Your Feb. 14 editorial “The bankruptcy of occupation” attempted to suggest a solution to the question: why are the Palestinians “waging a new `intifada’ against Israel”? It is regrettable that the only mention of violence in the editorial characterizes it as “riots,” while ignoring the extensive use of illegal Palestinian arms in the hands of the Tanzim militia (including anti-tank weapons and mortars) and acts of terror against civilians (including children on school buses).
Choosing to describe the escalating Palestinian armed attacks of the last several months as an “intifada” (a spontaneous popular uprising), instead of a campaign of premeditated, organized aggression against Israel, does a great disservice to your readers. More important, it gives legitimacy to the perpetrators of these actions who look for any signs of support or sympathy from mainstream media.
The reality behind the terror campaign is obvious.
The first and most important reason is the refusal of Yasser Arafat and Palestinian leadership to embrace the principles for making peace, especially its most important aspect: never return to terror, never resort to violence. Contrary to that, and ignored in the editorial, is the fact that in Camp David II and later at Taba, Israel proved its willingness to make painful concessions with the clear aim of ending the conflict with the Palestinians. These proposed compromises on all the major issues, including settlements, were once again categorically rejected by the Palestinian Authority negotiators.
The fact that on the same day your editorial went to press, eight Israelis in their late teens and early 20s were intentionally run over by a Palestinian terrorist in central Israel (an action not condemned by the Palestinian leadership), is yet another consequence of not holding the Palestinian leadership accountable. It is also a terrible reminder that the terror imposed on Israel is neither limited to the territories nor to the issue of settlements.
The discussion of the “occupation” in both the title of the editorial and the statement “Palestinians will never acquiesce to a military occupier, not now, not ever” overlooks the fact that today, the Palestinian Authority administers 97 percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza–hardly a situation that can be honestly termed “occupation.” Furthermore, at the Camp David Summit in July 2000, Israel presented the Palestinians with an opportunity to achieve a fair permanent solution, which further addressed Palestinian aspirations. From Israel’s perspective, ending what the Palestinians view as “occupation” was therefore no longer an issue of contention.
Palestinian leader Ziyad Abu Ziyad is quoted as responding to the terrible bus terror attack of Feb. 14 as saying, “The occupation is to blame.” This tenuous Palestinian claim, indirectly supported by your editorial, that a perceived “occupation” can be seen as a justification for this or any act of terrorism, is disingenuous and fallacious.
Your piece also mentions the Oslo agreement with regard to the settlements. Nowhere in that agreement, however, is there any clause prohibiting construction in the settlements prior to the conclusion of a final agreement. Though a discussion of the settlement issue is valid, and was part of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, your statement that “Israeli bulldozers continue to knock down Palestinian homes to make room for Israeli development” was not. This statement, which is reminiscent of anti-Israeli propaganda, is regrettable and incorrect. It might only serve to encourage extremists in the Palestinian leadership and rejectionist groups who are propagating an all-or-nothing ultimatum, which might doom both the Israelis and the Palestinians to an everlasting conflict.
