Skip to comments.Joseph Farah: Pat Buchanan Has Adopted the Rheoric Of Yassar Arafat [Pat' Mideast Myopia]
Posted on 04/10/2002 4:22:54 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Hundreds of WorldNetDaily readers have written to me demanding to know why I don't fire Pat Buchanan as a columnist.
They say he's wrong in his Mideast analysis. They say it's not just that Buchanan's opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict are wrong, but that he distorts facts. They say his prescription for peace in the region would lead inevitably to the destruction of the Jewish state. They suggest his hostility to Israel is a sign of a deep-seated anti-Semitism.
I agree with all those criticisms of Pat Buchanan except the last.
In his April 2 WorldNetDaily column, Buchanan made several alarming and dangerous charges.
"Israel is at war with Palestine," he alleged.
Buchanan is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. There is no nation of Palestine. There never has been a nation of Palestine. And, I will boldly predict, there never will be a nation of Palestine.
In the history of the world, Palestine has never been more than a region, an arbitrarily named place. It's not an Arabic name, by the way. It's a name chosen by colonial Europeans. The Arabs who have lived in that region have never been set apart from their neighbors by a unique culture, a different language, a system of self-governance, a king, a constitution or even recognized borders. In fact, most "Palestinians" live in the nation of Jordan, and most of the people who live in Jordan could correctly call themselves Palestinians.
If there is a nation of Palestine today, it is not on the West Bank of the Jordan River, it is on the East Bank.
Maybe you think I'm splitting hairs. Maybe you think Buchanan means Israel is at war with the Palestinian people. Maybe he does mean that. But, if that's what he means, he's wrong again.
If Israel were at war with the Palestinian people, it has had many opportunities to destroy them. It has the firepower to wreak untold horrors on them. Yet it has never yielded to what must be, after the last nine years of terrorism and broken promises of peace, a very tempting option. In the face of daily aggression against its civilian population nothing short of guerrilla warfare, Israel has been a model of restraint.
Buchanan even justifies the terrorism of suicide bombers as "a tactic in a guerrilla war of national liberation being waged by the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation."
In other words, Pat Buchanan, an otherwise sensible man whose opinions I often value on many issues, has adopted the rhetoric of Yasser Arafat.
Someone needs to remind Buchanan that America has its own experience with suicide bombers. If the actions of Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian by birth, can be justified, how much of a stretch is it to rationalize the actions of Osama bin Laden, who, after all, seeks an end to U.S. military "occupation" of his homeland of Saudi Arabia?
Buchanan also makes the amazingly false statement that "Arafat is not recruiting terrorists." Arafat has done little else in his last 35 years of public life besides recruit terrorists. Only a week ago, WorldNetDaily first reported the capture of Palestinian Authority receipts showing Arafat personally signed checks to pay for suicide bombing missions. This is what he does. This is what he has always done. This is what he will continue to do until the day pray God it is soon he dies.
Buchanan then goes on to say, quite seriously, that "the only hope lies in a Palestinian state. A small state of their own would give Palestinians a huge stake in peace and in preventing acts of terror against Israel." Perhaps Buchanan hasn't heard Arafat rejected the offer of a state proposed by Ehud Barak. Not only did he reject it, but he declared a jihad to punctuate the rejection.
Buchanan's theme throughout his lifetime of punditry is "America first." What he ought to recognize, but clearly doesn't, is that it is in America's vital national interest to support the one free nation and its only dependable ally in the Middle East.
I will not question Buchanan's motivations for writing such nonsense, only his good judgment.
And, by the way, I disagree with much of the commentary appearing in WorldNetDaily. That's one of the things that keeps it interesting and unpredictable.
So, in answer to all that mail, no, I will not fire Pat Buchanan for his badly mangled understanding of Mideast politics. He has the right to be wrong even dangerously and badly wrong.
Cruise the Mediterranean with the Farahs! Spend 12 luxurious days visiting Italy, Turkey, Greece, Greek Islands. Availability is limited, so act now.
Why wouldn't he? He hates Jews.
That's why the Richard Nixon/Billy Graham revelation was SOOOO telling. The conversation has Nixon clearly being anti-Semitic. His joy at finding Graham's alignment with his views about "Jews in the media" was followed with some statement to the effect that he (Nixon) was glad to discover Graham's anti-semitism.
Buchanen was part of Nixon's staff. If Nixon was glad that an outsider aligned with his anti-semitic views, one can only suppose that Nixon specifically CHOSE his staff with their views on this subject foremost in his mind.
This is an assumption on my part. But it is an assumption that is not illogical and is based on some compelling circumstantial evidence.
Imagine what Pat's response would be if the US were under constant attacks from terrorists by the name of Juan, Jose and Gomez. If they were holed up in Texas or across the border in Mexico, Buchanan would not be patting them on the back telling us they have a legitimate right to express themselves with bombs.
Indeed, but he abuses the privilege so!!! LOL!
bump. That is worth repeating.
.......... while I have never seen him try to understand why Jews might feel the way they do. About the holocaust and Israel's safety for example.
However, I do believe the Catholic Church is seen by many as the voice of God. It was just recently that the Pope, on behalf of the Catholic Church, "confessed" to sins associated with anti-Semitism in WWII.
I would have thought that he, or his leadership, would also use this time to support Israel and denounce terrorism. I was wrong.
I don't know how the saying goes, but it's something like: "the best indication of integrity is what a man does when no one is looking." In other words, when we think we're in secret we act like our real selves.
We see that with Nixon and Graham in that exchange.
It's Buchanen's history of statements about Israel COUPLED with Nixon's anti-semitism that has strengthened my belief that Pat is anti-semitic.
Of course, in the real world, Bush #43 and Israel have to accept that the political reality is that killing Arafat would probably just transform him from a powerless symbol of an impotent force to a martyr to the Palestinian state.
Given these realities, I doubt that Israel is going to "conquer a peace" by invading the West Bank. To the contrary, I think it is going to learn the lesson of the "tarbaby", which Sharon should have learned in Lebanon 20 years ago. How long do you think Sharon will keep Israeli troops and tanks in the West Bank before "declaring victory"?
Fascist: A Populist...who wins an election.
What does annoy me is that any criticism of Israel or its policies is immediately branded "antisemitic". I think PJB has made and continues to make excellent points which are obviously in the minds of Bush #43 and his advisors. We need to understand the political realities so we can make informed decisions as to which policies and leaders to support.
If you are correct that Sharon will keep troops and tanks in the West Bank until the terrorism ends, I think they will be there a very long time. And any reprieve that is obtained will be very short lived.
Ultimately, Israel will have to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people if it wants peace. However the Palestinians must also reject terrorism and adopt new leadership. Eventually they will realize that the means to their desired ends can best be gained by peaceful, nonviolent resistance as demonstrated by Gandi and Martin Luther King.