An Evening with Bibi

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.

Wow! I just read your retelling of last night's events and I have to say that we FReepers are the luckiest people in the world to have access to such accounts as this one you wrote this afternoon! You were there, you took notes, you shared the facts with us. Without FR and people who post such articles (like you did), we would be stuck knowing only what the liberal media wants us to know. Thanks, friend!

Yes,yes. Well done,ohioWfan.

But tell me......did you like the joke? :o)

Yes, I did, Ohio. Thanks.

I see from your FR page that you're a little bit of a Bush fan. Back when Clinton was President, the media was always interviewing people who knew him way back when. I don't see that happening very often with Bush, though. It's a shame, because I run into people here in Dallas almost every day that knew him or had dealings with him. He was unfailing polite and gentle with every grocery store checker, drugstore clerk, or air conditioner repairman. I work with a lady who was a high school friend of Laura's, and she gives equally glowing reports.

I contrast that with people I know who have met Clinton. One person that I deal with tells me that her sister "dated" Governor Clinton in the 1980s -- when she was 15. Needless to say, her family was not amused by the incident.

Thanks for the PING!

Strange, no pics on Yahoo (media blackout?)

Here's one from a couple of weeks ago...

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raises his hand to ackowledge applause as he arrives to address a banquet of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, April 22, 2002 in Washington. Netanyahu praised President George W. Bush peace efforts and said that Bush was the best American president Israel has ever had. REUTERS/Mike Theiler

While I waited for the Press Dinner to begin, I watched MSNBC and the profile on Pres. Bush. I'm sure it's a rerun but I had never seen it. There were people on who had known him long ago. I really enjoyed it.

I hope some of you caught the Dinner show. President Bush was the big hit, showing film clips of life in the White House. His timing is perfect, the pictures were perfect for his commentaries and he looked tan and terrific. I kept laughing really loud - he was worth the wait.

oWf, the joke was funny, yes! Imagine giving a speech to a warm room full of just-fed people. But I'll betcha not a single one dozed while Bibi spoke.

So thanks for retelling his joke.....heehee

Wonderful review OhioWfan, thanks so much for your post.

Indeed, Bibi Netanyahu is a wonderful speaker. His understanding of the Middle East and world politics is amazing, and he has a strong sense on self-reliance, justice, and strength.

Thanks for the report. Sorry to be so late in responding but I'm in the country and it's that darn interent connection. Plus, my computer is a dinosaur so I have to be in a particularly patient mood to post!

Sounds like an incredible evening and I can't believe they picked your husband's question! What an honor.

Bibi is wonderful and it makes me sick to think that Clinton sent Carville and Begala over to Israel to defeat him! Had that not happened, the MidEast situation could be a whole lot different. I hope Bibi returns to be prime minister. He is Israel's most effective PR stunt there is. His point about the PA winning the PR battle is so true and so sad. They have effectively been allowed to rewrite history and our stupid press just goes right along with it. Errrrrr.

Great job ohio. I'm so happy you were able to go. See you tonight!

We have been having MAJOR server problems here, but I've managed to finally get an opportunity to read your article on your experience the other evening.

YOU ARE GOOD! Have you ever been a reporter??? My goodness you have articulated your assessment of what transpired so well. I know I'll be blasted for this, but I'm not a book reader; however, I was riveted when reading your report. If YOU wrote a book, I'd read it! ;-)

WHAT a moment in history. Thank you for sharing!

The totalitarianisms of the Twentieth Century are unthinkable without the ideology of democracy.

There have always been totalitarian governments; they pre-dated democracy. The idea of democracy was just that, an idea, until our Founding Fathers decided to launch this Great Experiment they called the United States of America. They envisioned free men, educated and with common sense making their own destiny with the consent of other free men.

Maybe the totalitarianisms of the 20th century were more descructive, but that's just because of the technology available to them. One of the largest of those fell because the appeal of self-determination was just too strong. Because of the technology of the 20th century, that idea of democracy has been able to spread across the globe, but the backlash against it has become even more severe.

Frankly, I think Ann Coulter was right about the Muslims, what those folks need is to be CONVERTED!

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.