Posted on 09/29/2003 3:20:56 PM PDT by yonif
Even the very worst of our enemies possess some redeeming qualities. Hitler, for instance, made the trains run on time. In a more recent example, the two sons of Saddam Hussein, who should've been captured, given a fair trial and hanged for their crimes or, possibly, spared in exchange for some important information, chose to take their destiny into their own hands and died fighting a battle they knew they could not win.
I can offer you at least two reasons why good qualities of our adversaries should be acknowledged. First, we are supposed to be the good guys, and good guys are supposed to be fair. Second, good qualities make our enemy stronger, so we should be aware of them to better defend ourselves.
That's why, when I heard President Bush call PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat a "failed leader", I began comparing the two leaders and their accomplishments.
Yasir Arafat became a leader of a terrorist organization at the time George W. Bush was still a teenager. In 1967, after Egypt, Syria and Jordan suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War, they decided to delegate the task of destroying Israel to Arafat. With their support, Arafat expanded his organization by co-opting the entire Arab population of Gaza, Judea and Samaria into the PLO, instantly turning it into the biggest terrorist organization that had ever existed. Since then, he has been carefully and ruthlessly weeding out every hint of opposition, which eventually resulted in practically unanimous support for him among his subjects.
He has ruled for murder and by murder, but the political consequences of his murders were calculated with subtlety so meticulous that even the bloody trail the man left wherever he went could not impede his most important achievement.
His most important achievement to date is the successful promotion of his terrorist organization as a nation that has been deprived of its ancestral land by brutal Zionist invaders. He patiently and skillfully maneuvered international public opinion into accepting him as a legitimate leader of that mythical nation. He even led Israel, his main enemy and intended victim, into agreeing, in principle, to grant him statehood on parts of Israel's land.
The astonishing scale of his success was demonstrated by the New York Times describing the Israeli security fence, in an article published on September 17, as a "barrier dividing what [Israel] considers its land from Palestinian territory". That example demonstrates how easy it is for Arafat's followers, including the aforementioned newspaper, to cross the line dividing the truth from what our enemies would like us to believe.
What makes this accomplishment an even greater feat is the fact that most people Arafat had to deal with — US Presidents and Secretaries of State, Israeli PM's and Foreign Ministers, European leaders, all kinds of misguided human rights defenders, the assorted UN mob, and so on — were born and educated long before the myth of the "Palestinian people" was invented. They all knew the truth, but it didn't stop them from following Arafat's lead.
What is especially remarkable about his leadership style is that he has never lied about his genocidal intentions. The PA Charter spells out its purpose — the destruction of Israel — in most explicit terms. During the Oslo years, Arafat was subjected to tremendous pressure by President Clinton to amend the Charter. He never did. He never caved in. In fact, he has never caved in during his entire career. When Clinton, in pursuit of his ignoble Nobel Prize dream, pushed him into a corner, Arafat issued a written promise to amend the offending clause. But the PA legislature, which is the sole power that can amend the Charter, has never convened to consider the measure.
Arafat has been routinely issuing statements in Arabic that contradicted promises he had made earlier in English. Many times he was caught; many times he was pressured to repeat in Arabic what he had said in English. He always managed to convey his true meaning to his mob, as if the victory sign that he so readily flashes to crowds and cameras were an Arabic equivalent of crossed fingers.
Never has Arafat or his PA done anything that might have been interpreted as a sign that he was negotiating in good faith, that peaceful coexistence with Israel might be acceptable to him under any conditions whatsoever. What passed for negotiations with him was nothing but explicit blackmail: give us whatever we happen to be demanding at the moment or we will continue killing you. And the killings always continued, whether his demands were met or not. Come to think of it, how could it be otherwise? What could the "Palestinians" possibly offer? What do they have that might be of any value to Israel — or anyone else? Israel has a single demand: stop the war. None of Israel's many conciliatory gestures have ever been reciprocated. None whatsoever. And despite that, the international community has continued providing Arafat and his terrorist organization with political and financial support.
In addition to being one of the worst mass murderers in modern history, Arafat proved himself an extremely successful thief as well. It is a well known, although little advertised, fact that he has embezzled several billion dollars from the moneys sent from all over the world to support his destitute subjects. And here is another sign of his great leadership: not a single European government, not even the government of the United States, has ever considered stopping their financial support of Arafat's terrorist organization. They all keep sending him money, knowing that whatever he does not steal will be used to finance terrorism against Israel.
In 2000, he once again proved his outstanding leadership at Camp David where he did not allow himself to be lured into statehood at the price of abandoning his genocidal war against Israel. He literally physically ran away from Ehud Barak's unbelievable offer, whose generosity surprised even Bill Clinton and his Secretary of State, Madeline Albright. Madam Secretary used the occasion to demonstrate that her last name had not been awarded to her on merit: she ran after Arafat, yelling to the guards to close the doors before he had a chance to escape. Fortunately, Arafat ran faster and the incident did not deteriorate into a brawl.
Arafat went home to Ramallah and started an intifada that is still going on today. Once again, he easily manipulated public opinion around the world into believing that the blame for it lay with Ariel Sharon, because of his visit to the Temple Mount. It didn't matter that Sharon was exercising the most basic right of any citizen of any sovereign country to move freely within its borders. It didn't matter that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, including every little detail of the timing and entourage, had been coordinated with the Waqf. It didn't matter that even if Sharon's visit to Temple Mount had constituted a provocation, Arabs had a choice to react on it or ignore it, and even if they decided to react, they still had an option of doing it in a nonviolent manner.
On November 6, 2000, the New York Post quoted Mahmoud Abbas as saying that the intifada was not a spontaneous popular response to Sharon's "provocation", but had been planned by the Palestinian Authority for months in advance. In other words, it was in the works while Arafat was enjoying himself at Camp David with Clinton and Barak.
The life of Arabs in Gaza, Judea and Samaria hasn't been pleasant even during the best of times. The intifada resulted in a virtual collapse of whatever used to pass for society among them. Despite all their suffering, the people calling themselves "Palestinians" have remained fiercely loyal to Arafat. According to every opinion poll ever conducted among them, they wholeheartedly support Arafat and his cause — the destruction of Israel. They gladly sacrifice their own children's lives to that cause. They happily send their children to school and summer camps where they are turned into suicidal maniacs.
Isn't it a sure sign of truly great — albeit evil — leadership skills to have not just your own people, but the entire world follow you, regardless of the truth, contrary to common sense and against their own interests?
Mr. Bush's own Administration has proved that it was out of its league competing with Mr. Arafat's leadership skills. When, frustrated by his blatant refusal to support the American efforts to end the war, the United States forced elections in the PA, Arafat ran practically unopposed and won effortlessly. When later the United States refused to talk to him, he named his puppet Mahmoud Abbas Prime Minister and watched his enemies making fools of themselves talking to the puppet as if it had any real power. Finally, when Arafat replaced the old puppet with a new one, Mr. Bush called him "a failed leader" and immediately suggested that he would be willing to deal with Arafat's new "government" if only it included Muhammad Dahlan and Nabil Amr.
In other words, President Bush condemned Chairman Arafat's leadership style precisely because the latter refused to do the former's bidding. Am I missing something here? I don't think so, but I am afraid President Bush is.
So, here we have two leaders.
One of them heads a terrorist organization. He has been openly and consistently pursuing the same vision — the destruction of Israel — throughout his remarkably long, remarkably difficult and remarkably bloody career. He has been patiently, lovingly preparing a new Holocaust, and the majority of people in supposedly civilized countries have supported him throughout his struggle. Although he has used doublespeak generously whenever the situation called for it, he never veered away from his goal and never misstated it. Usually, his lies are so artless, so obvious, that they could only succeed with those who badly want to believe him against all evidence. That's because they are designed not to trick his supporters but to give them an excuse, no matter how transparent, to continue their support. The utter contempt implicit in such an approach has never deterred his followers in Europe, America and even in Israel.
The other one is the president of the only remaining superpower on the planet. His predecessors were often called leaders of the Free World, but this time that unofficial title somehow has failed to stick. He is the Commander-in-Chief of a military force whose budget exceeds the combined military budgets of all the other nations of the world. During his watch, his country suffered the most devastating attack it has ever seen in its entire history. Instead of using the awesome power at his disposal to protect his country and restore peace in the world, he didn't even dare to honestly identify the enemy. Instead, he clumsily attempted to recruit new allies among his sworn enemies — and failed, predictably. As a result, we are now in the middle of a war that's not going too well — not because the US Armed Forces are not succeeding in achieving the goals set before them, but because their Commander-in-Chief has failed to set meaningful goals.
He antagonized most countries that had traditionally supported the United States. Desperate to please his opponents, he betrayed Israel — the only sincere ally the United States has left in the whole world — and did it with crudeness that mercilessly exposed his gaping lack of professionalism and direction. Although American taxpayers provide 25% of the United Nations budget, he has lost the last vestiges of leadership the United States had in that utterly failed, corrupt organization, united mostly by it's members' opposition to the U.S. and hatred towards Israel.
His pursuit of globalization has resulted in the heaviest job losses his country has seen in recent decades. He is presiding over the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. His only real achievement — the tax cut — is far too insignificant in scale to turn the economy around and help the hurting families.
Presented with a precious opportunity to work with a Republican majority in both Houses, he has been helplessly pushing ideas lifted from the Democrats' agenda, paving the way for the Democratic party to snatch the power out of his weak hands and lead this country in the direction Hillary Clinton had set for the previous tenant of the White House.
And do you know what is the worst aspect of President Bush's failures for the American voters? That come November 2004, there will be no one better to vote for.
So, which of the two leaders has really failed?
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.