The lingering question of how far Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is prepared to go in cracking down on Islamic militants came to the fore again in the aftermath of the latest terror attacks in Jerusalem and Ashkelon.
Immediately after Sunday’s twin suicide bombings, Arafat issued an unequivocal statement condemning the attacks, saying that they were directed “not against only civilians, but against the whole peace process.”
But by midweek, it appeared clear that Arafat had no intention of going all the way in a campaign against Hamas, the Islamic fundamentalist group that carried out the bombings.
In a meeting with foreign diplomats in the Gaza Strip, Arafat said he would focus on moving against Izz a-Din al-Kassam, the military branch of Hamas, but would leave Hamas’ political leadership intact.
To some degree, this is something of a practical necessity, because it is with the Hamas’ political wing that Arafat has been seeking an agreement.
There have been repeated reports in recent months that the two sides had reached an agreement under which Hamas would cease terror attacks against Israel in return for promises from the Palestinian Authority that the group’s members would not face arrest.
The fact that Hamas had not launched a terror attack for seven months prior to Sunday’s bombings had raised speculation that Arafat had indeed reached an accord with Hamas – to at least refrain from terrorism until after the Israeli elections in late May.
But Sunday, that speculation was prove false.
Arafat can claim to reach understandings with dozens of fundamentalist groups, but one splinter group, one renegade cell, is enough to turn these purported understandings into a bitter joke.
Palestinian security branches have managed in recent months to prevent a number of terrorist attacks Israel, but the fundamentalists’ terror operations remain active.
In fact, the Palestinian Authority headed by Arafat does not want to eradicate the militants’ organizations, for a number of reasons.
Arafat has at all costs sought to prevent civil strife among Palestinians. In addition, he has wanted to keep Hamas, which remains fervently opposed to the peace process, as a potential threat against Israel.
Moreover, Arafat cannot reach every terrorist cell in the Gaza refugee camps.
After all, Israel was not able to do it when it had control over Gaza.
Nor was Israel able to stop the terrorists responsible for Sunday’s blasts, both of whom were believed to have come from Hebron, the only West Bank town still under Israeli control.
And there is yet another factor preventing Arafat from launching a full-scale crackdown on militants.
Just as Arafat wants to convince the Israelis that he is serious about implementing the self-rule accords, he has long been afraid to appear to the Palestinian public as an Israeli puppet.
Arafat is nonetheless well aware of a dilemma confronting his people.
On the one hand, few Palestinians shed tears over spilled Israeli blood.
On the other, thousands of Palestinians – particularly those in Gaza – are economically dependent on Israel.
Two weeks before Sunday’s terror attacks, Israel had imposed a closure on the West Bank and Gaza after it received reports that Hamas militants were planning a terror assault to retaliate for the January murder of a leading Hamas terrorist, Yehiya Ayash, also known as “The Engineer.”
The closure, lifted last Friday, was swiftly reimposed after Sunday’s attacks – and Israeli officials warned that it may remain in place for a long time to come.
For the Palestinians, a majority of whom had hoped that the establishment in 1994 of the Palestinian Authority would mean more bread on their tables, this is dire news.
True, there were expressions of joy Sunday on Palestinian streets, scenes reminiscent of the days when Palestinians celebrated the Iraqi Scuds falling over Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.
But these were undoubtedly the expressions of a minority.
The majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza voted in the Jan. 20 Palestinian Council elections for Arafat and the peace process.
But just the same, Hamas, which boycotted the elections, remains in the wings military and politically, waiting to capitalize on the economic discontent an extended closure would bring.
Hamas leaders were careful not to speak out explicitly in support of the attacks, but one could sense their satisfaction in what they left unsaid.
Jamil Hamami, a Hamas leader in the Jerusalem region, said that even though “the attacks do not serve the cause of anyone,” he could not condemn the attacks “because such words do not lead to the real road toward the necessary goal.”
Among those goals are the establishment of a Palestinian state, the freeing of all Palestinian prisoners still in Israeli jails and the return to the territories all those who were displaced in the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six-Day War.
Hassan Yussuf, a Hamas leader for the Ramallah region in the West Bank, referred to Ayash, who was killed when he answered a booby-trapped cellular phone, when he spoke of Sunday’s blasts.
“What does one expect of a movement whose leader was executed in such a manner?” he said.
More moderate Palestinians voiced the concern that acts of terrorism may tip the Israeli political balance in favor of the right.
Dr. Ahmed Tibi, and Israeli Arab adviser to Arafat and a candidate in the upcoming Knesset elections, warned that the terrorists “were arming the Israeli right.”
An indication of the embarrassment felt by the Palestinian leadership was provided by Freih Abu Medein, the Palestinian Authority’s justice minister, who attempted to deflect some of the blame for Sunday’s bombings.
He pointed at possible collaboration between “extremists on both sides” of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.
He attempted to back up his claim by maintaining that the “sophisticated explosives” used Sunday could only be found in Israel.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
