Analysts like Aharon Levran and Gal Luft are certainly cognizant of the degree to which Israel has forgotten to emphasize deterrence, and their published work on the matter has reached many, probably including the Minister of Internal Security, Uzi Landau. But the fact remains that the Oslo process surrendered the principle of deterrence, as it was a gamble on goodwill for which there was no evidence. For two years, Israeli politicians (and to some degree even the security establishment) knew little about the real views, motives and tactics of the Palestinians they were negotiating with, or, for that matter, about their relative standing and influence within the PLO hierarchy. The premise of the politicians was that Arafat would destroy the infrastructure and raison d'étre of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine instead of leading them as he has done. This was an utterly improbable and irrational premise in the light of the terrorist record of the PLO (including Fatah) during the previous three decades. Within two years of the implementation of 'Gaza and Jericho first', it became crystal clear that Israel would have to deal with Palestinian terror on its own.
The price paid by the Palestinian Authority for murder is smaller than that paid by some other autonomous areas under close scrutiny from the democratic Western powers. However, parts of Africa and South and Central America are held to virtually no standard of behavior whatsoever. Nor are Islamic countries. Despite its massive EU financial sponsorship, the PA is no exception. On any rational assessment of punishments fitting the crime, crime detection and cooperation with neighbors, this autonomous entity's reputation should be so low as to make it a regime whose existence the West opposes. It is a pariah rogue entity and state in the making, which harbors terrorist organizations and is itself terrorist.
The Palestinian Authority's murderous resolves must be confronted by a force sufficient to deter them. International law approves such use of force, which remains the only means of defeating any aggressor. The failure of the appeasement of Hitler prior to World War II bears witness to this. The treaties that followed the defeat in battle of aggressive, ambitious despots usually proved long lasting. Treaties made with such dictators never did. These are the realities reflected by history of international relations.
So there can be no 'cycle of violence' issue in the conflict between Israel and the PLO any more than there could be a "'cycle of violence' issue in persevering with the war against Hitler. The only issue in both cases is how to wage the war. Those who do not want to fight should at least institute effective deterrence.
Arguing, as so many do, that "there is no military solution" is dishonest. The truth is that, until deterrence is made effective, there is no peaceful solution that the PA will implement and accept. The incitement to murder in Palestinian media and Palestinian schoolbooks should have made this abundantly clear. The reiteration of the 'Phased Plan' for Israel's destruction in Arabic, which is simultaneously camouflaged by lying propaganda in English and French, is proof positive of aggressive intent. In simple terms, enough force must be used to deter the crimes of constant murder and terror. The punishment to be expected must be too great for anyone to accept, however ideologically committed.
Academicians writing about proposed solutions for suicide bombing tend to suggest changes in Moslem societies. This tendency, characteristic of Left-wing intellectuals, is understandable but flawed. First, the solution is needed now - not in a remote utopian future, and secondly, it does not address the issue. The issue is how to compel accountability by deterrence, i.e. how to make the Moslem authorities under whose active or passive auspices suicide bombers are educated, trained and sent to do their deadly work fear to tolerate Islamic teaching of hatred and institutions that foster it. The latter are legitimate military targets. In the case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, if the Palestinian Authority refuses to liquidate these sources of terrorism the IDF should do so. And this means that the Palestinian security forces, which permit them to flourish and/or preach terrorism on Fridays in the mosques, must be punished too. Few outside the European Community would accept that terrorist institutions or the Governments sponsoring them are not morally justifiable military targets.
Some 80% of Palestinians polled support violence against Israeli Jews. So loss of water, electricity, media and electronic communications might provide social and collective disincentives to violence, where peace offers and talks have not. If violence persists, the next phase should be the arrest of the heads of Palestinian media and paramilitary organizations, who would stand trial for their crimes. Withdrawing the Israeli tanks would be taken as proof of irresolution and help the terrorists to carry on. And the situation is too far-gone to offer the carrot of a Palestinian state. During the last nine years, the Palestinians have proved themselves totally incapable of running a state that is not totalitarian and utterly corrupt. Moreover, on all past evidence, the goal of such a state will continue to be Israel's destruction, whatever its lying spokesmen say in public. What is needed now is a demonstration that the entire ethos and behavior of the Palestinian Authority cannot and will not be tolerated.
This kind of reasoning lies behind the US 'war on terror', but not behind the European and French appeasement of the PA. Israel cannot afford to indulge in futile ambivalence towards the murderers on its doorstep. It needs an information campaign to make the reasons for its policy plain. But it must also demonstrate resolve. For as long as it fails to do so, it advertises readiness to be deflected and no real intention to deal effectively with the deadly danger threatening it. It is hard for Israel's supporters abroad to argue the case for self-defense while Israel itself is half-hearted about implementing it. It is also hard to negotiate from a position that accepts amnesia as its starting point: a week of quiet is an insult to the families who have lost loved ones and disguises the real-life horror of the "low intensity" conflict waged by the PA.
Sadly, this failure is a betrayal of Government responsibility. It means that it does not matter what happens so long as the dream marches on. Even to mention allowing Arafat to leave Ramallah because three hoodlums are 'arrested' within the framework of the revolving door policy of the PA betrays a lack of willingness to grasp the nettle. The PA's real choice is between responsible and responsive Government in the autonomy area or Israeli actions to deter terrorism. Unfortunately, the Palestinian public seems even more fanatic and war loving than its leaders - not because it has no hope but because it still hopes to eradicate Zionism by terrorism. Neither the mindset nor the traditions of this public have any use for democracy. President Clinton may have connived in the corrupt 'elections' to the Palestinian 'assembly', but everyone knew that almost all the results were determined in advance and that "international supervision" could not eliminate the fears that those who urged people to vote otherwise risked persecution from Arafat's police and security services.
As both the goals of the Palestinian Authority and the character of the people it is ruling cannot be changed by any concessions it is offered, Israel's only safe choice is a deterrent posture that makes the PA fear the consequences of its violence.
