"Are We In Danger of Selling Out Israel And Ourselves?"

Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.

This past Thursday, Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made an unusually blunt public statement, accusing the United States of attempting to appease Arab countries at Israel’s expense for the sake of our war on terrorism, and that this tactic was “unacceptable.” The White House fired back Friday, calling Sharon’s outburst itself “unacceptable.” Sharon’s blunt statement came in response to a news item, leaked early in the week by an unidentified administration official, that President Bush’s security team was working on a plan for an independent Palestinian state.

The U.S. and Israel are, of course, longtime friends and allies, but friction has not been a stranger to this relationship. The problem is relatively simple: The United States, at least for now, appears to be focusing its attention on Osama bin Laden and his network, Al Qaida. To this end, the U.S. is attempting to build an alliance with many Arab countries, and in doing so may be overlooking Arab organizations and states that Israel would like to see dealt with as terrorists and supporters of terrorists: Hamas, Hezbollah, armies of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Syria, and Iran. This week’s revelations of the Bush Administration’s behind-the-scenes Palestinian statehood plan, with its appearance of rewarding the perpetrators of the September 11th attack on America, was just too much for Sharon, a proud career soldier, to remain silent on.

The squabble is not unlike the one that occurred in 1990 when President Bush’s father George Sr. formed an alliance with Arab countries against Saddam Hussein and Iraq’s incursion into neighboring Kuwait. Then as now, Israel was asked to basically stay in the background. They did -- Israelis put on gas masks and endured a series of Iraqi Scud missiles without striking back.

Does Israel have a legitimate security concern here? The short answer is “yes”. Planning to implement a Palestinian state at this time was indeed an extremely naïve move by the Bush team, the first real gaffe I’ve seen so far in this war, but indeed a huge one. This move can only be seen as a slap in the face to families of the September 11 victims and our longtime friend, Israel, not to mention a sign of weakness to the terrorists. If President Bush is interested in exploring statehood for the Palestinians, then he should do so in a context that makes clear “talks start when terrorism stops.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understood this concept well. As he told the American media at the Wye Summit in 1998, “Any movement to give them [the Palestinian Authority] additional land is premised on their fighting terrorism”, and “Israel is a tiny country. We’re asked to give large blocks of land right next to our cities, right next to our ‘White House’, right next to our ‘Capitol’. How do we know that these areas, these territories do not become bases of terrorism?” Good question. I don’t believe the Bush team has an answer for that.

The longer-term answer as to whether Israel has a legitimate security concern, I believe depends on exactly what type of war the Unites States intends to fight. President Bush, in his magnificent speech to Congress and the nation September 20th, said, “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.”

However, there is either a battle going on within the administration, or a purposeful propaganda effort being maintained to confuse our enemies. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with NBC, said, “With respect to the nature of the regime in Afghanistan, that is not uppermost in our minds right now”, referring to taking on the Taliban government, in an apparent direct contradiction of President Bush’s remarks to Congress. Rush Limbaugh, noting the discrepancy, flat out called it “insubordination” if it was not a propaganda tactic. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, at a September 13th briefing, in stark contrast to Powell’s statement, called for “ending states who sponsor terrorism.” Wolfowitz, like many Americans, is reported to be particularly interested in taking on Iraq. Is there an internal struggle in the Bush Administration to define the nature of this war?

It is questions such as these that make Israel and many Americans nervous. Will the United States follow through on the President’s words and prosecute a war as if “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them”, or will our actions more closely resemble a civilian police action, where we focus primarily on individuals and networks responsible for terrorist acts?

There is a strong believe among many conservatives that Colin Powell is a dove in a general’s uniform, that he was behind the elder Bush’s decision to halt the war on Saddam Hussein before we could take out the Iraqi leader and Baghdad, and that he is behind the “limited war” idea and the decision to place the Palestinian statehood proposal back on the table. Indeed, the Associated Press reported that “under prodding by Powell, Israel and the Palestinian Authority resumed security talks without waiting for a period free of terrorist attacks, as demanded by Sharon.” This is insanity, and demonstrates at the least, a gross misunderstanding of the nature and psychology of effective warfare.

Americans must, without delay, bring themselves up to speed on an extremely critical truth: We are engaged in the battle of our lifetime. This is a conflict unlike any we have previously been involved in. In Vietnam, for example, we had the “luxury” of prosecuting the war via the dictates of politicians, instead of military leaders. Our error resulted in the horror of the “killing fields”, where Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge wiped out nearly two million Cambodians after the U.S. pulled out of Saigon in 1975. But Americans did not learn the lesson, because two million Americans did not die horrible deaths for our lack of resolve. No, this current war is different – it is personal. It is about us. And the enemy is at our door.

We are facing an evil enemy. There is no talking to them, there is no appeasing them. In truth, there are no options: We must hunt them down, we must kill them, and we must wipe out their bases of operation. That base consists of countries. Benjamin Netanyahu told the House Government Reform Committee on September 20th that, “There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in mid-air. They train, arm, and indoctrinate their killers from within safe havens on territory provided by terrorist states… Take away all this state support, and the entire scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into dust.”

The United States is wise to attempt to find allies in the war on terrorism. But those allies must bend to our will, not vice versa. And we cannot appease any nation, particularly countries such as Iran and Syria, both designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” by the U.S., in a rush to the “coalition building” Colin Powell seems to be so fond of. As for the Palestinian statehood question, it can be addressed, but only after A: We finish prosecuting the war on terrorism; B: Palestinians completely and totally renounce terrorism; and C: Yasir Arafat is removed from power, for we must not trust a wicked man to rule such a state, proximate as it would be to our close ally Israel.

President Bush drew a clean line in the sand for the world to see in his address September 20th: “From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” All that is needed now, is for the President, and all Americans, to neither “yield, rest, or relent, in waging this struggle for the freedom and security of the American people.” Our victory will ultimately be a victory for the nation of Israel too, as well as for people of goodwill everywhere.

Patrick Rooney is the Director of Special Projects at BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.”

For more information, please visit www.bondinfo.org or call 1-800-411-BOND (2663).

Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made an unusually blunt public statement, accusing the United States of attempting to appease Arab countries at Israel's expense for the sake of our war on terrorism, and that this tactic was "unacceptable." Sharon's blunt statement came in response to a news item, leaked early in the week by an unidentified administration official, that President Bush's security team was working on a plan for an independent Palestinian state.
The U.S. and Israel are, of course, longtime friends and allies, but friction has not been a stranger to this relationship. The problem is relatively simple: The United States, at least for now, appears to be focusing its attention on Osama bin Laden and his network, Al Qaida. To this end, the U.S. is attempting to build an alliance with many Arab countries, and in doing so may be overlooking Arab organizations and states that Israel would like to see dealt with as terrorists and supporters of terrorists: Hamas, Hezbollah, armies of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Syria, and Iran. This week's revelations of the Bush Administration's behind-the-scenes Palestinian statehood plan, with its appearance of rewarding the perpetrators of the September 11th attack on America, was just too much for Sharon, a proud career soldier, to remain silent on.
This move can only be seen as a slap in the face to families of the September 11 victims and our longtime friend, Israel, not to mention a sign of weakness to the terrorists. If President Bush is interested in exploring statehood for the Palestinians, then he should do so in a context that makes clear "talks start when terrorism stops." Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu understood this concept well. As he told the American media at the Wye Summit in 1998, "Any movement to give them [the Palestinian Authority] additional land is premised on their fighting terrorism", and "Israel is a tiny country. We're asked to give large blocks of land right next to our cities, right next to our 'White House', right next to our 'Capitol'. How do we know that these areas, these territories do not become bases of terrorism?" Good question. I don't believe the Bush team has an answer for that. The longer-term answer as to whether Israel has a legitimate security concern, I believe depends on exactly what type of war the Unites States intends to fight.
President Bush, in his magnificent speech to Congress and the nation September 20th, said, "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them." However, there is either a battle going on within the administration, or a purposeful propaganda effort being maintained to confuse our enemies. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with NBC, said, "With respect to the nature of the regime in Afghanistan, that is not uppermost in our minds right now", referring to taking on the Taliban government, in an apparent direct contradiction of President Bush's remarks to Congress. Rush Limbaugh, noting the discrepancy, flat out called it "insubordination" if it was not a propaganda tactic. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, at a September 13th briefing, in stark contrast to Powell's statement, called for "ending states who sponsor terrorism." Wolfowitz, like many Americans, is reported to be particularly interested in taking on Iraq. Is there an internal struggle in the Bush Administration to define the nature of this war? It is questions such as these that make Israel and many Americans nervous. Will the United States follow through on the President's words and prosecute a war as if "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them", or will our actions more closely resemble a civilian police action, where we focus primarily on individuals and networks responsible for terrorist acts?
There is no talking to them, there is no appeasing them. In truth, there are no options: We must hunt them down, we must kill them, and we must wipe out their bases of operation. That base consists of countries. Benjamin Netanyahu told the House Government

I haven't posted here in a while but i have been lurking a lot.To be clear I admire and support President Bush in most ways but here i have to agree with Sharon and Netanyahu 150%. I was shocked to see the likes of Hamas and the other PLO terrorists left off the list of terrorists that are the enemy.These people are no different or less dangerous than OSBL.They target innocent civilans,children and young people for death as a way of getting what they want (total control of Jerusalem and the Jews all dead). How is that acceptable for Isreal but not us? You cant make "peace" with people who think they will go to heaven if they kill you and Israel (IMO) shouldn't even try. The PLO and Arafat (a murder BTW) are getting money and support from America.It needs to stop. These killers (Hamas, The PLO,etc) were cheering and dancing in the streets when we were attacked.They are Israels enemy and OURS. Sorry if this looks odd.I'm still having HTML trouble.

American involvement in the Middle East rests on two pillars.

Support of Israel.

Support of pro Western Oil producing Arab states.

The leaders of the two most radical Islamic terrorist movements are a ex Saudi Citizen, and a ex Egyptian Citizen, both states the America supports and needs to keep its Middle East policy on track.

These movements are the extreme edge of what many Arabs in the street think.

The current low/medium intensity Israeli Palestinian conflict. The continuing sanctions and air strikes against Iraq, and the location of troops on Saudi Arabian soil, these three are running sores, draining away support for the pro Western Arab leaders who America relies on.

And know we have the war on Terrorism, Osama Bin Ladens Video address to the world hit all the right notes for the Arab population, he appealed as much to Arab Nationalism even more so than the Islamic religion

America is stuck between a rock and a hard place, she wants to win the war against the terrorists, she wants to continue to play a part in the Arab world, and she wants to continue her support of Israel.

Whether she can juggle all three remains to be seen, but at the moment neither the Jewish or Muslim population are happy with the current situation, a policy of making sure no one loses or wins.

Tony

Israel with its "setttlements" in the Gaza and West Bank is not only inflaming the situation but it is rapidly losing support from people like me who have always supported their efforts. At first this change will have little effect, but, eventually, it will be reflected in our politicians attitudes.

What is inflaming the situation is the Palestinians refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and refusal to abandon their objective of driving the Jews from the Middle East.

When you state that “Putting "settlements" in this area is not like like settling an area previously sparsely populated only by hunting and gathering peoples…practically there is a world of difference.”, you are failing to recognize that the majority of the “settlers” live in what are essentially suburbs of major Israeli cities. Israel has already agreed to negotiate the status of the settlements.

“Morally, you are right --there is no difference…” Consider the Palestinian position from a moral perspective, under no circumstance will a Jew be allowed to live in territory under their control, they must leave. There were no settlements prior to 1967, the Arab states did not want peace. There were settlements in the Sinai. When peace was struck with Egypt, they were removed (per the negotiated settlement, not terrorism). Israel stopped building for a period of months to attempt to bring into the peace process. No one came. When peace was made with Jordan, settlements weren’t an issue.

I don’t think the settlements were the problem standing in the way of peace in the past, and I don’t think they are now. When offered a settlement returning 95% to 98% of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, it was turned down. Over 70% of the Palestinian population would not accept a Palestinian encompassing 100% of the West Bank, Gaza, and even Jerusalem. That is not their objective. They began the current Infitada instead. At the core of the problem is the Palestinian’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. If Israel abandoned all the settlements tomorrow, the situation on the ground would be the same. I certainly hope Israel doesn’t lose your support.

"What is inflaming the situation is the Palestinians refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and refusal to abandon their objective of driving the Jews from the Middle East." I agree with this statement. The problem is this has existed for 80 years and there is no reason it won't exist for another 80 years. From their point of view, and regardless of any arguements, the Palestinians believe they were invaded and conquered by Zionism and the Western powers. Even a guarded discussion with any American (naturalized or American born) will affirm this conviction in most instances.

The problem is what to do. Other than eliminating the Arabs you will have to find a solution. One would be to abandon the "settlements" and draw Israel's borders such that they can be defended solely by Israel. IMHO Israel, AIPAC and other supporters are in the early phases of losing US public support for the current situation. A younger generation of American politicians is unlikely to give the same arms and money as in the past. A further problem is that almost 20% of the populatin of Israel is Arab. They have a higher birth rate than the Jews. How loyal these Arabs are to Israel and how loyal to Israel they will be in the future is unknown to me; however, as things now stand, the loyalty would seemingly be shallow to non-existent. Time is not on Israel's side: the longer the solution is postponed the worst the conclusion.

"What is inflaming the situation is the Palestinians refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and refusal to abandon their objective of driving the Jews from the Middle East."...I agree with this statement.

You and I may recognize this, but I don’t think most people do. Israel’s existence, and the threat to it, is rarely discussed in most media coverage.

Even a guarded discussion with any American (naturalized or American born) will affirm this conviction in most instances.

I think you are wrong about this. I think most American’s, including many here on FR, view the solution to the problem as one of getting Israel out of the territories (which they took in an aggressive war), not the destruction of Israel. In fact, I doubt most Americans know much about the issue, or it's history, at all. This may well be because American’s (unlike the Arab world) view Israel as an accomplished fact, however this does not nullify her neighbors long term objectives, and in fact may make them easier to accomplish.

One would be to abandon the "settlements" and draw Israel's borders such that they can be defended solely by Israel.

That’s one solution. Abandoning the settlements costs Israel a bargaining chip (about the only one they have left). Probably accomplishes nothing else. A defensible border, every country has the right to defend its citizenry. But if the lines are drawn in the context of an autonomous Palestinian State, Israel will be facing a far more dangerous enemy. An independent state could (would) raise and equip and Army and conduct foreign relations. Israel could easily be facing Iraqi or Iranian tanks on its borders. A viable settlement has to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to defend herself. Retaliation or hot pursuit would no longer be possible, except in the context of a full blown war.

Unfortunately, if the Palestinians are to achieve a state, I think the movement has to come from them. They have to accept the existence of Israel. Their children have to be taught some purpose to living other than hatred. The PA has to turn its attention to the betterment of their population. This would surely take a change of leadership within he PA.

If Israel has a settlement forced on them, redefines its borders without a genuine change in Palestinian objectives, and without the ability to respond against terrorism, we will be revisiting war in the Middle East in the not too distant future.

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.