Bush Is Right, Sharon (And Assorted Neocons) Wrong
[VDARE NOTE: Generally we
eschewed foreign policy. Sam
Francis here strays off our National Question
reservation in his syndicated column, which we are
committed to posting because we regard him an Oppressed
and a victim of “conservative” political correctness on
the Establishment Right websites. He promises to be good
in future. The usual hatemail, viruses etc. should be
sent to him directly at
c/o Spencer Abraham, Department of Energy.]
On the very eve of the
massive U.S. counter-attack against Afghan terrorist
bases, who should step forward to
denounce the Bush administration for "appeasement"
but Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Despite a
grumpy non-apology a few days later, the Sharon smack in
the American face at a time when the administration is
trying to build a fragile house of Arab cards to sustain
our counter-attack was particularly ill-timed.
"Do not try to appease the Arabs
at our expense,"
Mr. Sharon blustered. "Do not repeat the dreadful
mistakes of 1938, when enlightened European democracies
sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient solution.
Israel will not be Czechoslovakia." Of course, no one
was asking Israel to be Czechoslovakia. All anyone asked
was that Israel try for once to behave like an ally with
a common purpose and cooperate with the coalition of
states the Bush administration is trying to construct.
Mr. Sharon`s bellowing was
certainly ill-timed for American and Western interests,
but not necessarily for those of Israel. What made him
angry was not only the administration`s effort to stroke
reluctant Arab allies by
endorsing the concept of a Palestinian state the day
before his outburst but also the administration`s
general refusal to embark on a global crusade against
all of Islam and the entire Arabic world and thereby to
fight Israel`s conflict for it.
It was that demand that lay behind
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz`s recent
statement to Congress that we should
"end states that support terrorism." It is that
demand that animated the
open letter signed by some 40 supporters of Israel
published in the neo-conservative Weekly Standard
on Oct. 1 demanding that the United States remove Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq and make war against Iran and
Syria if they refuse to abandon support for terrorism.
It is that demand that lies behind Weekly Standard
William Kristol`s attacks on Secretary of State
Colin Powell as somehow "selling out" or subverting the
total war supposedly favored by President Bush.
And it is that demand that lies
behind the Big Lie being purveyed by virtually all of
Israel`s journalistic fifth column inside the United
States that the Sept. 11 attack had nothing to do with
U.S. support for Israel and the Palestinian issue but
was driven by Osama bin Laden`s hatred of "democracy,"
the "West," or just plain hatred pure and simple—"the
haters need no reason to hate us," columnist
Paul Greenberg glibly assures us. By denying that
U.S. support for Israel plays a major role in
precipitating terrorism against American targets, they
hope not only to divert attention from Israel but also
to arouse and manipulate America counter-hate against
Israel`s regional enemies.
The truth is that the claim is a
lie blatantly contradicted by almost every public
statement and communique from bin Laden himself,
statement after the U.S. air raids against
Afghanistan this week. Bin Laden and his henchmen never
hesitate to make plain that there are three major
reasons for their war against America: U.S. military
bases in Saudi Arabia, "the land of Mohammed," as bin
Laden calls it; U.S. policy against Iraq and the
devastation of its people; and U.S. support for Israel
and the repression of the Palestinians. To enumerate
these reasons is not to endorse them as being morally or
factually correct, but only to emphasize that they are
the reasons bin Laden himself offers—and he could hardly
offer them if they had no resonance in the Arab world.
The evidence is that the Bush
administration, wisely, is not even thinking about doing
what Israel and its choirboys in the American press
demand. Despite the ferocious rhetoric in the immediate
aftermath of the attacks, actual administration policy
has been measured—intended to secure the collaboration
of strategically essential but internally fragile Arabic
or Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as
well as the Muslim states of the former Soviet Union to
Afghanistan`s north, and the quiescence of potential
enemies like Iraq, Iran and Syria. The velvet glove the
administration is wearing in one part of the Middle East
is diplomatically crucial for the iron fist that
hammered the Afghan bases this week.
What the Israeli lobby is
demanding is nothing less than another world war—the
isolated except for an alliance with a limping
micro-state surrounded by enemies, against what would
soon turn into an alliance of every Muslim and Arabic
state from Rabat to Jakarta. It would be a war that even
the world`s last super-power would lose, and the biggest
loser of all would be the very state whose leader was
sneering "appeasement" last week because his strongest
and oldest ally has the good sense not to start it.
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS