Earlier this month I was encouraged by my country’s willingness to stand with our Spanish allies when they were attacked by terrorists. The refrain of 'We are all Spaniards now" rang out from both ends of the political spectrum. But now, only two weeks later, I’m getting the sense that we don’t always stand with our friends when they are targeted by groups that wish to annihilate them. Or perhaps 'We are all Jews now" just wouldn’t be as catchy.
After Israeli forces killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder of Hamas who was known as the 'godfather of suicide bombers", the U.S., along with every other country engaged in the war against terror, should have cheered. Yassin, after all, is cut from the same cloth as bin Laden, differing, perhaps, only in the number of civilian casualties that can be attributed to him. But as we now know, that is not what happened.
The fact that the European Union condemned the action came as no surprise. The virus of appeasement infected that continent forty years ago and continues its malignant spread through the body politic. But the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration is astounding. Denouncing the assassination as 'deeply troubling" while conducting operations to hunt down and kill bin Laden is morally repugnant.
Wasn’t it Bush who claimed that the U.S. would make, 'no distinction between those who committed these acts [of terrorism] and those who harbor them"? So why would we be troubled by the death of a leader of what our own State Department classifies as a 'terrorist organization?' More specifically, why do we continually turn a blind eye to terrorism when it is committed by Palestinians?
We invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the al Queda-harboring government. Yet when the Israelis kill a terrorist leader in their own borders we have the audacity to criticize the action. Instead of condeming our friends we should remain in constant awe of Israel’s restraint. As Lee Harris writes in his new book, 'Civilization and Its Enemies":
"If the Palestinian people were indeed a genuine state fighting a genuine war, they would have long since been annihilated root and branch or else forced to make a realistic accommodation with the state of Israel ... That [Palestinian] state will exist as a viable entity only by virtue of the liberal conscience -- and seemingly inexhaustible forbearance -- of the Israeli people." (pg. 30)
The fate of Palestine lies in the hands of the Palestinians. They know this and know that their refusal to accept responsibility for their own destiny is the only reason that they don't have a permanent homeland. Every nation should put as much pressure as they can muster to force this people to denounce their hatred and desire to annihilate their Jewish neighbors. Until then the Israeli government has the right -- has the moral duty -- to cut out terrorism, root and branch, from their land.
Indeed, you are quite correct Joe. The Israeli government has an obligation to its citizens to murder anyone who has dedicated their life to the violent death of the people of Israel. Is there any job more important for a government than to visit death and destruction on those who would exterminate the people it was created to protect?
I think you're going to see more of this hypocrisy from Bush as the election gets closer and closer. He's starting to really waffle, though not as bad as Kerry just yet. His support for the LOST treaty IMO is very troubling. Combine that with his ADD-addled anti-terrorism policy and we've got nothing more than a Kerry-lite.
The U.S. makes weak hints of concern with the understanding that Israel can defend itself as is prudent. The hints of concern are for foreign consumption, and not Israeli.
The U.S. makes weak hints of concern with the understanding that Israel can defend itself as is prudent. The hints of concern are for foreign consumption, and not Israeli.
I believe that 'its jake' has it right. While the Bush administration may publicly question the Israeli action in order to put on a show for the rest of the world, privately they are likely giving them a discreet thumbs up. The same sort of thing happened in 1981 when the Israelis took out the Iraqi 'Osiraq' nuclear reactor. You may not appreciate the public hypocrisy, but international diplomacy is often not about consistency or even honesty.
I agree with several others. The wishy washy words that diplomats typically talk in (i.e. "deeply troubling") mean nothing if they're not backed by deeds. As long as the Bush administration shows no inclination to reduce levels of military cooperation and aid for Israel, all is OK.
Besides, I've heard Bush has a chart with the photos and names of prominent terrorist leaders in a desk drawer. Every time one is killed, he crosses it out. I doubt he has any real problem with Israel, which has suffered far more, doing something similar.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
http://www.InklingBooks.com/
Mmmmm call me a 'gutless liberal' but I think there is a difference between trying to capture someone then killing them and launching a missile into someones wheelchair.
Have written more about this over at my blog
I know a woman who is Jewish. She has a sign in her office that reads:
U.S. - 9/11
Israel - 24/7
I think the double-standard held for Israel is clear.
Adrian- I don't know why you feel the need to mention the wheelchair. Would it have been better if he had a walker? Or if he was able bodied? Either the killing was justified or not. The physical status of Yassin should not matter.
Suppose OBL is alive but physically handicapped in the hills of Pakistan. If a Predator drone spots him, is it okay to send a Hellfire missile his way? If you support the US taking out Bin Laden but criticize Israel for Yassin, I believe you're employing a double standard
On your blog you mention that you would rather have terrorists captured and imprisoned. Yassin was captured, tried, and imprisoned by the Israelis already. But he was released, along with other terrorists, in exchange for a few Israeli POWs (and probably the bodies of Israeli soldiers). Killing him will likely result in retaliation against Israel. But imprisoning him was probably worse. It encouraged Hamas to try to capture Israelis in order to make a swap and he was a living, breathing hero to the cause sitting in an Israeli jail. Better a dead martyr than a live hero. I hope the same fate awaits (or has already befallen) Osama.
Indeed, there is a big double standard. I think that the only thing that scares these people, who can only think in terms of violence, is that if the U.S. is backed far enough into a corner the resulting retaliation against the Arab Islamic world would be horrendous for them. I would be willing to wager that in the event of a multi-WMD attack against the U.S. that the people would largely demand a nuclear strike against the nation(s) that sponsored the groups responsible.
In my estimation, the problem with the Israeli-Palestinian problem is that both sides are a bunch of pricks. There's nobody to like there. (And I mean the governments, using the term loosely in the case of the Palestinians, not necessarily the people.)
Just when the Palestinians have done something to indicate that they're not worthy of consideration, the Israelis engage in one-upmanship.
It's sickening, and I'm ashamed that we support either side.
Defend that comment, tg. It's not the government of Palestine that is doing the suicide bombings--Hamas does, with the tacit support of Arafat. Are the people who strap on the Semtex not "pricks" by your definition?
What have the Palestinians done to not warrant consideration, as you put it? Blow up people? Then the Israelis kill the guy who put the operation together, and you can't decide whether to get off the fence?
There's a place for people who are uncomfortable taking sides. It's called Europe, and the Muslims are coming after them too.
Kevin:
There's a place for people who are uncomfortable taking sides. It's called Europe, and the Muslims are coming after them too.
Give me a break, and stop being such an ass. I'm sorry, but that's what you're doing. Spare me the false dilemmas.
If I told you to take sides between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, you would not do this -- you would send them both to hell.
And yet you call me out for refusing to cite a preference between Israel and Palestine? Please.
I wish I lived in your black-and-white world where there are only two sides to everything, and one side is absolutely right, and the other side is absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, I live in the real world, and things are a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
No, I do not condone suicide bombings, nor do I condone ethnic hatred. I also don't condone retaliation-by-residential-missile strike ("we killed 8 innocents, including 3 children, but hey, we wounded the guy we were after, so it's okay!"), and I don't condone continued settlement expansion (while claiming to want "peace"), etc.
And by the way:
Are the people who strap on the Semtex not "pricks" by your definition?
Of course they are. Anybody with half a gram of gray matter would have understood my "not necessarily the people" to mean "the people as a whole." Are the American people to be held responsible for what McVeigh did? Of course not. Is McVeigh to be held responsible? Of course. It's a huge difference, and you insult me by claiming that I was trying to nullify it.
What I was saying (and I think most people understood this) was that I don't necessarily blame Joe Israeli or Jim Palestinian for the problem -- I blame Sharon and Arafat and the people who commit acts of violence in their names.
Except . . . 50% of Jim Palestinians (if the poster above is correct) believe that 100% of Joe Israelis should be killed, even if Joe is a civilian, even if he is in Israel proper.
I'm not asking you to choose between Osama and Saddam--now it's you who is building a straw man. But you will find, as the Europeans are, that if you don't choose sides, they will choose you. How many New Yorkers cared a damn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Yet the Palestinians celebrated 9/11. How many Frenchmen, just before their tanker was blown up? "No problem, they are all infidels"--was what was said by the Islamists. How many Russians just would rather the whole problem just go away? Don't they have enough problems? No--here come the Muslims to take over the theater, or blow up a train. How many Germans? Yet, the German President has to cancel a trip to Africa because of assassination threats from--you guessed it!--Muslims.
Last week, Hamas killed a jogger. The jogger, it so happened, was Arab; his father was active in the Arab league. Hamas apologized profusely, saying that they thought the kid was a Jew, as he ran unmolested between checkpoints and in and out of the secure areas. So sorry, they said, our mistake. The Arabs understood. Let me know how you understand this--I sure don't.
Governments cannot make and enforce policy without millions of their citizens playing ball. The tragedy of Auschwitz is not that the German government had it out for the Jews; it is that tens of millions of Germans were willing to pack up their neighbors and coworkers and friends and put them on the trains. It is "the people" that make these crimes possible. And only when "the people" stop celebrating death for Americans and Jews and infidels and whoever the hell else, will sanity break out over there. I'm not optimistic.
Kevin:
I never said you were asking me to choose between Osama and Saddam. Because I was unwilling to take sides in a particular scenario, you painted me (and the Europeans) as though I was unwilling to take sides in any scenario. I was merely using Saddam and Osama to point out the absurdity of your own logic.
And even assuming the poll is accurate, it means that 50% of Jim Palestinians don't want all the Joe Israelis dead.
Hamas killed a jogger. Too bad, that. The US blew up an Afghan wedding party, too. Are we to make a sweeping condemnation of the US based on this?
Your point about "the people" making the crimes possible is well taken, however. "The people" here are allowing our civil liberties to be flushed down the toilet, for example, and they (we) all bear some of the responsibility for that.
So if it makes you feel better, I'll modify my statement: both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are pricks, individually and organizationally.
Given that, it troubles me that you would vilify me for expressing discomfort with the idea of endorsing either side.
Crips or bloods: Take a side. To my thinking, that's what you're asking me to do when you ask me to take a side in that conflict.
Wow.
First, some history. The Afghans were celebrating the wedding by firing weapons into the air. Special Forces on the ground thought that they, and overhead US aircraft, were being targeted. The radioed in the coordinates, and a horrible misunderstanding resulted. The United States paid a considerable amount in reparations (actually, I'm not certain on that point--I know it was being discussed, but don't know the resolution. If I'm mistaken here, I apologize).
I believe, as do you, that if we had known the actual events, we wouldn't have dropped the bombs.
To compare that to this jogger seems hardly analogous--the only misunderstanding here was one of identity. This jogger, obviously not an immediate threat to anyone, was singled out for being erroneously identified as being a Jew. That's all.
I'm not advocating the liquidation of Muslims, or even Shiite Muslims or the Wahabbis. They do, however, need to be decisively and determinatively defeated, just as the Nazis were, just as the Imperialistic Japanese were. Americans are the most gracious people in the world, magnanimous in victory--we are right now rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, replacing hope with fear. As Christians, we should hope for no less.