From the WSJ Opinion Archives
AT WAR
Indict Arafat
No need to kill him, just put him in the dock.
President Bush's characteristically blunt assignment of responsibility for the Gaza Strip bombing that killed three Americans Wednesday--he blamed Yasser Arafat--was right on the mark. Even if Arafat didn't have a direct hand in the attack, there is no doubt that his policy has been one of sheltering and encouraging fellow terrorists. The question now is whether the U.S. will finally encourage Israel to deal decisively with the Palestinian terrorist-in-chief. One option well worth considering is indictment and trial.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend the half-measures with which the Jewish state has been tackling a problem largely, and tragically, of its own making. It was Israel, after all, that decided in 1993 to install Arafat as potentate of Gaza and the West Bank. Even amidst the heady rhetoric of the early "peace process," Israel's Labor government confessed to its cynical reasons for inking a deal with the Palestinian strongman. Arafat, said Yitzhak Rabin, could take on Hamas (then a minor problem) without interference from a supreme court or human rights organizations.
But it quickly became clear that Arafat was in fact still backing terrorists, and ever since he rejected Ehud Barak's generous settlement offers, Israel has been at a loss for how to respond. Brutal operations like Defensive Shield have done temporary damage to the terror networks, but solved nothing. The U.S. attempt to sideline Arafat by creating the post of Palestinian prime minister has borne little fruit. Israel is now reduced to building a West Bank security fence that may well prove troublesome for suicide bombers, but creates serious hardships for ordinary Palestinians and all but queers the chances that any moderate Palestinian leaders will emerge.
Israel defends the barrier by pointing out that next to no suicide bombers emerge from Gaza, which is already contained. But surely the more salient fact is that next to no suicide bombers emerged from anywhere before Arafat's arrival in 1994. In fact, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel without incident. Arafat is the problem; getting rid of him should be the solution of first resort.
Israel has at least recognized this in principle, with the cabinet voting last month to "remove" him. Exile has been mooted as an option, as has killing him. Predictably, the U.S. State Department worries that any move against Arafat would permanently inflame the Arab street, while Europe insists that Arafat is entitled to all the legal protections of a head of state.
But there are other reasons to oppose exile and death. Abroad, Arafat would still control the Palestinian movement, just as he did during his days in Tunis. Arafat's death would free the world from having to reckon with his crimes.
If Israel is going to run the risk of martyring Arafat, it might as well stand Europe's cynical posturing about the rule of law on its head by indicting and trying the man in an Israeli courtroom. It is a universally accepted principle that states have jurisdiction over crimes committed on their territory and against their nationals. Last month, mid-ranking Palestinian terror chief Marwan Barghouti wrapped up his defense in just such a trial.
Imagine it: the world's attention focused on decades worth of documents and communications intercepts linking Arafat to numerous and horrific acts of murder. It would be interesting, to say the least, to hear Jacques Chirac or the self-styled human rights community explain why Milosevic deserves The Hague and Arafat their adulation. And what better way for Israel to make the point that, for all the posturing at the U.N., "international law" does not oblige it to let the Palestinians bomb their way to a state? Talk about forcing a moment of moral clarity.
Trying Arafat would have its risks. But the risk of permanently antagonizing the Palestinians is grossly exaggerated, especially when compared to the antagonism created by the counter-terror measures necessary to preserve Arafat in power. Israel might take the moment of arrest or trial to affirm its commitment to Palestinian self-government in Gaza and the vast majority of the West Bank. Some symbolic settlement withdrawals wouldn't hurt. A full but temporary reoccupation to clear the terror networks and prepare for truly fair Palestinian elections could be considered. But one thing would be made clear: that criminal leaders will not merely be marginalized or ignored, but brought to justice.
There are of course reasonable arguments to be made against any such "solution" to the conflict. Muddling through until Arafat dies or the Palestinian people themselves take his fate into their own hands is an option. But that might be a very long time, and the costs may be very high. Having encouraged Israel's near-suicide pact, the U.S. certainly has an obligation not to stand in Ariel Sharon's way should he decide to fully repudiate it. It's time to make an example of Arafat and offer an olive branch to his people.
Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at the Journal.
