Israel Tries to Do Its Part : Troops sent in to quiet down settlers; will PLO act with equal firmness?

If peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization fall apart, it probably won’t be because Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s government and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat couldn’t strike a deal, but because of the unnatural alliance tacitly entered into by Israeli and Palestinian foes of a peace accord.

Since the Israeli-PLO breakthrough in early September, a dozen Israelis and 20 Palestinians have been killed. Most of those killings had the specific political purpose of raising tensions and eroding confidence in the peace negotiations. The cycle of violence that has occurred mainly on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip typically follows a pattern of Palestinians murdering an Israeli--any Israeli apparently will do--and Israelis, mainly settlers, responding by lashing out against any Palestinians who are unlucky enough to be close by. It is precisely because the innocent suffer most under this mindless pattern of random aggression that its political impact is so great.

Can the violence be controlled? Certainly more can be done to moderate it. This week the Israeli Cabinet, in a bold decision of major political implications, decided to send more troops into the disputed territories. The army’s primary mission will still be to provide security for the 125,000 Israelis living in the territories. But in maintaining order, the military for the first time has also been explicitly authorized to use force against any Israelis who act outside the law, including by attacks on Palestinians and Palestinian property. The immediate purpose is to safeguard the peace process from subversion by violence. The larger purpose, says Health Minister Chaim Ramon, is to preserve Israel’s democracy.

“If they (extremist Israeli settlers) succeed in enforcing their position by violence,” noted Ramon, “then it will become a legitimate political instrument.” No government can tolerate that. No democracy based on the rule of law can allow the state’s necessary police powers to be usurped by vigilantes. At issue, as Ramon correctly suggests, is not just the survival of the peace process, but the integrity of the Israeli political system.

The possibility that Israeli soldiers might be ordered to use force against Israeli settlers who are also armed raises a prospect of internecine conflict not seen since the earliest days of the Israeli state, when armed right-wing extremists briefly challenged the authority of the constituted government.

The Israeli Cabinet’s decision betokens a readiness to take what could be highly unpopular actions to protect the peace process. The PLO, which surely must be able to identify those in the Palestinian population who are committed to terrorism, must show that it can act with equal boldness and firmness.