Fatwa for Fatah?
USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Timesand the Wall Street Journal'sworldwide newsbox all lead with Israel's decision to sever ties with Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, a day after terrorist attacks killed 10 Israelis. The Washington Post, interestingly, stuffs this story (at least in early editions) and leads with a report, based on interviews with Afghan commanders, that the "U.S. military operatives stepped in today to oppose a surrender deal offered by Osama bin Laden's fighters, pressuring Afghan leaders to instead renew their attack on the cornered holdouts." The deal would have allowed al-Qaida troops to surrender to diplomats from their own countries or to the U.N. The other papers are more equivocal. As the LAT puts it, "The U.S. role in a possible al-Qaida surrender is murky."
In one of the attacks in Israel yesterday, a bomb was detonated under a passenger bus, then when ambulances arrived, Palestinian gunmen opened fire.
Israel's security Cabinet quickly issued a statement: "Arafat is no longer relevant as far as the State of Israel is concerned and there will be no more contact with him." It added that Arafat was "directly responsible'" for the attacks.
The Cabinet also announced that Israeli troops will deploy in "military operations in cities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to carry out arrests and confiscate weapons.'' Israel tanks soon moved into Ramallah, where Arafat has his headquarters.
"We have no intention to assassinate Arafat or to hurt him," said Israel's justice minister. "We simply see him as having no value as a partner."
The LAT reports that Israeli authorities said the terrorists who carried out yesterday's attack had been on a list of alleged militants whom Israel wanted Arafat to arrest. The Palestinian Authority denied that.
"The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an underground militia affiliated with Arafat's Fatah group, took credit for the attack," reports USAT. "The brigade said it took part in the attack with Hamas." The West Coast Times disputes that, saying Hamas claimed sole responsibility. (Question: If Hamas and Fatah members did indeed work together on the attacks, would it be the first such joint operation between the two groups? Because that would certainly be a notable development.)
After the attacks, Arafat ordered the closure of the offices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The WSJ says, "the decision brings to a head the confrontation between Mr. Arafat and the Islamist movement, whose popularity has soared on a combination of social-welfare programs and suicide bomb attacks."
The NYT, in a front-page news analysis, says, "though Israel said it was fed up, it stopped well short of actually declaring the Oslo peace agreement dead." The papers adds, "The practical consequences of isolating Mr. Arafat were unclear. As it is, the Israelis have had little to no contact with him during the last 14 months." The piece says that the real question is whether Israel will also cut off contact with mid-level Palestinian Authority officials, who, even this past week, have been meeting with Israeli officials.
"The Americans won't accept [al-Qaida's] surrender," said Hazrat Ali, the security chief in eastern Afghanistan, after he left a meeting with U.S. officials. "They want to kill them."
Eric Umansky, previously the "Today's Papers" columnist for Slate, is currently a Gordon Grey Fellow at Columbia University's School of Journalism.


