Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon threw down the gauntlet on Sunday following the most devastating suicide bombing of the 18-month intifada. In an escalating war in which neither side has been bold enough to go out on a limb for peace, Sharon vowed to decimate the forces behind the attacks, saying, “We must fight against this terrorism, fight with no compromise, pull up these wild plants by the roots, smash their infrastructure.” Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority President Yassir Arafat remains silent in response to President George W. Bush’s demand that he crack down on terrorist organizations and call for a halt to suicide bombings. This silence has been all too common from Arafat over the last several years.

In the words of Pope John Paul II, “It seems that war has been declared on peace.”

Israel has every right to defend itself against suicide bombers who mercilessly target civilians, but it must also acknowledge its role in jeopardizing any chance of peace. Attacks on refugee camps in the occupied territories engender hatred from the Palestinians, which is as likely to foster terrorism as it is to prevent it. The cooperation of the Palestinian mainstream is essential to the peace process. In the short term, the Palestinian people have the greatest influence over Arafat, and in the long term, they are potential recruits for terrorist organizations.

Israel also stands to lose the cooperation of Palestinian moderates who are willing to accept defensible borders for Israel as long as Palestinians are guaranteed self-determination and a viable, independent state. Both the Palestinian and the Israeli majorities are tired of violence and perpetual fear. Israel must capitalize on that sentiment if, as Sharon claims, “The state of Israel seeks peace.”

But for peace, or even a cease-fire, in the near future, Israel must work with Arafat, and Israeli rhetoric and action have made compromise increasingly less likely. Arafat may not quite be an “enemy of the entire free world,” as Sharon has said, but Arafat has at least been complicit in suicide bombings. In addition, the Palestinian Authority’s connection to a weapons shipment from Iran contradicts Arafat’s claim to want peace. Nonetheless, Arafat is the only visible Palestinian leader who has any degree of legitimacy both with his people and with the West. If Sharon has his way and Arafat is expelled, Israel will fall prey to even greater violence and tumult during the Palestinian power struggle that would follow. And there’s no guarantee that Arafat’s replacement would be any more receptive to peace.

Whatever Arafat’s eventual fate, imprisoning him inside his office only fuels the rage of Palestinian extremists by making Arafat a symbol of resistance to Israeli oppression. Moreover, he has no opportunity to mitigate extremist violence, as Sharon and Bush have asked of him, if his contact with those groups is cut off.

The best way for Israel to prevent further suicide bombings and to rally Palestinians against the perpetrators is to make terrorism clearly counterproductive to the goal of a Palestinian state. Israel could do this by putting forward a fair and just proposal for an independent Palestine while making that proposal contingent upon an end to violence. The details would require negotiation, but the initial proposal should follow in the spirit of that recently promoted by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, offering the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza Strip with minor border adjustments while resolving the outstanding issues of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

With an attractive proposal on the table, Palestinian moderates would likely exert pressure on Arafat and extremist groups to end the violence. If violence stops and a settlement is reached, U.N. peacekeepers should step in to protect the Palestinian-Israeli border.

If the violence continues, then the Palestinians would know exactly how much damage extremists were doing to their cause and opposition to any further acts of terrorism would solidify. Palestinians would be less disposed toward violence and could not so easily vilify Israel.

Given the polarized status of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, such a proposal is not likely to succeed without international support. This support would be stronger if it came not only from the U.S. and the West, but also from the Arab League and from moderate Palestinians. Only a bold proposal from Israel that gives fair incentives to the Palestinians can lead to lasting progress in the struggle for Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace.

Dissent: Dershowitz Plan Is Better Option

The Staff is right to point out that there should be an offer to return to negotiations after a cease-fire, which is Israeli policy, but it is wrong to suggest that the offer of a settlement—which is far from new—will be helpful in bringing about an end to the despicable suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

It is silly to believe that if the Israelis float a final settlement, the Palestinians’ assumed desire for a just and comprehensive peace would be enough to end suicide bombings. The Palestinians launched the current terrorist intifada after being offered a state in 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza and sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The inducement the Staff asks Israel to give was already spurned by the Palestinian leadership.

The Israeli government must brandish a stick as well as extend a carrot. Suicide bombings must be punished with a disproportionate, but predetermined, military response. As Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz has proposed, the Israeli Defense Forces should release a list of targets that will be destroyed in response to each terrorist attack. That way Palestinian terrorists will know exactly who among their own people they harm when they commit murder so they can properly weigh their own perceived costs and benefits.

Alternatively, the family of a suicide bomber could be targeted for deportation and property destruction. Suicide bombers can’t be deterred by threat of bodily harm, but they might be by consequences to their relatives.

Current Israeli policy seems uncertain and random; it should be meticulous and planned to hurt those who hurt Israel.

The Palestinians must be given a clear choice: one of destruction, one of peace. Then they can decide.

—Andrew P. Winerman ’04, Zachary K. Goldman ’05