Posted on 10/09/2001 9:47:03 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Spitting on Friends, and Befriending Enemies
By Jeff Jacoby (October 8, 2001)
Of the five countries described below, can you identify the one(s) excluded from the US-led coalition in the war on terrorism?
Country A is free and democratic, a steadfast ally of the United States. Its citizens know what it means to be victimized by terrorism, and they were deeply shaken by the Sept. 11 atrocities. Thousands of them lined up to donate blood for wounded Americans; rescue teams volunteered to fly to New York. Country A has formidable military and intelligence capabilities, and it instantly made them available to American officials.
Country B, a military dictatorship, has been the leading supporter of Afghanistan's Taliban regime. In a recent report on world terrorism, the State Department admonished Country B for "providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers." Islamist terrorists operate openly in Country B. Many of them are armed by the government, which refers to them as "freedom fighters."
Country C is a theocratic monarchy that enforces the same extreme brand of Islam favored by the Taliban. Perhaps for that reason, it was one of the very few countries to extend diplomatic ties to the Taliban before Sept. 11. Osama bin Laden recruits heavily from Country C and was behind the terrorist attacks that killed 23 US servicemen there. Those attacks were never properly investigated, because the monarchy refused to let the FBI examine evidence or question the suspects.
Country D, a major Arab power, is also a major recipient of US foreign aid. Nevertheless, the people of Country D were joyful over last month's slaughter of Americans. As one wire service reported: "Students, taxi drivers, and shopkeepers crowded round television sets stacked up in store windows..., celebrating a string of elaborate attacks on New York and Washington. 'Bull's-eye!' commented two taxi drivers.... 'Mabruk! Mabruk! [Congratulations!]' shouted a crowd..."
Country E has long been on the State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism. In April 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell described it as "the primary state sponsor of terrorism." Country E has actively incubated terrorist attacks on Americans, and calls for anti-American violence are a staple of the government's rhetoric.
If you follow the news, you will recognize Countries A through E as Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran. Of the four, the only one *not* invited to join Washington's anti-terror front is Israel -- the loyal American ally, the regional military power, and the nation with more experience than any other in fighting Islamist terror. Less than a week after the September 11 massacres, Powell told the Arabic television network Al-Jazeera, according to The New York Times, "that he saw no role for Israel in any military response to last week's attack."
Incredibly, the United States seems to be going out of its way to give the back of its hand to the only nation in the Middle East and South Asia that shares its democratic values, while extending an olive branch to nations that harbor, foment, or celebrate terrorism. On September 27, the State Department spokesman actually announced that terrorism against Americans and terrorism against Israelis are "essentially ... two different things." In one case, he said, "there are violent people trying to destroy societies," while in the other, "there are ... political issues that need to be resolved in the Middle East."
So terrorists who butcher innocents in the World Trade Center are evil, but terrorists who butcher innocents in a Jerusalem pizzeria or Tel Aviv discotheque must be indulged because they have "issues." Is that really what Washington belives?
Apparently so. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah, two of the bloodiest terror groups on earth, was included in President Bush's executive order freezing terrorist assets. "This isn't a Hezbollah moment," a US official told reporters. "It's an Osama bin Laden moment." But if the United States cannot say unambiguously that organizations it has labeled terrorist for years are targets in the war on terrorism, what kind of war on terrorism is it?
It is one thing to acknowledge that geography compels us to make an arrangement with Pakistan, or to decide that the Arab world will be more forthcoming if Israel's role is muted. It is something quite different to imagine that governments that nurture and protect terrorists can be induced to help us crush terrorists.
Pakistan is an unabashed sponsor of radical Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. Iran and Syria are the leading backers of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia is a key source of funds for fanatic Islamists -- including Al Quaeda. Yasser Arafat -- whom the Bush administration decided to reward last week with a declaration in support of Palestinian statehood -- is one of the most notorious terrorists of modern times. If these are the partners we are relying on in our war to rid the world of terror, that war is as good as lost.
When Bush addressed Congress on September 20, his words rang with clarity and truth. "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." That must be our guiding principle, for if the war against terrorism means anything, it means abolishing the regimes that keep terrorism alive. If we choose instead to embrace those regimes -- to "fight" terror by winking at terror -- we will have squandered our moral authority. And 7,000 victims will have died in vain.
What Israel can do for it's best friend, the US, is to stay quiet, serve the cause quietly, and have a little faith in us. We will not abandon them.
Be real.
Bizarre when you think about it. A tiny sliver of land on the Mediterranean coast, and all the vastness of the Muslim territories around it, all the huge area they have and it seems all they can think about is that tiny sliver of land.
What? Uzbekistan?
Iran is really cooperating ain't they?
Pakistan?
You get real. Countries will cooperate on our terms.
Ah, there we have it. Why not take on Israel's enemies and fight Israel's war for her. Well, here is a few of the reasons:
1. Because Israel's enemies are friends to the US or have been until we alienated them with our support of Israel.
2. Because they control one-half of the world's oil supply
3. Because it is Israel'swar, not ours.
4. Because our support of Israel has cost us enough in money ($91 billion and counting) and world prestige. Israel has NO friends except the US (it lost South Africa as a friend and collaborator once apartheid was thrown out).
5. Because Israel is a far cry from the "democracy which supports our values" that we keep hearing about. It is a socialistic theocracy which maintains its government with secret police, officially-sanctioned and , jailing for extended periods without trial, racist laws making Arab Israelis very much second-class citizens, etc.
Sorry, the censor doesn't like what I'm writing so I'll quit..
Otherwise, GET REAL!
The issue, of course, is actually the Muslims versus the Non-believers. Most of whom are usually given only one option: Die. Christians, Jews, and Sabeans are given two: Convert or Die. Of course I suspect we've already been given our chance to convert. Read the Qu'ran--I think it's in Surrah IX, though I may be wrong.
Asking Israel to join would limit participation by other Muslim states at best, and create internal havoc for them by their own more radical segments at worst.
If any country deserves to be a part of an anti-terror coalition, it is Israel. Forbidding a legitimate nation membership because other coutries find it offensive is an atrocity. If these countries really hated terrorism, they would welcome Israel's support. But the fact is that even if they hate terrorism at all, they hate Israel far more. If they refuse cooperation based on the inclusion of a willing and legitimate nation in the anti-terror coalition based on their own hatred for that nation, they seek to manipulate us to serve that hatred. It is a manipulation only slightly less despicable than that which terrorists use murder and fear tactics to effect.
Secondly, although Israel has an elected (non-clerical) leadership, you cannot separate Israel from Judaism....this from Israel's own website (http://www.info.gov.il/eng/mainpage.asp)!! The entire concept of Israel is as a Jewish state, and for Jews. Although they may be more tolerant of other religions than most Muslim countries, their laws are firmly based on religious law.
The issue here is not one most people want to face in our modern society--one which embraces religious pluralism. It is the contrast between a good religion and a bad one. Of course, the best religion is the one which is most perfectly aligned with the truth. Judaeism nowhere commands the wholesale slaughter of non-believers. True, certain instances of war with non-believers exist in the Torah, but these were specifically commanded by God on specific occasions. Nowhere is license ever given for a Jew to, without restriction "take matters into his own hands." Islam adopts a very different view on this matter. The general slaughter of non-believers is commanded, without restriction. Many other similar differences exist, and what follows is this: A state based on Judaeism can be a relatively moral and free state. A state based on Islam (unless grossly reinterpreted) will be a tyrannical and oppressive state. All you have to do to realise this is read the respective holy texts.
Combine that two and it's really the only common sense approach to take, unless the goal IS to eliminate Islam.
That may not be a bad goal, since the goal of Islam is to "strike our necks, and cut off our fingertips" Surrah VIII. 12
Because these allies are not and have not, for a very long time, participated in anti-American attackes. The most anti-American of them all, Iran, hates the Taliban and actually funds anti-Taliban forces in Afganistan. Having their support in our war against Al-Qaeda would be very useful. On the other hand, we would not gain much by teaming with Israel. All they can offer us is their intelligence data, which they will give to us anyway. Because of their financial dependence on us, they will give us anything we want. They have no choice.
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.