Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently infuriated President Bush by
drawing a parallel between the sell-out of Czechoslovakia by Britain and France
before World War II and the demands for dangerous concessions being made of his
country by the U.S. government today. While there are certain similarities, on
reflection, a more accurate analogy would be between what Britain did to her
principal ally, France, rather than what they both did to the Czechoslovaks.
Israel today, like France in the early-to-mid-1930s, is the mightiest military
power in its region. As was also true in France before World War II, Israel has
been led for years by weak governments under the sway of leftists convinced
that unilateral disarmament and appeasement constitute a reliable alternative
to conflict with increasingly dangerous neighbors.
In addition, for much of the past decade, American administrations have been
encouraging – and, from time to time, extorting – concessions from Israel,
much as the Baldwin and Chamberlain governments in pre-war Britain endorsed and
occasionally induced declining French defense spending and military
preparedness. In 1934, Winston Churchill famously declared that "I cannot
imagine a more dangerous policy" than one of deliberately weakening an
important ally, upon whose strength one's own security may significantly rely.
The question the government and people of the United States must address
immediately is: Should we regard Israel as a vital strategic ally in the war on
terrorism and refrain from repeating the mistakes made by Britain towards
France six decades ago? Or can we safely indulge in a deceit similar to that
earlier time's – that concessions that weaken, perhaps mortally, one of our
most important bulwarks against a common enemy can be made at no peril to our
security?
The American people appear to have few illusions on this score. A survey
conducted on Oct. 12-13 by pollster John McLaughlin suggests that they continue
overwhelmingly (73 percent) and strongly to support Israel. The Congress has
been at least as supportive. In fact, in recent hearings before the House
International Relations Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for Near East
Affairs William Burns was bitterly assailed by legislators from both parties
for his department's recent denunciations of Israeli efforts to defend
themselves – efforts identical in purpose, if not method or success (to
date), to our own against Osama bin Laden and company.
For his part, President Bush has made clear that he is committed to the
security and well-being of Israel. His refusal to meet with Yasser Arafat so
long as the Palestinian Authority remains a sponsor of terror against the
Jewish State – a tangible sign of Mr. Bush's determination not to coerce
Israel into making compromises with which it cannot live – has been
commendable and one of the most dramatic departures from the failed foreign
policies and practices of his predecessor.
Yet, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terror they unleashed,
the Bush administration has come under intense pressure not only to pick up
where Bill Clinton left off in squeezing dangerous concessions from Israel, but
going where even he dared not go. According to the Boston Globe of Oct. 10,
"The Bush administration is prepared in the next few weeks to publicly increase
pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to accept not only a
Palestinian state but a viable Palestinian homeland that includes a 'shared
Jerusalem as its capital.'" Forcing Israel to "share" not just suburbs of
Jerusalem but the city itself would surpass any "vision" previously embraced by
the U.S. government.
The pressure to take such steps comes from a number of quarters. First, there
are influential figures with close ties to the Arab world like Mr. Bush's
father and his National Security Adviser, Brent Scowcroft, who was recently
given an official advisory function as chairman of the president's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board. Then, there are the Arabists in the State
Department, who have as clients more than two-dozen Arab-Islamic countries
while there is, of course, only one Jewish state – and its desk is manned by
foreign service officers whose future advancement will depend on good postings
elsewhere in the region.
Next, there are the so-called "moderate" leaders in the Arab world. Thus far,
their diplomatic stroke has been undiminished, if not actually enhanced, by the
war on terror. This is all the more extraordinary insofar as many Americans
have recently learned to their horror about such "friends'" thoroughly
immoderate, but longstanding, practice of using virulent anti-Israeli and
anti-American propaganda as a sort of social safety valve. This device may
allow the anger of these countries' burgeoning populations of poor young males
to be diverted away from their generally repressive governments – but only at
our expense.
Finally, there are the Islamic organizations in this country that the president
has been encouraged to cultivate – despite the solidarity some of their
leaders have long expressed with terrorist groups responsible for the murder
not only of Israeli women and children, but of American citizens, as well.
At the moment, the foregoing appear to be advancing a common agenda with
considerable sympathetic treatment from the international press: Israel's
occupation of Arab lands helps legitimate Islamist terror against her ally, the
United States. If only the Jewish State ended that occupation, we are assured,
Israel could live in peace and much of the anger felt towards us around the
world would dissipate. Create a Palestinian state, these influential forces
insist, and we will be assured of Arab support, bases, oil and solidarity in
the war on terror.
The problem is that the Arab "street" – and particularly the Palestinian
Arabs – to which we are supposedly appealing have been thoroughly
indoctrinated to believe that Israel's presence on any territory amounts to its
occupation. Arafat has repeatedly assured his constituents that the peace
process is not a basis for legitimating a permanent Jewish State in the Arabs'
midst. It is, instead, the instrument for realizing a 27-year-old "phased plan"
for the destruction of Israel and the liberation of all "Palestine."
As with Hitler before the war, further weakening of an important Western power
in the face of intimidation – and a growing ability to act on it – will be
an invitation for aggression, not a formula for real peace. Rewarding terror by
forcing more territorial and other concessions on Israel risks repeating
Britain's mistake with respect to France, turning a valuable ally into a
strategic liability and gravely weakening our shared ability to contend with a
common – and ever more lethal – danger.
Never Forgive, Never Forget
9-11-01
|