November 2001 Heshvan 5762
Ah, Those who call evil good, And good evil;
Who present darkness as light,
And light as darkness;
Who present bitter as sweet,
And sweet as bitter!
Ah, Those who are so wise In their own opinion;
So clever In their own judgment!
-
Isaiah 5:20
His talk begins in silliness and ends in disastrous
madness.
Yet the fool talks and talks.
-- Ecclesiastes
10:14
B arbara Tuchman's book The March of Folly studies examples of witless
national conduct beginning with the Trojans accepting the Wooden Horse into
their city. Today, folly marches on through the corridors of power. Its latest
triumph is the discovery that it is essential to a
worldwide war on terrorism, to endow the world's Senior Terrorists with a
state all their own.
This is presented as a "vision" of Israel and Palestine, living
side by side in peace. This is incorrectly defined as a long-standing vision
of U.S. policy, and overlooks the simple fact that there already is an Arab
state in "Palestine". It is called Jordan. It was created by cutting away
75 percent of the land designated by the Mandate for the Jewish National
Home. A second Arab state would cut the Jewish share of the Land of Israel
down to a mere 17 percent of Palestine, for the benefit of an Arabic-speaking population that did not enter the land until after
the start of Jewish resettlement, and whose identity asd a nation was invented
in 1967.
Some of the reasons why a PLO state is not a vision but a nightmare are suggested
in 'The March of Folly -- Part I" (Issue No. 10).
Ways in which it is specifically
detrimental to the United States itself are set forth in excerpts from "In
Whose Interest", by Jonathan Tobin, Jewish World Review, November 12, 2001:
. . . . Back in
September, President Bush told Congress and the American people that our
nation was about to go to war against all terrorists everywhere. It was an
inspiring message, and justly earned him plaudits from across the political
spectrum.
[. . . .] Washington seeks to use diplomacy to
build an alliance against terrorism. The key to this coalition seems to be
keeping Israel under wraps. From the point of view of the coalition builders,
any mention of Israel is liable to upset their "friends" in Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan and elsewhere in the Arab world. Kowtowing
to the whims of these "allies" has become a full-time job for Secretary of
State Colin Powell.
Though American forces may not stop the bombing of Taliban targets
for the duration of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, the State Department has
compensated for this by roughing up Israel regularly. Friends of Israel have
protested against the double standard by which America is allowed to bomb
another country to get at terrorists, yet Israel cannot pursue the murderers
of its citizens. . . . . As was the case when Iraq sent Scud missiles against
Israel in response to the American offensive in the Persian Gulf war, Israel's
job under the current circumstances appears to be to just sit back and watch
its citizens being slaughtered by Palestinian terrorists. The unreasonable
nature of such demands notwithstanding, Israel actually has been doing everything
it can to quietly help the United States with intelligence.
[. . . .] Bush's people are preparing to offer their own Mideast
peace plan. Forgotten are all previous attempts to "solve" the Palestinian
problem. All have foundered - not on the perceived intransigence of Israel,
but on the desire of Arafat and the Palestinians for nothing less than the
destruction of the Jewish state. . . . . Yet Bush's
people have seized upon the idea of endorsing a Palestinian state. . . .
. Israel already faces all of the dangers that a Palestinian state poses.
Arab murderers already have a safe haven from which to launch terrorism on
Israel in P.A. territory. The irony is, under the current circumstances, a
Palestinian state will pose a much bigger problem for America than for Israel.
Formal sovereignty will solve none of the problems of the Palestinian
people, who suffer bitterly at the hands of Arafat's despotic kleptocracy.
There will be no freedom or prosperity in this state, which will serve as
an irredentist force whose only aim will be to undermine Israel, Jordan and
other neighboring countries.
The Palestinians will be just one more anti-American vote in the
United Nations, but that's not the half of it. Once secure in its sovereignty,
the State of Palestine will replace besieged Afghanistan and isolated Syria
as the terror capital of the world. Similar to when Arafat's Palestinian
Liberation Organization ruled South Lebanon prior to 1982, the state of Palestine
will be a magnet for every terror group on the planet. Terrorists won't have
to brave the elements in Afghanistan to set up camps, they will be able to
set up shop within stone-throwing distance of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
This will mean endless trouble for America's favorite "moderate"
Arabs who live in fear of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad - and who despise
Arafat. The result will not be easy for Israel to deal with, but it will
be especially troublesome for an American government that will be at once
responsible for the new state, as well as one of its chief victims.
Thus, a Palestinian
state will harm American security, as defined by the State Department and
not pro-Israel groups. . . . . Far from subordinating American interests,
friends of Israel who are worried about Washington's mad pursuit of Arab
favor seem to have a better understanding of U.S. security than its supposed
guardians.
* * * * * * *
Tony Blair is Prime Minister of Great Britain, the nation whose
bungling and betrayals of its Mandate for Palestine (1921-1948) created the
Israel-Arab conflict. [See Issues Nos. 2, 7] He recently made a political
pilgrimage to Jerusalem to demand that Israel "make painful sacrifices".
It might be thought bad form for Israelis, or Jews collectively, to consider
that they have already over-filled their quota on pain and sacrifice. He
made no such demands on Arafat, whom he embraced with affection and promises:
From "Unholy alliances", by Daniel
Johnson, The Daily Telegraph
(Great Britain) October 23, 2001:
If 5,500 people had not been horribly murdered in America on September
11, would Tony Blair have invited Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat
to Downing Street? Why, in the midst of a war against terrorism, does the
British prime minister embrace the man who, more than any other, invented
international terrorism?
September 11 ought to have strengthened Israel's relationship
with the West. Israel's enemies are the West's enemies. In such a shared
predicament, to demonstrate solidarity with Israel ought to have been an
elementary duty. Instead, Western governments have so far done the opposite.
America and Britain have talked up the creation of an independent Palestinian
state. The purpose of the 'peace process' is no longer to make peace, but
to satisfy one party in the conflict. No peace without full sovereignty for
Arafat's Palestine will be regarded by London and Washington as just and
permanent.
Blair is demanding that Israelis accept a new state, carved out
of territory that is now being used to attack them, over which they will
have no control. [. . . .] But what reason do Israelis have to suppose that
the new Palestine will not be a terrorist state,
like Syria, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Afghanistan? Or to be like other states,
such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, that offer covert sponsorship of terrorists,
as does Arafat.
From Oslo to Camp David, even unprecedented Israeli concessions
could not persuade Arafat to sign a treaty. The disillusionment of Israeli
public opinion with the peace process since the resumption of the intifada
is total. Yet Blair is demanding that Israel resume talks with Arafat, as if the suicide bombings, which some 75 percent
of Palestinians support, had never happened. Why should Israel trust a man
who has probably had more Jews killed in the past 50 years than anyone since
Hitler?
Osama bin Laden is thus already well on the way to achieving one of his declared aims: the 'liberation,'
that is Islamization, of Jerusalem. Last week Arafat
insisted that east Jerusalem must be the capital
of the new Palestinian state. By feting Arafat at such a time, Blair effectively
endorsed his demands. The US State Department is also said to favor a divided
Jerusalem.
Hence the significance of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's recent
visit to Iran - sponsor of Hizbullah and other terrorists - and the notorious
article in which he compared outrage at September 11 to 'the anger which
many people in the region feel at events over the years in Palestine'. Straw
was suggesting a moral equivalence between Israel and terrorists of bin Laden's
stamp, a standard trope of Islamist propaganda.
Last week Blair, too, implied an equivalence between September
11 and 'the suffering of the Palestinians'. He revealed that the Americans
and British had been pressuring Israel even before the crisis. Ariel Sharon
is being blamed for creating a vacuum that has been filled by bin Laden.
Western diplomats have long blamed Israel for the Middle East conflict. Now
Israel is blamed for Islamist terrorism, too. The strategic justification
of American support for Israel is widely held to have ended with the Cold
War. Now the moral justification seems to have been dumped, too.
Yet Israel has been engaged in the same struggle against the same
enemies for two generations. Terrorism in its modern form - the hijacking
and destruction of airliners -is a consequence of the failure to annihilate
Israel by military assault. Its emergence created the climate in which messianic
revolutionaries such as Osama bin Laden could flourish. He is merely the
latest in a long sequence of demagogues- Nasser, Gaddafi, Arafat, Khomeini,
Saddam - who have used terrorism not only against Israel, but against the West. Terrorism is a continuation of jihad by other
means. It cannot be appeased, only defeated.
That the motivation for the assault on New York was, in part,
anti-Jewish was already evident at the time. Anti-Semitism is more virulent
than ever in the Islamic world. The suicide killer makes sense only within
the context of a genocidal ideology. The scenes of mothers celebrating the
self-immolation of their sons are otherwise incomprehensible.
Europeans and Americans fail to understand the ferocity of this
struggle, even though it is dawning on them that the Islamists who have long
menaced their own Jewish citizens along with Israel have now become a threat
to everybody. Israelis are often accused of paranoia. But there is a subliminal
anti-Semitism at work in the persistent desire of the West to identify with
states and movements that deny Israel's right to exist.
The Israelis have reason to be paranoid. Yet there is a pragmatic case for standing by them. Israel is still
the only true democracy in its region. Zionism is a Western ideology; unlike
Islamic fundamentalism, it is compatible with modern secular culture. Israel
is now the Silicon Valley of the Levant; it is a reliable source of intelligence
-- in both senses.
To abandon Israel now would give the Islamists the strongest possible
incentive to escalate the global jihad. Nemesis would overtake the West.
Such a betrayal, and such a nemesis, are too hideous to contemplate. Instead,
Bush must once again mobilize the great arsenal of democracy on behalf of
its only champion among the despots of the Orient."
* * * * * * *
"They never learn anything and they never
forget anything."
-- Voltaire
"Obsessive compulsion" is a psychologist's term for a neurosis
that compels someone to repeat endlessly an irrational action, that serves
no purpose and may even be pernicious. Too many makers of policy on the Middle
East seem to be afflicted with this disorder.
When an agreement between Israel and the PLO fails because the
PLO does not honor any of the terms, the obsessive-compulsion policy is to
craft another agreement. The terms of the agreement are dictated in advance.
That way, the PLO can assume that whatever favors them is already granted,
and it can demand even more for itself in negotiation.
When a ceasefire between Israel and the PLO fails because the
PLO does not cease firing, the obsessive-compulsion policy is to craft another
ceasefire. If that does not work, then drop the demand for a ceasefire and
substitute a demand that Israel negotiate concessions at the same time its
people are being slaughtered.
When Israel succumbs to pressure to make concessions to terrorists,
the terrorists take this as evidence that more terror will procure more concessions.
The obsessive-compulsion policy is to demand more concessions.
The obsessive-compulsion policymaker still swears that a PLO state
can be constructed to "live in peace side by side with Israel" determined
to ignore the PLO's own relentlessly repeated vow that it will never stop
short of any solution but the destruction of Israel. (Do the policymakers
lack access to any source that can translate from Arabic to English?)
Since the Oslo Accords, the U.S. taxpayers have been largely subsidizing
the PLO. By law, the State Department is required to make periodic reports
to Congress on whether the PLO has been complying with its commitments under
those Accords. The State Department has always been considerably less than
candid in those reports, and devotes more effort to obstructing congressional
action than to obstructing PLO violations.
Alumni policymakers still issue instructions to their successors,
uninhabited by the disastrous outcome of their own past mistakes. There is,
however, one point on which some of the wise persons had second thoughts.
When Israel knocked out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor, the world was hysterical
in its denunciations of the deed. From the Gulf War and onward, there has
been an occasional acknowledgement that perhaps after all it is just as well
that Saddam did not yet have atom bombs. This does not have a logical sequel
that perhaps other critical convictions about Israel's behavior might also
be short on perception.
According to Secretary of State Colin Powell and his staff, Arab
terrorism against Israelis doe not qualify for inclusion in the global war
on all terrorism. The Secretary has even suggested that after all in such
a context "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter". Several
State Department spokesmen have tried to explain why Israel, in contrast
to the United States, does not have the right to strike back at those who
slaughter its citizens. The explanation is: Terrorism against Israel is merely
a way "to resolve political issues" and this is on a different plane from
"violent people trying to destroy societies".
The first U.S. list of terrorist organizations whose assets should
be frozen did not include Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad all them fighting
for the obliteration of Israel. They were added belatedly and reluctantly.-
The U.S. State Department posts offers of rewards for the apprehension
of terrorists who kill U.S. citizens abroad. These offers do not extend to
U.S. citizens who fall victim to terrorist murderers in Israel. The official
explanation for this exception is that Americans murdered in Israel are not
murdered "because they are Americans".
Two victims were certainly selected because there were Americans.
They were not Jews, nor had they committed the indiscretion of being in Israel.
They were U.S. State Department personnel assigned to the embassy in Khartoum,
in the Sudan: Cleo Noel, Ambassador and George Curtis Moore, Charge d'Affaires.
In 1973, they and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid were kidnapped by the PLO and put
to death. The execution was personally supervised by Yassir Arafat by telephone
from Beirut. Since then, he has frequently been received as an honored guest
at the White House.
Six months ago, on May 8, Palestinian terrorists slaughtered our
son Koby, 13, and his friend Yosef Ish-Ran, 14. The two boys, who played
hooky from 8th grade to go hiking in a dry riverbed a half a kilometer [about
a quarter of a mile] from our home in Israel, were found with their heads
crushed and bodies mutilated beyond recognition. The killers dipped their
hands into the boys' blood and smeared it on the walls of the cave where
the boys were found.
Koby was both an American and an Israeli citizen. He loved Cal
Ripken, Michael Jordan, making chocolate milk shakes for the whole family
and studying the logic of the Talmud. . . . . He was kind and athletic and
funny, and he was smart, smart enough to understand the way that language
affects perception. What we call or name an action often determines how we
perceive it.
In a stunning and painful development, many American newspapers,
including The New York Times and The Washington Post , have bought the Palestinian propaganda line that murderers who
kill innocent Israelis like Koby are not terrorists trying to instill fear
and demoralize a civilian population, but rather "militants" who are engaged
in a campaign of warfare against a repressive government.
According to this line of reasoning, our son and other children
like him are killed not by terrorists - but by Palestinian "militants." Militants
are engaged in combat, in military action, ready to give up their lives to
attack the enemy. According to this line of reasoning, our son and other children
like him were killed not by cowardly and immoral terrorists - but by brave
and honorable Palestinian militants.
[. . . .] Calling Palestinian terrorists militants justifies the
actions of people like Sheikh Yassin of Hamas and Marwan Barghouti of the
Tanzim who eagerly send Palestinians to die "nobly" for their cause, targeting
Israeli children, like the 14- and 16-year-olds killed last week in Jerusalem.
The two were on the way home from school. They were riding a public bus filled
with other high school students when a terrorist opened fire with an M16.
The shooter killed the two teenagers and wounded 50 others.
On the day of the shooting, the headlines in The New York Times and
elsewhere reported that the attack had been perpetrated by Palestinian militants.
In the morning, those militants had been transformed into gunmen - an even
more offensive term, with its old-fashioned atmosphere and vapid neutrality
. . . .
What has happened to the word terrorist -- inflicting terror,
horror, pain to create overwhelming fear? Why are these men called by innocuous
labels when their goal is to kill and maim as many innocent people as they
can? And what about terrorism - a system of inflicting terror on a particular
population? Why has that word suddenly been excised from the political rhetoric
about Palestinians?
[. . . .] Palestinian leaders consciously inculcate the culture
of terrorism in their society. That's one reason why polls indicate that
more than 75% of the population favor suicide bombings. That's why on the
evening of September 11, Palestinians were dancing in the street, celebrating
because nearly 6,000 people had been struck down by a "militant" plot on
American soil. That's why Palestinians accord rock star status to suicide
bombers who die a "martyr's" death. It's a message that legitimizes terrorists
like the one who blew up the Sbarro pizza parlor, killing our friend Frimet
Roth's 15-year-old daughter, Malky, a flute player and poet.
The Palestinians celebrated the Sbarro bombing by opening an exhibition
at an Islamic university, where there was a cardboard cutout of the Sbarro
storefront, and fake blood spilled onto the ground. This is how the Palestinian
students learn to glorify the systematized 'martyrdom' of good 'militants'.
Make no mistake about it. Our son Koby was killed by terrorists.
We beg you, do not whitewash that fact. Do not justify our son's murder.
And do not jeopardize America's moral fight against terrorism by calling
the Palestinians who killed Koby, Yosef, and the others resistance fighters,
instead of calling them what they are: cruel, callous, child-killing terrorists
with blood on their hands and hate seared into their hearts.
Excerpts
from "Different Rules: Wage war on all terrorism, except when its aimed
at Israel", by Mark R. Levin, National
Review Online ,
18 October 2002:
The Bush administration's approach to Israel has become increasingly
absurd. On Tuesday, an Israeli cabinet minister, Rehavam Zeevi, was assassinated
at Jerusalem's Hyatt Hotel by terrorists belonging
to the so-called Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). .
. . . Secretary of State Colin Powell told Israel's Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon not to retaliate in a way that would harm efforts to attain a ceasefire.
An Israeli cabinet minister is murdered in cold blood by a terrorist
group tied to Syria and close to Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, and
the best the Bush administration can do is urge Israel to continue negotiations
with Arafat in direct contradiction of its own repeatedly
stated antiterrorism doctrine.
There can be no doubt that if a member of President Bush's Cabinet
was gunned down in a Washington hotel by some terrorist, the last thing the
U.S. government would do is negotiate with the terrorist's sponsor. Clearly,
this would be an act of war. Yet, the president insists
that Israel follow a different path.
Israel is an independent nation. Its government is elected by its people. And the government's paramount job is to
protect the citizenry from harm. If the elected officials of the government
believe it is not in the best interests of Israel to negotiate with terrorists,
or sponsors of terrorism a position embraced by all sensible democracies,
including obviously the United States then they
must not. . . . .
Let's face it. The Bush Doctrine i.e., holding terrorists and
their sponsors accountable for their mayhem and murder -- has an exception.
And that exception applies to Israel's enemies. Otherwise,
the administration would not be pressing Israel to continue to negotiate with
people and organizations that seek to destroy it.
A
sardonic view -- "The Israelis Miss A Chance," by
Paul Greenberg, Editor, Arkansas
Gazette ,
8 November 2002:
[. . . . ] Israel is passing up a valuable opportunity to win
the world's good will.
By sending armed troops into Arab towns in search of terrorists,
Israel is again reaping criticism in Washington, at the United Nations and
in European capitals. It is losing the fight for world opinion, and we all
know how important world opinion is.
It was different a decade ago, when the Gulf War was on and Scud
missiles were falling on Tel Aviv. Back then the Israelis were exercising
remarkable restraint, certainly for Israelis. They were trying on gas masks
in Israel's population centers. Air raid sirens shattered the peace of Jerusalem.
Every day brought new reports of civilian casualties. Arab villagers stood
on their rooftops and cheered as Saddam's missiles headed for their targets.
CNN was showing film of devastated houses and apartment buildings.
And yet the Israelis held their fire, knowing that to strike back
would endanger another delicate coalition of Arab and Western states that
another Bush administration had managed to cobble together. Those were the
days. As they buried their dead, Israelis were showered with expressions
of sympathy from the world's capitals. It was a PR coup.
. . . .
European parliaments held off on their usual anti-Israel resolutions
and instead expressed sympathy for a people that refused to fight back. The Vatican, though it didn't recognize Israel, came
out against firing missiles at its cities. Here at home, even the National
Council of Churches, which seldom if ever has had a good word for the Jewish
state, deplored the attacks on Israeli cities.
The understanding and admiration just poured in. For there is
nothing that seems to unite the world in sympathy like the sight of Jews
dying without fighting back. Remember when the Jews of Europe, the few who
had survived, were Displaced Persons with nowhere to go? Resolutions were
passed, sympathy expressed, classes in Holocaust literature inaugurated.
But now that there's a place that'll take in any Jewish refugee
in the world -- it's part of Israel's fundamental law -- there's no such
thing as a Jewish refugee anymore, and the world's sympathy has dried up.
If only the Israelis had taken a cue from their Arab cousins and left the
refugees to rot in camps rather than integrating them into their state, maybe
the world would have a higher opinion of Israel today.
Chances to suffer need to be seized or they'll be gone forever.
That's why Israelis shouldn't respond when suicide bombers blow up their
buses, schools, pizzerias and seaside discos. Or even assassinate the occasional
Cabinet minister. For the world loves Jewish martyrs. (Maybe that's why there
have been so many of them.)
Here was a chance to win the world's sympathy and America's lasting
gratitude (again). All the Israelis had to do was just sit there and take
it. Instead, without any understanding of the importance of public relations,
the Israelis seem determined to hunt down the killers of their people. Even
if it means sending commandos in search of terrorists. Even if it means blowing
up the killers' nests and launching a war against terror. Even if it means
attacking the Palestinian authorities who shelter the terrorists and urge
them on, and even join in the killing now and then.
Who do these Israelis think they are, Americans?
The pity is, the Israelis were doing so well for a while. They
offered Yasser Arafat a state of his own, encompassing almost all his territorial
demands, and even offered to share Jerusalem, their capital. Whatever else
he wanted, they were prepared to negotiate. They never got a counteroffer.
Unless you consider a year-long campaign of terror an offer too good to refuse.
A year ago, it had never been clearer who sought peace in the
Mideast and who wanted war. If the Israelis had just buried their dead and
gone about their business, rewarding every act of violence with another concession,
soon enough they would have been assured of a flood of condolences. Instead
they're fighting back and reaping only denunciation.
If only the Palestine Liquidation Organization could be given
its own state, with its own army and its own borders -- borders that other
Arab armies could then cross without opposition on their way into Israel's
heartland. Then the stage would be set for the greatest wave of worldwide
sympathy Israel has ever enjoyed.
Think of the possibilities: The late Jewish state would be mourned
extensively. Once again there would be Jewish refugees for the world to cry
over. Streets in Paris and London would be renamed in honor of Haifa and
Tel Aviv. Benefits would be held at the nicest hotels.
The most eloquent speeches would be delivered in memory of Israel
by the statesmen and pundits now condemning her for having the poor taste
to insist on living. Art exhibits and poetry readings could be dedicated
to the State of Israel (1948-2001). It would be glorious.
Not a lot of Israelis might be left to appreciate the heartwarming
eulogies, but that would make the whole, worldwide spectacle only more lugubrious.
The good will might be posthumous, but it would be abundant. What the Israelis
need right now is somebody who knows something about winning over world opinion.
They don't seem to realize what an opportunity they're missing.
"Words mean what I say they mean, neither
more nor less."
-- Humpty Dumpty
Both Reuters News Agency and the BBC will not use the judgmental
term "terrorist" not even for the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks.
A PLO suicide bomber set off an explosion in the shopping center
of the Israeli city of Netanya, in which several passersby were killed and
others severely injured. The BBC reported it as an event "that the Israelis describe as terrorism".
For 50 years, the International Committee of the Red Cross, based in Switzerland, has banned affiliation by Israel's Magen Da'avid Adom [Red Shield of David] on the grounds that it does not use the Red Cross as its emblem. International membership does include Arab countries that use the Red Crescent, Iran that uses the Red Lion, and Russia that uses the Red Star.
The International Committee of the Red Cross may now consider admission of
Israel, but only on condition that it adopts a "non-religious, non-national
emblem". This would identify Israel as the only country in the world that
is not supposed to have a religion or a nationality.
* * * * * * *
King Abdullah of Jordan proposes that after an Israel-Arab final
settlement one on terms that would leave Israel stripped of defenses
the Arab world will then collectively insure the security of the remnants
of Israel.
END