SLIPPERY MIDEAST SLOPES: ARAFAT’S ELECTIONS, ISLAMIC THREAT IN BOSNIA UNDERSCORE DANGERS OF PROSPECTIVE SYRIAN DEAL

(Washington, D.C.): As Israeli-Syrian-American
negotiations resume today at the Wye Plantation in the
hope of forging a deal exchanging the strategic Golan
Heights for a “full peace” between Israel and
Syria, two troubling developments require urgent
consideration: 1) The impetus given by last weekend’s
elections in the West Bank and Gaza to the creation of a
potentially destabilizing Palestinian Arab state and 2)
the likelihood of serious risks to U.S. peacekeepers
expected to be stationed on the Golan as part of a peace
agreement between Jerusalem and Damascus.

Wishful Thinking and Harsh Reality

Western observers have generally cast the election of
Yasser Arafat and many of his cohorts as a victory for
Palestinian moderation and an affirmation of the peace
process with Israel. For example, on 21 January 1995, the
Washington Post reported that the results showed
that “[the Palestinian Arab] electorate may be
discontented with the terms of the deal with Israel —
limited self-rule, with hopes of an independent state to
come — but [it] is inclined to accept what it can get.”
(Emphasis added.)

Such an analysis ignores the fact that Arafat has
repeatedly told his constituents in addresses made in
Arabic that he is bringing about a Palestinian state,
whose capital will be Jerusalem. Even more worrisome,
Arafat has periodically affirmed that his involvement in
the “peace process” with Israel is simply part
of the “phased plan of 1974” — a two-stage PLO
strategy for securing by negotiations with Israel the
territory from which the ultimate destruction of the
Jewish State can be accomplished. It is irresponsible,
and possibly reckless, to construe the popular mandate
given Arafat in this election as one resigned to
postponing indefinitely the realization of both
phases of this strategy.

‘There You Go Again’

In his inimitable fashion, former President Jimmy
Carter recently made matters worse. With his long record
of validating even questionable election processes as
“free and fair” and his undisguised sympathy
for the PLO, Mr. Carter was a natural choice as an
international vote monitor. Despite considerable evidence
of fraud and intimidation by Arafat’s operatives, the
former President declared this election to be kosher.

Mr. Carter then proceeded in an interview with
National Public Radio broadcast on 21 January to resume
his freelancing in sensitive diplomatic matters. In the
following exchange, he lent the prestige of the office
he once held to the proposition that there is now a state
of Palestine with Yasser Arafat as its president:

Carter: “I was really surprised at the high
level of the turn out and the obvious enthusiasm of
the Palestinian voters. Yes, this did surprise me so
I think overall it was an adequate election and I
think we have to remember it’s just a major step but
an absolutely mandatory step toward real democracy
and freedom in Palestine.

NPR: “You used the word Palestine.”

Carter: “Yes. That is the official
designation of the country, of the government. It’s a
Palestinian government and Yasser Arafat will be the
president of Palestine.”

NPR noted after airing this piece that the Oslo
accord chose to call the areas in which the election
occurred “territories under the jurisdiction of the
Palestinian Authority,” rather than
“Palestine.” Still, the shape of things to come
is clear: As an op.ed. by a Palestinian activist
published in today’s New York Times puts it:
“…Names have their own independent power, and if
someone is named the President of Palestine, then a
defined territory bearing that name is bound to become a
reality.” This is made all the more likely since
scores of nations around the world are already
recognizing and accepting Palestinian passports.

The
fact is, moreover, that the Israeli negotiators of the
Declaration of Principles — and the agreements that
flowed from it — understood full well that the
inevitable result of the Israeli- PLO deal would be the
creation of a second Arab state carved from the original
Mandate Palestine territory. href=”96-D8.html#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾ The choice of a
formulation that could be interpreted differently was not
intended to foreclose that outcome. It was, instead,
adopted in the hope of finessing strong Israeli domestic
opposition to the creation of a Palestinian Arab state,
opposition that might otherwise have derailed Knesset
approval of the peace process at its inception.

Given the past success of this strategem, it is
likely to be employed in the impending deal with Syria.
Once again, expect to see ambiguous terms or
circumlocution used to finesse similar (if not far
greater) problems associated with the planned surrender
of the Golan Heights. These may manifest themselves in
language concerning security arrangements, water rights
or the quality of the peace that is supposed to be bought
at this high price. As the evidence mounts that cynical
lawyering of the PLO deal is going to give rise to
serious difficulties for Israel, those who might
otherwise give the benefit of the doubt to the
negotiators of a new agreement with Syria should have
grave second-thoughts.

The Threat to U.S. Troops

Today’s New York Times reports that American
and NATO forces in Bosnia are now on a high state of
alert in light of a perceived threat from Islamic
extremists still operating in Bosnia. In an article
entitled “Fearing Attack, U.S. is Tightening Bosnia
Security,” the Times chillingly describes
recent developments affecting the safety of U.S.
personnel in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These include:

• Intelligence reports indicating that an effort
  may be made to seek revenge for the recent
  conviction and life sentence handed down to Sheik
  Omar Abdel Rahman earlier this month by attacking
  American servicemen and women in Bosnia.
• An individual believed to have “close links
  with militant Islamic groups” has attempted
  to penetrate a NATO compound within the last 24
  hours.
• American intelligence describing a
  “substantial increase in activity over the
  last few days by Islamic volunteers who have been
  seen observing American installations and
  movements.”
• Cars carrying armed Islamic volunteers have been
  observed travelling in or near the American
  sector in Bosnia — including on routes
  frequently used by U.S. forces. Coupled with the
  (apparently premature) detonation of a massive
  car-bomb on 18 December 1995 — an act attributed
  to foreign Islamic elements, the suspicious
  automobiles could be evidence of an emerging and
  serious threat to U.S. personnel in Tuzla,
  Sarajevo or elsewhere in Bosnia.
• Other indications that the Bosnian government is
  allowing large numbers (by some estimates over
  400) of members of the radical Iranian
  Revolutionary Guard Command and other Islamic
  “volunteers” to stay in-country under
  various guises and arrangements. These reportedly
  include actions like granting of Bosnian
  citizenship to Islamic mujahedeen by agencies of
  the Bosnian government — notably, the Interior
  Ministry — that have come under the sway of
  Teheran.

In short, it seems just a matter of time before
Americans are attacked by Islamic foreign legionnaires in
Bosnia. This bears out warnings issued by the Center for
Security Policy on 7 December before the deployment of
U.S. forces there began:

“The Islamic extremists appear, with Croatian
support, to have taken full advantage of the
Bosnians’ plight. By so doing, they have managed to
secure a beachhead on the European continent from
which to wage war — not only against the enemies of
Islam in Bosnia but also against those perceived to
exist elsewhere in the West. The foreign Islamic
forces and local mujahedeen under their influence
have, to varying degrees, been assimilated into
Bosnian army units — likely raising the total number
of these extremists in Bosnia substantially above the
3,000-4,000 generally said to be operating there.
“Such forces pose a grave threat to American
troops assigned to ‘peace enforcement’ duties in
Bosnia. Many of the Iranian-sponsored radical Islamic
organizations bitterly oppose the Dayton Deal. They
also are inclined to target the United States — the
‘Great Satan’ — for invective and violent action.
Worse yet, the bulk of the Islamic foreign legion
in-country is located in Tuzla and Zenica, population
centers in or very near the U.S. ‘sector’ of Bosnia.
And an American civilian employed by the United
Nations in Tuzla and murdered on 18 November was
believed to have been executed by the
mujahedeen.” ⁽²⁾

If the United States military is in harm’s way in
Bosnia, how much greater will the threat be to its
personnel if they are posted to locations where not just
hundreds of Islamic radicals but many thousands — if not
tens of thousands — of Iranian and other militants can
get at them? That would be the probable upshot of a
deployment of American troops on the Golan Heights since
the Golan is in close proximity to the headquarters,
training facilities and bases of various terrorist
organizations, including Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

The Bottom Line

These two developments add urgency to the need for
congressional review of the prospective Israeli-Syrian
deal and the Golan Heights deployment President Clinton
has once again unilaterally promised to undertake. Of
course, the ultimate responsibility for making — and
living with — a risky agreement with Syria lies with the
Israeli people. They cannot make a responsible decision
concerning the associated risks on the basis of false
expectations about the contribution a U.S. force on the
Golan will make to the security of the Jewish State. href=”96-D8.html#N_3_”>⁽³⁾

Consequently, Congress should promptly consider this
initiative and its implications for the American troops
to be involved, for other U.S. equities and for the vital
strategic relationship between the United States and
Israel. And it must do so now — before a deal is
completed and the legislative branch is told that it
is, once again, too late for such critical reflection.

(1) See the Center’s Decision
Brief entitled ‘The Triumph of Hope Over
Experience’: Israeli Weariness Begets Strategic Peril
(No. 93-D 78, 13
September 1993).

(2) See the Center’s Decision
Brief entitled Train and Arm the Bosnians —
But Ensure That the Islamic ‘Foreign Legion’ is Sent
Packing! (No. 95-D
101, 7 December 1995).

(3) For a detailed treatment of
the real problems that will be associated with such a
deployment, see the Center’s href=”../studies/golan94.html”>blue-ribbon study
entitled U.S. Forces on the Golan Heights: An
Assessment of Benefits and Costs.