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."
How can so many freepers not wonder at the Bush administration when it acts this way? It is just so gutless.
The coalition prevented the US from taking out Saddam in '90
The Coalition prevented Israel from retaliation on Iraq when Saddam launched scuds into Israel
The coalition will not feed and protect me an my kids!
Go Israel and help us stop this nonsense! Israel alone could take out Saddam, the Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians and in less than one month!
a smart strategy
I was on one of my last few nerves when the news hit the other day that Syrians were coming into DFW to attend flight school. Though I support President Bush I am in great disagreement with him at this time.
I wholly fail to see the wisdom of not deporting ME visitors, let alone allowing Terrorist states like Syria to send more possible terrs into our country. This to me is madness.
I also don't want to hear any more of this 'Islam is a religion of peace' crap. We are not in Kansas any more Dorothy. President Bush is acting like just another pol in a long long line of pols who have lead us down the garden path. Deport Now!
I think you are correct in the first part but wrong on the second. Like Safire states, Bush is knee-deep in the deception too. Also like Safire states, it's all for the coalition and image.
All of this is typical government-speak. Like Bush getting up and saying in front of the whole world that the CDC acted promptly and swiftly...yada yada, when two postal workers up and died over the weekend while congress critters were full of Cipro and in their Maine cabins.
Was a time when we all nodded and winked at this sort of thing but the time is not now. Every other week they're putting out serious alerts, lying about Israel, saying one thing and doing another. Goodness knows the Clinton administration made spinning into a major art form.
But the American public is sick of this especially at this time. Everyone ought to take a page from Dick Cheney and tell the truth.
We can handle it.
You don't know the details of what is going on and neither do I... No matter how much either us want to find out we can't. The information is hidden from us. Therefore we have no choice but to accept what they say to a major degree. If as time goes on the truth comes out and is substantially different than what they claimed we have the obligation to hold those who lied to us accountable. We have no other choice.
You can't conduct a war with our intelligence, troop movements and strategies out in the open. Not unless of course you want us to lose and die…
Trusting your elected representative with the tough choices is one of the basic foundations of our Republic. If you have a better idea, spill the beans…
bump
The same goes for conservative pundits (Brit Hume, Fox News, John Podhoretz- I'm looking in your direction).
You know, Safire takes a lot of criticism (to use a nice word) for being too "wishy-washy". Yet he has been FAR more willing to dish out authentic, conservative criticism of the Administration's (Powell in particular) middle-East policy than most other conservative columnists. I especially like when Safire says, "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." In other words, "You guys are a bunch of suck-ups." I wonder which columnists he was referring to specifically.
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.