“…the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.” – President George W. Bush, June 24, 2002
On June 9, 2003, participants at the JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) Spring Board Meeting were invited to the Jordanian Embassy for an audience with His Excellency Kareem Kawar. The purpose of the visit was to conduct an open discussion on Israeli-Jordanian-U.S. relations in post-war Iraq, but the dialogue between the Hashemite spokesman and affiliates of the conservative, Washington-based think tank quickly degenerated into acrimonious debate.
The ambassador responded to accusations of Palestinian intransigence and Jordanian ambivalence toward Israel?s security needs with expected diplomatic acumen. However, as the atmosphere grew more tense and the questions more heated, it was clear the ambassador’s patience was running thin.
When one JINSA member asked why, if Hamas controls the purse strings of health care and welfare in Gaza, doesn’t Israel demand that the Palestinian Authority extract the organization from this innocuous front, the ambassador snapped.
“What will happen to Hamas?” was the gist of his response.
The audience was aghast. Cries of “we don’t care!” could be heard. At that moment it became apparent to me that as long as Hamas and the other rejectionist organizations are treated as legitimate factions in the Israeli-Palestinian ‘peace process,’ the process will remain but the grossest of shams.
But Hamas is still referred to as a ‘militant’ group on American news networks – a term that bestows legitimacy. (Imagine the American media referring to Al Qaeda as a ‘militant’ group.) Of course, the ‘moderate’ Jordanians don’t refer to Hamas as a militant organization – they refer to it as a ‘resistance’ organization. This is an ominous distinction for an organization that has closed the door to any possibility of coexistence with the Jewish state; a policy endorsed in the blood of innocents.
Just as there was no accommodation with the PLO prior to Yasir Arafat’s (albeit dubious) acceptance of UN Resolution 242, there can be no accommodation with the rejectionist front of 2003. No cease-fire, no truce, no toleration whatsoever.
These terrorist organizations are uncompromising and apocalyptic – no different from Al Qaeda. So why has the Bush administration embarked on a road map for peace that allows these organizations to come along for the ride? Why has the president betrayed his own June 24, 2002 policy speech by proceeding with a road map to guaranteed Palestinian statehood while Arafat still controls the PA? Why did the president initially condemn Israel’s war on Hamas? Finally, how could the president, who now appears to have endorsed the Israeli approach to Hamas, be trusted to consistently uphold this policy?
What began as a promising endeavor with Bush’s policy speech one year ago has steadily degenerated. In order to prevent more bloodshed, the administration must quickly get its bearings and formulate a consistent Middle East policy.
The first correction must be a reaffirmation of Arafat’s irrelevancy. The wily PLO chieftain is still pulling the strings behind the scenes; undermining putative prime minister Mahmoud Abbas and fermenting terror. The Palestinians must be given a choice: Arafat or U.S. advocacy for their cause. Arafat’s political euthanasia was a prerequisite for progress and accepting anything short of this design – succinctly articulated by the president himself – will continue to undermine American credibility.
Second, once those Palestinian leaders compromised by terror (i.e. Arafat) are removed from the picture, Abbas must dismantle the paramilitary groups, civil war or not. If he is serious about this, the U.S. and Israel should bolster him in whatever ways they can. Conversely, Abbas must understand that if he does not pursue the perpetrators of attacks such as the recent Jerusalem bus bombing, Israel will. If he does not prevent terrorists from carrying out future attacks, Israel will. If he refuses to disassemble the terrorist infrastructure that surrounds him, Israel will. No more excuses, no more empty gestures.
