State sponsored terrorism is the worst threat to the safety and freedom of the American way of life. Israel’s safety and sovereignty is essential to American freedom and the prospect of democracy one day engulfing the Middle East.
Groups like Hizbollah and Hamas have been clearly proven to survive based on the support of other sovereign nations. The presence of Hizbollah in Lebanon, and their de facto control of southern Lebanon is a direct consequence of Syria’s strong support for the organization. Syria is also an avid supporter of Hamas, giving them both money and weapons to serve as their proxy in the fight against Israel. People, specifically those associated with the United Nations and the anti-Bush faction, constantly point to diplomacy as the way out of crisis in the Middle East. Last time I checked, Hizbollah didn’t send an envoy carrying a letter voicing disapproval over Israel’s northern border. They sent militants to kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers in an unprovoked action intended to cause unrest. The Palestinian and Syrian based terror organizations have longed used these tactics to elicit what the media likes to call a ‘disproportionate response from Israel.’ The reality is, the nature of war in conflict is just that. The actions of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, a major action at its time, was dwarfed so significantly by the ensuing American military activity in the Pacific that there was no longer any ‘response equivalency.’
When those with obviously hostile intentions assault the sovereignty of your nation, your very survival relies on your ability, as a nation, to gather the support and courage to do what must be done. In this case, in Israel’s case, ‘what must be done’ includes dismantling both Hizbollah and Hamas, while showing whom their real puppet masters are. Media coverage of ‘indiscriminate Israeli attacks on civilians’ buys in directly to what the terrorists want people to think. For years, both Hamas and Hizbollah (and many other terrorists organizations, for that matter) have housed their offices, militants and leaders within the heart of the civilian population. By doing this, and launching attacks from these civilian strong holds, THEY, not the other side, are responsible for any death or injury resulting in an attack. I do not feel that these civilians are responsible for this plight, nor do I feel there is realistically much they can do about it. These are evil, sick terrorists. If civilians, facing the prospect of a terrorist leader living in their midst, were to speak out, death or severe punishment would likely follow. However, avoiding attacks on the terrorists simply because of their blatant disregard for the people’s they pretend to fight in support of is not an option. Following this line of thought is essentially awarding victory to the terrorists on all counts. Following this line of thought allows the same vicious cycle to repeat itself – and gives the terrorists no reason to think they are in any position to negotiate or compromise. The idea of ‘diplomacy’ really doesn’t apply to people who think that fair play is hiding in a house full of women and children after launching an attack on a sovereign nation.
Time after time, and many times during the Clinton administration ‘successful’ diplomatic initiatives were launched. When these ‘agreements’ were accepted, what they really meant for the Palestinian side was that somehow, they were getting aid from somewhere for ‘behaving.’ At the same time, they were also gaining the advantage of having Israel bound to some sort of peace agreement. Therefore, anything Israel might do in reaction to any hostilities would paint them as responsible for ‘endangering a fragile peace.’
The pinnacle of the ‘diplomatic brilliance’ of the 90’s was the famous Camp David meeting between Clinton, Arafat and Barak at the end of Clinton’s second term. At this meeting, with great pressure from the USA, Barak agreed to give 98% of what was demanded by Palestinians in peace negotiations. It goes without saying that the goal of diplomacy is to give both sides part of what they want. A 50/50 split is ideal, but usually impossible, so it’s expected that one side might give slightly more. In this case, Israel was essentially forced to accept a deal that makes Babe Ruth’s purchase by the Yankees for $25,000 (or so) seem like quite a bad value. To understand why Israel was stuck in this position, you must understand the timing of the ordeal. At that time, as Bill Clinton left his final term – he (and his administration, namely Madame Albright) were obsessed with making Middle East peace the centerpiece of their legacy. After several years of public embarrassment related to Whitewater and the Lewinski affair, finding a middle ground in the Middle East would have given Clinton the legitimacy he so greatly hungered for. Great pressure was put on the Israeli’s by Clinton to give Arafat everything he wanted in the hopes of reaching a peace. So, presented with 98% of his demands, and the prospect of Middle East peace and a potential two state solution, Arafat finally had the chance to give his people what they so greatly desired – a homeland. Shockingly, instead of accepting this sweetheart deal, Arafat rejected it, and upon his return to Gaza and the West Bank, the famous Intifada was launched and created a storm of suicide bombings and civil unrest that turned the region on its head. Of course, in the months and years that followed, as Israeli forces time and time again retaliated for ruthless and indiscriminate suicide attacks on civilians, the source of the latest conflict started to fade. People pointed at the gunships and tanks of Israel as the aggressors, the oppressors, and most of all – the occupiers. Arafat’s rejection of the peace deal at Camp David essentially validated his people’s willingness to live within this alleged ‘occupation.’
What came very clear is that the idea of a two state solution was not the interest of the Palestinian posse. This posse consists of the major terrorist groups – Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, and, of course – Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (pre-war) and a host of other small, militant nations. The key to this arrangement is that the sovereign nations that stand behind the terrorists don’t do the dirty work, the terrorists do. This may or may not be a reflection on the series of humiliating defeats these nations suffered teaming up on Israel in the late 1940’s, early 1950’s, late 1960’s and early 1970’s. What became clear to those with the foresight to look past the ‘diplomatic gains’ was that there was no desire for peace. The only acceptable solution to these people would be the elimination of Israel altogether. This is not only some hidden conspiracy theory, it is at the heart of the rhetoric consistently spewed by leaders of both nations and terrorist organizations.
The very essence of diplomacy is to have two sides that each have a willingness to reach a peaceful agreement. When, as I believe is the case here, one side engages in talks merely to give the appearance of diplomacy – we are all played the fool. The world media and world leaders who frequently comment on the Middle East are no better than Pavlov’s dog. Their bell is the constant cry of injustice by Palestinians, usually right after some heinous attack on civilian targets intended to inflict maximum damage. Now, they have made military targets their goal, and the game changes when that happens. It all leads to a simple question. If, as a country, your sworn enemies – who happen to preach the idea of your country being driven into the sea, attack your military what are you to do? Can these actions be viewed as anything else except an act of war? If someone walked up to me on the street – announced to the world he wanted me dead – and then attacked me – any action I took in response would likely be justified in the eyes of the law. Why should that not translate onto the world stage? People are trying to eliminate the existence of Israel, despite the best diplomatic deals that can be brokered – and Israel should show restraint? All that will do is allow this vicious, ignorant cycle of violence, lies and stupidity to continue. The answer, sad as it may be, is for Israel to dismantle these terrorist organizations completely. It sounds brutal, but if the civilians who these terrorists put in harms way do perish, Israel should not be blamed, they are doing what must be done. Maybe, once Hamas and Hizbollah are peeled away, the world can deal with the real culprits – Iran, Syria et al., who might be wiling to engage in diplomacy. Until then, diplomacy with terrorists is not an option that intelligent and freedom-loving people should ever be forced to pursue.
No comments:
Post a Comment