Ze'ev Schiff

In the course of efforts to establish an international coalition to fight terrorism, Washington has found itself in absurd situations riddled with contradictions. From Israel's standpoint, it could be considered a joke that the United States, apparently inspired by Egypt, is proposing that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat join a regional forum to discuss ways of fighting terrorism.

It's hard to assume that Osama bin Laden is a fanatic idiot who is waiting in his hiding place in Afghanistan for an American attack. It would take an intelligence miracle, something that didn't happen to the Americans on September 11, for them to locate bin Laden and his men, and to hit them directly. It is a reasonable assumption that the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan have long since emptied out.

It's true that on Osama bin Laden's list of unbelievers, against whom war must be waged, the Jews (and not Israel alone) appear only in second place, after the "Crusaders."

The constantly reiterated evaluation of cabinet ministers and officers of the army's high command is that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat got nothing from the military confrontation - from his intifada - that began exactly a year ago. This is a worrisome conclusion, because it is not factually accurate and is wrongheaded from a publicity and educational point of view.

It is commonly thought in Israel that the recent murderous terror attacks in the United States have vastly increased the degree of Israel's maneuverability in its military conflict with the Palestinians and that the Israel Defense Forces can now allow itself to do what it could not do before. People who think in this fashion are going overboard.

The Oslo accords, which were signed eight years ago this week, and the events that took place in their wake await the judgment of future historians.

Could the same thing happen here? Granted, Israel is more alert to the threat of terrorism and this readiness will certainly be stepped up following the disaster in the United States. Furthermore, Israel has accumulated considerable experience in fighting terrorism and has already paid a heavy price in its war against the very height of terror: the deployment of Islamic suicide-bombers. However, it would be very foolish for Israelis to claim that it could never happen here.

Could the same thing happen here? Granted, Israel is more alert to the threat of terrorism and this readiness will certainly be stepped up following the disaster in the United States.

The Palestinians are claiming that they have in their possession documents that prove that, in the talks held at Taba last January, an understanding, which came very close to becoming an agreement, was reached within the context of the subcommittee on the Palestinian refugees.

In a meeting between an emissary of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and representatives of the village of Ghajar, which is located on the Israel-Syria-Lebanon border, the village's representatives asked whether Israel would have agreed to the same arrangement with the United Nations regarding their village had the subject of the arrangement been a Jewish community situated on the border.

Until recently, Israel was showing much wisdom in the way it handled the military confrontation forced upon it by the Palestinians.

Around midnight on Monday, about an hour before Israel Defense Forces troops entered Beit Jala, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres asked that the operation be postponed. Previously he had received a report that the shooting coming from that village, which was aimed at the southern Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, had stopped.

Ariel Sharon came to his first meeting as prime minister with the members of the Israel Defense Forces' general staff in a conciliatory mood.

The best summary that has appeared so far on the Palestinian side concerning Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's strategy in the current military confrontation with Israel can be found in an article by Palestinian intellectual Prof. Yezid Sayigh.

Before Foreign Minister Shimon Peres sets out to talk with the Palestinians about a cease-fire - though it's obvious that they will be talking about more than just a cease-fire - it's worth recalling something that many people tend to forget: What Arafat is doing today with Israel, he has done twice before in the past with Israel's neighbors.

In the middle of the night on May 27, 1965, the Israel Defense Forces was sent to blow up targets in Jenin because on the previous night Fatah had carried out an operation in the Afula region. The top brass had been furious and had managed to persuade the government to authorize an immediate retaliatory operation.

The debate instigated by the Palestinians and their supporters regarding Ehud Barak's responsibility for the failure of last July's Camp David summit is marginal. Although the lessons to be learned about how to negotiate with the Palestinians may be important, the overriding impression is that this debate is meant to divert attention from more important issues, that it is merely an attempt to reassign blame for the failure.

Which prime minister showed the greatest daring in his willingness to subject the secret services to intrusive criticism, in sharp contrast to his predecessors and despite their warnings that his actions would harm the morale and motivation of the heads of the defense agencies?

Earlier this week, the Israeli press (Ha'aretz, July 30) covered reports published in the widely circulated Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat about the draft of a study conducted by the American strategic expert Anthony Cordesman. The headline was: "Israel may be unable to repel Arab attack." Among other things, the report stated that Israel would not be able to withstand an all-out surprise attack for a prolonged period of time. Furthermore, it reported that the Saudi Arabian air force was no

On November 12 of last year, when the Palestinian Intifada was already in full swing, Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, came on an official visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Few people now remember that there was a stage in the series of agreements that Israel signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in which the two sides consented to the presence of an international force in the territories. It was Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat who torpedoed that arrangement. The international force that was supposed to be stationed in the territories even had a name: "Temporary International Presence" (TIP).

The best advice for the Americans at this juncture seems to be that they should do everything humanly possible to avoid repeating the mistakes that have been made ever since the signing of the Oslo accords. The Americans must consider what measures should be undertaken to ensure that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will again commit the various violations and tricks that have led the two sides into a dead-end street.

What is the most important immediate goal of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat? Some of the intelligence analysts in Israel and the United States, and indeed in the West in general, think that his logical goal is to move quickly to what is the important stage, for him, of the Mitchell Commission recommendations: the stage at which Israel will have to freeze construction in the settlements, including construction stemming from natural growth.

Is it possible that an important piece of information was leaked from the White House last September to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat - namely, that then American President Bill Clinton would be launching a detailed initiative to solve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and would thus be establishing Washington's official stance?

The view that the Shin Bet security service has raised the white flag and capitulated to the General Staff's intelligence branch's view of the scope of Yasser Arafat's control on the ground, is incorrect. On the contrary, the Shin Bet is now more firmly convinced than ever that it is right and offers new evidence to prove it.