Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: A timely timeout

Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2000 | 9:30 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

The prime minister of Israel is a master of understatement.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced Sunday that Israel was taking a "timeout" in his efforts to find a way to peace with the Palestinians. Of course, this oh-so-obvious message was met with boos, catcalls and serious threats of increased violence by Yasser Arafat and his minions, who have tried the past three weeks to convince the world that the ugliness we watch daily in the Middle East is Israel's fault. He has tried to do so in vain.

It has been clear, in spite of the lopsided news coverage, especially by CNN, that the deaths and injuries incurred by mostly Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been a direct result of Arafat's own actions or, to be charitable, inactions. For whatever reasons, and there are people far smarter than me who can opine as to his strategic goals or lack of them, Arafat has refused to stop the gangs of evildoers who are fomenting trouble in the streets of the Middle East with impunity and, some reports tell us, with the connivance and support of the Palestinian Authority. In short, the man who revels in the world's belief in his ability as a peacemaker is doing his best to undo all that has been achieved since the start of the Oslo Accords.

When President Clinton dropped what he was doing to convene an emergency summit in Egypt last week, he did so with the hope that the parties to the ongoing conflict really wanted peace. He flew all night with the belief that they were acting in good faith and with a clear picture in their minds of a future in that part of the world that was defined by peace and prosperity rather than anxiety and bloodshed. And it appears that the Arab countries that participated -- and with whom Israel has reached peace agreements, in spite of the rhetoric for public consumption -- held the same belief and saw the same picture.

Clinton achieved what very few on this planet could have and that was a commitment by both Barak and Arafat to go home and undertake certain steps that would stop or lessen the cycle of violence so that rationality could prevail and the road to peace could, once again, be traveled. That was last week. This week it appears that either Arafat had no intention of doing what was required or has no ability to do what he promised. Either way, the result is more deaths and more hurt and more ill will that is building steadily toward what many believe will be the next bloody conflict in that long conflicted and very vital part of the world.

I have been one of the people in this country who believed that Arafat was the best chance for Israel to make a peace that had a chance because, looking around that part of the world, there are no obvious choices for next in line. All we can see coming up behind Arafat is a group of bloodlusters who are irrational, ill-advised and irresponsible, and that is not the way to go toward a lasting peace. By the process of elimination, then, Arafat was the only guy with whom the Israelis could talk and who, seemingly, could sway his people down a more peaceful path.

Today it looks like we were wrong in believing that Arafat could swing this peace deal. He appears either impotent, fearful or two-faced, none of the qualities that make great leaders out of lesser men. In fact, taking the unkind but circumstantially supported position of many of my friends, it is more than obvious that Arafat is just playing the game of peace while trying to make his next move toward war. Regardless, the fact remains that he has proved incapable of stopping the violence and, truth be told, is the one man most responsible for the deaths that occur daily.

So now it is Barak's turn to try to make some sense out of his own efforts to guide Israel toward a lasting peace with the Palestinians. He, too, believed that Arafat was the only guy who could give peace a chance. He has been burned innumerable times as a result and has watched his countrymen die at the hands of murderous mobs. He needs a timeout. That's the understatement.

I think the whole world needs a timeout. We need to rethink the reasons why Israel believed Arafat was the right person with whom to deal and whether a deal with the Palestinians is in Israel's interests. We need to rethink the risks of not achieving success: to Israel, to the Middle East and to the rest of the world, which will not be spared the consequences of a modern day holy war. That is a much bigger timeout than just a respite from the bargaining table.

First we need to be clear. The United States and its leadership has been absolutely right in trying to bring the parties together, even when they didn't want to do so, in an effort to find a solution. Left to their own devices, history has proved that armed conflict was the only alternative for Israel and her neighbors. And in large measure the U.S. efforts have been rewarded with a peace between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan. There are relatively quiet borders with Lebanon and Syria and, until recently, apparent progress toward a workable solution to the Palestinian dilemma. It also, as an aside, points very clearly to the need for a strong United States with a leadership that is visionary, capable and articulate on the very complex issues that could ignite the tinderbox of Mideast flames.

It is easy, looking at the pictures and knowing what is happening over there, to say to Israel, "unleash the dogs of war and protect your people from this unholy outrage being visited upon you." And as much as I would like to join in that refrain, I find it difficult to do so without having a clearer picture of what happens next. For all I see -- if Israel does have to protect itself to the fullest extent that modern warmaking allows -- is far too many dead people and a call to the nutcakes around the world to fan the flames of violence globally. That can't possibly be a good result.

So a timeout is good. It makes sense. Barak has the ability and the strength to protect his people and defend his country. About that there is no question. But finding a way to peace through this maze of bloodshed and double-dealing takes a level of intelligence and patience in the face of body counts that Barak certainly has and, I think, must be willing to employ.

As for the other guy, I am not so sure. If he can't or won't continue to be a partner for peace, then I believe the United States -- and other countries who have so much at stake should the worst happen -- need to take it upon themselves to implore the other countries in the region to stand up against this outrage. No more rhetoric of fear, no more unity for the sake of some outmoded cause. If we have friends and allies in the area, let them stand with us against the absurdity that may follow. That will take courage, of course, and probably lots of money.

Maybe we all need a timeout to determine if we have enough of each.

archive