Repercussions

Submitted by Ilona Melstrads (United States), Jul 1, 2003 at 11:33

The article is right that Arab terrorism against Israelis indicates lack of acceptance of Israel and is a means for war. What I don’t understand is why the terrorist organizations were made “partners” for some kind of “truce” or “treaty” with the new Palestinian Prime Minister. If the Palestinians have a Prime Minister, why should he be making truce agreements with non-governmental organizations?

Alan Dershowitz’s book on terrorism was very persuasive. As people know, he made the case that international toleration or even admiration for anti-Israeli terrorism since the 70s must have given a boost to other potential terrorist operations. US State Department double-speak, if it continues, could backfire on the US in Iraq and elsewhere because it discourages imposing costs on terrorism.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".