TIME TO SAY "GOOD RIDDENCE" TO YASSER
By Jackie Mason
Why are we still negotiating peace with Arafat if he already admitted that he can't be responsible for the killing of Israelis on a daily basis? We have decided long ago that Arafat was the man in charge of our enemies in the Middle East, but almost every time an Israeli life is destroyed, the Hamas takes the credit and Arafat claims that he can't help it because the Israelis caused it by their "intransigence". Or he claims that he can īt be responsible for everything the Hamas does, especially when they kill people. When he's told that he should do what the Israeli government does - arrest and prosecute any murderer immediately, Arafat announces that he's ready to negotiate in good faith, if only the Israelis would make an honest effort to control the violence and make peace. How long will the Israelis continue to victimize themselves with this phony charade? Why are we negotiating for peace with a man who admits that peace is not his line of business? For the purpose of conferences and negotiations he's the man in charge, but killing Israelis is "out of his control."
How hard is it to understand that after 20 years of these flip flops, we should not go to another negotiating table, we should announce a timetable. The timetable should be very simple: Arafat's time is up! The Israeli government has no moral right to allow more Israeli lives to be lost because of another fraudulent peace conference. How many more years will we be blinded by the holiness of the words "peace process"? If the man admits that he can't control the violence, are we supposed to accept the idea that "peace" is important, except when human life is involved? The fact is that Arafat has long ago abdicated his right to be a peace negotiator. It is only Israel's desperation for peace that made it adopt the Arafat fantasy.
Instead of negotiating with Arafat, we should search for our own sanity. If we could find it, we would not accept for one more day any "acceptable level of violence". We have no moral right to sacrifice one Israeli life by use of the shameful word "acceptable" and we have no moral right to care what the rest of the world will "accept" as an "acceptable" level of Israeli retaliation. World "opinion" will gladly continue to "accept" the sacrifice of Israeli lives for the "peace process". Would the American government accept the idea of a terrorist organization killing its citizens every day in the streets of this country for 20 years and still wait for world opinion to "accept" their right to do something about it?
When President Clinton decided that bin Laden was planning a terrorist attack, nobody knew if it was true or just a diversion from Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, he didn't ask for permission from world opinion. He didn't care or ask if it was an "acceptable level of violence" and hundreds of innocent Sudanese lives were sacrificed for reasons nobody knows or questions or even cares about. When an American president decides to even fantasize a threat to human life, he wantonly bombs countries with impunity, but when Israelis die every day we still wait for acceptance while we negotiate with America about the definition of an "acceptable level of violence."
Israel has the responsibility of any legally constituted government to protect the lives of its citizens and it would be derelict, sinful, and even criminal to sacrifice one Israeli life for the hypocrisy of Arafat or for American "acceptance".
Jackie Mason is a renowned comedian/commentator, and currently hosts the US-nationally syndicated "Jackie Mason Show".