De-Fence, Of-Fence and that Fence

The Bush Administration this week signaled its acceptance of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which then passed out of the House International Affairs Committee on a 33-2 vote. And, with more than 270 co-sponsors in the House and about 75 in the Senate, final passage seems assured. The Act bans the export to Syria of weapons and items that can be used in weapons programs. It also has a Chinese menu of sanctions, requiring the President to choose two among: banning all U.S. exports to Syria except food and medicine; banning U.S.

The Bush Administration this week signaled its acceptance of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, which then passed out of the House International Affairs Committee on a 33-2 vote. And, with more than 270 co-sponsors in the House and about 75 in the Senate, final passage seems assured. The Act bans the export to Syria of weapons and items that can be used in weapons programs. It also has a Chinese menu of sanctions, requiring the President to choose two among: banning all U.S. exports to Syria except food and medicine; banning U.S. business investment; restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in the U.S.; banning Syrian owned or controlled aircraft from landing in the U.S.; reducing diplomatic contact; or freezing Syrian assets in the U.S.

Any or all of which is fine with us.

The point, of course, is to ratchet up non-military pressure on the Syrian government to “encourage” it to terminate support for terrorists and terrorism. The U.S. doesn’t want to take military action to force a change in Syrian policy or a change in the Syrian government. The clear implication, however, is that if the mandatory and first two selected sanctions don’t work, more will be added and if that doesn’t work, the military option remains.

All of which is fine with us as well.

But how is it that the U.S. can use a series of tightening screws against Syria, but Israel can’t use a series of tightening screws against the Palestinian Authority? How is it that a “senior Administration spokesman” can say of Israel’s raid into Syria, “We have repeatedly told the government of Syria that it is on the wrong side of the war on terror and that it must stop harboring terrorists,” but Secretary Powell is still going on about that fence? Why is the Syrian government fair game, but the Palestinian Authority protected by an administration that appears to still believe the PA can be the vehicle for the expression of democratic nationhood by the Palestinian people?

Not to minimize the destructive tendencies of Syria, but if anyone is front-runner for the vacant spot in the Axis of Evil, it’s Arafat’s PA. Behind the cloak of governmental legitimacy, the PA hosts and cooperates with Hamas and Islamic Jihad; has turned refugee camps into bomb factories and young people into bomb delivery systems; operates a vicious propaganda machine designed to dehumanize and delegitimize Jews; produced a cult glorifying blood, death and destruction; and, no less than Saddam did to Iraq, has destroyed any hope of a vibrant Palestinian civic culture under its cudgel.

The PA was established to implement the Oslo Accords. It not only failed, but also set in motion the ruination of the Palestinian people and hopes for a modus vivendi with a secure and legitimate Israel. It has to go.

The administration should take the same admirable clarity it has applied to Syria and tell the PA “it is on the wrong side of the war” and let Israel determine which screws to tighten and when.