Posted on 05/04/2002 3:10:52 PM PDT by ohioWfan
It was everything it promised to be, and more. We had approached the evening with great anticipation, and we were not disappointed.
Allow me to give you a little background on the event. It was the 18th Annual John M. Ashbrook Memorial Dinner with special guest, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. John Ashbrook was a prominent conservative Congressman from Ohio’s 17th congressional district, who died in 1982. Following his death, it was decided by his family and friends that the best way to honor his memory would be to establish a university-based institute for the study of public affairs in his name. Ashland University was chosen because of its desire to integrate the plan of the Ashbrook Center into its academic program. John Ashbrook had dedicated his life to championing the politics of freedom, and the principles and practices of limited constitutional government, and the Center perpetuates those ideals by helping its students acquire the intellectual and moral virtues required for thoughtful citizenship, and thoughtful lives.
The Center was inaugurated on May 9, 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. Since then the list of distinguished speakers has included such luminaries as Vice President George Bush in 1984, Edward Meese, Caspar Weinberger, Bill Bennett, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Charleton Heston and Clarence Thomas.
The dinner on Friday night featuring Prime Minister Netanyahu drew the second largest crowd since the program’s inception, the largest being for President Reagan, and there were over 500 people in attendance.
The evening began with two concurrent receptions at 6:00, on a general reception (for commoners such as we!) and one for VIPs. Actually had we been willing or able to pay the extra money for tickets, we could have attended the VIP reception as well. Mr. Netanyahu attended that reception, and there was an opportunity to be photographed with him there. Hors d’oeuvres and punch were served at the reception we attended.
Security was very tight, with police surrounding the building, and Secret Servicemen scattered throughout the building. Old-timers said the security was (understandably) even tighter than it had been when President Reagan spoke.
The dinner began promptly at 7:00, and the invocation was given by Governor Bob Taft. We were seated at round tables of 8, and were honored to be seated at the same table as Rep. Ashbrook’s sister and niece. Our table engaged in delightful conversations, including discussions of the ignominy and shame of the former occupant of the White House, in comparison with the honor of the present First Couple, and the outright silliness of the thought of a talk show that would involve narcissistic self-talk by a debauched ex-President host. The entrée was Beef Wellington, served with steamed vegetables and rice, iced tea and spinach salad. Before we ate, we were asked to fill out cards with questions for the Prime Minister, to be collected for the Q & A session after the speech, and having fielded many fine questions from my friends at FR, and having both come up with a few of our own, my husband and I submitted several questions.
The air literally bristled with excitement as Mr. Netanyahu was introduced, and the crowd stood and applauded as he came to the podium. He began with some light-hearted comments, including a joke about a Jew who was being fed to a very hungry lion by the Romans. You’ll have to trust me that it was funny! I don’t want to give away the punch line in case he uses it again.
He then said that he was going to do something unusual, and speak on the subject that he had planned to speak on! I will be giving partial quotes, but please keep in mind that these are not always verbatum because they are coming from my notes, and not a manuscript.
The subject was The Sources of Stability and Instability in the 21st Century, and to get to the root of the question, Netanyahu went back to the 18th century philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, and the pamphlet, Perpetual Peace, where Kant asks the question, ‘How do we get peace that will last?’ In it he posits that there are two kinds of peace, one involving democracies, where one needs do nothing, because the peace will take care of itself, and the other, involving dictatorships. In totalitarian governments there is nothing within those governments that will prevent conflict. The only way to keep peace involving dictatorships is with the combined power of democracies from without.
In the first half of the twentieth century, the philosophy of Kant was not practiced, and totalitarian regimes were permitted to rise up to power without being checked by democracies. In the second half of the twentieth century, the right kind of peace was achieved, because in the ‘Cold Peace’ democracies banded together in NATO to stand up against the Soviet Union, and keep the peace. Ironically, the Soviet Union was the biggest stopgap against the rise of militant Islam, and when it fell, the ensuing freedom allowed for the increase in terrorism.
Militant Islam, unfortunately is worse than Communism because it seeks to roll back the last millennium, to reverse the rise of Western Civilization by destroying the west, and the main engine of the West, the U.S.
In the past, the USSR, when forced to choose between ideology and survival, always chose survival. But with militant Islam, it is not clear what choice they would make, because they are a culture, a cult of death, as evidenced by the suicide bombers. It is the pathology of militant Islam that makes it so dangerous. If these regimes acquire weapons of mass destruction, does anyone doubt that they would use them? (At this point, Netanyahu assured the audience that it was highly unlikely that they would target Ashland, Ohio!)
So, the question is, what do you do about it? According to Kant, you should look for the source of aggression, and roll it back. The terrorists, themselves are not the problem. The only way to stop terrorism is to get to the carrier, deter it, and destroy it.
Netanyahu listed 6 main ‘carriers’……Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Arafatistan. He said that U.S. has done the right thing, and that President Bush had wisely targeted Iraq, and that he was precisely right to do so.
He went on to say that there is no way for Israel to negotiate with Arafat. He is unlike King Hussein of Jordan, and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, who denounced terrorist attacks in Arabic to their own people. When Arafat talks to his own people, he preaches policide, and he signs the checks for terror. He went on to ask, ‘What will be next if Arafat is removed?’ and answered that he did not know, but that whoever it was will not attack the U.S. If democracies dismantle the half dozen regimes that fund terrorism, the scaffolding of terrorism will fall. It is imperative to kill the roots of terrorism.
Netanyahu interestingly went on to say, that the philosophy of Kant is wrong for the 21st century, because there was no way that even a prophet like Kant could foresee a suicidal regime, especially one with nuclear weapons. The only solution is to destroy the regime, but we can’t leave it at that. We must also plant the seeds of democracy. As in the case of Nazi Germany, the regime was defeated and the seeds of democracy were planted. The natural process of debate and dissent keeps totalitarian regimes from resurfacing with any power. The same is true of Imperial Japan, where pluralism, a free press, and individual rights have ensured continuing freedom.
The Prime Minister then asked, are Islamic countries incapable of producing democracies, and pointed to Turkey, as a defense that it is indeed possible.
He then commended the ‘bold, courageous leadership’ of President Bush in leading the war on terrorism. He said that it has been suggested that the root cause of terrorism is the depravation of natural and human rights, and if we treat that, we will not have terrorism (He added that we had surely heard this……that we have to listen to CNN, and not Fox, some of the time!). But then he went on to ask why there had been no terrorism in the French resistance in World War II, or Poland, or with Mahatma Ghandi, or Martin Luther King, Jr. , and answered his own question by stating that these were democracies, and the people believe in the rights of man. It is the totalitarian mindset that is the root cause of terrorism, and they will use it against their enemies, or their own people, as in the cases of Lenin, Stalin, Hussein, Bin Laden and Arafat. The Islamic region is the last part of the world that has not experience the winds of democracy. If we leave them undemocratized, we are toying with the survival of civilization.
Netanyahu concluded with the statement that he had total confidence in America, and in the leadership of President Bush. He said that because the President possesses moral clarity, that he is up to the task, and that we will win.
What followed was a brief question and answer period. The first question was, ‘Where did the nickname Bibi come from’ and his answer was ‘I have no idea.’ Other questions involved Bush’s response to 9/11, and he commended the President’s moral clarity in calling the terrorists evil, and his strategic clarity, going after the regimes, disregarding the call to not bomb during Ramadan (he kidded that Bush was not ‘sophisticated’ enough to know not to do so!). He said that victory breeds victory.
With regard to President Bush’s Middle East efforts, he said “We’ll get it right,” and that this is just an “argument between friends,” but that negotiations will not work with Arafat. He brought up the fact that Arafat has great PR and has been able to reverse the facts of history. The PLO was established 3 years before the supposed Israeli aggression that caused it’s beginning.
The final question chosen was one that was written by my husband (and he was so excited!) It was “How would you rate President Bush’s performance thus far? And what advice would you give him?” His answer to the first question……..”A lot better than his predecessor!” (Well, of course!! ….the audience liked that answer!) His advice: it is critical to constantly persuade the American people of the justice of the cause. He must constantly fight the battle articulating the ends, and taking the moral high ground. Netanyahu said that Israel has not done well in this battle for public opinion, and that Arafat had succeeded in reversing the facts to support himself.
He concluded that President Bush’s role must be not just prosecuting the war, but continuing using the moral clarity that he has been doing so far. He voiced an appreciation for Rumsfeld, especially that he responded to the press when asked why we were bombing the Taliban by saying, ‘to kill them!’ He said that he respects President Bush ‘enormously,’ but when citing his most admired leaders, he said that it was Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher whom he held in highest regard, because they were responsible for the greatest bloodless victory in history.
We left the room absolutely impressed with the great speaking skills of Benjamin Netanyahu, but even more impressed with his ability to grasp the world situation, and to crystallize the details into a digestible, and comprehensible form. Other than his statement that it would not be a good idea to rebuild the temple (sorry, Bibi, it’s going to happen! God’s promised that!), we found that we agreed with him down the line. It was an incredibly timely opportunity to hear one of the most significant figures, and strongest advocates for democracy in the world, and it will be indelibly etched in our minds for the rest of our lives.
It must be that. Your statement is oh! so true!. He is a remarkable man with great insight.
riri......LOL! (riri & bibi?)
Ha! I knew I liked that woman!!
My beloved was filled with glee! Of the potentially scores of questions, they only selected about 6 or 7, and they chose his to finish with! It was amazing!!
Oh, and as to Ashbrook. I'm sure he would be dismayed by the rise in government spending and power in the twenty years since his death, but I know for sure, having sat and talked with his sister and niece, that he would have been thrilled by the morality, decency and strength of President Bush.
Indeed.
Unfortunate, but true, contessa!
You're very welcome, grammy moon!
Tonite I heard a good friend of clinton's, Mort Zuckerman, say that President Bush was a far better friend to Israel than the previous administration.
Now I'll sit and wait patiently for you to finish supper and tell us the joke...LOL
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.