August 2001

Seven Questions for Colin Powell

By Michael Freund - August 1, 2001
What has the Bush administration got against Israel? At every turn, regardless of what Israel has done to defend itself against intensifying Palestinian terrorism, Secretary of State Colin Powell, or one of his underlings, has been quick to launch a verbal broadside against the Jewish state.
Whether it is the use of economic sanctions against the Palestinian Authority, the pinpoint targeting of wanted terrorists planning attacks, or even the demolition of buildings used to carry out armed assaults against soldiers and civilians, Israel, it seems, can do nothing right in Powell's eyes.
Indeed, hardly a month seems to pass without some form of rebuke being issued by the Bush administration.
On February 25, shortly after assuming his post, Powell told a press conference that it was time for Israel "to lift the siege as soon as possible to get economic activity restarted" in the Palestinian areas.
The "siege" to which Powell was referring was Israel's decision to limit the entry of Palestinian workers and to encircle Palestinian cities to prevent the smuggling of suicide bombers and to punish the PA for sponsoring terror. So, it would seem, then, that the secretary of state is adamantly opposed to the use of economic sanctions against a recalcitrant foe. And yet, America itself imposes such sanctions when it comes to rogue countries that sponsor terror such as Iraq, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan.
This raises an interesting question worthy of being addressed by Powell:
why are American economic sanctions against terrorist regimes justified, yet Israeli economic sanctions are not?
On April 17, after Palestinians fired mortar rounds into sovereign Israeli territory, hitting the southern city of Sderot, and Israel responded by entering Palestinian-controlled Gaza to halt the attacks, Powell described the Israeli move as "excessive and disproportionate." It was a stunning rebuke of Israel, one of the sharpest to emerge out of Washington in recent memory.
Here, then, is another question for Powell:
if sending in troops in response to a mortar attack on an Israeli city is "disproportionate," what would constitute a "proportionate" Israeli response? Perhaps the secretary believes proportionality would require Israel to fire mortar rounds back into Palestinian-controlled cities?
On July 2, as the shaky cease-fire brokered by CIA Director George Tenet was crumbling, Israel once again came in for criticism from the State Department, this time over its policy of "targeted assassinations," in which leading Palestinian terrorists are eliminated before they can carry out additional atrocities. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters that "We remain opposed to Israel's policy of targeted killings."
This leads us to question No. 3 for Powell:
if Israel knows that a terrorist is preparing to carry out an attack, what would the secretary suggest that Israel do to prevent it? Wouldn't the elementary rules of self-defense justify Israel's policy?
On July 10, the State Department again found fault with the Jewish state, this time after Israel demolished 17 buildings in Gaza that had been used as the staging grounds for gunfire and sniper attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians. In what the BBC termed "unusually harsh criticism of Israel," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "Actions such as these demolitions are highly provocative. They can only make it much more difficult to restore calm."
Of course, the United States itself has periodically bombed Iraqi air-defense sites after the latter fired upon American aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq, so it only seems natural that question No. 4 should be:
if Israel's actions to eliminate the sources of hostile fire are considered "highly provocative," then why does the American air force respond similarly in Iraq? As a former general, what would you suggest Israeli troops should do when coming under fire repeatedly from Palestinian snipers?
The sad fact is that Israel now finds itself in the absurd situation of "condemned if you do, condemned if you don't." When Israel employs forceful action to defend itself, the State Department quickly issues a denunciation. And even when Israel adopts non-lethal measures to fight terrorism, such as barring entry to Palestinian workers or demolishing several buildings, the State Department nevertheless condemns the Jewish state.
Hence, questions 5 and 6 for Powell:
if America finds the various measures Israel has adopted thus far to be objectionable, could the secretary of state please specify exactly what he thinks Israel should do instead to fight terror? If economic measures, military reprisals, deterrent strikes and punitive raids are not acceptable, then what, pray tell, is?
And, since Secretary Powell has now entered the world of politics, it is only fair that we close with a political query for question 7:
if this is how the Republican-led Bush administration treats Israel, is it any wonder that so many American Jews will be ready to vote for the Democrats?

(The writer served as deputy director of Communications and Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)

Send To A Friend Return to Israel Report - August 2001 HOME