Intifadah II has been nothing but a disaster for the Palestinian people and their national goal. Its extreme militancy and timing (in the wake of Camp David) made it seem to be not only a protest against the Israeli occupation, but a challenge to Israel's very existence. As a result the political and military rules of engagement between Israel and the Palestinians were dramatically altered.
The year 2001 will especially be remembered for the unforgiven attack on our way of life, with the images of the destruction of the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon defining our new perspective of ourselves and our nation. We can now allow ourselves to focus on the events of September 11, wage a successful war to eradicate the perpetrators, and be satisfied to end there or, use the war as a means to realize a broad international agenda that has the potential to yield far- reaching benefits globally.
It is time for the United States to realize that the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, has outlived his usefulness and continuing to support him will be to the detriment of Israeli-Palestinian peace. The notion that he is the lesser among evils and that the chaotic conditions within the Palestinian community make him indispensable is simply unfounded. Arafat himself has brought about the current mayhem, and only his departure will offer the possibility of restoring sanity to Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Winning the war for the hearts and minds of the peoples of the Muslim world may prove considerably harder than winning any military campaign. Our military victories will neither have any lasting effect, nor will we see the end of terrorism unless we persuade the Muslim masses that our war is against
Because of the diametrically opposite positions that Prime Minister Sharon and Chairman Arafat hold, it would seem most unlikely that the two leaders can agree on a peace agreement. Therefore, only the departure of both men from the political scene and the rise of new and moderate Israeli and Palestinian leaders can create the political environment necessary for peace. The Bush administration must adopt a new strategy that fully takes into account this political reality. Here is why … I begin with Mr. Sharon.
There is a growing consensus in the Bush administration and Congress that Iraq will be the next target in our war on terrorism. This consensus is based on the premise that Iraq has developed chemical and biological weapons, including Anthrax with delivery systems, and as such poses a clear and present danger to the United States and its allies. The problem we face is whether we should strike Iraq at all, and if so how and when so that we may serve much larger national concerns on the long road to combating terrorism than simply winning a war against that nation.
The question whether we should continue the war on terrorism during the holy month of Ramadan presents us with a critical strategic, ethical and diplomatic challenge. If we cease all hostilities in order not to offend the sensibilities of our Arab and Muslim friends, we could severely undermine our war efforts. If, however, we elect to continue with the war, we could unleash a tremendous backlash from the very nations whose support we seek.
Many Americans are perplexed about the connection between Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The fact that every known terrorist captured or being sought by the United States is of Arab or Muslim origin creates both real and imagined links that only add to the concern and confusion. To suggest that there is no connection between the two is wrong, but to view Islamic fundamentalism as synonymous with terrorism is just as wrong and misleading as well.
The question that has been much talked about in recent weeks is whether there is or there should be any connection between the war on terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those who claim there is no linkage are simply wrong. If a direct linkage did not exist before September 11th, it does now.