Posted on 06/07/2002 2:44:08 AM PDT by 2Trievers
| 04-23-02 U.N. vote to condemn Israel undermines ‘human rights’ |
A DEMOCRATIC ALLY is besieged by radical Islamic terrorists supported by a Muslim state ruled by a junta. The terrorists butcher women and children, assassinate political leaders and generally threaten the security of an important friend of the United States in a region dominated by brutal regimes.
No, I’m not talking about Israel, I’m describing India and Pakistan. So why aren’t my fellow conservatives and I denouncing Pakistan and supporting India with the same vehemence we bring to Israel and its enemies? The editor of The New Republic — and my CNN sparring partner — Peter Beinart recently asked this question in a column denouncing conservatives as hypocrites on the so-called war on terrorism. When it comes to Israel, he notes, conservatives use stark moral language. But when similar events transpire in India we become ever so practical.
During Israel’s offensive into the Palestinian territories last March, Beinart notes, The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial headlined “No Equivalence,” in which it declared “The U.S. has no moral alternative to standing firmly behind Prime Minister Sharon’s war against such terror.” National Review followed suit, insisting that in their “fight against Palestinian terrorism, the Israelis are fighting another front in our war.”
But when Pakistan-backed terrorists commit heinous crimes against Indians, and the Indian prime minister suggested he might launch “a decisive battle” to root out India’s terrorist infrastructure, The Wall Street Journal warned that such language was “dangerous” and that “there’s more than enough blame to go around.”
Now, one could bicker with several of Beinart’s points, especially the suggestion that conservatives are more hypocritical than, say, pro-Israel liberals in Congress. But in general, Beinart’s right.
The problem, though, has less to do with the hypocrisy of conservatives than the fundamentally flawed concept of a “war on terrorism.”
As I’ve written before, terrorism isn’t an “ism” like communism or fascism or socialism; it doesn’t say anything about how a society should be organized. Terrorism is at best a tactic, a means of scaring ordinary folks into making political concessions. At worst it’s a euphemism for well-organized mass murder.
President Bush decided that declaring war on our true enemy, radical Islam, Islamo-fascism, whatever you want to call it, would be too costly. For the same reasons Bush incessantly declared “Islam means peace,” he concluded that we could not afford to antagonize millions of non-radicalized Muslims. Fair enough.
But this decision has costs too, and they’re more tangible than the charge of hypocrisy. Domestic security, already difficult in a free society, is needlessly complicated by politically correct fictions. For example, racial profiling has become even more of a hornet’s nest because we have to pretend that the government is looking for generic “terrorists.”
Abroad, our war on a euphemism has encouraged nations to parrot our language and therefore expect our support. Russia and China have used our rhetoric to defend crushing Chechens and other dissident minorities. Virtually every Arab government “justifies” the massacre of Israeli civilians because Israel is a “terrorist” state.
These problems could be solved if we told the truth: America is at war with anti-American Islamic radicalism. This needn’t mean or even be interpreted as a war on all Muslims. In any war, you pick your battles. During World War II, we declared war on fascism, but we did not fight fascist Spain. We declared war on Germany, but we did not bomb Switzerland’s Germans. During the Cold War we opposed Soviet communism, not Communists everywhere. We can make these distinctions in regards to the Islamic world, too.
Looked at from this angle, there’s every reason to see Israel and India differently. Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf abandoned the Taliban and al-Qaida and immeasurably helped the United States achieve early victory in Afghanistan (knock on wood), making him an ally in our war on Islamic radicalism. Sure, the United States should encourage Musharraf to cut off support for the same radicals now attacking India from Pakistan, and, yes, India has the stronger moral position. But Musharraf deserves some leeway to find a solution.
Meanwhile, Israel’s enemies are, for the most part, our enemies. Yasser Arafat openly supported Iraq in the Gulf War, has ordered the murder of Americans and has blown every opportunity to seek peace.
Declaring war on our enemies and not the tactics they use will surely create problems for us. But these would be the usual challenges that come with war. However, it would create problems for our enemies who will not be able to hide behind word games. And creating problems for your enemies is what wars are all about.
— Jonah Goldberg is the editor of National Review Online.
Looks as if Lew Dobbs (CNN Moneyline) has opened the door of reality by calling global terrorism by its real name: Islamism.
So in the last week we've heard of special security measures to be applied to Muslim males entering the United States, and an increasing insistence to precisely name our real enemy rather than the absurd abstraction of "the war on terrorism."
Prediction: within a few short weeks someone in the WH will identify Pakistan as the new global nexus of Islamist terrorism. This will have a sobering effect on Pakistan's war aims regarding India.
Looks as if Lew Dobbs (CNN Moneyline) has opened the door of reality by calling global terrorism by its real name: Islamism.
You took the words right out of my keyboard. Heard Lou talking about it again this morning on a rerun of his show from last night. I think we will be money ahead when we begin calling this war what it really is, it may be politically incorrect but it boils down to a religious war. It's certainly not the Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, Catholics, or Jews who are flying airplanes into buildings or blowing up buses. It's a war between us and the "Islamists" as Lou says.
Yet the only - and I mean only - word coming from their Washington "human rights" lobbyists (e.g., CAIR) is that their rights are being violated.
They have spoken quite clearly in their utter silence and obstinate refusal to stand up against Islamist terrorism.
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.