Sharon’s Double Standard
Engaging Arafat, after all.

n the past few weeks, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has been urging the U.S. to refrain from making any diplomatic gestures to the Palestinians until Palestinian violence ceases absolutely. The vision Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out in Kentucky last week corresponded with Sharon's request. Powell clarified that no diplomatic progress will come about before a complete ceasefire takes place. However, a careful examination of the Palestinian-Israeli diplomatic front reveals that the Israeli PM has been exempting himself from the very same requirement.

According to reports in the Israeli media, Israeli officials periodically engage in low-level and back-channel diplomacy with Palestinian officials, despite the ongoing Palestinian violence. Furthermore, Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy is apparently not restricted to secret negotiations. The latest example to date is the speech Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres delivered to the U.N. General Assembly on November 15th.

In that speech, the Israeli foreign minister declared that "there is support for a Palestinian independence, support for a Palestinian state." These statements were made despite the fact that Sharon's demand for seven quiet days was not met. In fact, a Palestinian terror attack took place in Israel only three days prior to Peres' speech.

Peres used the disclaimer that the content of his speech was "not yet a formal policy of the government of Israel." Shimon Peres is the second highest-ranking official in Israel's unity government, and many argue that he is also the single most important element holding it together. The U.N. is the hub of official policy in the realm of international relations. If Peres's statements to the U.N. do not represent Israel's formal policy than what does? Clearly, Sharon's policy is to engage the Palestinians diplomatically even as terror and violence continues, while demanding the US to refrain from doing so.

To excuse this contradiction, officials from Sharon's office claimed that Peres's statements supporting Palestinian independence were not coordinated with the Prime Minister. However, reports from Israel recount the contrary. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the content of Peres's speech was coordinated twice with Sharon's people.

In recent weeks, Sharon has been implying that American diplomatic initiatives in the region are aimed at winning the Arab world's support for the broadest possible U.S. coalition to fight terrorism. Sharon even alluded that the U.S. applies a double standard: Fighting terrorism while rewarding the Palestinians who themselves engage in such actions against Israeli civilians. He suggested that such an approach is dangerous since it supports those in the Middle East who argue that there is bad terror and good terror. Last month, Sharon went as far as calling on the U.S. not to "appease" the Arab world by selling Israel out. Yet, Sharon is not abiding by his own demands — he is engaging the Palestinians diplomatically amidst ongoing terror and violence.

America's war on terrorism is planned on many levels and is intended to encompass numerous spheres of action. President Bush has been assertive and resolute with a clear message of zero tolerance to terrorism anywhere and in any way, shape, or form. His approach has been clear: Regimes and leaders must choose between fighting terror and being an accessory to it. He also made clear that, based on these premises, Palestinian leaser Yasser Arafat must first wage war against terrorism and prove that he is indeed opposed to such actions before receiving political and diplomatic credits.

Secretary of State Powell reiterated this stance in his November 19th speech — his first comprehensive address on the Middle East. Powell conditioned a U.S. diplomatic engagement on an Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire (in accordance with the Mitchell Report and the Tenant Plan). He stated, "Terror and violence must stop, and stop now." The statements were clear, unequivocal, and free of any double standard.

Sharon's de facto line of policy does not follow his own precondition of complete secession of Palestinians violence prior to negotiations. Hence, the resentment he has been expressing towards U.S. diplomatic initiatives is groundless. Therefore, and especially in light of Powell's latest address (which Sharon spoke well of), it is incumbent upon the Israeli prime minister to focus on the policy that is coming out of his own government before criticizing the U.S.'s policy.