'Where are we heading?'

December 3, 2002

For those who wondered whether the Israelis were weary enough of the Palestinian terror attacks to try a different approach, the resounding Likud primary victory of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week and his strong lead in the polls for the January general election send an unmistakable message: No.

There's a war going on, and Israelis remain reluctant to change leaders even though Sharon, with his tough military tactics, has been unable to deliver on his 2001 election promise to end the terror attacks. Voters rejected even tougher measures suggested by Sharon's primary opponent, Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His campaign promises included exiling Arafat and scuttling any notion of a Palestinian state.

There are voices on both sides suggesting different ways to break the bloody stalemate. Sharon's challenger in the general election, Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna, proposes to resume talks with the Palestinians immediately and begin dismantling Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip, among the most difficult to defend. If the talks fail, he would also remove other settlements, this time in the more populous and politically sensitive West Bank. Mitzna's point is that Israel should retaliate against terror attacks, but also keep talking with the Palestinians. That makes sense, but after suffering through so many horrendous suicide attacks, Israelis clearly respond more to cries of revenge.

Meanwhile, the voices of dissent on the Palestinian side, though faint, continue to be raised.

Mahmoud Abbas, a top deputy of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, told a closed-door meeting of leaders last month that taking up arms against Israel has been a mistake and should be stopped.

"If we do a calculation of the gains and losses . . . we will see that without any doubt . . . what we lost was big and what we gained was small," Abbas said. "We should ask ourselves, `Where are we heading?'"

That's the critical question for both sides.

Polls continue to show many Israelis favor dismantling most of the settlements. But unlike the unilateral withdrawal urged by Mitzna, most Israelis would agree to the action only in exchange for a peace agreement. Both sides are going to need help--from the U.S. particularly--just getting to the bargaining table.

The Israelis don't trust Arafat, for good reason. Arafat has proven time and again that he is untrustworthy as a peace negotiator and unwilling to rein in terror attacks. A recent report from Human Rights Watch excoriated Arafat for failing to investigate, arrest or prosecute terrorists, and for funneling money to them. Those attacks, it said, "amounted to war crimes and in the cases of suicide bombings, crimes against humanity."

Arafat is expected to be re-elected easily in upcoming elections. Sharon has rejected talks until the terrorism stops. That virtually guarantees that the stalemate will continue.

When Mitzna was asked recently how there could be any value in talks with Arafat, based on Israel's previous experiences with him, he told reporters: "I don't believe in Arafat or his people. I only believe in the vital interests of the state of Israel."

It's in the vital interests of both sides to ask whether Sharon and Arafat are the right leaders to find a path to peace--or even a return to negotiations. Maintaining the status quo, a cycle of violence, is hardly a comforting prospect.