Posted on 07/05/2002 12:09:50 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The head of Israel's intelligence agency has stated in a speech to NATO that he believes World War III began on Sept. 11 when terrorists attacked the United States.
Efraim Halevy, chief of the Mossad, spoke at a meeting of the NATO Alliance Council in Brussels, Belgium, according to a translation of his speech posted on Gamla: News and Views from Israel. The preface of the speech indicates it was originally published in the Israeli daily Yidiot Aharonot on June 28. Present at the meeting were ambassadors from the 19 member nations of NATO.
Halevy began his talk by highlighting the continuing terrorist attacks in Israel.
"Since the beginning of the Palestinian intifada against Israel, more than 60 suicide attacks have been executed against us. It is no longer a marginal phenomenon, which characterizes a small and extremist sector of the society. It is a phenomenon that is developing at a quick pace into a half legitimate form of warfare. …" Halevy said.
He then presented his characterization of Sept. 11.
"The 11th of September was, if you will, an official and biting declaration of World War III. Also in the '90s there were terror attacks – the explosions that were executed simultaneously at the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, the attack on the American naval vessel Cole in Yemen. There were terror acts in New York that brought about arrests and convictions, but only on Sept. 11, was the die cast, and the true character of the new war was revealed to the eyes of all."
Coninued Halevy, "This is a war in which the sides are not only countries but also terrorist groups that operate almost with impunity. It is a war which does not have clear fighting lines; it is a war that is being waged against free societies, with weapons and strategies we have not known until now. It is a war which does not adhere to the rules of war, or the international legal norms."
Halevy criticized Syria's acceptance by the world community, as evidenced by its presence on the United Nations Security Council, even as it plays host to Palestinian terror groups.
"It is possible for Syria, which gives protection to these groups, to receive a seat as a respected member of the Security Council, and its representative even serves this month as chairman of the Council," Halevy told the ambassadors, "and this at the very time when the Palestinian Islamic Jihad sent a suicide attacker to blow up a bus in the north of Israel, and caused the killing of around 20 people. The leader of this organization, Ramadan Shalach, publicly took responsibility for this attack from where he sits in his Damascus headquarters, when he was interviewed by the Al Jazeera television network, which millions watch all over the Arab and Muslim world."
While Halevy pointed out that some Muslims seek peace, he highlighted the growing acceptance and influence of those bent on violence and destruction.
"Violent Radical Islam has been until now a minority stream in the Islamic religion, and most Muslims were – and one hopes they will continue to be in the future – aspiring to peace and moderate in their approach to life. But if the violent minority groups are not restrained, and in many cases, completely eliminated – then the statement 'nothing succeeds like success' is liable to symbolize the terrible threat to the basic fabric of the member countries of NATO in which Muslim communities are growing and developing, in numbers and in influence, while they preserve their unique identity and culture."
Halevy then turned his attention to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, decrying him for glorifying suicide attacks and his mention of Muhammad's Hudaybiyah Treaty with the Quraish tribe in the seventh century.
"He reminded his supporters that this treaty was signed between the prophet Muhammad and the tribe of Quraish," Halevy explained. "It was signed at a time when Muhammad was in an inferior position in the battle field, and the understanding prevailed that this was the only way to prevent a loss, until the conditions of war changed, and Muhammad would have the upper hand. When this happened, Muhammad had the obligation to break the treaty and attack his enemy. And so Muhammad acted. On May 15 this year Arafat announced to his people that this was his strategy – to sign an agreement with the purpose of breaking it, at the moment when circumstances allowed it."
Finishing his address with comments about weapons of mass destruction, Halevy singled out Iran, Syria, Iraq and Lybia as serious threats.
"To sum up," Halevy said, "preservation of the free societies and the lives of their citizens must be recognized as a basic right of every man and woman on the earth. We must shorten the days of criminal countries and entities, that act not only as lords of their destinies, but as lords of your destinies and ours."
Its Islam versus the sane nations of the world. Unless the rest of the world realizes this, steps up to the plate, and rids its society of ISlamic third columnists, its all over for western civilization. They have invaded Europe and are spreading here.
Sadly, I must agree. If there is a major terror attack here in the U.S. perhaps we will have no choice.
I would say April 20, 571, but I agree with your basic premise.
I think it would be more accurate to say that it's the world vs. radical Islam and that reality could no longer be ignored after 9/11.
Just wanted to repost your reply. It needs to be posted again and again.
Our presidents of late have not been real geniuses on foreign policy. We need to take our allies where we find them.
I don't fault Israel for trying to merge her war with ours. Makes sense to try to become a family member of the toughest kid on the block.
It is George W. Bush's fault. It always is.
Israel is of limited use to us. In fact, Israel has been a distration in fighting our war on terror. Part of that was planned by our opponents. Shi'ites from Iran, Hezbollah and others financed the current offensive in the West Bank precisely to slow down our build-up against them. But part of it is not the fault of our enemies.
Look at the Palestinians, who are a conquered people by anyone's definition. The Israelis have ruled them with an iron fist for decades, and they're STILL resisting, still fighting the last war. I don't think there could be any enforced peace or occupation. It's not like conquering Germany, where they give up and everybody is friends in a couple of years. We either have to let them win or kill every single one of them.
I have a great deal of respect for any culture this mean.
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.