Undermining the justness of our cause

I listened to President Bush’s latest Mideast speech with the faint hope that he would finally articulate a reversal of his depressing double standard toward Israel. The first half was promising. Then the other shoe dropped.

“Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death … Since September 11th, I’ve delivered this message: everyone must choose; you’re either with the civilized world, or you’re with the terrorists.”

So far, so good, but then came the moral equivalency part, aimed at pacifying the terrorist thugs rather than striking fear in their hearts: “I ask Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin the withdrawal from those cities it has recently occupied … I’ve decided to send Secretary of State Powell to the region … he will work to implement … an end to terror and violence and incitement (and the) withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities.”

The main reasons most Americans have agreed that President Bush has risen to greatness since 9/11 are his moral clarity in identifying evil and evildoers, his resoluteness of purpose and his leadership in eradicating terrorism as an ever-present and paralyzing threat. From President Bush there had been nary a shade of ambiguity until the flare-ups began again in the Middle East.

When suicide bombers killed 26 people late last year, President Bush issued a statement endorsing Israel’s right to defend herself, but then immediately dispatched Colin Powell to lecture that “It’s important all parties consider the repercussions” of their actions. I got whiplash listening to those two statements back to back. And it won’t heal because the administration has continued this doublespeak since then; the president’s speech yesterday triggered a re-injury.

There is no moral equivalence between the terrorists’ actions and Israel’s defense. Unless you accept a redefinition of “terrorism,” Israel has engaged in no terrorism; it has tried not to kill civilians and it has commissioned no suicide bombers to kill Palestinians.

When you listen to President Bush’s statements on Israel it is hard to believe they are coming from the same man who has been so masterfully leading our war against terrorism. How can you say in one breath that no nation can negotiate with terrorists and in the next say that you are going to send your secretary of state to negotiate with terrorists?

And don’t tell me that presidents have to take action in the Middle East because that’s just what all presidents have done. Yes, they have all bought into the seductive notion that Middle East peace can be achieved through talk, through negotiating with terrorists and based on the promises of liars and murderers. Despite all the Nobel Peace Prizes dispensed like candy, we haven’t had peace. But we have had broken promises and the repeated killing of noncombatant, innocent human beings.

Even worse, President Bush’s decision to send Secretary Powell comes on the heels of even more heinous suicide bombings. Is that to be Arafat’s reward for a job well done?

If there were any likelihood that peace could be achieved through verbal exercises alone we would be immoral not to attempt it. But in the current context we are embarking on a path reckless not only to Israel, but to our own cause against terrorism.

Hair-splitters and sophists argue unpersuasively that there is a difference between Israel and America’s struggle against terrorism. But they are inseparable both in theory and practice.

We are not only kindred spirits with Israel, fighting the same type of enemy. We are fighting an identical enemy. Fox just reported that 30 al Qaeda fighters were on the ground assisting the Palestinians, and we know that Saddam Hussein has just upped his financial rewards for families of the bombers.

I know that for logistical reasons alone it would be nice to have the support of as many Arab states as possible against terrorism, but it simply isn’t going to happen -- especially when they won’t even recognize that terrorism is wrong. The overwhelming majority of Arab states refuse even to acknowledge the moral depravity of suicide bombings. Besides, gaining their support isn’t worth the cost, since the cost may well be our national soul.

We would do well to remember that our war on terrorism is being fought not just with troops, military hardware and intelligence. It is being fueled by a spirit of national unity born of the manifest justness of our cause. We are perilously close to losing that spirit because of our interminable hypocrisy toward Israel. If we lose our spirit, we lose our unity, and I shudder to think what that means for our war against terrorism and the future quality of life for our children. The anti-America crowd in this country waits in the wings for the opportunity to capitalize on our imminent disunity.

We can only avert that fate by speaking again with one voice, unencumbered by the illusions of some ephemeral diplomatic panacea.

Just another voice of many, self included, that just don't understand the "words" and actions of our President and his administration. However, I know in some quarters here on FR it is akin to treason to question GW and his actions. I would simply remind those that get bent out of shape when they read the questions and criticism, the motive for most doing so is not simply to Bash OUR President, but from a genuine love of country and the man most of us on FreeRepublic support.

I think the world continues to "go nuts" with so many western nations, especially ours, believing and pressing for negotiating with the very people who want nothing but Israel's and our destruction.

I suspect that when Bush's handlers change, so do his opinions. Not much leadership there, just an ability to deliver the lines given to him.

Sad. 43 ain't 40.

But in that quote, Bush never uses the word "Arafat." He's saying the peace process will go on, with someone else in charge. Giving Israel the ability to knock off bad political leaders is a nice advantage.

"Since September 11th, I’ve delivered this message: everyone must choose; you’re either with the civilized world, or you’re with the terrorists.”

Words.

Where is the action?

We know who are the terrorist supporters. We continue to do nothing whatever against any of them.

--Boris

Hum. It seems like he is giving all kinds of mixed and conflicting messages...

All FR people should know that while this is a hallmark of Clinton it is decidedly NOT a characteristic of Bush. Just what can he possibly be thinking? He is giving all kinds of mixed signals to everyone. Who knows what he is planning to do?

Geeze! Is he going to attack Iraq or not? Are we going to work with Israel or not? Is he going to work with the EU or not?

GW's stand after 9-11 was focused, intense, and sure. His SCRIPTED statements re: Israel have not been as courageous. It was easy to be after 9/11, but taking just as strong a stand concerning terrorists in Palestine would offend UN, Arabs, EU's and others, and that would really take courage! Leadership has to have a courageous element in it! I cannot stand playing both ends where terrorism is concerned.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.