Anger as Policy: A Debate Over Bottling Up Arafat
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's reaction to the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on Thursday was simple and immediate: Yasir Arafat "must be removed from here once and for all."

His military and intelligence officers, and the Americans, reined him in again, and Mr. Sharon had to settle for yet another destructive raid on Mr. Arafat's compound in Ramallah, reducing the Palestinian leader's domain to a few rooms.

In his single-minded reaction, Mr. Sharon demonstrated that he was obsessed with destroying his ancient nemesis no matter how illogical or counterproductive it might be. No matter that Mr. Arafat already appeared to have lost control over Palestinian events, or that the retaliation achieved what the Islamic militants hoped for in dispatching suicide bombers, or that bashing the Palestinian icon would force moderate Palestinians to rally behind a leader they sorely wanted to dump.

For Mr. Sharon, Mr. Arafat was the true enemy, and his continued existence on territory under Israel's control was an intolerable symbol of everything the old Israeli warrior was trying to crush through his relentless choke hold on the Palestinians. The feeling is shared by many right-wing government ministers and military officers, who contend that unless Mr. Arafat is thrown out and the Palestinian Authority totally destroyed, no peace is possible.

"Sharon's critics on the left criticize him by saying he did not make any effort to use the latest lull to advance a political process with the Palestinians," Hemi Shalev wrote in the daily Maariv, "though Sharon says in private conversations, and without providing details, that he is energetically engaged in this. But at least as long as Arafat is around, political talk is perceived in the prime minister's office and the general staff as weakness, and the only response is force and more force."

To many Israelis, that stance contributed to the feeling that they were back in a bad movie they had seen before — an old Israeli saying that many invoked both in the streets of Tel Aviv after the bombing and in newspaper columns today.

But as Mr. Sharon focused his fury on Mr. Arafat and tanks rolled back to destroy more buildings in Ramallah, the question arose whether the government's faith in force only served to ensure that it would have to use more force next time. Israelis with close contacts in the government said Mr. Sharon was still determined to exile Mr. Arafat, and might use the next attack on Israelis to do it. There was also considerable speculation that the government was planning to move into Gaza to crack down on Hamas leaders.

"The conclusion is clear: the next terror attack is a matter of time," Yaov Limor wrote in Maariv. "All they need is a small window of opportunity, a couple of hours from the moment the curfew is lifted, to dispatch the terrorist. That forces Israel into an impossible choice, between strangling the Palestinian population — Nablus residents have been under complete curfew for 10 straight days with no fresh food — and putting the Israeli population at risk."

"Today there are two schools of thought in the government," Mr. Ben-Eliezer said in an interview published today in Yediot Ahronot. "One is to squash them and to conquer them completely, and the other realizes that this is the time to hold out a hand and to walk side by side."

Yet throughout the current conflict, Mr. Sharon has demonstrated his political skill in pushing ahead with his agenda whenever he felt public opinion behind him, usually after suicide attacks. In the end, both the Americans and the Labor Party have fallen in line.

Behind that approach, said Yossi Alpher, an Israeli analyst, was a conviction that peace could be achieved only when the Palestinians lost all doubt about Israeli resolve and omnipotence.

"His basic strategy is to make the Palestinians capitulate fully, to agree to his plan," Mr. Alpher said. "In his heart, he doesn't believe in an alternative Palestinian leadership, he just doesn't believe in negotiating. He believes in compelling them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/21/international/middleeast/21MIDE.htmla>