The car I learned to drive.
Posted on 07/25/2006 5:45:51 PM PDT by Jean S
Ten years ago, on April 18, 1996, Israel attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon for 16 days in an operation called Grapes of Wrath. The global condemnation of Israel was fierce, especially when it bombed a U.N. refugee camp, killing 107 people, an attack that Tel Aviv said was a mistake.
At the time, the United States did nothing to stop the tide from turning against Israel and President Clinton said, “I think it is important that we do everything we can to bring an end to the violence.”
In private, Clinton seethed at the Israeli attack, saying he had discussed with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres the possibility of concluding a military defense treaty with his nation, pledging U.S. aid in the event of an attack.
“They really want this guarantee from us,” Clinton told me. “I would have given them the commitment, too, but now I can’t because of the uproar over the refugee camp bombing.”
No such treaty was ever signed.
Clinton’s willingness to use American power to force a cease-fire on Israel before it had fully eradicated Hezbollah stands in stark and sharp contrast to George Bush’s insistence on letting Israel proceed with its attacks until the terrorist group is neutralized.
In a nutshell, this illustrates the difference between the Democratic and Republican approaches to Israeli security.
Bush and his administration clearly see the Israeli attack as an opportunity to clean out terrorist cells that have come to be pivotal in Lebanon. With Hezbollah’s power extending into the cabinet in Beirut, it is clear that Israeli military action is necessary to forestall the creation of a terrorist state on its northern border.
While Clinton said he embraced the need for Israeli security, when the going got rough, he bowed to world opinion and called for a cease-fire. When the United States asks Israel to stop fighting, it is like a boxer’s manager throwing in the towel. The bottom line is that true friends of Israel cannot afford to let the Democrats take power in Washington.
But American Jews have voted Democrat in the past and will continue to do so in the future. It is really the Christian evangelical right that stands up for Israel.
The reason Israel has to fight in Lebanon today is that the United States did not permit it to finish the job of destroying Hezbollah in the ’90s. Now, fortunately for Israel’s true friends, the White House is letting Tel Aviv win without reining her in.
Nothing so illustrates the generic anti-Semitism of the global community than its current obsession with proportionality in judging Israel’s response to the kidnapping of its soldiers and the rocket bombing of its cities. The Vatican, the European Union and Russia have said nothing about the almost daily bombardment of Israel’s northern border by Hezbollah or the constant attacks from Gaza after Israel magnanimously vacated the strip. But now that the Jewish state is defending itself, the global community is outraged at the “disproportionate” Israeli response. Only Jewish lives have to be dealt with proportionately.
Israel’s defensive barrier has succeeded in sharply curtailing the once daily suicide/homicide bombing of civilian Israeli targets. Now the Israeli invasion will push back the frontiers from which the terrorists can work their mayhem through missiles.
Bush and the Republican administration realize that Israel is only acting in self-defense. It is obvious that she would not be attacking Lebanon if the terrorists had not made a habit of using it as a base for attacks on Jewish cities.
The global condemnation of Israel is simply illustrative of the low esteem attached to Jewish blood in this world where anti-Semitism comes disguised as morality and a commitment to peace.
Morris and McGann, husband and wife, have written several books together, including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Living History by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Go figure.
Rush said something surprising today. He said that Israel is actually very liberal!
Remember-Clinton vowed to "grab a rifle and fight" if Israel was ever threatened. When do you think he will show up at the IDF recruiting center?
More accurately, they only care how things might be spun so as to benefit them...
I very much doubt, for example, that der Schlickmeister ever considered negotiating a military defense treaty with Israel. But, at the time and in the circumstance, it sounded good...
I didn't think you looked jerish. :^)
If you haven't yet, read Because He Could and Rewriting History both by Morris. I am not sure he considers the Dems evil (due to his apparent disdain for the lack of Dem alternatives to Rodham-Rodham for a pres candidate) , but there seems to be no love lost between him and the Clintonistas.
Dick Morris is finally saying something that makes sense!
But if he jumped he would still have a good chance of winning the GOP nomination and a good chance of winning the presidency. I am not debating his leanings, just the reality.
Dick Morris is showing his Jewish bias for a very good reason, and that is because he IS a Jew.
bookmark
The car I learned to drive.
?????? Wrong thread maybe?
Hezbollah can all burn in hell bump.
Whether you like Morris as a person or not, he occaisionally gets it right.
True friends of America cannot let the Democrats take power.
While that may be part of it, in my view the most fundamental reasons are twofold:
1. Israel is wealthy and prosperous and stable, and the Arab Muslim states that surround them are not. For leftists, this is a terrible crime as it "proves" that Israel is oppressing the Muslims. Remember, for liberals it's all about economics and class. Culture, religion and outlook have nothing to do with it.
2. Israel's best (and maybe only) ally is the United States. This makes them doubly guilty in the eyes of the left, because the United States is the single biggest problem in the world today, so our friends are automatically suspect.
On a side note, some of the worst, most blatantly biased reporting I have ever seen from CNN has come during this war. Hexbollah couldn't buy a better commercial. Perhaps the above points are driving this.
Neither Clinton has any idea of what is right or wrong, only what is popular or unpopular. They don't care how things ARE, they only care how things look.
And, President Bush is the opposite. he spends political capital at will....safe in the knowledge that history will be his only important judge. Besides, President Bush hasn't done that badly at the polls anyway.
He's an awkward public speaker but, President Bush certainly is trying to do what's right.
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.