 |
Jonathan Friendly is the national editor of , which owns the weekly Jewish newspapers in Detroit and Atlanta. He is a former journalism professor at the University of Michigan and a former reporter and editor at The New York Times.
|
|
|
|
By Jonathan Friendly
May 5, 2004
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has gone back to threatening to kill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. It is a singularly bad step in what has been an otherwise successful effort to stem Palestinian terrorism by assassinating or capturing the most violent leaders.
Murdering Arafat would be a mistake, both as a matter of policy and as an issue of public relations. And while it might be emotionally satisfying to be rid at last of this crook and terrorist, it would be wrong as a matter of justice and morality.
Meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush last month, Sharon said that he was "released from that pledge" he made three years ago not to harm Arafat physically. But it is not clear that he means the threat as anything more than a tactic to rally right-wing support to his plan to withdraw from the Gaza settlements. Sharon associates were quick to explain that he wasn't planning any immediate assault on the Palestinian leader whom he has kept holed up in his Mukata headquarters in Ramallah for most of the current Intifada (uprising).
Still, making the threat was an unneeded reminder of Israel's ability to get rid of Arafat just as it had successfully targeted Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin and his successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. The Palestinians are well aware of what Sharon can do; there was no need to rub their noses in it.
The policy issue is quite clear. Assassination would make Arafat a martyr; keeping him effectively in his own prison makes him look pathetic. The former would let the Arab nations continue to focus on Israel's "occupation" and "villainy;" keeping him alive allows Israel to continue to point out how corrupt, ineffective and weak his regime really is. What better than to have him expel the 21 Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade members from the Mukata, as he did last week, out of fear that he could get killed if the IDF raided the place to capture those bad guys.
The long-range policy is to get a meaningful peace. Arafat isn't the man to negotiate it, but it will help if he is around to endorse it. Killing him ends that possibility. And since he has no clear successor, his death would likely stir more internal strife, postponing any real resolution between the Palestinians and Israelis and possibly giving more power to the most fanatic of the terrorist groups.
Israel doesn't need any more bad publicity with the outside world. Killing Arafat now would be as disastrous in international relations as it would be for America to kill Saddam Hussein now that he has been driven from power and captured. Too many nations are willing to accept the Muslim description of Israel as savage oppressors. There is no need to add to that impression.
Ultimately, a cold-blooded slaying would be immoral, contravening what Israel should stand for as a model to the rest of the world. There will be time, let us hope, to put Arafat on trial for terrorism, to strip him of his power and to force him to concede what he has stolen from the Palestinians during his dictatorship. That will be punishment enough. It will be better by far to let him die of natural causes, disgraced by his failures.
Arafat has described himself as a "martyr-in-waiting," telling an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset that "I am fated to die as a shahid." That's too good a fate for him.
For ultimate justice, Arafat's blood should not be on Sharon's hands.
Views expressed by the author do not
necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.
 
|
|
|
|
Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the  icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.
|
|
| |
|
|
