Posted on 10/24/2001 9:03:28 PM PDT by Pokey78
WASHINGTON
To read the headlines, you would think a major rift was growing between the U.S. and its only dependable ally in the Middle East.
Our State Department "demands" that Israel end its forays into West Bank terrorist centers and promise never to respond punitively again. Israel "rebuffs" this angry order and "defies" the U.S. spokesman. Then Colin Powell brushes aside President Bush's cautious "as quickly as possible" and escalates the call for withdrawal to "immediate."
But the Bush administration knows full well that Israel cannot turn the other cheek when one of its cabinet ministers is assassinated. And it knows that at a moment when the U.S. is dispatching bombers and soldiers to kill the assassins of 6,000 of our citizens harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is the height of hypocrisy to demand that our ally refrain from hunting down killers harbored by the P.L.O.
Bush's advisers are also well aware that to insist publicly that Ariel Sharon do as we say, not as we do, begs for a "rebuff." Even Israel's dovish former foreign minister sees through it: "Imagine now that Sharon says, `Well, all right, I withdraw,' " notes Shlomo Ben-Ami. "Then what will be the image of Israel in the Arab world? Its deterrent capability, its steadfastness would be seriously eroded."
If the U.S. order to withdraw is both patently hypocritical and certain to be rejected, why are Colin Powell and his spokesman sent out to beat up on the Israelis?
One answer is obvious: This is supposed to show the Arab "street" that the U.S. is not pro-Israel, that we are evenhanded brokers of Palestinian peace. Our message is that it's O.K. for Pakistanis, Egyptians and Saudis to be with us against the bin Laden terrorists in Afghanistan because the U.S. does not blame Arafat when suicide bombers kill Israeli teenagers.
Another answer is "coalition building." For example: Because Iran is angry at being used as the route for the Taliban's heroin exports, and because its clerics also despise Iraq's Saddam Hussein — then maybe if we publicly castigate Israel and privately condone Iran's support of Hezbollah terrorism, "moderate" ayatollahs will not oppose our terrorist hunt in Afghanistan.
The charade in Washington is accompanied by a wink toward supporters of Israel in the U.S.: this "demand" supposedly helps Sharon politically. By making it possible for him to strike a courageous pose of standing up to the U.S. pressure, we help Sharon solidify his hard right, cool the dissension on his soft left and increase his popularity among embattled Israelis in the center. At the same time, columnists of my ilk are sent word that — Powell's ostensible tilt toward Arafat to the contrary — the president's hawkish heart is still in the right place.
All this diplomacy by deflection is too clever by three-quarters. Just as corrupt Arab potentates try to protect themselves from the fury of their downtrodden subjects by fanning hatred of the U.S. and the West, we are trying, through our charade of selective antiterrorism, to deflect that hatred over to Israel exclusively. (Don't blame us, it goes — see how we're pressuring the Jews on your behalf?)
Such buck-passing won't work. With logic, followers of Osama bin Laden will say, "By killing thousands of Americans, we got the U.S. to put pressure on Israel. In the same way, by panicking Americans with the threat of germ warfare, we will force the infidels to abandon their Jewish ally. And then . . ."
The consequence of our misbegotten diplomacy of deflection would be intensified attacks on America. The way to discourage war on our homeland is to show no weakness, to demonstrate forcefully that atrocities committed here gain no victories in the Middle East or anywhere.
This year Arafat invited the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to move from Damascus to the West Bank. The P.F.L.P. proudly claims that its hit men murdered the Israeli cabinet minister, an act of war. Israel is obliged to go after his killers just as we are duty bound to go after the killers of Americans.
The troops will withdraw in a couple of days. But the proper response to our ally's self-defense is to understand Israel's lonely anguish and applaud its resolve. Such a principled expression of presidential steadfastness should be, in Secretary Powell's word, "immediate."
As opposed to your brave heros in the Clinton administration that really did want to screw Israel?
The big fault of Sharon in reaction to the assassination is that he obviously acted with his heart and not his head. He never declared what the IDF was doing in the first place. Was it to end the PA, now and forever, as Ghandi's assassination was the last straw? No, he didn't say that. Was it a preventative act--in other words, we're so sure that the Palestinians are about to go and assassinate more ministers, I have to do this to protect my buddy Shimon Peres. No, he didn't say that either.
This 'we will treat the PA as a terrorist organization' unless the assassins are handed over implies that, according to the IDF rules of engagement, Arafat is a legitimate target. But, right after the PA tells the Israelis to go screw themselves, the whole government tells the whole world that, no, Arafat is not a target.
In fact, it's pretty clear that he's backing away from the whole extradition concept in any event. Now, they're going after the killers, which is fine, and I'm totally happy with the action last night. But why wasn't that the goal in the first place? Why give Arafat time to meet a demand he wasn't going to meet?
As the IDF tanks inevitably withdraw tomorrow, Sharon will have to eat many words--not good, for Israel's deterrent capability. The Arabs--correctly--will realize the IDF can be held in check by a few well placed phone calls to Foggy Bottom. Since the Palestinians act in one-day attacks, and not sustained movements, this gives them yet another leg up on Israel in the assymetric warfare.
Sharon must be the worst chess player in the world, he doesn't even think one move in advance. LIke the Chamberlain comment. If he felt compelled to say it publicly, why did he back away the very next day? Did he think Bush would appreciate the comment? Or, if he really doesn't want to tick off Bush, then why say it in the first place?
This is why the last election featured one of the worst turnouts in Israeli history. It's obvious the vote was, 'Get rid of Barak,' and not, 'Bring on Sharon.' Because Sharon's leadership skills are pretty horrible.
I love Safire...he's a jewel (-;.
WRONG.
Israel had a very successful foray into the West Bank.
LOTS of baddies captured, killed, whatever. Over 20 terrorists nailed, two assasins found....AND THAT WAS THE POINT.
If Arafat won't nail them Israel will. AS WE WOULD.
No it's not. As Safire says, it will get Americans killed.
Sends the message that the more Americans you kill, the more you harm US/Israeli relations.
Imagine a different message to the terrorists. The US and Israel are together. Come against any one of us and separately and together we will destroy you. They have big mouths but watch them run (as they have always done when faced with force instead of appeasing words)
your???? YOUR?!?!?!?
Them's fightin words buddy. Retract or die. [:~|
How about ESTABLISHED TERR NATION'S ongoing present day immigration?
Encouraging terrs worldwide with criticism of Israel?
Causing outright celibration in Islam by advocating a terr/pali state?
Let me know when I get close.
I think comments like that were mercy's point. I mean, Bush has been very disappointing about Israel- it has been his worst issue by far. And yet you're interested in just bashing Clinton! Yes, Clinton tried to sell Israel down the river- Clinton tried to sell EVERYONE down the river. But Bush has been a MAJOR disappointment when it comes to Israel. And many conservatives have been a MAJOR disappointment when it comes to criticizing George W Bush.
No, Mercy, after reading Safire's article, still took a cheap shot at Bush by calling him/his administration/his actions on Israel gutless. Safire made it clear (and I still don't know how true this is) that Bush is just playing to the arabs with the Israel bashing. I was pointing out to Mercy (who seemed to be ok with the Safire premise) that Bush's approach is better than Clinton's, who really did want to screw Israel
Apologize first for calling our Commander-in-chief gutless.
Deporting ME visitors and halting all ME immigration as presently practiced would be telling evidence of such.
Im going to give Bush and the Pentagon the benfit of the doubt but it will expire unless we unleash hell upon are enemy and take control of Afganistain before Ramadanadingdong.
McCain said one intelligent this this evening. If its between a quick win and chaos or a long war and a agreed upon government I pick the quick win and chaos
He has if you believe that WORDS mean anything in this situation.
Bush still has not had a sit-down with Arafat, and probably never will.
Don't pay attention to what Bush says; watch what he does.
Stop being such a rock head. What does his immigration policy have to do with his Israel policy? Go back to your cave Osama Bin Buchanan.
I'm not ticked off over some narrow political difference. I was once pretty much a Bushie however I have always feared, and posted so two years ago, that he might just be his daddy's boy.
I have not, nor ever will I, forgive Bush41 for betraying the Reagan Revolution.
Bush is headed in a very dangerous direction and his seemingly PC politics regarding immigration could get a lot of us killed and is heading this entire nation towards oblivion.
Yes you are. You have a narrow, myopic grudge that is eating you from the inside out. Its poisonous.
Bush is headed in a very dangerous direction and his seemingly PC politics regarding immigration could get a lot of us killed and is heading this entire nation towards oblivion.
This is a crock of BS and you know it. Watch what he does, not what he says. He's DONE nothing offensive on immigration. If he can appease the left by SAYING he wants to expand immigration, yet DO nothing to expand it, he should get credit from pebble heads like yourself.
This is why we tolerate "friends" like Saudis while they terrorize women there. We simply calculate that if we let them do that, if we offer to the Saudi gods sacrifices of our principles, we will win, or at least lose much less according to calculations.
Safir has got it right, it is a charade, and in this charade we try to serve various gods instead of the One God, only to find ourselves servants of other successful gods. The danger is that once directly oppressed, a people cannot fight back the regime, only direct intervention from God as in Egypt would allow that to happen, but if God does not want to help us, we're screwed. Islamism and socialism are gods to be reckoned and avoided, else they will rule us for the next 1000 years.
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.