Arafat’s Leninist Strategy
Worse is Better.
By Gerald M. Steinberg
Yasser Arafat remembers at least one important principle of scientific
Marxist-Leninist thinking from his days as an honored guest in the Kremlin during
the golden era of the Communist empire. In true Leninist fashion, Arafat believes that
"worse is better," and the more that Palestinians are seen as victims, the greater the
international pressure on Israel. (In Lenin's case, the victory was short-lived, and the
Russian people are still digging themselves out.)
To promote this strategy, 18 months ago Arafat (the Noble Prize
winner) set out with the objective of using escalating terrorist attacks
to goad Israel into a major military response. This would then lead to
intervention by the reliably naïve "international community" (the U.N.,
European Union, Norway, etc.), which would force Israel back to the
1949 cease-fire lines (often described, mistakenly, as the "1967
borders"). Arafat would then have a state on his own terms, without
any treaties, and Israel would be totally isolated and ready for the next
phase in its demise. In true Leninist fashion, the high number of
Palestinian casualties and the destruction of any economic
infrastructure that managed to survive Arafat's corruption and
cronyism, were signs of success.
The Israeli government was aware of Arafat's strategy, and Ariel
Sharon has been careful to avoid falling into this trap. He waited
patiently, minimizing the use of Israeli military capabilities despite the
escalating terror attacks, and absorbing a great deal of criticism from
his core constituency in the process. However, the Passover massacre in Netanya was
too brutal too let pass, and signaled the beginning of an all-out military response to
destroy the Palestinian terror network built up over the past eight years under the
façade of the Oslo process.
This network was well dug in, and in centers such as the Jenin refugee camp, extensive
underground tunnels and bunkers were filled with explosives and readied for
detonation when Israeli troops entered. Families in the upper stories of these buildings
provided cover and protection against air strikes (the same strategy used by Arafat in
Beirut, and now adopted by Hezbollah and other terror groups around the world).
As a result, when the IDF rolled into the Jenin camp and began the house-to-house
searches, the Palestinians started detonating the explosives and buildings collapsed.
Israel's heavily armored bulldozers and tanks followed, and in the intense warfare that
lasted for days, 23 Israeli soldiers died, including 13 when Palestinians detonated
dozens of bombs in a building they were searching. The number of Palestinians killed
in the destruction remains unknown, and this, as well as the automatic sympathy for
Palestinian victimization, and the combination of massive ignorance and hostility
within the "international community" and media, created the environment for the tales
of carnage and massacre.
For Arafat, this was another golden opportunity to advance his strategy of
self-destruction. On CNN, the BBC, and all other available media outlets, Palestinian
officials shrilly declared that over 500 civilians were buried in the rubble. Following
their Pavlovian imprinting, the U.N. officials, European diplomats, hysterical
journalists (primarily from Europe and from Arab countries) immediately began to
repeat the Palestinian tales of "massacre." The hundreds of black-clad terrorists who
were seen marching in Jenin a few weeks earlier with their Kalachnikov rifles and
explosive belts, declaring their readiness to kill Israelis, had suddenly been abducted
by aliens and removed to another planet. The rocket propelled grenades and other
weapons fired at the IDF in Jenin were apparently imaginary.
Israel's guilt was confirmed by the claims that the government and IDF had refusal to
allow independent observers, humanitarian aid agencies and journalists to verify the
Palestinian claims, and therefore had something to hide. Indeed, Israel had designated
the areas in which the fighting was taking place as closed military zones. This was, in
part, an effort to avoid situations in which journalists and international aid workers are
hit in the fighting, and then blame Israeli troops (more Pavlov) for deliberately firing
on these self-styled heroes. In addition, the absence of professional standards
combined anti-Israeli biases and herd behavior in the journalistic community led
Israeli decision makers to conclude that it was better to keep them as far away as
possible. In revenge, the reporters insert the word "massacre" repeatedly in their
stories, balanced, in a few cases, with a cursory mention of the absence of any
evidence and Israeli denials.
The "blame Israel" chorus also features U.N. and international humanitarian-aid
officials whose biases and lack of professionalism is even more blatant. U.N. special
Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen has appeared on every television-news program
on the planet to denounce Israeli actions, declaring that there could be "no moral
justification" for the destruction of center of the Jenin refugee camp. (For Larsen, any
use of force in Israeli self-defense is clearly immoral.) He did not mention the
possibility (indeed, the probability) that most of the destruction was caused by the
bombs detonated by the Palestinians, or that this was the center of the terror network.
Apparently, his good friend, the president of Palestine, did not share his Leninist
strategy that "worse is better" with the U.N. envoy.
Larsen also attacked Israel for allegedly turning back "international search and rescue
teams" that had lined up to find the bodies buried in the rubble. This is another example
of blatant bias — in other words, a lie. The IDF did not turn back any teams, but
insisted, for good reason, on checking each team after some terrorists were smuggled
out in this way. Of course, due to bias or Palestinian threats, the international
humanitarian groups refused these conditions. As a result, the failure to provide
assistance was not due to the IDF, but rather another key dimension in Arafat's Leninist
strategy.
Now that at least this round of the fighting is over, the real humanitarian crisis is
beginning. Up to 2,000 people from 100 buildings in the camp (out of 1,100 total — not
quite the devastation usually described) are now homeless, and without food or water
supplies. However, the number of individuals and agencies qualified to deliver aid
without engaging in destructive propaganda is very small. Many of the
non-governmental organizations and aid agencies, including the International
Committee of the Red Cross, are tainted by their support of anti-Israel political
agendas. Self-declared "peace protesters" are more interested in the publicity and
propaganda than in actually helping people. By adopting a policy of confrontation with
Israel (and bringing compliant journalists), these propagandists know that any
packages, like Larsen's rescue teams, will be carefully searched for bombs, while they
publicize allegations of Israeli interference and delay in the transfer of food and
medicine.
U.N. agencies, in general, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, in
particular, provide poignant examples of this catastrophic situation. In the 52 years of
its "temporary" existence, UNRWA has become part of the problem, rather than
providing a solution. In addition to the humanitarian aid, including food, health,
education, housing, and other services, UNRWA has also become an central component
in the Palestinian political structure. UNRWA is allowed to operate in the camps as
long as it cooperates with the political "rules of the road", determined by the gunmen,
thugs and terrorists from Fatah, Hamas, and other militias. In UNRWA-operated
schools, the texts of anti-Israeli incitement and rejectionism are part of the standard
curriculum. UNRWA facilities have been routinely used as warehouses for weapons
storage and for bomb-making factories. UNRWA director Peter Hansen stumbled
through an interview on BBC's Hardtalk with Tim Sebastian, unable to dispute the
evidence. Any director who would not have been willing to do Arafat's bidding would
have been forced out long ago. As a result, UNRWA cannot be entrusted with the job of
providing humanitarian relief under the current circumstances, and the sooner it is
closed, the better.
Another group, Human Rights Watch, has played a leading role in the systematic
delegitimization of Israel. HRW frequently supports groups that publish unverified or
patently false claims regarding Israeli prisons and on policy regarding weapons such
as landmines. From an Israeli perspective, HRW is not a humanitarian agency, but
another hostile political organization. If members of this group were allowed to enter
the Palestinian areas, even on a humanitarian mission, past behavior shows that they
would use this opportunity to increase the volume of anti-Israeli propaganda that is
used to justify more homicide bombings.
Together, the U.N., HRW, and other groups, such as Amnesty International, as well as
many governments, also share major responsibility for the fiasco of the Durban
process. The Durban "anti-racism" conference held in September marked a major step
in the campaign to delegitimize Israel and promote anti-Semitism. While the U.S.
government had the moral fortitude to walk out, other groups stayed on and joined the
process.
A few days ago, the 53-member U.N. Human Rights Commission (with the important
exceptions of Canada, Britain, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Guatemala) voted to
condemn Israel for "acts of mass killings," and supported Palestinian "armed struggle"
(in other words, terror attacks). The members of the UNHCR (mainly from the
European Union) and its leader, Mary Robinson, have consistently demonstrated that
the anti-Israeli agenda, and not morality, has priority. Similarly, politicians such as
Ann Clwyd (a British MP), who visited Jenin to highlight concerns for the "suffering
Palestinians", are tainted by propaganda. In an interview with the BBC, Clwyd
repeated a conversation with an unnamed U.N. representative in Gaza (probably an
UNRWA employee) "who told me … of an Israeli colonel who unless he managed to
shoot seven Palestinians in the leg each day, then he considered that he had had a bad
day." The ease with which Clwyd accepted and eagerly repeated this tale is a
reflection of the depth of her humanitarianism.
For the past 54 years, Palestinian suffering has been exploited by the politicized aid
agencies and the governments that support them. Once again, it is not Israel that is
blocking aid, but rather the members of these groups, who have exploited fundamental
ethical principles to further the goals of destroying Israel and spreading anti-Semitism.
The time for dismantling these U.N. groups and NGOs and creating new, apolitical and
professional aid agencies is long overdue. This won't change Arafat's Leninist strategy,
but it will limit the degree of assistance he gets under the guise of humanitarian aid.
— Gerald Steinberg teaches politics and heads the Program on Conflict Management
and Diplomacy at Bar Ilan University in Israel.
nationalreview.com |
