The price of America's retreat

EVEN as thousands of his followers danced in the streets throughout the Palestinian Authority to celebrate the unprecedented carnage inflicted on America, Yasser Arafat went before the TV cameras to declare that he was "shocked" at the "unbelievable" series of attacks.

There's no doubt that Arafat is horrified --- but not necessarily at the incomprehensible body toll, which dwarfs the PLO bloody, decades-long history of murder and mayhem against innocent civilians.

No, Arafat must fear that -- at long last -- the West may finally have woken up to the legitimate threat that terrorism poses. And that Americans, hit so hard on their own territory, will no longer be disposed to sympathize with those who espouse, or even tolerate, terrorism.

Arafat, after all, has paid little more than lip service to the fight against terrorism, despite his repeated signed commitments to strike hard against groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Tepid words of criticism in English are accompanied by fervent praise in Arabic for suicide bombers like those who struck yesterday, hailing them as national heroes.

Thus, however genuinely he might feel about Tuesday's attacks, his words come far too late. By applauding and tolerating bloodshed even as he sanctimoniously intones about "the peace of the brave," Arafat has a measure of responsibility for what happened yesterday.

Yet, despite decades of carnage from the Arafat and the bin Ladens of the world, the West has truly failed to understand the dangerous consequences of failing to confront those carry out terrorism and those who provide both operational cover and moral support.

Retreating in fear from the obligation to openly and effectively confront terrorism has been the West's greatest failure of the last 25 years. For too long has the world refused to take to heart the warning of then-Israeli Defense Minister Shimon Peres following the Entebbe operation: "Once you capitulate to terrorists, the real extortion begins."

Yasser Arafat has long been convinced that terrorism allows him to hold the reins, to call the shots in his war against Israel. It's a lesson he's passed on to Osama bin Laden and countless others.

If the West can truly learn the lesson from Tuesday's bloodbath that terrorism must be aggressively confronted with all the resources at our command -- and that those in the region who refuse to destroy terrorists are equally culpable -- then Arafat has good reason to be nervous.

Because then Tuesday's horror may turn out to be only a Pyrrhic victory for terrorism.

If it still hasn't learned this lesson, then we're the ones who should be shocked and horrified.

Yasser Arafat bears most of the responsibility for the evolution of modern terrorism. He and his subordinate terrorist organizations invented almost all of the major methods used today, particularly the use of airliner hijacking. He himself has been a terrorist for decades. He has the blood of hundred on his own hands. He has trained most of the current terrorist organizations. He has coddled terrorists for decades. He uses their threats and attacks constantly to advance his political goals.

There is no credible war on terrorism as long as Arafat remains alive, free and in power.

What I'd like to know is, why don't any of these reporters ask Bill or Hillary Clinton WHY they were running around the country the last couple of years claiming "we have no major enemies!" They're all just trying to find ways to blame it on "that stupid Bush guy."

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.