PERSPECTIVE ON ISRAEL : U.N. Slap Could Kill Peace Talks

Question: Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has called on President Bill Clinton to prevent the United Nations, through use of the U.S. veto in the Security Council, from voting for sanctions against Israel for the deportation of the 400 Palestinians to no-man’s-land in Lebanon. Why should the United States not join in such sanctions?

Answer: To start with, according to the U.N. Charter, sanctions should only be imposed if there is a threat to “peace and security.” There is no such threat as a result of the deportations.

Secondly, such sanctions would not solve the major problem: what to do against Hamas (the Islamic fundamentalist Palestinian group) and how to reduce terrorism. Who is going to punish the terrorists? The United Nations?

Thirdly, it should be said clearly that U.N. sanctions against Israel means killing the peace process. It would encourage the Arabs to take an even more extreme position. So, if people want to kill the peace process, sanctions against Israel are a good way to do it.

At this point, we have to look for a solution to the problems created by the terrorism and deportations. Sanctions are a punishment, not a solution.

The question now for Israel is how to avoid a collision course with the United Nations over this crisis in a way that will not enable Hamas to emerge as the triumphant party in the eyes of the Palestinians. One way to do this is legally, that is, for those who have been deported--and remember, the expulsion is not permanent, but for periods from nine months to two years--to appeal as individuals to the Israeli justice system so that they can demonstrate their innocence on a case-by-case basis.

Q: Of course, the United States and the United Nations are under pressure to act because of the apparent “double standard.” While the deportations by Israel apparently violated international law, every time Iraq breaches a U.N. resolution, it is hit militarily by the United States and its allies. And the United Nations has failed to act to protect the Bosnian Muslims.

A: If there is a double standard, it is against Israel, because there is no reference, in the recent U.N. resolution condemning Israel, to the Hamas terrorism for which the people were deported. The U.N. condemnation leaves the impression that Israel woke up one morning and on impulse decided to deport 400 Palestinians for no reason. How can you compare what we did with the Iraq invasion of Kuwait? The deportations were a reaction to the killing of some of our people, not an initiative of Israel in a vacuum. The nature of the two actions are completely different.

The United Nations is very inconsistent on these things. You know, every year the United Nations affirms a resolution calling on Israel to compensate Iraq for our attack years back on their nuclear power station. Yet, under U.N. blessing, Iraq is bombed regularly!

Q: Might there have been a better way for Israel to deal with Hamas other than this mass deportation?

A: The problem for Israel was that any kind of ordinary punishment would no longer impress these people. Some of them were already imprisoned, and it didn’t help. The Hamas actions finally reached a point where these people became extremely dangerous. They planned, among other things, to kill Faisal Husseini (the moderate Palestinian leader who is negotiating with Israel in the peace talks) and other Palestinians. It was necessary for us to take extraordinary measures.

Q: Was a fear that Hamas radicals would replace the moderate Palestinian leadership part of the logic of the Labor Party in recently pushing through the Knesset a lift on the ban on Israeli citizens talking to the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization)?

A: The problem of the Hamas, you see, reveals a deeper problem: Who can establish authority among the Palestinians? Maybe there is a majority among Palestinians for peace, but there is an armed minority that wants to kill peace. Now, if you don’t have the rule of the majority, you will have the rule of the minority with the guns.

That is why we are trying to impress the Palestinians with the need to hold elections. Without a leadership with the authority to pursue peace in the name of the majority that elects them, the fate of the Palestinians will remain hostage to those with the armed factions. The negotiation of a settlement with the Palestinians requires being able to deal with those who authoritatively represent their people.

I personally believe that 1993 is a decisive year. If we cannot accomplish what we should in this year, we will face a real lull that will open the way for additional problems that will make a settlement even more difficult.

In the months ahead, it is critical for all concerned that the Palestinians develop the authoritative strength that speaks for the whole of the Palestinians.