Editorials
Wednesday, July 21, 1999Barak’s bid for peace
with the PalestiniansAN atmosphere of euphoria has developed around Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's visit to Washington concerning the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians. But resuming the talks is one thing; bringing them to a successful conclusion quite another. It would be a great mistake to underestimate the difficulties.The issue: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak wants to complete talks with the Palestinians in 15 months.
President Clinton, obviously pleased that Barak has replaced Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel's leader, has offered increased military aid to encourage Barak to make more concessions for peace.
U.S. military aid to Israel will be boosted by nearly one-third, from $1.9 billion a year currently to $2.4 billion annually over the next decade -- if Congress approves. And the administration is urging Congress to approve a special $1.2 billion appropriation to carry out a pullback on the West Bank.
But Barak is wisely warning that attaining a secure peace will be anything but easy. "We are not talking about a miraculous solution," Barak said at a joint news conference with Clinton. "Peace will not drop upon us from heaven in three weeks."
The Israeli leader registered a willingness to take risks for peace, but also assured his people that he would be ever mindful of their security concerns. He also carefully avoided saying how much land he would relinquish -- on the West Bank to the Palestinians and on the Golan Heights to Syria.
Barak's willingness to try to end a three-year stalemate in negotiations with Syria and a seven-month impasse with the Palestinians inspired Clinton and his senior advisers to lavish praise on the former general.
"Your first visit as Israel's leader has been an enormous success," Albright told Barak in an exchange of toasts at a dinner Monday night. "America's support for Israel's security, including a strategic edge, is rock solid," she said.
The Israeli's American hosts were pleased to hear him say there is no reason to wait in implementing an agreement reached last October for Israel to pull back from the West Bank. Barak was responding to a complaint by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Gaza that the 15-month time frame Barak laid out for peacemaking on several tracks, including Syria and Lebanon, was unacceptably long. "I agree with him," Barak said. "It won't take that long."
The 15-month time frame is designed to see whether there can be breakthrough on a final settlement with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, he explained.
This contrasted with Netanyahu's freezing of the Wye accords' Israeli pullback on the ground that the Palestinians had not fulfilled their commitments.
The hard fact remains, however, that the Israelis and Palestinians are far apart on several key issues, among them the status of Jerusalem, the right of return by Palestinian refugees and Palestinian statehood.
Resolving all of them in 15 months, as Barak proposes to do, will require major concessions. Trading land for peace has strong appeal, but only if the result is really peace. Israel doesn't trust the Palestinians to deliver. Barak, a former general, isn't likely to jeopardize Israel's security by giving too much for too little.
Weapons of war
GUN manufacturers have cleverly circumvented laws prohibiting military-type assault weapons, and California has responded with tougher legislation aimed at closely loopholes to restore and strengthen the ban. The recent Kahala bank robbery demonstrated the need in Hawaii for effective legislation to accomplish those ends.
California's 1989 assault weapons law and a federal law enacted in 1994 were supposed to ban numerous assault weapons and force changes in others. Gun manufacturers responded by making slight changes in their products.
For example, the TEC-DC9 assault pistol became the TEC AB-10 -- the AB standing for "after ban" -- and was used in the school shooting in Littleton, Colo. Criminal gangs have been able to maintain arsenals that rival those of many police SWAT teams.
Honolulu police encountered such weaponry during the Kahala bank robbery two weeks ago, when one of the robbers fired 28 bullets from a Colt AR-15, one of the assault weapons banned by the federal legislation. After the ban was instituted, the Colt AR-15 underwent slight changes and was renamed the Colt Sporter. It remains a civilian version of the military M-16 and can be purchased from Honolulu gun shops for about $1,000.
"Minor cosmetic changes have allowed these assault weapons to flood our streets in even greater numbers," Gov. Gray Davis said in urging passage of the legislation. "As a result, the lives of our children are increasingly threatened. The lives of our police officers are increasingly threatened. And as long as these guns are accessible, all of our lives are at risk."
The new law spells out the physical characteristics of banned weapons, including fixed magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition and other features that allow rapid firing.
Still, the law may be inadequate. The National Rifle Association minimized its potential effects, saying guns covered by the law could be brought into compliance by removing a few parts. Hawaii legislators should keep that in mind when considering California's legislation and framing a law that will effectively keep weapons of war off the streets.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
