Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, October 7, 2000Rioting may doom
talks on JerusalemThe issue: Dozens of Palestinian rioters have died in battles with Israeli soldiers.
OVER the years of Middle East peace negotiations, starting with the Camp David talks in 1978 between Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, with Jimmy Carter as mediator, the issue of the status of Jerusalem was always bypassed.
This was the most difficult of all the issues dividing Jews and Muslims. It was felt that the wisest approach was to attack the easier issues first, leaving the thorniest for last.
However, this year Jerusalem could no longer be ignored. It was the last piece needed to complete the comprehensive agreement negotiated in recent years between Israel and the Palestinians.
Again Camp David was the site of negotiations. This time President Clinton played host to Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. But the sessions ended in July without agreement on the status of Jerusalem, even though Barak offered unprecedented concessions.
Now the always fragile peace between Israelis and Palestinians has been shattered by a wave of rioting that has left dozens of Palestinian protesters dead and hundreds wounded.
The riots were said to have been provoked by a visit of Ariel Sharon, leader of the main conservative opposition party in the Israeli parliament, to the Temple Mount, a site sacred to both Jews and Muslims.
Sharon may have intended his visit as a provocation, but it was hardly inappropriate, much less outrageous, for an Israeli political leader to visit the holiest site in Judaism. This was only a pretext seized upon by Arafat to call the Palestinians into the streets as a means of applying pressure on Israel to obtain additional concessions.
The Palestinian youths who have died in the protests are hailed as martyrs, to be used to further inflame the Palestinians against Israel. Add to their deaths the hope of peace.
For decades the Israelis have been told by their leaders they must exchange land for peace with the Palestinians. The Israelis have turned over control of every Palestinian town in the West Bank and Gaza to Arafat's Palestinian Authority, but there is still no peace. No concession, it seems, is enough to assure peace -- even Barak's offer to share control of Jerusalem.
While professing peaceful intentions, Arafat has continued to poison the minds of the Palestinian youth, filling them with hatred of Israel. At opportune moments, he unleashes them.
Now Arafat is trying to put Israel on the propaganda defensive by demanding an international commission to investigate alleged excessive use of force by Israeli soldiers. This attempt to paint the demonstrators as victims obscures the real issue: Who instigated the riots and for what purpose?
Can the peace talks resume after this? It's always happened before. But Arafat risks a backlash by an Israeli public fed up with making concessions that produce nothing but more demands and more violence -- certainly not peace.
Lieberman should
quit Senate race
HOWEVER Joseph Lieberman's views on most issues may be characterized, he clearly believes in playing it safe when it comes to his political future. Lieberman is of course Democrat Al Gore's running mate in the presidential election. He acquitted himself well in the debate Thursday night with Dick Cheney.
But he is also on the ballot for re-election to the Senate from Connecticut.
Lieberman is popular in his home state and is considered a shoo-in for re-election to the Senate. If he and Gore lose the presidential election, he is assured of retaining his Senate seat.
Should Lieberman be elected vice president, he would have to resign from the Senate. The governor of Connecticut, John Rowland, a Republican, would appoint his replacement -- almost certainly a Republican.
This would reduce the Democrats' chances of wresting control of the Senate from the GOP. It would also deprive the voters of Connecticut of their choice for senator.
Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has urged Lieberman to withdraw from the Senate race, as he should.
Lieberman could drop out as late as Oct. 27, but waiting so long would leave virtually no time for a Democratic replacement to campaign.
Other Democratic leaders have remained silent on the issue in public, not wishing to damage the presidential ticket. But they are said to privately resent Lieberman's position -- understandably so.
By refusing to withdraw from the Senate race, Lieberman seems to be expressing doubt that the Gore-Lieberman ticket can win. That is not the message the party wants to send to the electorate, and its leaders can't be happy with what he's doing.
With all his professions of morality, one might expect Lieberman to take a more responsible position on this issue.
If he were so concerned about losing, he should have declined Gore's offer of the vice presidency and stayed in the Senate. Now that he is the Democratic nominee for vice president, he should withdraw from the senatorial election and let his party choose another candidate.
If Lieberman lacks the courage to do this, how can the electorate expect him to make hard decisions if he's elected?
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
