Joseph Farah: Pat Buchanan Has Adopted the Rheoric Of Yassar Arafat [Pat' Mideast Myopia]

Hundreds of WorldNetDaily readers have written to me demanding to know why I don't fire Pat Buchanan as a columnist.

They say he's wrong in his Mideast analysis. They say it's not just that Buchanan's opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict are wrong, but that he distorts facts. They say his prescription for peace in the region would lead inevitably to the destruction of the Jewish state. They suggest his hostility to Israel is a sign of a deep-seated anti-Semitism.

Buchanan is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. There is no nation of Palestine. There never has been a nation of Palestine. And, I will boldly predict, there never will be a nation of Palestine.

In the history of the world, Palestine has never been more than a region, an arbitrarily named place. It's not an Arabic name, by the way. It's a name chosen by colonial Europeans. The Arabs who have lived in that region have never been set apart from their neighbors by a unique culture, a different language, a system of self-governance, a king, a constitution or even recognized borders. In fact, most "Palestinians" live in the nation of Jordan, and most of the people who live in Jordan could correctly call themselves Palestinians.

If there is a nation of Palestine today, it is not on the West Bank of the Jordan River, it is on the East Bank.

Maybe you think I'm splitting hairs. Maybe you think Buchanan means Israel is at war with the Palestinian people. Maybe he does mean that. But, if that's what he means, he's wrong again.

If Israel were at war with the Palestinian people, it has had many opportunities to destroy them. It has the firepower to wreak untold horrors on them. Yet it has never yielded to what must be, after the last nine years of terrorism and broken promises of peace, a very tempting option. In the face of daily aggression against its civilian population nothing short of guerrilla warfare, Israel has been a model of restraint.

Buchanan even justifies the terrorism of suicide bombers as "a tactic in a guerrilla war of national liberation being waged by the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation."

In other words, Pat Buchanan, an otherwise sensible man whose opinions I often value on many issues, has adopted the rhetoric of Yasser Arafat.

Someone needs to remind Buchanan that America has its own experience with suicide bombers. If the actions of Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian by birth, can be justified, how much of a stretch is it to rationalize the actions of Osama bin Laden, who, after all, seeks an end to U.S. military "occupation" of his homeland of Saudi Arabia?

Buchanan then goes on to say, quite seriously, that "the only hope lies in a Palestinian state. A small state of their own would give Palestinians a huge stake in peace and in preventing acts of terror against Israel." Perhaps Buchanan hasn't heard – Arafat rejected the offer of a state proposed by Ehud Barak. Not only did he reject it, but he declared a jihad to punctuate the rejection.

Buchanan's theme throughout his lifetime of punditry is "America first." What he ought to recognize, but clearly doesn't, is that it is in America's vital national interest to support the one free nation and its only dependable ally in the Middle East.

I will not question Buchanan's motivations for writing such nonsense, only his good judgment.

And, by the way, I disagree with much of the commentary appearing in WorldNetDaily. That's one of the things that keeps it interesting and unpredictable.

So, in answer to all that mail, no, I will not fire Pat Buchanan for his badly mangled understanding of Mideast politics. He has the right to be wrong – even dangerously and badly wrong.

In Pat Buchanan's world they surely are. Actually, "churched" Protestants are a minority. Catholicism is the largest single Christian denomination in the US. The unchurched - which includes many who might have been nominally Protestant by heritage but have no church affiliation or participation at all - may be the largest group of Americans.

Everyone seems to be convinced that PJB is antisemitic because he believe that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances that should be considered. I believe that is true, altho I think that they have forfeited their right to our sympathy by resorting to terrorism. Of course what PJB and I think is irrelevant. If Israel wants to destroy the terrorists (and I think that it has the right to try) then I would submit the two primary imediments are its own policy of tolerating Arafat (it could easily kill or capture him at any time) and Bush #43, who is obviously restraining Israel (which may also be responsible for problem #1, Arafat, altho Israel accepted him at Oslo in '92, and can't blame Bush #43 for that).

Of course, in the real world, Bush #43 and Israel have to accept that the political reality is that killing Arafat would probably just transform him from a powerless symbol of an impotent force to a martyr to the Palestinian state.

Given these realities, I doubt that Israel is going to "conquer a peace" by invading the West Bank. To the contrary, I think it is going to learn the lesson of the "tarbaby", which Sharon should have learned in Lebanon 20 years ago. How long do you think Sharon will keep Israeli troops and tanks in the West Bank before "declaring victory"?

He will keep the tanks in the West Bank until there are no more bomb-belts, AK-47s, or RPGs sitting in the homes of the "civilian population" and there are no more known terrorists living there. Why do you sound as though you wish Israel to fail in their war (which is ultimately OUR war)? Pat Buchanan, BTW, is a guy I used to just love, although I couldn't understand his position that the "Amen Corner" in the U.S. Congress was the only reason we went to war with Saddam in 1991. Sounded pretty anti-semetic to me, given that there was no other coherence to his argument. Oh, sorry: he did say that there would be "tens of thousands of American body bags". You remember, all those corn-fed kids with non-jewish names (which I can't recall, although one was certainly Irish in origin). Now a liberal democracy, and ally of the U.S., a country which respects human rights as best it can given its position as the most despised nation on earth, a nation under constant terrorist assault by psychopaths who live within its borders, now that nation has NO RIGHT to defend itself. Well, that's the detritus of a lingering anti-semetism right out of the days of the first "America First" movement. You know, the one that sympathized with the Nazis? Maybe that's an ad hominem attack on my part. I don't know. But before the Buchanan Brigadiers come in to flame me: what other explanation for Pat's utter lack of common sense or fairness regarding Israel?

What did I say to imply that I do not support the war against terrorism? To the contrary, I believe that I am at least more consistent in my support of it than Bush #43, or Sharon, since I would strike at the head of the evil, which Sharon insists is Arafat, rather than the tail, the Palestinian refugeee camps and towns, which I believe to be counter-productive.

What does annoy me is that any criticism of Israel or its policies is immediately branded "antisemitic". I think PJB has made and continues to make excellent points which are obviously in the minds of Bush #43 and his advisors. We need to understand the political realities so we can make informed decisions as to which policies and leaders to support.

If you are correct that Sharon will keep troops and tanks in the West Bank until the terrorism ends, I think they will be there a very long time. And any reprieve that is obtained will be very short lived.

Ultimately, Israel will have to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people if it wants peace. However the Palestinians must also reject terrorism and adopt new leadership. Eventually they will realize that the means to their desired ends can best be gained by peaceful, nonviolent resistance as demonstrated by Gandi and Martin Luther King.

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.