed by the mounting death toll on both sides, but no one can turn a blind eye to the way the two foes are conducting themselves. The Israelis aim their weapons at terrorists, and sadly on occasion civilians are killed, as has happened with our own campaign in Afghanistan when bombs missed their target. The Palestinian terrorists, like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, deliberately murder civilians. How often have we read about Israeli helicopters and missiles targeting empty Palestinian Authority buildings? How often have we read about Palestinian suicide-bombers targeting teenagers at a disco, families celebrating a religious rite, or children, women and elderly Israelis grabbing a bite to eat at a restaurant?

There is no moral equivalency between the terror war waged by Arafat's minions and the defensive strategy employed by the Israelis. President Bush has steadfastly maintained that there isn't, that Arafat is the one who must stop the attacks for there to be hope of peace. Any other view would give terrorists everywhere a victory. Yes, we would like to have allies in the Middle East if we use military force against Iraq. But not at any cost. And we shouldn't forget that our best ally in the region is Israel, while anti-America hate is endemic in Arab countries that claim to be our friend.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stirred up a one-day Washington controversy when he noted the obvious truth that former President Bill Clinton's drive to reach a peace deal had failed, resulting in 17 months of bloodshed. Fleischer was quickly forced to clarify that he never meant to imply that Clinton was responsible for the violence. Submerged in the dust-up was Fleischer's very realistic message: American influence can only go so far in bringing the two sides together, especially when one of them is committed to the gun and bomb. But we'd bet that will not be forgotten by Vice President Dick Cheney and U.S. Mideast envoy Anthony Zinni, two realists, as they visit the region this week.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in responding to international dismay over the mounting casualties and new worry among Israelis that his policies might not be working, has dropped his demand for an end to the violence as a precondition for cease-fire negotiations. It remains to be seen whether Arafat will view that as a willingness to talk or a sign of weakness. But history is not encouraging. The only hope for it to turn out differently this time may be for the Arab world to seize on the Saudi peace initiative it insists is real, and push the Palestinian leadership to embrace a reasonable stance on working toward peace.