Larsen and Arafat
July 17, 2004
The Jerusalem Post
– HYPERLINK http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090045860236&p=1006953079865 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1090045860236&p=1006953079865 
On Wednesday, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, an aide to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, said, [UN Mideast envoy] Terje Roed-Larsen's statement is not objective. As of today he is an unwelcome person in Palestinian territories. The next day, the armed wings of Fatah and Islamic Jihad followed up with leaflets calling Roed-Larsen an Israeli ambassador. The masked men set ominously advised him to pack your bags and leave immediately. 
This is the same Roed-Larsen who has perhaps had more face-time with Arafat than any diplomat, and who had been shut out by Israeli officialdom since his central role in fanning the trumped-up charges of a supposed IDF massacre in Jenin in April, 2002. At that time, Ma'ariv editor Amnon Dankner described him as personal friend and an enthusiastic supporter of Yasser Arafat, a title that neither he nor anyone else saw reason to deny. 
What could Roed-Larsen have possibly said to fall so far from Palestinian favor? When Abu-Rudeineh accused him of being not objective, what does that mean? 
Here's what Roed-Larsen said that raised Palestinian ire: The PA, despite consistent promises by its leadership, has made no progress on its core obligation to take immediate action on the ground to end violence and combat terror and to reform and reorganize the Palestinian Authority. Then he went further, personalizing his remarks: Regarding the crucial area of security reforms, the president of the PA has lent only nominal and partial support to the commendable Egyptian effort aimed at reforming the ailing Palestinian security services. All those who yearn for peace have already and repeatedly argued President Arafat, in public and in private, [must] take immediate action to restore this diminished credibility, the envoy said in a report to the Security Council. 
This is astonishingly frank for a UN diplomat in general, and for Roed-Larsen in particular. But he also slammed Israel for making no progress either on its core obligation to immediately dismantle the settlement outposts created since March 2001 or on moving towards a complete freeze of settlement activities.... Israel's lack of compliance on this sensitive issue of settlements is [compared to PA inaction] equally frustrating.
So Roed-Larsen has not exactly become Israel's ambassador. His real sin, in Palestinian eyes is, as PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei put it, equating of Palestinian victims with Israeli aggressors. Indeed, in his report, Roed-Larsen had the gall to recall the death of three-year-old Afik Zehavi in a Kassam rocket attack on Sderot last month. Since when do Israelis have the right to be seen as victims? 
What is striking about this furor is not so much Roed-Larsen's change in tone, but what it says about Palestinian expectations from the United Nations. What this episode really reveals is the extent to which the international community – the prominent exception of the US aside – has not been neutral, but has actually taken the side of the suicide bombers. 
How can this be, one might ask, given the frequent international statements that terrorism against Israel must stop? UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan can be counted upon to condemn in strong terms every major terrorist attack against Israel. And international envoys have for some time pressed the Palestinians, publicly and privately, to take the actions that Roed-Larsen is now demanding in a more pointed way. 
Yet, in an important way, the Palestinians are right. A balanced statement that bluntly holds Arafat responsible for failing to fight terror while calling on Israel to halt settlements is a step backwards for them. What they have become used to is a situation in which the Security Council revs up its engines, not when there are terrorist attacks against Israel, but whenever Israel responds. Unlike the swift and unequivocal resolution condemning the September 11 attacks against the US, there has not only been no UN resolution dedicated to condemning terrorism against Israel, but the resolutions condemning Israel have been hard pressed to mention, let alone condemn, the terror that precipitated Israel's actions. 
This marked bias toward the Palestinians will continue this week as the General Assembly is expected to endorse the acrobatically anti-Israel decision of the International Court of Justice, which in some ways went further than the UN has done to date. That decision explicitly declared Israel's right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter to have no relevance in its verdict on a fence built for the sole purpose of blocking terrorist attacks. Maybe the Palestinians don't have to worry about the UN becoming Israel's ambassador so soon after all.