With the recent violence permeating Israel, especially Jerusalem, and the breakdown of talks between the PLO and Israel, what is the role of Yasir Arafat? Is he to blame for the violence? Could he stop the violence? Is this his tactic to get what he wants from Israel, namely the complete return of the West Bank and all of East Jerusalem? Let's think about this together:

First of all, in negotiations, pinning Arafat down is not easy. He is a master of ambiguity, owner of a remarkable skill that has enabled him to wriggle out of defeats and somehow make survival a victory. It was at his weakest point when he had become a pariah in the Arab world for his support of Iraq during the Gulf War that he achieved his greatest triumph, the Oslo accords, pointing towards the establishment of a Palestinian state, something now within his grasp. But it is this ambiguity that is now causing the most frustration. Decisive decisions must now be made and he seems unwilling to make them. For example, the negotiations that broke down this summer did so precisely because Arafat was unwilling to make the hard decision to define the formal arrangements for the future of Jerusalem and the remaining issues between Israel and the PLO.

Secondly, the symbolism of Jerusalem has trapped both Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak. This symbolism reached its apex when Ariel Sharon, leader of the Likud party, visited the Temple Mount and affirmed the Jewish right to the Temple Mount. This is an emotion-charged issue because for Israel it is the site of the Temple, while for Islam it is the site of two mosques, especially the sacred Haram al-Sharif, where the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque are located. (It is the third holiest site of Islam). This is a seemingly insurmountable issue: How can both sides be satisfied with any kind of settlement? Further, Arafat, unlike Barak, has not prepared his people for any kind of compromise. He has always promoted an all-or-nothing solution to the Old City of Jerusalem, including control of the Temple Mount. So, when he cannot get what he wants from the negotiating table, he unleashes the forces of popular violence like he is doing now.

Third, Arafat is losing support among his people, the Palestinians. There is tremendous frustration among the Palestinians, angry people with an awful lot of rage. The perception among the Palestinians is that over these last seven years Israel has been dragging the process out. Further, Palestinians are seeing little fruit for all of the negotiating, and since Arafat has not prepared them for compromise, their rage is intensified. Added to this reality is the fact that the PLO now competes with other factions for Palestinian loyalty. There is Hamas, the Islamic fundamentalist organization that has strong roots in Gaza, a continual area of unrest festering with anger and rage. There is also the Tanzim, a grouping of street youths, nominally under Arafat's PLO but increasingly being influenced by Marwan Barghouti, an indigenous West Bank Palestinian who, while leading the Tanzim protest, has actually separated from Arafat on some key policies.

Finally, all of the dissension and division within the Palestinian organizations, points to the most important issue for Israel: Can Arafat deliver on the key issue of security? Israel has given up so much of the land it gained in the 1967 war because it has been guaranteed security by its former enemies. Now it is down to talking with the PLO, its long, bitter enemy. With the PLO right in its center and its borders therefore vulnerable, can Israel really trust Arafat to deliver on this most important issue? Israel's borders are now vulnerable. The Palestinians have authority in key cities and areas of the West Bank. Arafat knows that this is the one issue on which Israel must have satisfaction: The land for peace formula that Israel has been following must produce lasting security and lasting peace. If it does not, Israel will lose everything. Throughout this entire process during the 1990s, I have consistently argued that Israel, in following the land for peace formula, would one day regret giving back all of the land it had gained. I believe we are seeing the extreme vulnerability of Israel now staring us in the face. Arafat knows that and he is employing that security issue to get what he wants control of the Old City and the Temple Mount. We will see what happens.

See John Kifner, "Arafat Always Seems to Survive. Peace May Not," New York Times (8 October 2000).

Back to top

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

The advanced ages of several justices--Justice John Paul Stevens is 80, Chief Justice William Rehnquist is almost 76 and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is 70--means the next president will name two or more replacements most probably, maybe more. Such changes will more than likely alter the Court's rulings on abortion, gay rights, church- state relations, defining the role of the states and the national government and the environment. In addition, the next president will have a large role in shaping the nation's 13 circuit courts of appeals, the level just below the Supreme Court. As one historian has argued, "This is probably the most critical moment in the history of the judiciary since FDR's second term." (William Leuchtenberg)

Most advocacy groups are convinced that Gore would be bolder than Clinton in his Court choices, especially as it relates to appointing justices who are decidedly more liberal and expansive in the view of the Court's role. Hence, issues like abortion, gay rights and the role of the national government in our lives would take a clear leftward shift. Bush has made it clear than he most admires Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, an indication that he favors a more restrictive Court. The reality is we face a stark choice for president this year. The issue of the Supreme Court and the federal courts should be on the center stage of this year's election.

Back to top

THE OIL CRISIS

Over the last few months, we have seen a remarkable increase in oil prices. How should we think about this?

It is important to remember that consumers do not burn crude oil in their cars or homes; they burn refined oil. US refineries are currently running flat out, with some refiners dangerously postponing scheduled maintenance in their efforts to keep fuel oil and gasoline flowing out to distributors. The American oil industry complains that EPA regulations have so discouraged new refinery construction that there is no major refinery operating today that is less than 25 years old. The typical medium-sized refinery now has 500,000 "compliance obligations" to fulfill. More significantly, the EPA this spring disrupted product distribution with new regulations setting higher fuel standards for certain regions.

The EPA is now set to issue higher standards for diesel fuel. The higher the standards, the higher the refining cost and the smaller the fraction of product derived from a barrel of crude oil. Furthermore, Al Gore has made a career of catering to environmental radicals. Laws locking up the vast areas of the American West and Alaska to oil exploration bear his trademark. In his book, he avows that one of his goals is the abolition of the internal combustion engine. So, if you were Gore, what would you do in the midst of an oil crisis? Naturally, you would tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which solves absolutely nothing and merely prolongs the real solution, which is dealing with issues of supply, production and the EPA regulations.

Back to top