King Hussein is Ill? Pressure Israel!

 
by Dr. Michael Goldblatt

Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer editorial writer, seems to have
an endless list of reasons why Israel should make more concessions to the
Arabs. Now she has added another one: King Hussein of Jordan is ill, so
Israel should hurry up and make more concessions before he passes away.
 
Does that make any sense? Of course not, but in the world
according to Trudy Rubin, making sense is less important than making Israel
surrender.
 
Hussein's current illness is an "omen" of possible danger, Rubin
wrote on the op-ed page of the Inquirer on July 24. "He has provided an
oasis of stability on Israel's longest border. The Mideast would be even
less predictable without his moderating presence." Therefore, Rubin urged,
Israel should make more concessions to Yasir Arafat and let Hussein play a
major role in an Israel-Arafat deal. Jordan, she said, could "act as
guarantor" for an Israel-Arafat agreement.
 
Think about that for a moment. King Hussein is gravely ill with
cancer. Yet Trudy Rubin thinks that Israel should surrender
strategically-vital territory and put him in charge of "guaranteeing" that
the Palestinian Arabs will be peaceful once they get the territory. And
what will happen if King Hussein's cancer proves fatal in the near future?
Who will "guarantee" Arafat's peacefulness then? Israel's land will be
long gone, and the Israelis will be left with a worthless piece
of paper signed by a dead king.
 
According to Rubin, Israel should promptly "carry out a further
pullback on the West Bank, as required by the Oslo peace agreement, in
return for stronger Palestinian commitments to crack down on extremists."
 
Notice Rubin's phrasing. She insisted that Israel's withdrawal is
"required" by the Oslo accord, but she didn't acknowledge that the
Palestinian Arabs are required to do anything. In fact, contrary to
Rubin's claim, Israel is not asking for "stronger" Arab commitments.
Israel is simply asking Arafat to fulfill the commitments he has already
made to fight terrorism--commitments he made in the original Oslo agreement
(Sept. 1993), as well as in the Gaza-Jericho agreement (May 1994), the Oslo
II agreement (Sept. 1995) and the Hebron accord (January 1997). Indeed,
the reason there is no peace today is precisely because Arafat has failed
to keep any of his previous commitments.
 
The accords are very clear about what Arafat is required to do,
including:
 
* He has to "discipline" PLO factions that continue to engage in
terrorism. Two PLO factions, the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, have
carried out dozens of terrorist attacks; but Arafat has never "disciplined"
or punished them in any way. He hasn't even kicked them out of the PLO.
 
* He has to honor Israel's requests to extradite terrorists to
Israel. Since 1994, Israel has submitted 36 such requests; Arafat has
ignored them all.
 
* He has to disarm terrorist groups. He's never done that; Hamas
and Islamic Jihad, operating right under Arafat's nose, have training
camps, safe houses, weapons depots, and tens of thousands of illegal guns.
 
* He has to change the PLO Covenant. Thirty out of its 33
articles call for
Continued on page 3
Spotlight on the Philadelphia Media - Page 3
 
 
Israel's destruction or urge violence against Israel. As part of Oslo I,
in 1993, Arafat promised to change it. In the January 1997 Hebron
agreement, Arafat again promised to change the Covenant, thus time pledging
to do so "immediately." That was more than a year and a half ago.
 
Somehow Trudy Rubin neglected to mention any of this.
 
Nor did Rubin explain why Israel has been insisting on a withdrawal
from 9% or 10% of the territories and resisting the Clinton
administration's demand for a 13% pullout. In a country the size of the
United States, a difference of 3% may not seem very significant. But in a
tiny country such as Israel, every percentage point represents an important
piece of land that can play a critical role in Israel's ability to defend
itself.
 
Rubin concluded her article by urging Israel's leaders to make the
"tough choice" to give up land in exchange for Arafat's promises. "King
Hussein's illness is a bracing reminder that it is dangerous to avoid tough
choices for too long," she wrote.
 
Rubin is wrong. Hussein's illness is actually a reminder of how
dangerous it would be for Israel to put its security in the hands of Arab
dictators. A dictator such as Arafat can sign a peace agreement, or a
dictator such as King Hussein can "guarantee" a peace agreement, but when
that one man dies, he could be followed by a successor who declares the
agreement null and void.