PERSPECTIVE ON THE HEBRON MASSACRE : Security Cuts Both Ways

Perhaps the most telling picture of Friday’s tragedy at Hebron was that of extremist Jewish settlers cheering Baruch Goldstein for killing so many Arabs. It showed that Jewish settlement was no vanguard action or security tactic; Jewish settlement is a racist expansionist policy that ultimately aims at “ethnically cleansing” the Palestinian territories of their indigenous Arab population. But, unlike the Deir Yasin massacre of 1947, the Palestinians this time will not be driven from their homeland no matter how brutal the Zionist terror is.

The tragic and cowardly act of the settler Goldstein bursting into the Ibrahim Mosque with an assault rifle revealed one of the biggest pitfalls in the current peace talks: The agenda calls for a delay in dealing with the issue of settlements until the second phase of negotiations at least three years from now. With little real support from the Arab world, and without any pressure on Israel from the United States, PLO leaders were forced to accept a deal according to Israeli conditions.

Four months were wasted as Israel mercilessly kept the presure on Palestinians by demanding exaggerated security conditions in order to protect Jewish settlers ever-ready to take advantage of their situation. The Palestinians’ demands for the security of their unarmed population were disregarded as a negotiating tactic. Even the clear erosion of support for the Palestine Liberation Organization and the peace process did not dent the Israelis’ insistence on getting the most from their weak Palestinian counterparts.

The Israelis wanted to have their cake and eat it, too: The government wanted the appearance of a peace process, international normalization and support without giving up land or dealing with difficult issues, such as the illegal settlers and their activities.

Now that this tragedy has befallen us, some Israeli cabinet ministers are finally admitting that their government has been too lax with the Jewish settlers. Arms were distributed to them upon request, even to those convicted of killing Palestinians. One of the settler leaders in Hebron, Rabbi Moshe Levinger, handed over his gun as he went into jail to serve a four-month term for killing an innocent Palestinian shopkeeper in Hebron a few years ago. When he walked out of jail, his gun was handed back to him and he was given a hero’s welcome by the settlers.

Palestinian outrage after the terrible massacre on Friday quickly centered on the need for the PLO to walk out of the peace talks. Chairman Yasser Arafat might find himself forced to do just that unless he can show his people that peace is worth the sacrifice.

Ever since the process began with the first talks in Madrid, Palestinians have been more than willing to give peace a chance. Palestinian stone-throwers instead presented Israeli soldiers with olive branches in a gesture of peace. But since that date, the lot of Palestinians has not changed.

Under the Likud government, illegal Jewish settlements continued to be built; former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir has admitted that he would have dragged the talks out for 10 years. The victory of the Labor Party renewed Palestinians’ faith in the peace talks. Palestinians were willing to give the declaration of principles signed in Washington on Sept. 13 a chance, even though it reflected Israeli demands more than Palestinian aspirations. But Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s government refused to show the Palestinian population any sign of peace unless the PLO gave in to his demands for the illegal settlers and total security on the borders.

The 27 years of Israeli occupation have been based on the warped concept that might is right; instead, right is might. The unarmed and politically weak Palestinians cannot do much to improve the present balance of forces. The only way out is for the sponsors of the Middle East peace process to act morally in order to correct the imbalance in the peace talks. PLO leaders agreed to President Clinton’s request to go to Washington with the hope that the United States will act in accordance to the principles and values that have made it the world’s leader. Only a summit of the top decision-makers and the strong involvement of the President of the United States made peace between longtime enemies possible at Camp David. What is needed now is for the current leader of the free world to act with the same decisiveness that he employed last week against Serb aggression.