"We will not tolerate such acts." So declared Palestinian security advisor Jibril Rajoub in a New York Times article following the February 25 murders of five young Israelis waiting in line at a Tel Aviv nightclub.
Too late. The Palestinian leadership already did "tolerate such acts."
The Times article opens by posing the wrong question: "A month after it was reached, is the truce between the Israelis and Palestinians gaining traction or starting to slip?"
Five young Israelis die in a bombing, and perhaps the truce is "starting to slip?"
A far more practical question: Why should Israel bother pursuing a diplomatic relationship with the "Palestinians?" It is getting tougher to find a reason.
The Arabs talk of rounding up the culprits, one victim's father vows revenge, Israelis concede that the Palestinian leadership has taken positive steps and the Times account takes note of the reduction in violence.
Just one drawback: They cannot return life to the bodies of the five Israelis. They were murdered in what, plain and simple, was an act of war; and there have been other acts of war. Israel has every right to officially declare a state of war. Not that I'm advocating such a course. It is far too complicated for that. However, on its merits, the February 25 bombing in Tel Aviv was an act of war, and that has been followed by lesser acts of war in which innocent people were wounded or endangered.
An obvious obstacle to retaliation is, well, who does Israel retaliate against? There has been confusion over who did it and how they are supported. Israeli officials have accused Syria of being behind the attack, but nobody knows for certain.
The Palestinian Authority cannot be blamed, it would seem. Yet, this bombing was the latest fatal manifestation of the Arab world's hostility toward Israel that has endured for more than a century. Palestinian leaders may well sympathize with the victims' families and wish they could turn the clock back, but they have been part of this conflict for decades.
The Arab world created this aggression and lost control of it long ago. Some Arabs entered the war against Israel willingly, some felt overwhelming pressure to fight Israel while making overtures for peace behind the scenes. Some Arab leaders, such as the late King Hussein of Jordan, were freed by events of recent years to alter their approach. Other Arab leaders changed both their approach and attitudes. All the same, together, they contributed to the environment that fed the Tel Aviv killings.
The most realistic alternative to negotiations for Israel would be to pull out of many of the settlements and wall itself off from the Palestinians. If terrorists manage to strike Israel in some way, such as with rocket attacks, Israel can then retaliate in any manner that is effective.
Israel is still working with the Palestinian Authority, and maybe it should. But with the finality of the five deaths, it is hard to accept that.
The Times story, published on March 6, ticked off a series of violent incidents which have occurred in the past few weeks, including a shootout at a Palestinian police station in Jenin, the explosion of a car bomb that injured five Palestinians and discovery of a rocket-making factory. All that list does is compound the case for complete separation.
It would be ideal if Israel and the Palestinians could build a serious relationship. Both sides would benefit. Cooperation between the two parties would facilitate the ready provision of services and the flow of trade, and strengthen their relationships with other nations, which can help them both. As long as they can work together, Israel should do all it can, within reason, to help the Palestinians get on their feet.
Yet, Israel must still be careful and prepared for the day when it may need to break off relations with the Palestinians. Excusing the murders of five of its citizens is not within reason.
Too late. The Palestinian leadership already did "tolerate such acts."
The Times article opens by posing the wrong question: "A month after it was reached, is the truce between the Israelis and Palestinians gaining traction or starting to slip?"
Five young Israelis die in a bombing, and perhaps the truce is "starting to slip?"
A far more practical question: Why should Israel bother pursuing a diplomatic relationship with the "Palestinians?" It is getting tougher to find a reason.
The Arabs talk of rounding up the culprits, one victim's father vows revenge, Israelis concede that the Palestinian leadership has taken positive steps and the Times account takes note of the reduction in violence.
Just one drawback: They cannot return life to the bodies of the five Israelis. They were murdered in what, plain and simple, was an act of war; and there have been other acts of war. Israel has every right to officially declare a state of war. Not that I'm advocating such a course. It is far too complicated for that. However, on its merits, the February 25 bombing in Tel Aviv was an act of war, and that has been followed by lesser acts of war in which innocent people were wounded or endangered.
An obvious obstacle to retaliation is, well, who does Israel retaliate against? There has been confusion over who did it and how they are supported. Israeli officials have accused Syria of being behind the attack, but nobody knows for certain.
The Palestinian Authority cannot be blamed, it would seem. Yet, this bombing was the latest fatal manifestation of the Arab world's hostility toward Israel that has endured for more than a century. Palestinian leaders may well sympathize with the victims' families and wish they could turn the clock back, but they have been part of this conflict for decades.
The Arab world created this aggression and lost control of it long ago. Some Arabs entered the war against Israel willingly, some felt overwhelming pressure to fight Israel while making overtures for peace behind the scenes. Some Arab leaders, such as the late King Hussein of Jordan, were freed by events of recent years to alter their approach. Other Arab leaders changed both their approach and attitudes. All the same, together, they contributed to the environment that fed the Tel Aviv killings.
The most realistic alternative to negotiations for Israel would be to pull out of many of the settlements and wall itself off from the Palestinians. If terrorists manage to strike Israel in some way, such as with rocket attacks, Israel can then retaliate in any manner that is effective.
Israel is still working with the Palestinian Authority, and maybe it should. But with the finality of the five deaths, it is hard to accept that.
The Times story, published on March 6, ticked off a series of violent incidents which have occurred in the past few weeks, including a shootout at a Palestinian police station in Jenin, the explosion of a car bomb that injured five Palestinians and discovery of a rocket-making factory. All that list does is compound the case for complete separation.
It would be ideal if Israel and the Palestinians could build a serious relationship. Both sides would benefit. Cooperation between the two parties would facilitate the ready provision of services and the flow of trade, and strengthen their relationships with other nations, which can help them both. As long as they can work together, Israel should do all it can, within reason, to help the Palestinians get on their feet.
Yet, Israel must still be careful and prepared for the day when it may need to break off relations with the Palestinians. Excusing the murders of five of its citizens is not within reason.