Let slip the dogs of peace

Under the New York Post’s previous two editorial page editors, Scott McConnell and the late Eric Breindel (I’m not counting the brief editorship of John Podhoretz), the Posts’ editorials were remarkably thoughtful, substantive, and well written—the best of any newspaper’s in the country. Under editorial page editor Bob McManus for the last several years, the editorials have typically consisted of a string of one-sentence paragraphs, very often five- or seven-word paragraphs coming one after another (see below), and enough inappropriately italicized words to rival the prose style of Helen Gurley Brown. When people write in disconnected fragments and ejaculations of thought rather than in complete paragraphs, it becomes harder and harder for them to think coherently. A remarkable example is this item on the latest mass murder of Jews in the Mideast “peace process,” in which the Post is simultaneously calling for war and for peace. Especially when you get to the last part, try to follow the contradictory twists and turns of this frenetic and confused editorial.

LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR

August 22, 2003—A moment of truth has arrived in the Middle East.

Indeed, the coming days will be a genuine test of whether peace there is possible—and it will be Washington, as much as the Palestinian Authority, that must answer some key questions.

The suicide bombing that took 20 innocent lives Wednesday effectively put an end to the temporary cease-fire declared seven weeks ago by terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Though many Israeli leaders feared—with good reason—that the terrorists would use the opportunity to regroup and rearm, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to cooperate.

Yesterday, Sharon made clear that Israel would not sit idly by while its citizens are murdered.

Israeli missiles took out Ismail Abu Shanab, a top Hamas commander, in Gaza. Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas labeled it “an ugly crime”—far stronger words than he’d used to describe the Jerusalem attack.

Sharon also warned that Abbas still is expected to fulfill his obligations under the U.S.-brokered road map to take “real and substantial steps” to dismantle the Palestinian terrorist groups—or else “it will not be possible to advance on the diplomatic track.”

Abbas has stubbornly refused to do that, saying that confronting Hamas and Islamic Jihad would provoke a Palestinian civil war. But no reasonable person ever believed lasting peace to be possible without such a conflict. So, bring it on.

Only when a single Palestinian faction has emerged in possession of a monopoly on political violence can serious negotiations begin.

Indeed, with all that Washington has invested in Abbas’ eventual success, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s solicitation of help yesterday from—of all people—Yasser Arafat was most puzzling.

“I call on Chairman Arafat to work with Prime Minister Abbas and to make available to [him] those security elements that are under his control, so that they can … end terror, end this violence,” said the secretary.

It is hard to take seriously the notion that Yasser Arafat—who so clearly seeks to topple Abbas and restore his own position as the Palestinians’ undisputed leader—will lift a finger to end terrorism.

Arafat personifies terrorism.

Moreover, for 10 years now Arafat and the Palestinians have been required by their own signed agreements to put an end to terrorism, and have refused.

Each time, the United States has given them a pass.

Maybe that was necessary in the past.

But surely it no longer is.

Washington needs to make it clear to all parties—including Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia—that a real peace process is irrevocably under way.

And that interference simply will not be tolerated.

For all the seeming distractions in Iraq—and the situation is not nearly as chaotic as it seems—Washington is in a position to enforce its conditions.

That’s what Operation Iraqi Freedom was all about, was it not?

President Bush correctly says that victory in the War on Terror will be a long time coming.

A potentially decisive battle in that struggle appears to be under way.

Real peace hangs in the balance.

Let the next cease-fire be permanent.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 22, 2003 04:37 PM | Send