From the WSJ Opinion Archives
THE REAL WORLD
'Process' of Elimination
Why does America ask Israel to let its people get blown up?
HERZLIYA, Israel--Much talk these days centers on the process we've come to call nation-building and the recognition that for peace, one needs democracy. So far, so good. The pity is that there is not more wisdom brought to bear on defending the democracies that already exist, especially that most beleaguered of all free states: Israel.
That might sound strange, given the billions the U.S. spends on Israel's military defense. But undercutting this effort for decades has been the strange history of Washington-backed peace-processing, in which Israel at every turn has been urged to do something that the U.S. itself immediately foreswore after Sept. 11--negotiate, compromise and above all show "restraint" with terrorists and their sponsors.
Sped along by questing for the holy Nobel grail (which Jimmy Carter just won and Bill Clinton did backflips for), the "peace process" established a routine in which violence against Israel would be answered with the international community reciting yet again the terms of unworkable deals. Everyone would then spend more time bargaining over what constituted an acceptable level of terrorism inflicted on Israel.
In theory, those days are over. Sort of. Yasser Arafat has lost his exalted status among U.S. policy makers as the only Palestinian in the world who could be capable of delivering peace. Even Human Rights Watch, not generally known as a backer of Israel, has condemned the murderous bombings of Israeli civilians as crimes against humanity.
President Bush, heeding the philosophy of Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky, has named democratization as the real solution for Palestinians, and a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Most importantly, if the U.S. goes through with removing Saddam Hussein, the rulers of the horrifically unfree Arab world will at long last receive a message that policies of menace and murder do not necessarily reward the killers.
But here in Israel the realities of peace-processing are still everywhere to be found, and they are horrifying. Earlier this month, I attended a conference at Herzliya, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv--the third round of what has become an annual event bringing together dozens of the most influential politicians and academics in Israel, as well as guests from abroad. Over three days, the discussions ranged as widely as one might expect in a free society heading for elections next month.
Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky gave his trademark presentation on the need for Arab democracy before any more peace-processing: "We can't negotiate with leaders who are not dependent on their people." Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that Palestinian leaders see the very existence of Israel as "an historic mistake that should be amended." Labor Party leader Amram Mitzna offered his latest rendition of what might be called the Neville Chamberlain position, that concessions offered under threat will bring peace.
From speaker after speaker came reminders that the threats Israel faces are simply enormous: bombs, germ warfare, the focused hostility of an entire Arab world in which rulers urge their subjects to vent their frustrations ever so prudently, by hating not their own oppressors, but the Jews. Saddam Hussein rewards the families of suicide terrorists with cash. Egypt--despite being paid by the U.S. to behave as one of the friendlier powers in the region--has been broadcasting the latest variant on the anti-Semitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," revamped for prime-time TV as "Horseman Without a Horse," a serial drama in 40 parts.
Iran and Syria support the arms buildup of one of the world's most ruthless terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, just north of Israel, in southern Lebanon. Palestinian television continues to engender a cult of terrorism, airing such stuff as poetry and music videos that tell children that the noblest goal in life, the way to make their mothers proud, is to die while murdering Israelis.
When you are actually sitting in a hotel near Tel Aviv, all this does not feel academic. Through Ben-Gurion airport, just before the conference convened, had passed the survivors of the terrorist attack last month on Israeli tourists in Kenya. Just a few miles up the road is the town of Netanya, where last March a bombing at a hotel killed 29 civilians and wounded more than 100. Within reach of an easy afternoon's drive are the sites of scores of other attacks that have killed almost 700 civilians and maimed thousands since Arafat called for the current intifada.
It's an intriguing exercise to imagine how the U.S. would respond if this were the tenor of life in, say, Massachusetts, which is about the size of Israel. Somehow, I doubt Colin Powell would be sent for tea and bargaining sessions with the sponsors of such activities. At least, I hope not.
In the face of all this, Washington's ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, delivered a dinner speech at the conference in which, nanny-like, he chided both the Israelis and Palestinians, reminding them all, in the phraseology of a group-therapy session, of "the need to make choices." There followed a more encouraging stretch in Mr. Kurtzer's speech, in which he also stressed the need to stop terrorists and their supporters. But then he got busy talking about "the road map" to peace, meaning a series of steps being hashed out somewhere in the State Department, that will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state.
The more Mr. Kurtzer talked about the road map "currently under discussion," the more it sounded like the latest buzzword for the "peace process." He described the road map, variously, as "an evolving document," "a scale model of reality" and "a living document that exists in the real world." At which point, I found myself listening for the real-world punctuation of a bomb blast somewhere down the road--though on that particular evening, especially with all that tight security for the dignitaries, it didn't happen.
The day after the conference, I went with another American journalist to have a look at Jerusalem, where a hospitable archeologist took us on an afternoon tour of the Old City. Our visit included a brief delay near the Western Wall, where, having already passed the metal detector, we walked into the middle of a bomb scare. So frequent are such threats that the people praying down by the wall scarcely paused as Israeli security forces cleared the plaza nearby and brought in a device to detonate a suspicious unclaimed package.
This one turned out to be a dud. We waited while from around the corner came the dull thud of the four small explosions needed to blow it up. As traffic resumed, and we passed yet another metal detector en route to lunch, our Israeli host noted that "we're the test. Whatever happens here is going to happen elsewhere."
Which brings me back to that "living" road map, the precise details of which have yet to be made public. The latest word is that the U.S. administration has wisely decided to hold off until after the Israeli elections, on Jan. 28. One might hope the delay has less to do with Israeli elections than with the likelihood that by late January the Middle East will have experienced the real change of course vital to creating any true hope of peace--the removal of Saddam Hussein. That would be the serious beginning of a policy that could offer the people of the Arab world the breathing room to direct at least some of their anger away from Israel and toward their own despots, who are the real source of the huge miseries of the Middle East.
Until that happens, there is no peace process, road map or other form of diplomatic fantasy worth bothering with. Israelis and Arabs are not the only ones making choices in the conflicts of the Middle East. I hope America itself chooses wisely.
Ms. Rosett is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Her column appears Wednesdays here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe.
