Posted on 09/19/2001 7:57:36 AM PDT by az4vlad
It's All Morally Relative - End Support for Israel
An Analysis of the After Effects of the Terrorist Attack
by R. Alexander
September 19, 2001
Many of us were surprised to hear responses coming from both U.S.citizens and our so-called allies suggesting the U.S. somehow deserved the terrorist attack. With righteous moral indignation, these enlightened critics, suddenly experts on terrorism, lecture us, claiming "this would not have happened if the U.S. hadn't been intervening in the Middle East." This criticism is said with a straight face by Americans who see no problem driving an oversized SUV that gets 12 miles per gallon, while condemning the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1990 which assured them the continued use of their environmentally irresponsible gas guzzlers.
What angers Middle Eastern terrorists most about U.S. involvement in the Middle East is U.S. support of Israel. A 2001 State Department report on global terrorism stated that the goal of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist organization is to expel Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries and overthrow non-Islamic regimes. Without U.S. support, which includes money, weapons, and aircraft, most political and military analysts agree that Israel would cease to exist, or at best, disintegrate into tiny pockets. The U.S. gives aid to many of our allies to support democracy and protect our security interests throughout the world. Israel is just one of many democratic countries the U.S. believes is necessary to arm in order to protect our own security interests. There is strong evidence that Israel's cooperation in the "strategic consensus" against the former Soviet Union helped bring the Soviet Union down.
After the terrorist attack, it seems even more imperative to continue to protect our security interests by giving aid to Israel. Unfortunately, there are those who would conclude otherwise. The thousands of Americans killed in the attack has given critics of U.S. aid to Israel the chance they need to use people's emotions for their own political purposes. The terrorist attack is viewed by them as evidence the U.S. is supporting Israel to its detriment. There are already many signs that support for U.S. aid to Israel is dwindling. One is the prevalence of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism has long existed within the U.S. and subtly exists within its media. Although the Jewish lobby is powerful, anti-Semitic sentiments are deeply entrenched in society. The recent U.N. conference on racism, expected to be taken over by anti-Semitic discussion, resulted in the U.S. only sending a low-level delegation which walked out midway in protest. The conference adopted arguably anti-Semitic language criticizing Israel but not the Palestinians for hostile relations in Israel, ongoing evidence that the leadership in the rest of the world condones anti-Semitism and is pressuring the U.S. into withdrawing its support for Israel.
Standing up for Israel is much more difficult done all alone. The U.S. no longer enjoys a position of moral leadership in the world, as evidenced by its removal from the U.N. Human Rights Commission earlier this year. Instead, known human rights violators Libya, Syria, and the Sudan have been given seats on the Commission within the past two years. This strengthens the argument of moral relativists that the U.S.' position supporting Israel and stamping out terrorism is not necessarily any more morally defensible than the terrorists' position towards the U.S. and Israel.
Are the moral relativists right? Is the U.S.' democratic government, with its selfish security interest in Israel, no more morally correct than a terrorist? One obvious way to analyze the moral righteousness of a nation's government is to look at how it treats its own ethnic citizens. The U.S. is home to more nationalities than any other nation, yet its citizens live in peace alongside each other, unlike in many ethnically diverse nations. Arabs live next door to Jews. Arabs vote and campaign for Jewish candidates, and vice versa. A former Arab roommate of mine nonchalantly explained when we first met that she was Palestinian Christian, not Jewish, "but we're all pretty much the same thing." Ironically, since the U.S. is home to so many different nationalities, including many refugees who moved here to avoid ethnic strife in their own, undemocratic homelands, the terrorists not only killed "Americans" but killed Americans of Arab descent.
Eliminating support for Israel will be tempting to Congress. It will save taxpayers money (critics of U.S. aid to Israel generally fail to point out that the U.S. also sends large amounts of aid to Arab countries, particularly Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority). It will allow Congress to appear, in a morally relative way, as being "fair" to both Jews and Arabs. After all, superficially, it appears as if Israel and the Palestinians are both equally to blame for initiating bombing and terrorism in Israel. The U.S. media does a good job of presenting it this way. But which religion's holy book encourages killing by teaching that young men who are killed in the name of Allah are rewarded in paradise with 72 virgins to be their sex slaves, and are then allowed to invite 72 of their friends to join them in paradise and receive their own 72 virgins? Not to mention 28 pre-pubescent boys for their pleasures also. With values like these, it is understandable why the parents of terrorist suicide bombers celebrate their sons' deaths.
Last week's terrorist attacks have forever changed the geopolitical balance of power, but not in the way naïve U.S. conservatives hope for. Sadly, the world is not going to rally around the U.S. as the U.S. stamps out terrorism. Over the last decade, ever since the global threat of communism was eliminated with the fall of communism in the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe, the U.S.' reputation as a unilateral superpower has all but disappeared. This is no doubt thanks to former President Clinton, whose foreign policy in the 1990's consisted of smiling and shaking hands with all types of world leaders at numerous accords, conferences, meetings, etc., desperately attempting to create a legacy, while accomplishing nothing but meaningless words on paper.
Under Clinton's leadership, America's response to terrorism has been weak. Afraid of another Vietnam, America under Clinton has been too afraid to commit its troops, afraid of the sight on TV of American troops being killed. When Bin Laden's al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the U.S. retaliated with a paltry, unsuccessful attack on Iraq. When the al Qaeda killed American troops in Somalia in October of 1993, Clinton hurriedly pulled our troops out, sending a signal to the world that the U.S. would rather flee from terrorism than risk any American lives. In 1996, Bin Laden's organization bombed a U.S. housing complex in Saudi Arabia, with little ramification. Later that year, according to the State Department, Bin Laden issued a fatwa, or religious order that said, "it was the duty of all Muslims to kill U.S. citizens civilian or military and their allies everywhere." When Bin Laden bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, the U.S. responded with a paltry missile assault on Bin Laden's training camp in Afghanistan and on a suspected chemical weapons plant in Sudan. Bin Laden's followers have been tied in the past to plots to assassinate former President Clinton and blow up American 747 airliners over the Pacific Ocean. His organization is considered responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last year. Yet there has been no serious effort by the U.S. to eradicate him or his followers, and U.S. retaliation has been no more than a slap on the hand.
The world watched as Clinton and the Democrats greatly reduced our military defense, smugly confident of our peacekeeping abilities. Just weeks ago, the liberal Reverend Al Sharpton, who is currently running for President, stated on Fox News for all the world to hear, "In a time that we no longer have a Cold War, there is no real threat to American security." The message the U.S. has sent the world in the last decade is that we are weak. The U.S. government is afraid of committing troops in another ghastly Vietnam quagmire, aware that hunting down Bin Laden and his numerous followers may end up as guerilla warfare in Afghanistan. Although most Americans are presently in favor of sending our troops to Afghanistan, as time goes by and Americans realize they will be sending their own sons and daughters, their fervor for retaliation will diminish. They will question why it is important to retaliate, and whether the U.S. should even be present in the Middle East. Inevitably, they will question U.S. aid to Israel.
Recently, conservatives and Christians in the U.S. have emerged as the strongest supporters of Israel, probably because of the recent leadership in Israel of hawkish, conservative former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This association of Christianity with Israel is an irritation to the current fad of enlightened, moral relativists in the U.S., who dislike Christianity because it has moral absolutes. The Bible commands, “Thou shalt not kill.” Since Christianity, as well as Judaism, teach that killing is wrong, their adherents are accused of being "intolerant" of other religions such as Islam, which is interpreted (probably incorrectly) by radical Muslims that killing in the name of Allah is a virtue. In our newly enlightened era of moral relativism, which pervades the halls of Congress as well as public opinion and the media, every viewpoint is equally valid as any another. This attitude is reflected in the response of the U.S. critics, who cannot discern that the terrorist attack was clearly wrong nor that it is imperative to punish and stop the terrorists, because they have elevated “tolerance” over teaching that killing is wrong. The U.S. critics conclude that the cost of the terrorists taking more lives is not as important as appearing tolerant and not stepping on anyone’s toes, and so they will bog the U.S. down in petty discussions over what might possibly, remotely happen. Any forceful retaliation is labeled by them as initiating violence – conveniently forgetting that the terrorists started it. Meanwhile, the terrorists will continue to kill and maim, wholly unconcerned with "tolerance" for non-Muslims.
Consequently, it is just a matter of time before U.S. leaders take the easy way out and desert Israel, hoping by demonstrating their “tolerance” they will escape the wrath of the equally morally correct terrorists.
The author can be reached at ralexand@krl.org
This country had NO problem with Islamic terrorism before we began to support Israel. American taxpayer support of the socialist state of Israel is blatantly unconstitutional, and should be stopped at once. Simultaneously with that, we should utterly destroy any country that supports terrorist acts against us. Thus, we should both defend ourselves, and return to obeying the Constitution in matters of foreign policy.
Thousands of Americans died last week because of your religious beliefs in support of Israel. That is unacceptable and support of the socialist state of israel is unconstitutional. This country should end support of ALL countries in the Middle East immediately.
Considering our support for Israel began in the late '40s and early '50s, which is the exact same time we began exporting our culture wholescale into the middle east, your point proves nothing. And it does nothing to explain the passage in the PA textbook.
If I am obsessed with anything it is with regarding justice and virtue as preeminently important. I am obsessed with maintaining a policy that puts America first and not a foreign country. It is obsessed with regarding our constitution as a vitally important document to the life of our country and obsessed with believing that our Founding Fathers' wisdom is worth heeding.
What I see from the latest postings is that might makes right and the Arabs are sub-humans. Some of you Christian supporters of Israel should remember that there are PALESTINIAN CHRISTIANS that have suffered at the hands of Israel.
That you would respond by calling me an Arab and not addressing the arguments I put forward only proves that you are intellectually bankrupt. You call me a liar, but are unable to refute my arguments.
The passage quoted mentions nothing about war or terrorism.
Let Israel defend her homeland; I have no objections against that. My objection is to America giving Israel (or any other country in the Middle East)financial or military aid of any kind. These people have been killing each other for thousand of years and will continue to do so. We have no reason, constitutional or otherwise to get involved with them.
Does it have to???
"… We do not claim that the collapse of Western civilization, and the transfer of the center of civilization to us [Islam] will happen in the next decade. Nevertheless [Western civilization] has begun to collapse and to become a pile of rubble."
That statement is pretty explicit to me. Or perhaps you believe the "transfer of the center of civilization" will happen through osmosis?
If anything, the statement implies that Western society will collapse on it's own, due to it's own values. I don't agree with the statement, but that's the point it seems to be making.
I don't know about medicine, but the numerals sere invented by the Hindus, then adopted by the Arabs, and finally introduced into the west by Leonardo of Pisa, aka Fibonacci, around 1200.
Not quite.
From the same article:
" In other texts, the children are taught that the Jihad Muslim fighters will be victorious over the West through Jihad (Holy War for Allah)".
Sounds like war to me.
You and our leaders have trashed the Constitution, and innocent American civilians are now dying because of it.
Interesting that none of those "other" texts were actually provided as the previous one was.
You call for Israel to treat it's people better and to surrender Jerusalem. In exchange for what? It is bitterly clear to most people that the problem is that Israel has an intractable foe who wants the destruction of Israel. Arafat spent all his life claiming he wants to drive the Jews into the sea. Syria, Lebanon and others have invaded numerous times. Extremists groups terrorize the civilians every day with random shootings and suicide bombers. And your proposal is for Israel to capitulate to their demands without receiving any concessions, any security, any peace?
In 1993 Arafat changed his tune. Rather than call for the military destruction of Israel, he simply wants Israel to accept all the Palestinians as citizens and eradicate Israel as a Jewish state from within. To further this goal, he allows the mullahs and extremists to broadcast on TV expressions of violence such as "you must kill the Jews and the Americans whereever they are".
From your lopsided demands and statements it is clear to me that you are an anti-zionist... so why on earth would the Zionists listen to your advice? You are not objective about this whatsoever, you have heaped on the blame on Israel, when all they want is to live in peace, a peace which her neighbors refuse to grant her.
Remember, Israel did not own the west bank prior to 1967, but that didn't stop the Arabs from invading and killing. Israel did not own Israel before 1948, but that did not stop the Mullahs from calling for the murder of Jews in 1929 (19 years before the creation of Israel), in which some 3 score Jews were murdered in 24 hours by rampaging mobs of Arabs.
You are extremely uninformed and foolish to advance your simplistic solutions.
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.