Cowardice costs

David Warren in JWR on the Israeli bombing in Syria.

Israel's weekend attack on the Islamic Jihad camp near Damascus was an act of cowardice, properly considered.

...

Prime Minister Sharon chose the Syrian target as an alternative to acting against Yasser Arafat — either by exiling him, or, as was originally proposed, by killing him. Under domestic political pressure, Mr. Sharon was choosing the lesser way to make the point that "Israel will not stand for this anymore" — in response to an horrific suicide bombing in Haifa. He was boxed in, by media-led world opinion. He goes on to hunt Islamic Jihad agents in Jenin and Nablus who, the Israelis sincerely believe, themselves ultimately report back to Arafat' s surrounded compound in Ramallah.

In making his lesser point, Mr. Sharon was providing an ineffective deterrent. He knows Arafat is informed, before the fact, of all organized terror strikes against Israel, and his intelligence services believe, on evidence repeatedly shown to the U.S., that Arafat personally orders most of them. The Haifa bombing was done through Islamic Jihad, instead of through a Fatah branch, or Hamas, to make the greatest possible distance from Arafat's chain of command. For Islamic Jihad has become so closely affiliated with the Iranian- and Syrian-sponsored Hizbollah, as to be practically their "diplomatic representative" within the Israel/Palestine theatre.

Mr. Sharon had implied that the earlier Israeli cabinet authorization to remove Arafat would be acted upon after the next major bombing. He was thus hoping to hold Arafat hostage against new terror incidents. But the tactic risked backfire if there were a major incident, and Arafat remained untouched.

Now this has happened. In effect, Arafat has been able to show his people and the Arab world generally that he can continue the bombings with impunity — that the Israelis will always look elsewhere to settle scores, not having the courage to go for him directly. He has thus, once again, successfully raised the stakes — so that his authority continues to be restored over West Bank and Gaza, and his prestige throughout the region.

Instead, Israel has been compelled, against its immediate interests, to open a second front of contention. Mr. Sharon has triggered border incidents along Israel's northern frontier, and mutual mobilization of Syrian and Israeli armies. He may think there is an advantage to Israel in re-opening the Syrian can of worms which, previously, Israeli governments had gone to lengths to close. Instead he has created a distraction that Arafat can better exploit than can he.

...

World opinion has Israel boxed in, yet paradoxically, as the temperature rises, world opinion will have less and less influence over Israel's defense. The proverb, "As well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb," begins to apply here — for it is not as if Israel ever gets praise for its restraint, or any other privilege it could risk losing. The only foreign power that retains real power over the decisions made by Israeli politicians is the United States, because it is in a position to cut substantial military and civil aid. But Egypt gets the same aid, and if Egypt's Hosni Mubarak can't be punished for providing the Syrian regime with its Arab League cover, Ariel Sharon can't be punished for taking potshots at known terrorists.

The cowardly course invariably leads to the bigger catastrophe. If the Israelis shot Arafat, there would be days, even weeks of Arab rage, and international condemnations. But this would most likely be followed by — nothing, except the implosion of the Palestinian Authority, and thus the removal of the political cover it offers to Palestinian terrorists. Whereas, hitting a site in Syrian territory brings, on balance, less rage; and more chance of hostilities across international borders that could spread rapidly through the region.