Palestinians must surrender unconditionally

Nabati is a third-year political science student.

By Benjamin Nabati

Even for the caveman’s wooden club, there was the shield.
Throughout history, there’s been a defensive methodology for
every aggression. The pattern of offensive countered by defensive
continues today as the world faces terrorism, the new offense.

Offense-defense is a force immune to human reconciliation. One
cannot sit a terrorist down, promise an incentive to cease and
desist murder and expect full commitment because terrorists do not
value the sacredness of life. And this is why the civilized
world’s defense shall require an unflinching policy ““
since compromise is a sign of weakness to terrorists.

After Sept. 11, there was no doubt that the United States’
enemies had to be stopped. And the campaign in Afghanistan
continues today as the war on terrorism expands to other fronts.
But Israel has faced terrorism since 1948, and it continues to
fight its eternal war for independence. Israel has the same right
to territorial sovereignty and protection of its citizens as the
United States; just as we can conduct our daily business without
unremitting fear, so should Israeli citizens.

There are several lessons we ought to inherit from history.

The first is that the policy of appeasement, as displayed at the
Conference at Munich in 1938, testifies that ceding to the command
and desires of any movement intent on destruction is disastrous.
Megalomaniacs always want more than you give them, e.g.
Hitler’s Nazism or today’s terrorism. The magnitude of
the first is unparalleled; however each are destructive movements
that collide with the ambitions of advanced civilization and as
such should not be tolerated or legitimized. We should not allow
today’s danger to threaten global stability as much as
Germany did in the last century. The United States and its allies
must not stop short of acceptance to the demand for unconditional
surrender, such as that demanded of Japan after the last world
war.

The United States must realize that the suicide bombers are
testing the effectiveness of terrorism as a method of achieving its
ends ““ and those pursuits threaten world order. Just as the
Spanish Civil War of 1936, as Thomas Friedman has argued, was a
testing ground for the warring powers of World War II, the
terrorists will eventually utilize this method against us and
Europe. Our justification for fighting the War on Terrorism is akin
to that of World War II; it is the fight for freedom and the
struggle to save civilization. We must destroy terrorism or else be
destroyed by it.

And Israel is a part of the fight. To date, Israel has lost
hundreds of lives at the hands of terrorists, which pro-rated is
equivalent to tens of thousands of American lives. The murder of a
fraction of that number on Sept. 11 made it clear that the United
States had to launch the War on Terrorism before it would strike
again. In addition, last October, extremists among Palestinian
ranks assassinated an active cabinet member of the Israeli
government, which is equivalent to an American secretary.

Yet despite this, Israel has continually been pressured to
negotiate with this same nefarious network headed by Arafat. Ariel
Sharon was chided when he made this comparison, but today it is
absolutely vital that Israel’s territorial sovereignty and
security not be bargained away to the desires of a hell-bent entity
in the interest of a third party (the United States) ““ just
as Czechoslovakia was in the Munich Conference of 1938.

President Bush should be wary not to repeat the most dangerous
blunder of the last century. If the United States were to follow
the policy it expects of Israel, it would invite the al-Qaeda
network to D.C., demand a promise to end violence and give them
everything west of the Mississippi.

But if the root causes of any clash are not fully addressed,
attacks targeting civilians, residual bitterness and animosity will
perpetuate the conflict.

This conflict is about terrorism, not occupation. Today, the
intentional targeting of civilians ““ for example, those
gathered around a Passover Seder table ““ is the root of the
problem. Terrorists struck the United States once in September, but
in Israel they are always active. Sharon’s wish for seven
days of quiet was never granted.

Israel also must limit civilian casualties. In its defensive
campaign throughout the Palestinian territories, Israel has
accidentally killed innocent civilians. But the major difference
has been terrorists’ targeting civilians in contrast to
Israel’s careful pursuit of known terrorists. If terrorist
bombers did not threaten Israel, the civilian casualties in Jenin
would have been completely prevented and not a single Israeli tank
would be in the territories. But danger still looms large for
Israel’s population and this is why the Israeli Defense Force
must live up to its namesake.

I realize that the Palestinian cause is national liberation. I
appreciate and honor this ambition. But think of this: if 1,000
Palestinians engaged in some form of nonviolent protest to agitate
for their sovereignty, they would have had their state literally
yesterday. Simply as a public relations tactic, this is effective;
who would be so bold as to reject it? This was one of former U.S.
President Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the Europeans would
undoubtedly support it as well.

In addition, Israel has always been willing to assist in the
establishment of a Palestinian state, but Palestinian leadership
has been the paramount obstacle all along. The Palestinians deserve
a reliable leadership committed to the people’s interest of
calm and hope. But, as Benjamin Netanyahu recently said, although
it took one Israeli Prime Minister to negotiate a truce with Egypt
in 1979, it has taken five to do so with one Arafat. I have faith
that there is someone other than a terrorist among Palestinian
ranks to take a leading role ““ one who sympathizes with the
Palestinian plight and someone committed to a better tomorrow for
his or her people.

It appears rational that a negotiated settlement is the optimal
outcome. War is simply an untenable circumstance. But a compromise
should involve only transparent parties truly committed to lasting
coexistence, where negotiation would be meaningful and devoid of
covert terrorists.

The enemy is not Palestinians, nor is it Israelis; it is
extremist violence, its impracticality and the suffering that
befalls each side.