Wake-up call for Israel?
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 15, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
This is a hard column for me to write.
It's difficult because what I need to say about the two-front terrorist attacks on Israel is nothing new.
I've said everything that needs to be said many times in as many new ways as I could imagine.
Suffice it to say I am not shocked by these developments. I am not even a little bit surprised. In fact, I predicted it.
I knew that Israel's evacuation of Gaza was not solving problems with terrorism but creating bigger problems for another day.
I knew that Israel's evacuation of Judea and Samaria was not solving problems with terrorism but creating bigger problems for another day.
I knew that Israel's unilateral evacuation of southern Lebanon was not solving problems with terrorism but creating bigger problems for another day – not to mention selling out the Jewish state's Christian friends in the region.
However, the point of this column is not to point out how smart I am. The point is to show how predictable it is that appeasement of evil aggression always leads to more evil aggression.
Indeed, I have become so weary of making these points over and over again that, a few months ago, I actually gave up on Israel – deciding it was a lost cause to defend people who were unwilling to be responsible with their own national security.
After all that, here we are.
Israel is battling on two fronts – Gaza and Lebanon – two territories from which it unilaterally withdrew its military presence in what could only be interpreted by its enemies as an unconditional retreat and surrender.
Likewise, Israel is on the verge of finalizing plans to do the same thing in the West Bank. If it had completed that operation, it would now be fighting on three fronts.
Maybe some good can still come out of this unmitigated policy disaster for Israel. Maybe some official are ready to realize and admit they made some tragic errors. Maybe it's not too late to reverse course. Maybe, if Israel begins to see its very survival is at stake, it will correct course, defend itself and, in the process, do all free people in the world a big favor at the same time.
What does Israel need to do now? It needs to do what I have been advocating from the beginning – defeat the bad guys, destroy them, kill them all.
Nothing short of this response will do anything more than buy time until the next barbaric assault on Jewish civilians by Hezbollah, which, I understand, translates in Farsi to "Hitlers in headscarves." As I've said before, it's time for Israel to make humus out of Hamas.
This is no joke.
Israel is not only tempting God with its own future with its policy of national surrender, it is endangering the rest of the world, encouraging the Islamo-fascists whose ultimate goal is a global khalifate.
I know Israel has faced tremendous pressure from the U.S. and the rest of the world. I know. I've been there defending Israel and indicting the rest of the world all along. But, at some point, as this generation of Israelis needs to understand, if the Jews of Israel don't care about their nation, if they don't care about paying for territory more than once with Jewish blood, if they don't care about the future viability of a Jewish state, no one else can be expected to care.
I still do care. For the life of me, I can't stop caring. In fact, the Bible commands me to care. I only wish the people of Israel had the same faith in those Hebrew prophets that I have.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Israel – out of control?
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 17, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
If you rely on the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Associated Press for your news, it would be easy to get the impression that Israel is out of control – wantonly killing Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and provoking a larger conflict in the Middle East.
The lead headline in the Post yesterday, for instance, read: ''Israel intensifies assault on Beirut.''
Of course, if striking directly at the terrorists who launched hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians in the previous three days and who struck inside Israel's border, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others means assaulting Beirut, I guess that would be accurate.
But Israel is hardly targeting Beirut. It is targeting Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in league with al-Qaida and sponsored by Syria and Iran – a terrorist group that is killing and maiming Israeli citizens by the score.
Here's the way the third paragraph of the Post story reads: ''In a war that has witnessed an escalation each day, the asymmetrical nature of the conflict was laid bare Saturday: For each attack by Hezbollah since it captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, Israel has inflicted a far greater price. It has systematically dismantled the country's infrastructure, displaced thousands of residents and instilled a new sense of foreboding and fear in the now-deserted streets of this brash, confident city still shadowed by the legacy of Lebanon's 15-year civil war.''
What message is any thinking person supposed to take away from such an account? Israel is out of control.
But a few points need to be made about such commentary disguised as news reporting:
Hezbollah has been operating freely in Lebanon as a de facto government for years – even after Syria withdrew from the country. The government of Lebanon has done little or nothing to take control of entire regions of the country, including its international airport, in which Hezbollah has set up a military infrastructure with one goal in mind – attacking Israel. How is Israel supposed to respond to attacks directed from those regions?
Israel has the military might to destroy Lebanon in a day – an hour, 30 minutes. Has it occurred to anyone that the Jewish state is demonstrating incredible restraint in focusing its wrath on only Hezbollah targets?
Stories are quick to emphasize the death and injury toll of Lebanese and Palestinians, but you have to scour the reports to learn that hundreds of Israeli civilians have been hurt and killed in rocket attacks targeted at towns and cities in the Jewish state.
How should a civilized nation respond to terrorist attacks within its borders? How did the U.S. respond after Sept. 11, 2001? Should civilized nations respond with force only equal to that which was used by its enemies? Or is it legitimate and proper for civilized countries to respond with overwhelming force – to discourage future attacks, wipe out those responsible and deter future attacks?
Again, it is as if my colleagues – as well as the United Nations, the European leadership and much of the rest of the world – believe Israel is the real problem in the Middle East.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Blaming Israel for the current violence in the region is the equivalent of blaming the U.S. for the terrorist attacks of September 11 and its response to them.
Let's review the key developments in this war:
On July 12, Hezbollah launched Katyusha rockets and mortar fire at the Israeli town of Shlomi. The same day, the terrorist group boasted of seizing two Israeli soldiers in the Israeli town of Shtula – killing eight other soldiers.
Then, and only then, did Israel strike back by bombing roads, bridges, power stations and other Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah then began a much wider rocket assault on Israeli towns, including the port city of Haifa, some 20 miles south of the Lebanese border. It was in this series of attacks that wounded more than 300 Israeli civilians, while killing at least a dozen.
I suppose there are those who think Israel should only respond with like force. Israel, a tiny nation with 1 percent of the population of its enemies in the Mideast, cannot afford to trade corpses. And, even if it could, it would not be good national security policy.
Israel's enemies should be grateful this American of Lebanese and Syrian heritage is not calling the shots in Jerusalem. Israel finds itself in this crisis because it listened too closely to the voices of appeasement from around the world – including from my colleagues in the international establishment media.
Evacuating from southern Lebanon and Gaza and other territories Israel conquered in hard-fought combat with no concessions from its enemies was bad policy. Israel encouraged the attacks it is now enduring. It's long past time for Israel to draw a hard line in the sand and punish severely those who cross it.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 17, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
If you rely on the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Associated Press for your news, it would be easy to get the impression that Israel is out of control – wantonly killing Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and provoking a larger conflict in the Middle East.
The lead headline in the Post yesterday, for instance, read: ''Israel intensifies assault on Beirut.''
Of course, if striking directly at the terrorists who launched hundreds of rockets at Israeli civilians in the previous three days and who struck inside Israel's border, kidnapping two soldiers and killing eight others means assaulting Beirut, I guess that would be accurate.
But Israel is hardly targeting Beirut. It is targeting Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in league with al-Qaida and sponsored by Syria and Iran – a terrorist group that is killing and maiming Israeli citizens by the score.
Here's the way the third paragraph of the Post story reads: ''In a war that has witnessed an escalation each day, the asymmetrical nature of the conflict was laid bare Saturday: For each attack by Hezbollah since it captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, Israel has inflicted a far greater price. It has systematically dismantled the country's infrastructure, displaced thousands of residents and instilled a new sense of foreboding and fear in the now-deserted streets of this brash, confident city still shadowed by the legacy of Lebanon's 15-year civil war.''
What message is any thinking person supposed to take away from such an account? Israel is out of control.
But a few points need to be made about such commentary disguised as news reporting:
Hezbollah has been operating freely in Lebanon as a de facto government for years – even after Syria withdrew from the country. The government of Lebanon has done little or nothing to take control of entire regions of the country, including its international airport, in which Hezbollah has set up a military infrastructure with one goal in mind – attacking Israel. How is Israel supposed to respond to attacks directed from those regions?
Israel has the military might to destroy Lebanon in a day – an hour, 30 minutes. Has it occurred to anyone that the Jewish state is demonstrating incredible restraint in focusing its wrath on only Hezbollah targets?
Stories are quick to emphasize the death and injury toll of Lebanese and Palestinians, but you have to scour the reports to learn that hundreds of Israeli civilians have been hurt and killed in rocket attacks targeted at towns and cities in the Jewish state.
How should a civilized nation respond to terrorist attacks within its borders? How did the U.S. respond after Sept. 11, 2001? Should civilized nations respond with force only equal to that which was used by its enemies? Or is it legitimate and proper for civilized countries to respond with overwhelming force – to discourage future attacks, wipe out those responsible and deter future attacks?
Again, it is as if my colleagues – as well as the United Nations, the European leadership and much of the rest of the world – believe Israel is the real problem in the Middle East.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Blaming Israel for the current violence in the region is the equivalent of blaming the U.S. for the terrorist attacks of September 11 and its response to them.
Let's review the key developments in this war:
On July 12, Hezbollah launched Katyusha rockets and mortar fire at the Israeli town of Shlomi. The same day, the terrorist group boasted of seizing two Israeli soldiers in the Israeli town of Shtula – killing eight other soldiers.
Then, and only then, did Israel strike back by bombing roads, bridges, power stations and other Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah then began a much wider rocket assault on Israeli towns, including the port city of Haifa, some 20 miles south of the Lebanese border. It was in this series of attacks that wounded more than 300 Israeli civilians, while killing at least a dozen.
I suppose there are those who think Israel should only respond with like force. Israel, a tiny nation with 1 percent of the population of its enemies in the Mideast, cannot afford to trade corpses. And, even if it could, it would not be good national security policy.
Israel's enemies should be grateful this American of Lebanese and Syrian heritage is not calling the shots in Jerusalem. Israel finds itself in this crisis because it listened too closely to the voices of appeasement from around the world – including from my colleagues in the international establishment media.
Evacuating from southern Lebanon and Gaza and other territories Israel conquered in hard-fought combat with no concessions from its enemies was bad policy. Israel encouraged the attacks it is now enduring. It's long past time for Israel to draw a hard line in the sand and punish severely those who cross it.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Is this World War III?
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 26, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
Many commentators are suggesting the conflict raging in this world today – from the East to the West – is World War III.
Others, who count the Cold War as World War III, have suggested the challenge of radical Islam represents World War IV.
I disagree.
I think we've mis-numbered the global wars so far.
I see this conflict – one that has defined history for the last 1,400 years – as World War I. This is the real Great War. It's far bigger than the conflicts that took a few years to settle. And it's not going away anytime soon.
This war is so big, some people can't even see it.
You know the expression, "He can't see the forest for the trees"? That's what it is like for some people who look at this war. They see fighting. They see conflict. They see death and destruction. But they can't see what it's all about. They can't see that the root cause.
What is the root cause?
There exists a religious totalitarian ideology that seeks global hegemony.
What we see happening in the Middle East today is the struggle in a microcosm.
Radical Islamic jihadists seek to destroy Israel. Nothing short of the Jewish state's annihilation will satisfy them. In fact, even the destruction of Israel is simply a means to an end – a short-term goal, if you will. It is the first step in a long march to global domination.
Some secularists in the West look at Islam and dismiss the possibility that it could ever dominate the globe. But it has in the past. It conquered most of the world. And, this time, "most of the world" will not appease the jihadists.
But much of the world believes this evil ideology can be negotiated with. They believe it can be placated. They believe it can be bought off. They believe it can be reasoned with. They even believe that it might be enflamed by legitimate grievances.
Again, let's return to the microsm – the Middle East. There are no legitimate grievances. Israel did not steal anyone's land. Israel did not create a refugee crisis. Israel did not oppress the "Palestinian people." All that is nonsense that I have dealt with a thousand times with hard facts and real history.
The conflict between Islamic radicals and Jews in the Middle East is really very simple. The Islamic radicals want all the Jews dead. The Jews, meanwhile, want to live.
It is about as irreconcilable as a conflict gets.
No amount of land concessions will appease the beast. No amount of foreign aid will appease the beast. No amount of revisionist history will appease the beast.
Only death and destruction of all infidels will quench the beast's appetite for blood and power.
If you doubt what I am saying, please consider this: If the radical Islamic jihadists in the Middle East – the mullahs of Iran, their puppets in Hezbollah, the suicidal maniacs of Hamas and their patrons in Syria – had the power to destroy every Jew in Israel, they would do it. Does anyone doubt that for a minute?
On the other hand, the Jews of Israel do possess the power to destroy their enemies. Yet, there is no question in anyone's mind that they would never resort to such an option unless they were somehow faced with annihilation themselves.
Likewise, today, the West has the power to destroy every Islamic country in the world. It's not a consideration. Yet, everyone reading this column understands intuitively and intellectually that if the shoe were on the other foot, the West would be in big trouble.
This is the way it has always been – since Muhammad first got his demonic visions in the desert. Ever since then, radical adherents to his message have been on the march – beheading, converting by sword, wiping out entire villages, raping and pillaging. Sometimes they are set back – for years, decades, centuries. Sometimes they are on the ascendancy – for years, decades, centuries.
This isn't World War III or World War IV. This is World War I.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 26, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
Many commentators are suggesting the conflict raging in this world today – from the East to the West – is World War III.
Others, who count the Cold War as World War III, have suggested the challenge of radical Islam represents World War IV.
I disagree.
I think we've mis-numbered the global wars so far.
I see this conflict – one that has defined history for the last 1,400 years – as World War I. This is the real Great War. It's far bigger than the conflicts that took a few years to settle. And it's not going away anytime soon.
This war is so big, some people can't even see it.
You know the expression, "He can't see the forest for the trees"? That's what it is like for some people who look at this war. They see fighting. They see conflict. They see death and destruction. But they can't see what it's all about. They can't see that the root cause.
What is the root cause?
There exists a religious totalitarian ideology that seeks global hegemony.
What we see happening in the Middle East today is the struggle in a microcosm.
Radical Islamic jihadists seek to destroy Israel. Nothing short of the Jewish state's annihilation will satisfy them. In fact, even the destruction of Israel is simply a means to an end – a short-term goal, if you will. It is the first step in a long march to global domination.
Some secularists in the West look at Islam and dismiss the possibility that it could ever dominate the globe. But it has in the past. It conquered most of the world. And, this time, "most of the world" will not appease the jihadists.
But much of the world believes this evil ideology can be negotiated with. They believe it can be placated. They believe it can be bought off. They believe it can be reasoned with. They even believe that it might be enflamed by legitimate grievances.
Again, let's return to the microsm – the Middle East. There are no legitimate grievances. Israel did not steal anyone's land. Israel did not create a refugee crisis. Israel did not oppress the "Palestinian people." All that is nonsense that I have dealt with a thousand times with hard facts and real history.
The conflict between Islamic radicals and Jews in the Middle East is really very simple. The Islamic radicals want all the Jews dead. The Jews, meanwhile, want to live.
It is about as irreconcilable as a conflict gets.
No amount of land concessions will appease the beast. No amount of foreign aid will appease the beast. No amount of revisionist history will appease the beast.
Only death and destruction of all infidels will quench the beast's appetite for blood and power.
If you doubt what I am saying, please consider this: If the radical Islamic jihadists in the Middle East – the mullahs of Iran, their puppets in Hezbollah, the suicidal maniacs of Hamas and their patrons in Syria – had the power to destroy every Jew in Israel, they would do it. Does anyone doubt that for a minute?
On the other hand, the Jews of Israel do possess the power to destroy their enemies. Yet, there is no question in anyone's mind that they would never resort to such an option unless they were somehow faced with annihilation themselves.
Likewise, today, the West has the power to destroy every Islamic country in the world. It's not a consideration. Yet, everyone reading this column understands intuitively and intellectually that if the shoe were on the other foot, the West would be in big trouble.
This is the way it has always been – since Muhammad first got his demonic visions in the desert. Ever since then, radical adherents to his message have been on the march – beheading, converting by sword, wiping out entire villages, raping and pillaging. Sometimes they are set back – for years, decades, centuries. Sometimes they are on the ascendancy – for years, decades, centuries.
This isn't World War III or World War IV. This is World War I.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
A world without Israel
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 28, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
The world is full of Israel-haters.
I don't know why. It probably has something to do with anti-Semitism – and even more to do with lack of knowledge and understanding about the Middle East.
So, I thought it might be a good exercise to consider what the world would be like if Israel had never been reborn in 1948.
Let's suppose that United Nations vote to partition the Palestinian region into two – one Arab and one Jewish – went differently. Let's imagine the Soviet Union or some other nation that supported the Jewish state voted the other way. What would the Middle East be like today? What would the world be like?
Well, for starters, the blame-Israel-first crowd needs to remember that the bloodiest conflicts in the Middle East in the last 60 years would still have taken place – because they had nothing to do with the state of Israel.
For instance, does anyone doubt that the Iran-Iraq war, which killed more than 1 million people and featured the widespread use of chemical weapons, would still have taken place – even without an Israel on the map?
Not even Saddam Hussein or the Ayatollah Khomeini could suggest that Jews had anything to do with that little dust-up. It was simply the latest round in fighting between ancient enemies, a turf war between a Sunni Muslim dictator and a Shiite Muslim dictator.
But what might have happened to nearly 1 million Jews in Arab lands who found a home in Israel after 1948? Those million refugees often left hostile Arab lands with little more than the clothes on their back. They often risked their lives to flee. Today, those Jews, if they were lucky, would still be living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny, living in "dhimmi" status. Surely many would have been murdered in the kinds of pogroms that regularly occurred in Arab and Muslim countries while they still maintained Jewish communities.
We hear so much about the "Arab refugee crisis" that was created by the 1948 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The highest estimates of Arabs who fled Israel during that war are put at 500,000. They fled, most often, because they were instructed to do so by the Arab leaders who declared war on Israel at its very birth. Yet, nearly 60 years later, this refugee population hasn't decreased, it has increased exponentially!
Why?
Not because Israel has created any new Arab refugees. It is because the Arab nations have refused to settle the original refugees they encouraged into refugee status. They see them as critical pawns in their asymmetrical conflict with Israel.
One thing is certain. Without Israel, there would have been no Palestinian national movement. There would be no Palestinian Authority. There would be no future Palestinian state.
Why?
Because prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel conquered what we call the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there was no such movement. Even though there was no Palestinian Arab state and never had been, no one had ever promoted one. When Jordan controlled the West Bank, the so-called "Palestinians" were not agitating for a homeland. They'd never had a country of their own and apparently never wanted one. Suddenly, when Israel captured the ancient Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, the Arabs discovered their sense of Palestinian nationalism for the first time ever.
I can also promise you that if Israel had not unified Jerusalem and declared it the eternal capital of the Jewish state, it would not be considered the third-holiest site in Islam.
How do I know this?
Because during the time that East Jerusalem was under the administration of King Hussein of Jordan, prior to June 1967, not a single Arab leader ever visited – including the king himself. It would seem that if Jerusalem had always been so important to the Muslims, their leaders would have expressed some interest in it before Israel captured the city in war.
The modern Islamic jihad movement is thought to have been launched in earnest in 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power from the overthrown shah. At the time, Khomeini made clear that the real enemy – "the Great Satan," as he called it – was the United States of America, not Israel.
No one, of course, knows what might have happened or not happened if Israel had never been reborn. But it does seem clear that most of the bad things that happened in the Middle East in the last 60 years would have happened anyway. Could it be that, if the Jewish state had never been, many more horrible things might have happened?
Personally, I suspect so.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Joseph Farah
Posted: July 28, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
The world is full of Israel-haters.
I don't know why. It probably has something to do with anti-Semitism – and even more to do with lack of knowledge and understanding about the Middle East.
So, I thought it might be a good exercise to consider what the world would be like if Israel had never been reborn in 1948.
Let's suppose that United Nations vote to partition the Palestinian region into two – one Arab and one Jewish – went differently. Let's imagine the Soviet Union or some other nation that supported the Jewish state voted the other way. What would the Middle East be like today? What would the world be like?
Well, for starters, the blame-Israel-first crowd needs to remember that the bloodiest conflicts in the Middle East in the last 60 years would still have taken place – because they had nothing to do with the state of Israel.
For instance, does anyone doubt that the Iran-Iraq war, which killed more than 1 million people and featured the widespread use of chemical weapons, would still have taken place – even without an Israel on the map?
Not even Saddam Hussein or the Ayatollah Khomeini could suggest that Jews had anything to do with that little dust-up. It was simply the latest round in fighting between ancient enemies, a turf war between a Sunni Muslim dictator and a Shiite Muslim dictator.
But what might have happened to nearly 1 million Jews in Arab lands who found a home in Israel after 1948? Those million refugees often left hostile Arab lands with little more than the clothes on their back. They often risked their lives to flee. Today, those Jews, if they were lucky, would still be living under the yoke of Muslim tyranny, living in "dhimmi" status. Surely many would have been murdered in the kinds of pogroms that regularly occurred in Arab and Muslim countries while they still maintained Jewish communities.
We hear so much about the "Arab refugee crisis" that was created by the 1948 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The highest estimates of Arabs who fled Israel during that war are put at 500,000. They fled, most often, because they were instructed to do so by the Arab leaders who declared war on Israel at its very birth. Yet, nearly 60 years later, this refugee population hasn't decreased, it has increased exponentially!
Why?
Not because Israel has created any new Arab refugees. It is because the Arab nations have refused to settle the original refugees they encouraged into refugee status. They see them as critical pawns in their asymmetrical conflict with Israel.
One thing is certain. Without Israel, there would have been no Palestinian national movement. There would be no Palestinian Authority. There would be no future Palestinian state.
Why?
Because prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel conquered what we call the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there was no such movement. Even though there was no Palestinian Arab state and never had been, no one had ever promoted one. When Jordan controlled the West Bank, the so-called "Palestinians" were not agitating for a homeland. They'd never had a country of their own and apparently never wanted one. Suddenly, when Israel captured the ancient Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, the Arabs discovered their sense of Palestinian nationalism for the first time ever.
I can also promise you that if Israel had not unified Jerusalem and declared it the eternal capital of the Jewish state, it would not be considered the third-holiest site in Islam.
How do I know this?
Because during the time that East Jerusalem was under the administration of King Hussein of Jordan, prior to June 1967, not a single Arab leader ever visited – including the king himself. It would seem that if Jerusalem had always been so important to the Muslims, their leaders would have expressed some interest in it before Israel captured the city in war.
The modern Islamic jihad movement is thought to have been launched in earnest in 1979, when the Ayatollah Khomeini assumed power from the overthrown shah. At the time, Khomeini made clear that the real enemy – "the Great Satan," as he called it – was the United States of America, not Israel.
No one, of course, knows what might have happened or not happened if Israel had never been reborn. But it does seem clear that most of the bad things that happened in the Middle East in the last 60 years would have happened anyway. Could it be that, if the Jewish state had never been, many more horrible things might have happened?
Personally, I suspect so.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Israel vs. Hezbollah, right vs. wrong
Joseph Farah
Posted: August 11, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
How people view the conflict in Lebanon is a barometer for determining their ability to discern right from wrong.
If you hear someone fudge on this conflict, it is an indication of a moral failing, a weakness in their heart, a defect in their brain, a darkness in their very soul.
There is no better picture of evil in the world today that the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Founded by the mullahs in Iran, facilitated by two generations of dictators in Syria, it was Hezbollah that killed 241 U.S. Marines sent to Beirut to protect the Lebanese people. Collectively, its terrorist attacks – from Latin America to Asia – have probably killed more innocent people than have been murdered even by al-Qaida.
Hezbollah is bigger and better armed than al-Qaida. And it has maintained an operational alliance with Osama bin Laden's terror network for years.
Quite simply, Hezbollah seeks in the short term to kill all the Jews in the Middle East or scatter them abroad. In the long term, it seeks to impose a worldwide Shiite theocracy like the one currently enjoyed by the people of Iran.
In the other corner, we have Israel. It is hardly a flawless and perfect state. There is no such thing in the world and never has been. But it is a legitimate state founded where no other state existed by a consensus of world opinion following the murder of 6 million Jews in Germany's concentration camps. Israel served as a refuge for nearly 1 million Arab Jews persecuted throughout the Middle East – more, by the way, than even the most exaggerated claims of Arab Palestinian refugees displaced by the war of 1948.
As many other observers have pointed out, you don't need to know much about the complicated history of the Middle East to understand the difference between Israel and its enemies. If Israel's enemies – including Hezbollah – had the power to destroy Israel, it would do so in a heartbeat. Israel, however, actually possesses such awesome power and, of course, has never used it.
There is no moral murkiness here. The raw, unadulterated evil that is Hezbollah is on display for all to see. The basic decency and compassion of the Jewish state has been on display for nearly 60 years.
Yet, look around us and see how many people are still "confused." A recent Los Angeles Times poll showed most Democrats are incapable of making any distinctions between these two warring parties. Sadly, a third of Republicans are also unwilling or unable to distinguish good from evil when it comes to this conflict.
Looking outside the U.S., the picture of moral confusion is even worse. At least half the world is cheering on Hezbollah.
This has nothing to do with Israel's behavior or the behavior of the U.S. Nothing we or the Jews of Israel could do would change the opinion of those aligned with Hezbollah. Like the pharaoh in Egypt, their hearts have been hardened. It will take an act of God to get people like that to see the light – something to hope and pray for, perhaps, but not something any argument will change.
It's disturbing to me to see so many people living in moral confusion – moral darkness. It's worse to think so many Americans are falling into this abyss. It's even more shocking to see so many Israelis incapable of understanding the stakes in this conflict.
There are a lot of people getting weak in the knees right now.
It's not without precedent.
It happened before in 1939.
The dangers we face in the world today are comparable to what the world faced back then – maybe worse.
Today, the Nazis are those claiming to be the original Aryans. In fact, that's a derivation of the name of their country – Iran. They speak openly of wanting to destroy all the Jews. They are working feverishly on the development of nuclear weapons – something Hitler could only dream about.
It's not a time for going wobbly. It's not a time for moral confusion. It's not a time for myopia in distinguishing right from wrong.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Joseph Farah
Posted: August 11, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
How people view the conflict in Lebanon is a barometer for determining their ability to discern right from wrong.
If you hear someone fudge on this conflict, it is an indication of a moral failing, a weakness in their heart, a defect in their brain, a darkness in their very soul.
There is no better picture of evil in the world today that the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Founded by the mullahs in Iran, facilitated by two generations of dictators in Syria, it was Hezbollah that killed 241 U.S. Marines sent to Beirut to protect the Lebanese people. Collectively, its terrorist attacks – from Latin America to Asia – have probably killed more innocent people than have been murdered even by al-Qaida.
Hezbollah is bigger and better armed than al-Qaida. And it has maintained an operational alliance with Osama bin Laden's terror network for years.
Quite simply, Hezbollah seeks in the short term to kill all the Jews in the Middle East or scatter them abroad. In the long term, it seeks to impose a worldwide Shiite theocracy like the one currently enjoyed by the people of Iran.
In the other corner, we have Israel. It is hardly a flawless and perfect state. There is no such thing in the world and never has been. But it is a legitimate state founded where no other state existed by a consensus of world opinion following the murder of 6 million Jews in Germany's concentration camps. Israel served as a refuge for nearly 1 million Arab Jews persecuted throughout the Middle East – more, by the way, than even the most exaggerated claims of Arab Palestinian refugees displaced by the war of 1948.
As many other observers have pointed out, you don't need to know much about the complicated history of the Middle East to understand the difference between Israel and its enemies. If Israel's enemies – including Hezbollah – had the power to destroy Israel, it would do so in a heartbeat. Israel, however, actually possesses such awesome power and, of course, has never used it.
There is no moral murkiness here. The raw, unadulterated evil that is Hezbollah is on display for all to see. The basic decency and compassion of the Jewish state has been on display for nearly 60 years.
Yet, look around us and see how many people are still "confused." A recent Los Angeles Times poll showed most Democrats are incapable of making any distinctions between these two warring parties. Sadly, a third of Republicans are also unwilling or unable to distinguish good from evil when it comes to this conflict.
Looking outside the U.S., the picture of moral confusion is even worse. At least half the world is cheering on Hezbollah.
This has nothing to do with Israel's behavior or the behavior of the U.S. Nothing we or the Jews of Israel could do would change the opinion of those aligned with Hezbollah. Like the pharaoh in Egypt, their hearts have been hardened. It will take an act of God to get people like that to see the light – something to hope and pray for, perhaps, but not something any argument will change.
It's disturbing to me to see so many people living in moral confusion – moral darkness. It's worse to think so many Americans are falling into this abyss. It's even more shocking to see so many Israelis incapable of understanding the stakes in this conflict.
There are a lot of people getting weak in the knees right now.
It's not without precedent.
It happened before in 1939.
The dangers we face in the world today are comparable to what the world faced back then – maybe worse.
Today, the Nazis are those claiming to be the original Aryans. In fact, that's a derivation of the name of their country – Iran. They speak openly of wanting to destroy all the Jews. They are working feverishly on the development of nuclear weapons – something Hitler could only dream about.
It's not a time for going wobbly. It's not a time for moral confusion. It's not a time for myopia in distinguishing right from wrong.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
How Israel causes Mideast conflict
Joseph Farah
Posted: September 5, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
Many have suggested Israel is the root cause of conflict in the Middle East.
In the past I have defended the Jewish state from this charge. I have made the case that, if anything, Israel has bent over backward to make peace. But in doing so, could Israel actually be making things worse?
I believe so. The truth is that Israel has compromised too much. It has not retaliated strongly enough. And its Arab population is the freest in the Arab world.
Ironically, I'm not the only one who believes this. Israel's most ardent adversaries – the very people who want to destroy the Jewish state at any cost – agree with me. And I can prove it to you.
Who would you say is Israel's most implacable foe? Would you agree that it is al-Qaida – the terrorist group that attacked the U.S. Sept. 11, 2001, and is now openly organizing in Gaza?
What would you say if I told you al-Qaida believes God gave the Jewish people an eternal covenant with the "Promised Land"? Would you say I was nuts? How about if I told you al-Qaida believes this contract between God and the Jewish people has been abrogated only because Israel has not been determined enough to defeat its enemies in obedience to God? Would it change your opinion of the Middle East dynamic if you learned that al-Qaida believes Israel's compromises with and concessions to its enemies persuades al-Qaida that it is unworthy of fulfilling God's covenant with the Jews?
I'm not going to give you my opinion about this. I'm going to give you al-Qaida's verbatim analysis.
But before I do, let me summarize it for you:
Israel's "sin" is in not fearing God. Israel lacks the faith to fight for the land God bequeathed it. The Jews are willing to compromise with God's promise by giving up the land of Israel piece by piece. That's what al-Qaida believes, according to a report it issued just over a year ago.
Here are translated excerpts from that Arabic-language al-Qaida report from July 2005 threatening imminent attacks on the Jewish state:
God decided to test the Jews when they were still an oppressed people while still captive in Egypt. God seeks to lead them to the path of faith and victory and therefore urges them to conquer the Land of Israel. But the Jews are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve the goal.
To this day, the Jews have not learned that God grants victory only to those who struggle for victory.
Throughout the generations, Jews, unlike Muslims, showed that they do not fear God or recognize Him as the moving force in the universe. Instead, they are more concerned with what man thinks.
For this reason, the Jews find it easier to break the covenant between God and Abraham, which awarded the land of Israel to the Jews forever. (Genesis 15:18)
In the Internet magazine Zerwat al Sanam, meaning "Tip of the Camel's Hump," the al-Qaida author of this screed, Abu Zubeida al-Baghdadi, concludes that Israel's willingness to compromise with its enemies gives the Arabs an opportunity to be God's vehicle to destroy the Jews.
The report goes on to suggest the best timing to launch attacks against Israel to fulfill God's will. It also makes clear that the real enemy, beyond the Jews, is the West.
This analysis is wholly in line with the Quran, which states in the Table, Sura 5:20: "Bear in mind the words of Moses to his People. He said: 'Remember, my People, the favor which God has bestowed upon you. He has raised up prophets among you, made you kings, and has given you that which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my People, the holy land which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and thus lose all."
The voices of international appeasement continue to advise Israel to accommodate the enemies who seek to destroy the Jews and Western civilization. It has not worked and it will not work. In fact, as al-Qaida's warped theologians illustrate, it will have just the opposite of the intended effect. Compromise will always convince Israel's enemies that it is weak, disobedient to God, unworthy of His promises and ripe for destruction.
And that's why I, too, believe Israel remains its own worst enemy. That is how Israel continues to worsen conflict in the Middle East, to make escalating violence inevitable, to engender more contempt and hate from its enemies.
How? By not obeying God – by not believing in the Divine promises that made it a nation and by putting its faith in man rather than the Creator of the universe.
If Israel truly wants to understand its enemies, if it truly wants their respect, it is pushing all the wrong buttons.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Joseph Farah
Posted: September 5, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
Many have suggested Israel is the root cause of conflict in the Middle East.
In the past I have defended the Jewish state from this charge. I have made the case that, if anything, Israel has bent over backward to make peace. But in doing so, could Israel actually be making things worse?
I believe so. The truth is that Israel has compromised too much. It has not retaliated strongly enough. And its Arab population is the freest in the Arab world.
Ironically, I'm not the only one who believes this. Israel's most ardent adversaries – the very people who want to destroy the Jewish state at any cost – agree with me. And I can prove it to you.
Who would you say is Israel's most implacable foe? Would you agree that it is al-Qaida – the terrorist group that attacked the U.S. Sept. 11, 2001, and is now openly organizing in Gaza?
What would you say if I told you al-Qaida believes God gave the Jewish people an eternal covenant with the "Promised Land"? Would you say I was nuts? How about if I told you al-Qaida believes this contract between God and the Jewish people has been abrogated only because Israel has not been determined enough to defeat its enemies in obedience to God? Would it change your opinion of the Middle East dynamic if you learned that al-Qaida believes Israel's compromises with and concessions to its enemies persuades al-Qaida that it is unworthy of fulfilling God's covenant with the Jews?
I'm not going to give you my opinion about this. I'm going to give you al-Qaida's verbatim analysis.
But before I do, let me summarize it for you:
Israel's "sin" is in not fearing God. Israel lacks the faith to fight for the land God bequeathed it. The Jews are willing to compromise with God's promise by giving up the land of Israel piece by piece. That's what al-Qaida believes, according to a report it issued just over a year ago.
Here are translated excerpts from that Arabic-language al-Qaida report from July 2005 threatening imminent attacks on the Jewish state:
God decided to test the Jews when they were still an oppressed people while still captive in Egypt. God seeks to lead them to the path of faith and victory and therefore urges them to conquer the Land of Israel. But the Jews are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve the goal.
To this day, the Jews have not learned that God grants victory only to those who struggle for victory.
Throughout the generations, Jews, unlike Muslims, showed that they do not fear God or recognize Him as the moving force in the universe. Instead, they are more concerned with what man thinks.
For this reason, the Jews find it easier to break the covenant between God and Abraham, which awarded the land of Israel to the Jews forever. (Genesis 15:18)
In the Internet magazine Zerwat al Sanam, meaning "Tip of the Camel's Hump," the al-Qaida author of this screed, Abu Zubeida al-Baghdadi, concludes that Israel's willingness to compromise with its enemies gives the Arabs an opportunity to be God's vehicle to destroy the Jews.
The report goes on to suggest the best timing to launch attacks against Israel to fulfill God's will. It also makes clear that the real enemy, beyond the Jews, is the West.
This analysis is wholly in line with the Quran, which states in the Table, Sura 5:20: "Bear in mind the words of Moses to his People. He said: 'Remember, my People, the favor which God has bestowed upon you. He has raised up prophets among you, made you kings, and has given you that which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my People, the holy land which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and thus lose all."
The voices of international appeasement continue to advise Israel to accommodate the enemies who seek to destroy the Jews and Western civilization. It has not worked and it will not work. In fact, as al-Qaida's warped theologians illustrate, it will have just the opposite of the intended effect. Compromise will always convince Israel's enemies that it is weak, disobedient to God, unworthy of His promises and ripe for destruction.
And that's why I, too, believe Israel remains its own worst enemy. That is how Israel continues to worsen conflict in the Middle East, to make escalating violence inevitable, to engender more contempt and hate from its enemies.
How? By not obeying God – by not believing in the Divine promises that made it a nation and by putting its faith in man rather than the Creator of the universe.
If Israel truly wants to understand its enemies, if it truly wants their respect, it is pushing all the wrong buttons.
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Israel to blame?
Joseph Farah
Posted: October 3, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
A tenured professor at the University of Chicago recently claimed Israel was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks and for the U.S. war in Iraq.
The assertions by John Mearsheimer were met with an amen chorus from colleagues at New York University and Columbia.
"The Israel lobby was one of the principal driving forces behind the Iraq war, and in its absence we probably would not have had a war," he explained. Later, he said al-Qaida's "animus to the United States … stemmed from U.S. foreign policy toward Israel."
Imagine what a peaceful world in which we would live if we could only rid ourselves of that annoying little Israel. That is the essence of what we hear throughout much of academia. That is the essence of what we hear at the United Nations. That is the essence of what we hear from the so-called "international community." That is the essence of what we hear from a vast segment of the world press.
While it is an undeniable truth that Israel is on the front lines of the global Islamic jihad, surrounded as it is by hostile neighbors and active terrorist organizations sworn to its destruction, I would love to hear one of these anti-Israel twits explain what the Jewish state has to do with the following conflicts:
Afghanistan – Far from Israel, the Taliban and al-Qaida are battling U.S. coalition forces in an effort to re-establish their Islamic dream state – the one that actually gave us Sept. 11.
Algeria – Far from Israel, Islamic guerrillas continue to attack a government dominated by fellow Muslims.
Bosnia – Far from Israel, it's now a home for Islamic terrorists thanks to the international community that handed it over to Muslim rule.
Central Asia – Far from Israel, Islamic radicals are trying to spread Shariah law in states formerly part of the Soviet Union.
Chad – Far from Israel, unrest is growing largely because of a refugee crisis started by the radical Islamic regime in neighboring Sudan.
India – Far from Israel, Islamic radical groups regularly set off bombs, while India contests with neighboring Islamic Pakistan for control of Kashmir.
Indonesia – Far from Israel, Islamic terrorists are a constant threat in the most heavily populous Muslim state in the world.
Kosovo – Far from Israel, Islamic radicals burn down churches and persecute Christians.
Nigeria – Far from Israel, Muslims in the north fight for more control over the government and the nation's vast oil reserves.
Philippines – Far from Israel, Islamic guerrillas in the south are fighting for their own country and, of course, the forced expulsion of non-Muslims.
Russia – Far from Israel, Islamic terrorists have attacked airliners, schools and other civilian targets in their fight for an independent, Islamic Chechnya.
Somalia – Far from Israel, tribal fighting continues in another former playground of Osama bin Laden. Islamic radicals fight for Shariah law to bring order.
Sudan – Far from Israel, Muslims in the north slaughter Christians, animists and even other Muslims in a war that has already killed millions.
Thailand – Far from Israel, a small population of Muslims in the south, totaling only about 3 percent, fight for a separate Islamic state. A recent military coup installed the country's first Muslim leader, who suspended the constitution.
Uganda – Far from Israel, Muslim rebels in the north, aided by Sudan, have challenged the government.
Maybe political science professors can tie Islamic terrorist acts against Egypt's government, inside Lebanon and targeting the Saudi kingdom to Israel – because it's in the neighborhood.
Maybe they can persuade some people that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had something to do with Israel, though Saddam Hussein posed little real threat to the Jewish state.
But, how, I wonder, do these geniuses discount the raging Islamic jihad on the march from the East to the West? Do they really think all of this bloodshed is about a tiny, fictional nation of Palestine? Who really believes any of this global fighting will stop if and when Israel ceases to exist?
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
Joseph Farah
Posted: October 3, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
A tenured professor at the University of Chicago recently claimed Israel was to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks and for the U.S. war in Iraq.
The assertions by John Mearsheimer were met with an amen chorus from colleagues at New York University and Columbia.
"The Israel lobby was one of the principal driving forces behind the Iraq war, and in its absence we probably would not have had a war," he explained. Later, he said al-Qaida's "animus to the United States … stemmed from U.S. foreign policy toward Israel."
Imagine what a peaceful world in which we would live if we could only rid ourselves of that annoying little Israel. That is the essence of what we hear throughout much of academia. That is the essence of what we hear at the United Nations. That is the essence of what we hear from the so-called "international community." That is the essence of what we hear from a vast segment of the world press.
While it is an undeniable truth that Israel is on the front lines of the global Islamic jihad, surrounded as it is by hostile neighbors and active terrorist organizations sworn to its destruction, I would love to hear one of these anti-Israel twits explain what the Jewish state has to do with the following conflicts:
Afghanistan – Far from Israel, the Taliban and al-Qaida are battling U.S. coalition forces in an effort to re-establish their Islamic dream state – the one that actually gave us Sept. 11.
Algeria – Far from Israel, Islamic guerrillas continue to attack a government dominated by fellow Muslims.
Bosnia – Far from Israel, it's now a home for Islamic terrorists thanks to the international community that handed it over to Muslim rule.
Central Asia – Far from Israel, Islamic radicals are trying to spread Shariah law in states formerly part of the Soviet Union.
Chad – Far from Israel, unrest is growing largely because of a refugee crisis started by the radical Islamic regime in neighboring Sudan.
India – Far from Israel, Islamic radical groups regularly set off bombs, while India contests with neighboring Islamic Pakistan for control of Kashmir.
Indonesia – Far from Israel, Islamic terrorists are a constant threat in the most heavily populous Muslim state in the world.
Kosovo – Far from Israel, Islamic radicals burn down churches and persecute Christians.
Nigeria – Far from Israel, Muslims in the north fight for more control over the government and the nation's vast oil reserves.
Philippines – Far from Israel, Islamic guerrillas in the south are fighting for their own country and, of course, the forced expulsion of non-Muslims.
Russia – Far from Israel, Islamic terrorists have attacked airliners, schools and other civilian targets in their fight for an independent, Islamic Chechnya.
Somalia – Far from Israel, tribal fighting continues in another former playground of Osama bin Laden. Islamic radicals fight for Shariah law to bring order.
Sudan – Far from Israel, Muslims in the north slaughter Christians, animists and even other Muslims in a war that has already killed millions.
Thailand – Far from Israel, a small population of Muslims in the south, totaling only about 3 percent, fight for a separate Islamic state. A recent military coup installed the country's first Muslim leader, who suspended the constitution.
Uganda – Far from Israel, Muslim rebels in the north, aided by Sudan, have challenged the government.
Maybe political science professors can tie Islamic terrorist acts against Egypt's government, inside Lebanon and targeting the Saudi kingdom to Israel – because it's in the neighborhood.
Maybe they can persuade some people that the U.S. invasion of Iraq had something to do with Israel, though Saddam Hussein posed little real threat to the Jewish state.
But, how, I wonder, do these geniuses discount the raging Islamic jihad on the march from the East to the West? Do they really think all of this bloodshed is about a tiny, fictional nation of Palestine? Who really believes any of this global fighting will stop if and when Israel ceases to exist?
Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
The Way We Live Now
Israel proves there is a military solution to terrorism.
BY BRET STEPHENS Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
JERUSALEM--I bought my wife a skirt and blouse at a Benetton outlet the other day--in Ramallah. I was shopping at the Plaza Mall, a gleaming, two-story affair, which opened about a year ago at a reported cost of $10.2 million, and which also boasts a sporting-goods store, an espresso bar, a burger joint called McChain's and an American-style supermarket. Nice place: I wish my local Israeli grocery were as clean and appetizing.
Later that evening, I met up with some Israeli friends at a restaurant called Shakra, in downtown Jerusalem. It took 20 minutes to find a parking space, and it was another 30 minutes before we were seated. Like every other restaurant here, there was a guard posted at the door. But inside, the atmosphere was loud and easy, and by midnight customers were standing on barstools--just slightly drunk--belting Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll."
Of course Palestine is not the Plaza Mall, nor is Israel the bar at Shakra. Indeed, to watch the news from the region over the past two weeks is to see a rather different picture: of young Israeli children killed by Palestinian rocket fire; of heavy fighting in the Gaza Strip; of multiple coordinated terror attacks on Israeli targets in the Sinai.
Yet for most Israelis, and for many Palestinians too, the violence of the intifada--which entered its fifth year this month--seems to be in recession. Anyone who visits Jerusalem today will not see the ghost town it was in 2002, when Israel was absorbing an average of one suicide bombing a week. And anyone who visits Ramallah will find what is, by (non-Gulf state) Arab standards, a calm and economically prospering city, where the only Israeli-made ruin is the Palestinian Authority headquarters, deliberately kept that way as a monument of Arafatian agitprop.
How did things improve so dramatically, and so quickly, for Palestinians and Israelis alike? Begin by recalling Israel's assassination, in late March, of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. At the time, the action was all but universally condemned as reckless and counterproductive. "By granting Yassin the martyrdom he craved, the Israelis have provided a motive for new suicide attacks," went an editorial in the normally pro-Israel Daily Telegraph of London. "More young Palestinians will fall in love with death, and more Israeli civilians will die with them."
Yet what followed for Israel were nearly six consecutive terror-free months. This wasn't because the Palestinian terror groups lacked for motivation to carry out attacks. It was because they lacked for means. The leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's own al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades had to spend their time figuring out how to survive, not on planning fresh attacks. The Israeli army incarcerated terror suspects in record numbers--some 6,000 now sit in Israeli prisons--which in turn helped yield information for future arrests. Most importantly, the security fence has begun to make the Israeli heartland nearly impenetrable to Palestinian infiltrators. (August's double suicide bombing in Beersheba happened precisely because there is still no security fence separating that town from the Palestinian city of Hebron, from where the bombers were dispatched.)
Taken together, these measures prove what a legion of diplomats, pundits and reporters have striven to deny: that there is a military solution to the conflict. This is true in two senses. First, a sufficiently strong military response to terrorism does not simply feed a cycle of violence (although a weak military response does); rather, it speeds the killing to a conclusion. That makes it possible for Israelis and Palestinians to resume a semblance of normal life. Second, a military solution creates new practical realities, and new strategic understandings, from which previously elusive political opportunities may emerge.
Look at Israel. Although the security fence is internationally seen as "Sharon's Wall," in his first two years in office the prime minister tacitly opposed the fence's construction for the simple reason that it implied some kind of border running through the supposedly indivisible Land of Israel. But the security fence's proven success has forced Ariel Sharon to alter his view: In today's world of asymmetrical conflict, Israel's security rests less on holding the geographic high ground than it does on physically separating Israelis from the hostile population in their midst. And once the goal becomes getting as many Israelis as possible to live on one side of the line, and as many Palestinians as possible to live on the other, then the dismantling of at least some of the settlements becomes necessary. The only real issue is how to evacuate these settlements without either provoking domestic Israeli unrest or sending a signal of weakness to the enemy--and, of course, how to win parliamentary approval for it.
Now look at the Palestinian Authority. As most serious observers now acknowledge, this intifada did not begin as a spontaneous popular outburst of rage at Mr. Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount four years ago. It was a premeditated and opportunistic move by Yasser Arafat to reassert his revolutionary credentials among Palestinians while winning by force what few concessions Israel had left to offer after the debacle at Camp David.
He failed on both counts. Israel turned its back on dovish Ehud Barak in favor of hawkish Mr. Sharon. And Palestinians, as well as Arabs generally, have turned their back on Arafat. "The PA under Mr. Arafat has started crumbling," wrote Ahmed Al-Jarallah in the Arab Times. "The Palestinians themselves have started questioning the need for its existence. Mr. Arafat should quit his position because he is the head of a corrupt authority. There is no point for him to remain in politics. He has destroyed Palestine."
Last summer, domestic discontent with Arafat nearly turned to outright revolt. This, too, was a direct and positive result of Israel's military policy: By locking up Arafat in his compound and making him look weak, he became weak. By weakening Arafat, while simultaneously decimating Hamas, it gave rise to a cohort of comparatively more pragmatic leaders ready to give up on this intifada the moment they can. Above all, by showing Palestinians that the suffering they inflicted was the suffering they incurred, it forced a quiet rethink about the utility of violence as a political tool.
The larger question for Palestinians is where the cause of their national movement is headed: For 35 years, it has been synonymous with the person of Arafat; absent him, there isn't that much that binds a Gazan to a Jeninian save an overarching Arab identity and a mutual hatred of Israel. In the post-Arafat era, watch out for Palestinian politics to move in non-Palestinian directions: probably pan-Arab; possibly Islamist; hopefully, with a bit of statesmanship and a spell of calm, Western.
As for Israel, these past four years have also brought its share of lessons. Tactically, Israeli security forces learned, after a shaky start, how to suppress a massive terrorist-guerrilla insurgency, a remarkable accomplishment U.S. military planners would do well to study. Strategically, a majority of Israelis concluded that while peace with this generation of Palestinian leaders is impossible, separation from them is essential. And morally, Israel learned that even the most fractious democracy can stand up to a prolonged terrorist assault, and choose not to yield.
It's a choice made easier when you know there is no alternative.
Mr. Stephens, until recently editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post, is a new member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
This is what a suicide bombing looks like - Cafe Moment, Jerusalem, March 9th, 2002. There is nothing "honorable" or "heroic" about such attacks, they are plain massacres. The perpetrator looks for a place packed with unsuspecting people, civilians, preferably women and children, preferably young. The world does not call them terrorists, they are freedom fighters, or at best militants.
I have chosen these pictures because I knew someone who was murdered there - Avi Rahamim. He was 29 years old. He often went to the Moment Cafe, because it attracted young people and he was looking for a bride. Avi was soft-spoken, smart, shy, polite... a sweet young man. His identical twin brother, Yaron, is married to our friends' daughter.
Israel proves there is a military solution to terrorism.
BY BRET STEPHENS Sunday, October 17, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
JERUSALEM--I bought my wife a skirt and blouse at a Benetton outlet the other day--in Ramallah. I was shopping at the Plaza Mall, a gleaming, two-story affair, which opened about a year ago at a reported cost of $10.2 million, and which also boasts a sporting-goods store, an espresso bar, a burger joint called McChain's and an American-style supermarket. Nice place: I wish my local Israeli grocery were as clean and appetizing.
Later that evening, I met up with some Israeli friends at a restaurant called Shakra, in downtown Jerusalem. It took 20 minutes to find a parking space, and it was another 30 minutes before we were seated. Like every other restaurant here, there was a guard posted at the door. But inside, the atmosphere was loud and easy, and by midnight customers were standing on barstools--just slightly drunk--belting Joan Jett's "I Love Rock 'n' Roll."
Of course Palestine is not the Plaza Mall, nor is Israel the bar at Shakra. Indeed, to watch the news from the region over the past two weeks is to see a rather different picture: of young Israeli children killed by Palestinian rocket fire; of heavy fighting in the Gaza Strip; of multiple coordinated terror attacks on Israeli targets in the Sinai.
Yet for most Israelis, and for many Palestinians too, the violence of the intifada--which entered its fifth year this month--seems to be in recession. Anyone who visits Jerusalem today will not see the ghost town it was in 2002, when Israel was absorbing an average of one suicide bombing a week. And anyone who visits Ramallah will find what is, by (non-Gulf state) Arab standards, a calm and economically prospering city, where the only Israeli-made ruin is the Palestinian Authority headquarters, deliberately kept that way as a monument of Arafatian agitprop.
How did things improve so dramatically, and so quickly, for Palestinians and Israelis alike? Begin by recalling Israel's assassination, in late March, of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. At the time, the action was all but universally condemned as reckless and counterproductive. "By granting Yassin the martyrdom he craved, the Israelis have provided a motive for new suicide attacks," went an editorial in the normally pro-Israel Daily Telegraph of London. "More young Palestinians will fall in love with death, and more Israeli civilians will die with them."Yet what followed for Israel were nearly six consecutive terror-free months. This wasn't because the Palestinian terror groups lacked for motivation to carry out attacks. It was because they lacked for means. The leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Yasser Arafat's own al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades had to spend their time figuring out how to survive, not on planning fresh attacks. The Israeli army incarcerated terror suspects in record numbers--some 6,000 now sit in Israeli prisons--which in turn helped yield information for future arrests. Most importantly, the security fence has begun to make the Israeli heartland nearly impenetrable to Palestinian infiltrators. (August's double suicide bombing in Beersheba happened precisely because there is still no security fence separating that town from the Palestinian city of Hebron, from where the bombers were dispatched.)
Taken together, these measures prove what a legion of diplomats, pundits and reporters have striven to deny: that there is a military solution to the conflict. This is true in two senses. First, a sufficiently strong military response to terrorism does not simply feed a cycle of violence (although a weak military response does); rather, it speeds the killing to a conclusion. That makes it possible for Israelis and Palestinians to resume a semblance of normal life. Second, a military solution creates new practical realities, and new strategic understandings, from which previously elusive political opportunities may emerge.
Look at Israel. Although the security fence is internationally seen as "Sharon's Wall," in his first two years in office the prime minister tacitly opposed the fence's construction for the simple reason that it implied some kind of border running through the supposedly indivisible Land of Israel. But the security fence's proven success has forced Ariel Sharon to alter his view: In today's world of asymmetrical conflict, Israel's security rests less on holding the geographic high ground than it does on physically separating Israelis from the hostile population in their midst. And once the goal becomes getting as many Israelis as possible to live on one side of the line, and as many Palestinians as possible to live on the other, then the dismantling of at least some of the settlements becomes necessary. The only real issue is how to evacuate these settlements without either provoking domestic Israeli unrest or sending a signal of weakness to the enemy--and, of course, how to win parliamentary approval for it.
Now look at the Palestinian Authority. As most serious observers now acknowledge, this intifada did not begin as a spontaneous popular outburst of rage at Mr. Sharon's walk on the Temple Mount four years ago. It was a premeditated and opportunistic move by Yasser Arafat to reassert his revolutionary credentials among Palestinians while winning by force what few concessions Israel had left to offer after the debacle at Camp David.
He failed on both counts. Israel turned its back on dovish Ehud Barak in favor of hawkish Mr. Sharon. And Palestinians, as well as Arabs generally, have turned their back on Arafat. "The PA under Mr. Arafat has started crumbling," wrote Ahmed Al-Jarallah in the Arab Times. "The Palestinians themselves have started questioning the need for its existence. Mr. Arafat should quit his position because he is the head of a corrupt authority. There is no point for him to remain in politics. He has destroyed Palestine."
Last summer, domestic discontent with Arafat nearly turned to outright revolt. This, too, was a direct and positive result of Israel's military policy: By locking up Arafat in his compound and making him look weak, he became weak. By weakening Arafat, while simultaneously decimating Hamas, it gave rise to a cohort of comparatively more pragmatic leaders ready to give up on this intifada the moment they can. Above all, by showing Palestinians that the suffering they inflicted was the suffering they incurred, it forced a quiet rethink about the utility of violence as a political tool.
The larger question for Palestinians is where the cause of their national movement is headed: For 35 years, it has been synonymous with the person of Arafat; absent him, there isn't that much that binds a Gazan to a Jeninian save an overarching Arab identity and a mutual hatred of Israel. In the post-Arafat era, watch out for Palestinian politics to move in non-Palestinian directions: probably pan-Arab; possibly Islamist; hopefully, with a bit of statesmanship and a spell of calm, Western.
As for Israel, these past four years have also brought its share of lessons. Tactically, Israeli security forces learned, after a shaky start, how to suppress a massive terrorist-guerrilla insurgency, a remarkable accomplishment U.S. military planners would do well to study. Strategically, a majority of Israelis concluded that while peace with this generation of Palestinian leaders is impossible, separation from them is essential. And morally, Israel learned that even the most fractious democracy can stand up to a prolonged terrorist assault, and choose not to yield.
It's a choice made easier when you know there is no alternative.
Mr. Stephens, until recently editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post, is a new member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
This is what a suicide bombing looks like - Cafe Moment, Jerusalem, March 9th, 2002. There is nothing "honorable" or "heroic" about such attacks, they are plain massacres. The perpetrator looks for a place packed with unsuspecting people, civilians, preferably women and children, preferably young. The world does not call them terrorists, they are freedom fighters, or at best militants.
I have chosen these pictures because I knew someone who was murdered there - Avi Rahamim. He was 29 years old. He often went to the Moment Cafe, because it attracted young people and he was looking for a bride. Avi was soft-spoken, smart, shy, polite... a sweet young man. His identical twin brother, Yaron, is married to our friends' daughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
