Extremists Don't Give an Inch

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, September 20, 2001; Page A35

In the summer of the year 2000, it is possible that Ziad Jarrahi was studying at the University of Applied Sciences in Hamburg, Germany, so he could be a better terrorist. About the same time, Mohamed Atta and the four others who hijacked an American Airlines flight from Boston were at this or that flight school, learning just enough to steer the plane into the World Trade Center. As for the rest of the hijackers, that summer they were all, probably, preparing in one way or another to kill thousands of people, not to mention themselves. Their summer of preparation was also the summer of Camp David.

In the minds of many, especially in Europe, a connection has been drawn between U.S. policy in the Middle East and the heinous events of last week. In this construction -- simplistic but not wholly false -- America is Israel's big brother, supplier of its F-16s and, really, its ultimate weapon. It makes sense, therefore, that the terrorists struck at Uncle Sam.

But at Camp David that summer, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat about 95 percent of the West Bank. He offered him concessions on Jerusalem, as well, and some accommodation regarding the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees. It was a bold package, probably politically unsupportable in Israel itself, but it was rejected, anyway, by Arafat.

I am not about to argue that Israel and its policies are extraneous to what has just happened in New York and at the Pentagon. But I am going to argue that if you think that had Israel moderated its policies the terrorists would have packed their bags and gone home, you are probably wrong. Extremists do not respect moderation. When it comes to Israel, the only plan that will satisfy the likes of Osama bin Laden is one that entails the obliteration of the Jewish state. On the issue of Jerusalem alone, the bin Ladens of the world will not give an inch.

Even before Camp David, there was incontrovertible evidence that U.S. policy was extraneous to the intentions of terrorists. Back in 1998, the Clinton administration was applying extraordinary and virtually unprecedented pressure on the government of Binyamin Netanyahu to compromise with the Palestinians. As former assistant secretary of state James Rubin points out, the administration pledged to Arafat that if he would moderate his demands, it would stick by him until Netanyahu moderated his. Arafat agreed, Bill Clinton issued what was characterized as an "ultimatum" to Israel -- and the American Jewish community, not to mention much of Congress, bellowed in protest.

The consequences of this pro-Palestinian activism were immediately apparent. On Aug. 7, terrorists struck at the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, 12 of them Americans.

Far be it for me to discern what motivates the men who destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. They have been characterized as highly disciplined automatons, but they flashed their cash, quarreled in bars, drank liquor, were obstreperous with the flight instructors, requested instruction in steering but not taking off and landing, and in other ways drew attention to themselves. Their success has less to do with their cunning than with our incompetence.

At the same time, their purported leader, bin Laden, reportedly first became inflamed when his homeland, Saudi Arabia, welcomed U.S. troops in advance of the Gulf War. This was no U.S. invasion but an invitation from a clearly desperate Saudi regime that itself feared Saddam Hussein's intentions. If there is logic to this madness, it escapes me -- and, anyway, it has nothing to do with Israel.

Still, there is a connection between public opinion in the Arab and Islamic world and Israeli policies. The retention and, even, extension of Israeli settlements are abominations -- ultimately, a prescription for an even greater disaster and constant conflict. The settlements in the Gaza Strip, in particular, make no strategic sense. As for most -- but not all -- of those in the West Bank, their strategic value is also nil, but their potential for conflict is great. Moderate Israelis know this, but the middle ground, as we are seeing over and over again, is a no man's land when terrorists do their work.

Israel is an ally of the United States. When, during the Gulf War, the United States asked Israel not to respond to Scud missile attacks on its territory, it gritted its teeth but complied. If it moderates its policies, no doubt moderates would applaud. But extremists want only to do to Israel what they did to the World Trade Center. The proper response is not to concede their point. The proper response is the one being prepared at the Pentagon.