Posted on 10/24/2001 9:03:28 PM PDT by Pokey78
WASHINGTON
To read the headlines, you would think a major rift was growing between the U.S. and its only dependable ally in the Middle East.
Our State Department "demands" that Israel end its forays into West Bank terrorist centers and promise never to respond punitively again. Israel "rebuffs" this angry order and "defies" the U.S. spokesman. Then Colin Powell brushes aside President Bush's cautious "as quickly as possible" and escalates the call for withdrawal to "immediate."
But the Bush administration knows full well that Israel cannot turn the other cheek when one of its cabinet ministers is assassinated. And it knows that at a moment when the U.S. is dispatching bombers and soldiers to kill the assassins of 6,000 of our citizens harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan, it is the height of hypocrisy to demand that our ally refrain from hunting down killers harbored by the P.L.O.
Bush's advisers are also well aware that to insist publicly that Ariel Sharon do as we say, not as we do, begs for a "rebuff." Even Israel's dovish former foreign minister sees through it: "Imagine now that Sharon says, `Well, all right, I withdraw,' " notes Shlomo Ben-Ami. "Then what will be the image of Israel in the Arab world? Its deterrent capability, its steadfastness would be seriously eroded."
If the U.S. order to withdraw is both patently hypocritical and certain to be rejected, why are Colin Powell and his spokesman sent out to beat up on the Israelis?
One answer is obvious: This is supposed to show the Arab "street" that the U.S. is not pro-Israel, that we are evenhanded brokers of Palestinian peace. Our message is that it's O.K. for Pakistanis, Egyptians and Saudis to be with us against the bin Laden terrorists in Afghanistan because the U.S. does not blame Arafat when suicide bombers kill Israeli teenagers.
Another answer is "coalition building." For example: Because Iran is angry at being used as the route for the Taliban's heroin exports, and because its clerics also despise Iraq's Saddam Hussein — then maybe if we publicly castigate Israel and privately condone Iran's support of Hezbollah terrorism, "moderate" ayatollahs will not oppose our terrorist hunt in Afghanistan.
The charade in Washington is accompanied by a wink toward supporters of Israel in the U.S.: this "demand" supposedly helps Sharon politically. By making it possible for him to strike a courageous pose of standing up to the U.S. pressure, we help Sharon solidify his hard right, cool the dissension on his soft left and increase his popularity among embattled Israelis in the center. At the same time, columnists of my ilk are sent word that — Powell's ostensible tilt toward Arafat to the contrary — the president's hawkish heart is still in the right place.
All this diplomacy by deflection is too clever by three-quarters. Just as corrupt Arab potentates try to protect themselves from the fury of their downtrodden subjects by fanning hatred of the U.S. and the West, we are trying, through our charade of selective antiterrorism, to deflect that hatred over to Israel exclusively. (Don't blame us, it goes — see how we're pressuring the Jews on your behalf?)
Such buck-passing won't work. With logic, followers of Osama bin Laden will say, "By killing thousands of Americans, we got the U.S. to put pressure on Israel. In the same way, by panicking Americans with the threat of germ warfare, we will force the infidels to abandon their Jewish ally. And then . . ."
The consequence of our misbegotten diplomacy of deflection would be intensified attacks on America. The way to discourage war on our homeland is to show no weakness, to demonstrate forcefully that atrocities committed here gain no victories in the Middle East or anywhere.
This year Arafat invited the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to move from Damascus to the West Bank. The P.F.L.P. proudly claims that its hit men murdered the Israeli cabinet minister, an act of war. Israel is obliged to go after his killers just as we are duty bound to go after the killers of Americans.
The troops will withdraw in a couple of days. But the proper response to our ally's self-defense is to understand Israel's lonely anguish and applaud its resolve. Such a principled expression of presidential steadfastness should be, in Secretary Powell's word, "immediate."
Tony
There you go again. And now you've called me a 'pebble head' tsk tsk tsk. It's not narrow and it's not a grudge. It's broad, deep and much more significant than a grudge.
I voted 'with extreme prejudice' to fire his father because THAT man raised taxes and went back on his word. (amoungst many other betrayals of the Reagan Revolution)
Over taxation is the main tool of the slave master beurocrats that suck the life's blood out of our nation.
Bush 43 is utterly failing to deal with a terr army HERE on our own soil.
Bush 43 is failing to collar his out of control traitorous Secretary of State.
Bush 43 is proceeding with a disastrous 'Islam is a religion of peace' PC campaign that is going to get a lot of us killed.
Bush 43 is continueing with a 'back-stabbing-terr-encouraging' clintoonisque Israel policy that may cripple our only real ally in the ME.
This nation may not survive this presidency. If you Bush worshipping sycophants don't help us change these disastrous policies is surely will not.
I am giving him the benefit until I am killed by a terrorist that he didn't deport...That walked in across the border...and was a known suspect...
You really don't understand this President at all. Pres Bush has complete control of the situation.
Who's to save us? Pat Buchanan?
If you're not for Bush and you're not for Buchanan, and you hate right wingers you're either a drunken liberal, or a supporter of the most unpatriotic candidate in 2000 elections. John McSHAME.
He sure is. He considers Sen. Patrick Leahy, the SCUMBAG from Vermont, to be a "good Senator" and one of his best friends. If I had a friend like Leahy, I suck on a .38.
Safire has a bit of trouble deciding if he is an American or an Israeli. And - in spite of what a lot of people think - there is really a difference.
Never voted for Mcnut. Not even in a dream.
I voted for Bush. I marched for Bush around his Govs mansion with my wife and dogs ... all carrying placards.
I'm just not happy with my candidate these days for reasons already delineated.
Well either you're really finicky or just a very cranky man.
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.