• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Nabati and Zakaria are both third-year political science students.

By Benjamin Nabati and Jacob Zakaria

“Arafat must work in the opposite direction as he has in the past” – and then shall peace reign, said Daniel Meridor, an Israeli Cabinet Minister, on the horrific evening of Dec. 1, 2001, when more than ten youngsters ages 14 to 20 were killed along with about 200 other casualties as a result of terrorist action.

Yasser Arafat has fostered terrorism. Though his venomous campaign with thirst for Jewish blood has not spewed forth from his mouth, he has several mouthpieces. His official spokesman incites extremist hatred among his people. Palestinian media outlets – irresponsible mechanisms for disseminating spite – have acted in the same vein.

As Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Prime Minister, said on Saturday as images of blood drenching the streets streamed into our living rooms, the world media would do well to judiciously monitor Palestinian propaganda – engines of enmity.

We caution that the problem is not Palestinians, but terrorism. There are good people and there are bad people – all races and ethnicities have a share of each among their ranks. However, there is not good terrorism and bad terrorism – all terrorism is pure evil, as National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice stated in September.

Peripheral forces have pushed for responsible leadership and enforcement by Arafat for years. During his tenure, more than 60 cease-fires have been broken. If he had delivered, the attacks of the intifada of the past 15 months would not have occurred.

Arafat has lost control. That any rational viewer can contend that during an intifada, the leader of that same community can be simultaneously dealt with and a broker for peace boggles the mind. Arafat is neither a representative nor responsible leader. He is no different from Osama bin Laden. Nor is he different from the Taliban. He is the only man who qualifies as both a terrorist himself and as someone who harbors terrorism.

Let us get into American demands regarding this ancient rift. The U.S. State Department has summoned the service of Generals Zinni and Burns. The minimal requirement for a peace deal is cessation of the perpetual cycle of violence. But the notion that there is a cycle of violence is itself a fallacy. A cycle implies a uniform plane. However, this “cycle” includes attacks against innocent civilians by terrorists, as Israel pursues known terrorists in a preemptive fashion. This is not a cycle – this is enforcement and punishment of barbaric asymmetry.

Israelis do not intentionally go after Palestinian civilians. The Israeli Defense Force gives more than 48 hours of warning time before a building verified as housing terrorist functions is destroyed, to clear away.

But we are not apologetic for this tactic. This probably worsens the problem. Why? Destruction of an urban structure is a public display of aggression – it only angers and indirectly recruits more terrorists. Israel should instead go after individual terrorists. Don’t we here in the United States believe that people kill people, that guns do not kill people? The Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms; guns are not the problem – evil is.

Geraldo Rivera, reflecting on the horror of that September morning, said that Americans have always had open arms and open hearts, however, now also have open eyes. But do they? President Bush has made it clear that bin Laden is wanted “dead or alive,” without judicial oversight and due process. But when Israel launches preemptive strikes against terrorists, it has been rebuked. The United States called upon President Parvez Musharaf of Pakistan for his help as a partner for democracy in Afghanistan when he himself overthrew the Pakistani government and staged a military coup to seize power. And now the United States expects Arafat, a terrorist, to stop terrorism.

The Koran states that the end of one life is the end of the world. We must be saving worlds. It is our moral obligation to judiciously remove terrorism, without exception. We must allow Islam to flourish in its pure form, in peaceful practice, as it was intended.

The Middle East is a multifaceted problem that cannot be solved with simple tasks or “quick fixes” as some suggest. It is a problem that even the most expert of diplomats today has a hard time dealing with. It is wrong and irresponsible for mere students to make blind propositions as to how to solve the problems of the Middle East.

For example, in his article, Gustavo Gutierrez states “Israel can alleviate the problems it faces by “compromise” and turning over “occupied territories.” (“Oppression is Same Problem Worldwide,” Daily Bruin, Dec. 3)

It is our understanding that if Israel were to “compromise” the current “Occupied Territories” then the landscape of the Mideast would reflect the pre-1967 one, when Israel’s Arab neighbors originally waged war upon it. Here we see that the return of the “Occupied Territories” is not the sticking point hindering the peace process.

Gutierrez also defends the inclusion of the “Free Palestine” turkey in the Arts and Entertainment section. (Daily Bruin, Nov. 16). The inherent problem with placing a statement such as “Free Palestine” in the Daily Bruin is that whatever media outlet publishes this subjective statement is implicitly consenting to it and disseminating it as the objective truth – this takes on characteristics of propaganda.

This Friday is the 60th Anniversary of the day of infamy – the day the Japanese fleet committed acts of war against America. Nearly three months ago, another such event shook America’s consciousness, although we concede delicate differences between the two events. Each precipitated a mandate for retribution. The events of this past weekend in Israel reflect similar reactions – and justice will be had against the perpetrators of atrocity.