Middle East Appeasement
Ariel Sharon ordered that Israelis living in Gaza be uprooted from their homes as a peace gesture to the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs swarmed into Gaza, destroyed greenhouses left to them as a peace gesture and fired rockets at Israelis including the ones that had been uprooted for peace. Those who were uprooted were put into temporary homes. They were provided with sewer pipes to use as bomb shelters. Here a mother and her two children show a journalist one of the sewer pipes. This picture shows one of the outrageous consequences of appeasement of radical Muslims for peace.
Understanding the Benghazi Fiasco.
Warning about Appeasing Islam by Pastor Umar Mulinde
"When it comes to the Saudi-American
relationship, the White House should be called the ‘White Tent.'"
When the going gets tough for US
Peace Deals with Israel are a "Game of
We have had 40 years of peace talks in
the Middle East. One would think that
The more they Murder us, The more we Give them
The political naivete of
A hallucinating government, blind to reality, is
incapable of divining the
From: THE REAL PURPOSE OF OSLO
From: The Oslo Accord's Terrible Toll
For 30 years there has been an argument between doves and hawks in Israel. Said the doves: Assuage the other side's grievances--end the occupation; give the Palestinians land, a militia, their own state--and then we will have peace. Said the hawks: The grievances are not satisfiable. They are existential. They don't just want their state; they want our state. After all, they were offered a state in 1947 (and autonomy in 1979) and turned it down. Why? Because they claim not just Ramallah but Tel Aviv as well. If you make concessions, lower your guard and show weakness, you invite war.
"Accommodation or deterrence? Open hand or iron
fist? Peace now or peace through strength? Rarely does history settle such debates as
decisively and mercilessly as it has this one..."
Arafat made a fool of Barak. He proved, even to much
of the Israeli left,
We have taught the Palestinians that every time they
A Falling Camel
Attracts Many Knives
and the key is not to be afraid
American efforts to resolve conflict in the Middle East is a history of attempting to appease the Arabs which hasn't and still isn't working. In 1948 the United States embargoed arms to the region when the Arabs were being armed by the British and the Jews were in desperate needs of arms to defend themselves from the impending Arab onslaught. Prior to the war British, who were given a mandate to provide a Jewish National Home for the Jews cut off 75% of that area and created the state of Jordan with it. In 1948 a partition plan was put forth which the U.S. supported which would create an Arab and an Israeli state in the remaining 25%. The Arabs would not tolerate even this and in the face of Arab opposition the U.S. backed down on its support of the partition plan. This encouraged the Arabs to attack. 4 days before Egypt attacked there were discussions in the Egyptian parliament about whether to go to war. The discussion was closed with a ringing call from member of parliament Muhammad Ali Aluchad Pasha to join the other Arab armies in the struggle. Shlomo Slonim quoted the Pasha's speech in in the Political Quarterly, Autumn 1979:
The United States itself has withdrawn from the partition plan. I consider-and no one is compelled to agree with me-that they thought that partition would be implemented without opposition, namely, with the stroke of a pen. And when opposition by the Palestinians emerged, they had to consider the use of force. Then there developed competition between governments and a dispute arose between the blocs. And since the United States was intent on excluding its rival, it abandoned the partition scheme. Thus if by means of meager force the Palestinians managed to achieve this, will not all the Arab states united, be able to encircle Palestine and to save it from the fate of tyranny and this death? As the Al-mighty liveth, woe to us if history records that the Arab states fled from the battle and allowed the Zionist state to develop and succeed.
His words were greeted with applause.
Thus, wavering elements in the Arab world were led to believe that with resolute and forceful action they could undo the General Assembly decision. This inspired their invasion of Israel...
The American retreat from partition, engineered by the State Department and characterized by the institution and maintenance of the arms embargo, however, encouraged wavering Arab states to believe that their endeavors to frustrate implementation of partition would go unchecked. Thus Egypt was led to intervene in the Palestine conflict with such fateful consequences for Middle East history over the course of the next three decades.
Bernard Lewis in an article titled Was Osama Right? (Wall Street Journal 5/16/07) wrote:
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
Bernard Lewis gave examples:
During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
These different responses evoked different treatment. While American policies, institutions and individuals were subject to unremitting criticism and sometimes deadly attack, the Soviets were immune...
Although the Afghans resisted the Soviet invasion of their country the rest of the Muslim world was reluctant to condemn it. Bernard Lewis wrote:
Most remarkable of all was the response of the Arab and other Muslim countries to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979... Initially, their decision and action to invade and conquer Afghanistan and install a puppet regime in Kabul went almost unresisted. After weeks of debate, the U.N. General Assembly finally was persuaded to pass a resolution "strongly deploring the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan." The words "condemn" and "aggression" were not used, and the source of the "intervention" was not named. Even this anodyne resolution was too much for some of the Arab states. South Yemen voted no; Algeria and Syria abstained; Libya was absent; the nonvoting PLO observer to the Assembly even made a speech defending the Soviets.
One might have expected that the recently established Organization of the Islamic Conference would take a tougher line. It did not. After a month of negotiation and manipulation, the organization finally held a meeting in Pakistan to discuss the Afghan question. Two of the Arab states, South Yemen and Syria, boycotted the meeting. The representative of the PLO, a full member of this organization, was present, but abstained from voting on a resolution critical of the Soviet action; the Libyan delegate went further, and used this occasion to denounce the U.S..
European Appeasement of the Islamic World
Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia wrote how after the Arab oil embargo of 1973, European appeasement of the Arab world increased dramatically. The European Economic Community (EEC) issued a resolution in line with Arab demands in Nov 6, 1973 and were rewarded by the Arab League States with an immediate increase in oil supplies. Bat Ye'or wrote (p52)
The EEC countries adopted a pro-Arab policy toward Israel in return for the benefits of economic agreements with Arab League countries.
The French started a Euro-Arab Dialog (EAD). Participants of a seminar that was part of this dialog recommended disseminating Arabic and Arab culture in Europe and established a permanent committee of Arab and European experts to follow up on their recommendations. This seminar paved the way for the large-scale Arab and Muslim migration into Europe. Bat Ye'or wrote:
Beginning with the first meeting in Cairo on June 15, 1975, every EAD meeting passed resolutions in support of Arab immigration... The expansion of European markets in Arab countries was synchronized with the arrival in the EC of several million Muslim immigrants, whose religious, cultural, and social requirements the European host countries had committed themselves to satisfy...
These immigrants rejected Europe's secular institutions as inferior to those of shari'a, whcih they believe have been revealed by Allah through the Qur'an to the umma, the universal Muslim community...
Bat Ye'or wrote about the obsequiousness with which the Europeans listened to lectures from their Arab counterparts during the dialog. She wrote (p98):
Reproaches are not absent, particularly for the inadequacy of European measures against Israel, which of course is a central and essential point of the whole Dialogue. The Arab speeches reiterate Europe's obligation to deal severely with Israel, using the customary venomous language: "Zionist usurpation," the "hand of Zionism seeking to kill the Arabs in every country," a "policy of institutionalized racism" (the UN Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism had been hammered through the UN General Assembly in November 1975). The Arab delegates remind their European colleagues of the duty to recognize and teach at university level the greatness and superiority of Islamic civilization and of the Islamic religion. Religious scholars affirm the Islamic origin of Judaism, Christianity and all mankind - initially born as Muslim, in its original purity.
Such vain discourse was listened to with respectful silence by the representatives of the world's most powerful and educated nations.
The French have rewritten history to meet Arab demands to glorify Arab culture.
What is even worse is the willingness of the European Union to turn a blind eye to the way European aid to the Palestinian Authority is being spent. Bat Ye'or wrote (Eurabia p128):
In November 2000, Members of the European Parliament (MEP), including Francois Zimeray (France) and Olivier Dupuis (Belgium), vigrously protested EU funding of Palestinian hate literature against Israel. EU Commissioner Chris Patten (UK) rejected the MEPs' request to open an inquiry into this matter. Instead, the European Commission decided to allocate 8 million to the PA, in addition to the monthly 10 million it was already giving. Finally, on February 2, 2003, 170 MEPs demanding accountability signed a petition to open a parliamentary investigation regarding the hundreds of millions of euros provided to the Palestinian Authority. Substantiated allegations were made that EU funds had been used by Arafat to finance Palestinian terrorist activities. Yet on February 14, 2003, the European Parliament rejected this petition...
One of the most shocking aspects of this obsequious appeasement is that while the Palestinians have persecuted Christians, Christian Europe has supported and still supports them. During the Palestinian occupation of Lebanon the Palestinians committed many atrocities against the Christians yet were supported by Europe (Eurabia, Bat Ye'or).
Appeasing For Power:
The French motive for appeasement may not have only been to keep oil flowing. Bat Ye'or in her book, Eurabia gives convincing evidence that the French are attempting to build up a Euro-Arab alliance powerful enough to challenge the United States. In return for that power the French are willing to condemn Israel, become Islamicized and in general sell the French soul to the devil. The depths to which France is willing to crawl in order to satisfy their ambitions is beneath contempt. When arch terrorist Yassir Arafat died a French honor guard paraded his casket through the streets. When Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom asked France to vote in favor of placing Hezbollah on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations, French President Jacques Chirac refused (Haaretz 2/15/05). If Europe would blacklist Hezbollah that would reduce it's funding and might destroy the terrorist organization. In fact, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said European blacklisting would "destroy" his group. (wnd.com 3/3/05)
George Galloway courted the Muslims of Britain in his quest for power. Melanie Phillips wrote an article titled "The Unholy Alliance Turns on It's Own" about how they turned on him in frontpagemag.com 4/26/05)
"Telling Muslims that Tony Blair was waging war on their community has whipped some of the most dangerously unstable and paranoid young men in the country into a frenzy.
And having done so, he then found to his outrage that they turned their violent rage upon him. Recently, he was forced to flee for his life from some of these very same Islamists, who threatened to string him up as a false prophet. While he was electioneering in the constituency, a gang of 30 fanatics, who claim voting is un-Islamic, surrounded him and his supporters. They said they were angry at his attempt to woo Muslim voters; that they were setting up the gallows for Galloway; and that any Muslim who voted for his party would face a sentence of death. After a fight broke out between the two groups, Galloway was forced to hide in his car in a back alley until the violence calmed down.
But his problems did not end there. The upstanding democrats of the militant group Hizb-ut-Tahrir, who demonstrate their commitment to moderation through their attempts to turn Great Britain into an Islamic state, declared they would sue the car-cowering politician for libel for accusing them of having instigated the attack. The Islamists said: Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain is an Islamic intellectual and political entity that seeks to change peoples thoughts solely through intelligent discussion and debate a claim nearly as reassuring as Respects long history of fighting anti-Semitism. It is thought that the attack was carried out, not by Hizb ut-Tahrir, but by a group called the Saviour Sect, which only a few hours before had disrupted a meeting in Londons Central Mosque called by the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, and levelled charges of apostasy against the Muslim Council of Britain for urging Muslims to vote.
Gorgeous George Galloway has not taken all this in the collegiate spirit in which it was clearly intended. He is said to have been badly shaken and very worried by the fact the people in whom he has done so much to foment violent and irrational hatred have now turned that hatred upon him.
So shaken is he that within 24 hours he was saying to Ms. King how sorry he was for what had happened to her. For her part, she said that although they disagreed about many things, they didnt want to be violent towards each other. To this touching rapprochement, the mob on the hustings booed.
theres no appeasing bigotry once that beast is roused."
Going to War to Appease:
Generally countries appease in order to avoid conflict. An astonishing exception to this was the Balkan conflict. Serge Trifkovic, in his outstanding book The Sword of the Prophet writes that:
Acting Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger made it clear that a goal in Bosnia was to mollify the Muslim world and to counter any perception of an anti-Muslim bias regarding American policies in Iraq.
Creating a Muslim state did not cause an outpouring of support, it just created another terror base. According to the Telegraph (8/18/200?), in 11 out of 12 major conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, or Arabs and non-Arabs, the US has sided with the former group. Those conflicts included Turkey and Greece, Bosnia and Yugoslavia, and and Kosovo and Yugoslavia. One can't help but wonder if appeasement and greed for oil is behind the U.S. continually siding with the bad guys.
Whatever gratitude the U.S. gains from the Muslim world is short lived. Muslims invent atrocities to hate the West even when the West helps them. An example of this was a promise made by Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman, imam of the mosque of the King Fahd Defense Academy, to the pope. He promised that (Princes of Darkness, Laurent Murawiec p90):
we [Muslims] will take control of the Vatican; we will occupy Rome and make Islam rule there. Yes, the Christians who have carved crosses on the chests of the Muslims of Kosovo, and before that in Bosnia, and before that in many other places in the world, will have to pay us the jizya [the poll tax that dhimmis, non-Muslims, must pay in Islamic states as second class citizens] in humiliation, or convert to Islam."
Ripping away Kosovo from Serbia has not made Europe or the United States popular in the Muslim world. It has however, paved the way for Russia's ripping away of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. On the very day Kosovo declared independence Russia issued a statement declaring it would recognize the efforts by South Ossetia and Abkhazia to secede from Georgia. An excellent article about this can be found in Outpost 8/18/2008.
Israel is concerned that Russia will arm Iran with more weapons than it already has and the government of Iran has threatened to annihilate Israel. Israel was arming and training Georgian forces but as Russian aggressiveness toward Georgia increased, Israel stopped selling all offensive weapons and finally all weapons. This appeasement of Russia did not stop the Russians from using Israeli arm sales to Georgia as an excuse to keep arming the Arabs. David Hornik wrote in Frontpage Magazine 8/22/08 that
On Tuesday Russia’s deputy chief of staff Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsy told a Moscow press conference that “In 2007, Israeli experts trained Georgian commandos in Georgia and there were plans to supply heavy weaponry, electronic weapons, tanks and other arms at a later date, but the deal didn't work out.”
Indeed, the “deal may not have worked out” because in the months leading up to the Russian-Georgian hostilities Israel had been rejecting new arms sales requests from Georgia. Russia is much bigger than Israel and, based on an assessment that a Russian-Georgian collision was imminent, Israel decided not to risk further piquing the bear.
A bear, though, that wants to be piqued—in other words, to fill the gap left by U.S. and Western strategic weakness—is a different matter. A state-certified Russian “analyst” told Syrian television that “The …military assistance provided by Israel to Georgia in its war against Russia will affect…Russia’s attitude toward Arab states. Russia will reexamine its ties with Israel, and it is not unlikely that Moscow will now decide to increase its military assistance to Arab countries in conflict with Israel, including Syria.”
In October 2005, Denmark arrested four Muslims in an investigation of planned suicide bombings in Europe -- who were linked to Islamofascists in Bosnia. (frontpagemag.com 10/28/05)
Kosovo was part of historic Serbia. The U.S. State Department as of April 2007 was pushing for an independence of Kosovo from Serbia. Worldnetdaily reported in April 24, 2007 that Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said:
"Just a reminder to the predominantly Muslim-led governments in this world that here is yet another example that the United States leads the way for the creation of a predominantly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe," he said April 17. "This should be noted by both responsible leaders of Islamic governments, such as Indonesia, and also for jihadists of all color and hue. The United States' principles are universal, and, in this instance, the United States stands foursquare for the creation of an overwhelmingly Muslim country in the very heart of Europe."
The outrageousness of this becomes clear when we consider the history of Kosovo. Ruth King summarized this history in an article in Outpost, April 2007. She wrote:
The Ottomans invaded Serbia in 1389 and consolidated their rule in 1459, propelling major parts of the Balkan peninsula and adjacent southeast Europe into a Koran-dictated Dark Ages. While a significant proportion of Serbian and Croatian nobility converted to Islam to escape the harsh conditions imposed on non-Moslems, most Serbian peasants clung to their Christian faith. Historian G. Richard Jansen reports: “Serbs and Jews became dhimmis subject to the dhimma or protection offered to Christians and Jews in newly Islamized lands in exchange for their lives.
Similarly Bat Ye’or, in Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide writes: “For the Orthodox Serbs… this same period [the centuries of Moslem rule] is considered one of massacre, pillage, slavery, deportation, and the exile of Christian populations...
During World War II, when Yugoslav Serbs refused to join a Nazi “community of nations,” an angry Hitler ordered the destruction of Yugoslavia. Following the Yugoslav army’s capitulation in 1941, Serbia was divided by the Nazis between the Italians and the Bulgarians, who encouraged armed gangs of pro-Nazi ethnic Albanians to attack the Serbs and to torch, destroy and desecrate ancient churches and shrines. The Moslem Albanians, who surprised their mentors with their barbarity and zeal for atrocities, were rewarded when parts of Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia were annexed to “Greater Albania.”
In 1943 the Nazis formed the 21st SS "Skanderbeg" division of Moslem Albanian volunteers to perform an “ethnic cleansing” (of Jews and Serbs) in Yugoslavia. Tens of thousands of Serbs were sent to a Croatian death camp and as noted by Raul Hilberg in The Destruction of the European Jews (1961)
What makes this even more outrageous in retrospect is that the other reason to go to war was ostensibly to stop genocide of Muslims by the Serbs yet evidence has come to light that this "genocide" was a propaganda fabrication and the mass murders the Serbs were accused of never took place.
In February 2008 Kosovo with American backing declared it's independence. More evidence that support for this independence resulted from U.S. desire for popularity comes from a statement made by Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns who said on February 18, 2008, “We think it is a very positive step that this state -- Muslim majority state -- has been created today.' “What is the point of fighting Islamism in Iraq,” asks the Brussels Journal’s Landen, “while at the same time one creates a free haven for Islamists on the European continent?”
After the Serbian leader Milosevic, died Julia Gorin wrote an article (Milosevic Takes the Truth With Him, Frontpage magazine 3/6/2006) in which she argued that appeasement of Muslims, ensured the conviction of Milosevic. She wrote:
Though Milosevic's conviction was a foregone conclusion (we wouldn't want any more rampaging Muslims than there already are in Europe), he was creaming the Court (the Court and the prosecution are essentially one) to such a degree that six months ago prosecutor Geoffrey Nice admitted (transcript) that he was no longer sure what, exactly, the case against the former strongman was...
Indeed, we mistook for Nazis people who were fighting the Nazis' real heirs. Once we approve independence for Kosovo this year and Albanian borders revert to what they were under Hitler, it'll be worth recalling that an Albanian SS Skanderbeg Division and a Bosnian-Muslim SS Handzar Division fought alongside Hitler, and that Croatia killed 750,000 Serbs and Jews in concentration camps--in ways that humbled the Nazis...
Milosevic has died before the completion of the trial that threatened to expose the Islamofascist narco-terrorist hoax on whose behalf we declared war against a multi-ethnic European nation.
To understand the Bosnian conflict we need only read the words of Bosnian Muslim leader, Alija Izetbegovic who said:
The Islamic movement should and must start taking power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough not only to overthrow the existing non-Islamic power structure, but also to build a great Islamic federation spreading from Morocco to Indonesia, from tropical Africa to central Asia.(The Sword and the Prophet p218)
The El Moujahed brigade of the Bosnian Muslim army was distinguished by its spectacular cruelty to Christians, including decapitation of prisoners to the chants of Allahu-akbar. In February 1996, NATO led units raided the training center of the Bosnian government's secret police and found that instructors from the Middle East were teaching them to disguise bombs as toys and ice cream cones
The United States in order to appease Muslims supported a religious war between the Bosnian Muslims and the infidel Serbs. Now that the Muslims are triumphant in Bosnia, Bosnia is a safe haven for Islamic terrorism. (The Los Angeles Times Oct 7, 2001) In addition in the year 2000, illegal Muslims were entering Europe through Bosnia at the rate of about 10,000 a month.
Miroljub Jevtic wrote an article titled White Al Qaeda At the Gates of the West, Serbianna 12/11/04, in which he quoted a statement from the departing Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge who said:
al-Qaeda is actively recruiting terrorists among the white race: Bosnians, Chechens and among the Muslims integrated in the Western society, in particular, women.
By doing this Al Qaeda is finding recruits who are harder to detect. Mr. Jevtik wrote:
With its support for the extreme Islamic forces in the Balkans, the U.S. has contributed greatly to the spread of terrorism and insecurity in the region. Extremists used this support very well and now are ready to repay it back to America and the payment may be too dangerous to collect.
Experts have said it's likely the explosives used in the London subways on 7/7/05 came from Muslim Bosnia. (London is Bombed, Protect Muslims, by Julia Gorin, 7/29/05)
Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin. reported that Jihadists are burning churches and persecuting Christians in Kosovo, the land "liberated" by U.S. and NATO forces in the 1990s. U.S. soldiers are trying to protect the Christians there.
Although the United States is willing to go to war to fight for Muslims in Kosovo, when Christians are being killed by Muslims in Indonesia the United States does nothing. The attacks on Christians in Maluku province, once known as the Spice Islands, continues with no end in sight, according to the Washington, D.C.-based human rights group International Christian Concern. (Muslim Mobs Burn Christian Homes 4/28/04) When Christians are killed by Muslims in Iraq the United States does nothing to help them.
Fighting for Saudi Muslims did not earn Saudi Muslim gratitude. Nonie Darwish explained:
soldiers, at the request of US sacrificed their lives to protect it from Saddam. Under normal conditions that could have been met with appreciation, but instead, the Saudi Arabia, reaction was “how dare the infidels desecrate Muslim land.” That is why America’s defense of the Muslims against the Serbs, the Afghani Muslims against the Soviet Union, feeding the Somali Muslims starved by their own leadership, all did not get the US any credit in the Muslim world; just the opposite, the more America tries to help stabilize the region, the more it is despised. Arab-Muslims do not want to be rescued by infidels. This is a proud culture that is easily shamed by feelings of dependency on the non-Muslims. This is the psychology of the Arab street . Arab Street
The Cycle of Appeasement:
An outstanding and tragic analysis about the consequences of appeasement in the Middle East called Blackmail & Blood: the Method of the "Peace," was written by Dr. Eugene Narrett of Boston University. In his article he describes the tragic violent consequences of the Israeli policy of concessions in response to Arab violence. I have illustrated these consequences with a cycle diagram below.
|Israelis in order to avoid further violence give in to Arab demands.|
|Arabs engage in violent acts to get what they want.||Arabs perceive that their violence will be rewarded with Israeli concessions.|
If we add to the diagram the American role in peacemaking we get something like this:
Arab countries offer promises to be peaceful in return for territory and U.S. weapons.
|Israelis wishing to believe the Arab promises of peace press their government to make territorial concessions.||Israel makes deal with the Arabs in which it gives Arab territory in return for Arab promises to be peaceful and to crack down on terror.|
|The United States offers military assistance for Arab countries who make peace agreements with Israel.||The U.S. sells or gives arms to the Arabs as part of the deal.|
|The United States fearful of the Arab power that it has created pressures Israel to give in to Arab demands. Israelis pressure their government to give in also.||
Arabs perform acts of terror and threaten war. Arabs increase their demands on Israel.
|Arabs perceive that terror is a bargaining tool and that they are powerful enough to defeat Israel. Arabs perceive that making demands will cause the United States to pressure Israel.|
The acts of terror the Arabs perform in the above diagram leads to a cycle of violence in which Israel strikes back and then the Arabs get revenge for the Israeli response. On the other hand even without the cycle of violence Arabs would strike out at Israel because their religion teaches them to hate Israel (See Islam and Jihad).
Since violence begets violence wouldn't Israel be better off just not responding to Arab violence? Although that would end the cycle of violence it would further contribute to the cycle of appeasement and in so doing lead to more violence. In addition violence does not always lead to more violence. USMC Gen (ret.) Richard E. Hawley explained this as follows:
Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead.
Whether it is necessary to completely annihilate the enemy or not to stop violence depends on who the enemy is. If you're dealing with Islamic fanatics who want to die killing the infidel so that they can be with beautiful girls in heaven then the only way to stop them is to either kill them or disarm them or somehow create doubt in their minds that heaven is their true destination. In the case of people who don't want to die, violence can have a deterrent effect. Moshe Dayan, one of the great generals of Israel gave a talk about this in 1965 to volunteers of the RAFI political party (THE MACCABEAN, January 1995). Dayan said:
The essence of Israel's security in this region (Middle East) is deterrence. When we formed the State in 1948-9, we were very weak. The Arab States had planes, tanks, heavy artillery and many more soldiers than us. We had very little heavy military equipment. In the period 1949-55, we absorbed almost a million immigrants. Tent cities sprung up all over the country. We were totally disorganized. Had the Arabs mounted another major invasion, we could have lost. We devised a solution to this problem. It was deterrence. Think about being lost in a forest and surrounded by hostile animals. If you light a torch, boldly approach them showing no fear -- they will retreat. But, if you show fear -- they will attack and you are lost. We used this principle to save Israel during those early years. Every time we were attacked, we retaliated ten fold. We showed daring and penetrated deep within their borders to attack our targets. ..You know the result. The Arabs were afraid and never attacked. Deterrence worked.
That deterrence according to Moshe Arens a former defense minister of Israel, is gone. Aaron Klein in an article in Worldnetdaily 7/12/2006, wrote that Arens said:
"Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and the uprooting of Jewish communities there was interpreted by Hamas and by the Palestinian people as a victory for terrorism,"
"The Palestinian terrorists bombarding Israeli towns with missiles and saw very little Israeli response, so they carried out a daring raid against Israeli troops. They are not afraid of Israel when it retreats."
Arens said the Hezbollah raid today along the Israel-Lebanon border was a "direct result of the failed Israeli withdrawal from that country by [Prime Minister Ehud] Barak in 2000.
"Barak threatened Lebanon with the harshest reprisals if any aggressive cross border acts were carried out by Hezbollah," he said. "We have seen many aggressive acts – missile attacks the past few months, killings and kidnappings of Israeli soldiers – and no major Israeli retaliation. The clear message received by Hezbollah is one of Israeli weakness. Deterrence has been lost."
The Consequences of Appeasement:
When it came to the Temple Mount Dayan didn't
take his own advice. Then-Defense
Minister Dayan, just days after Israel's liberation of the Old City in 1967,
informed the Muslims running the Temple Mount that they could continue to run
the mosques there - and later went further by preventing Jewish prayer all over
"It was evident that if we did not prevent Jews from praying in what was now a mosque compound," Dayan later wrote, "matters would get out of hand and lead to a religious clash... As an added precaution, I told the chief of staff to order the chief army chaplain to remove the branch office he had established in the building which adjoins the mosque compound."
The Muslims used their control of the temple mount to destroy Jewish artifacts there. Rabbi Chaim Richman, Director of the International Department of the of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem said that:
“Islam has for many years been waging a campaign to destroy any evidence of a Jewish presence on the Temple Mount.” He cited efforts by the PA and the Moslem Wakf (religious trust) to carry out excavations on the Temple Mount for the purpose of destroying artifacts relating to the First and Second Temples. He said that thousands of tons of archeological material has already been deliberately destroyed by the Wakf.
This has not prevented religious clashes. According to an editorial in the Jerusalem Post 2/9/2007,
Some years ago, the pedestrian ramp leading up to Jerusalem's Temple Mount fell apart. Now municipal authorities plan to build a permanent ramp to maintain access to this holy site, and are conducting, as required by law, an archeological salvage dig to make sure no artifacts are destroyed in the process.
All of this is completely outside the Temple Mount platform, and bears no relation or threat to that structure, let alone to the Aksa mosque.
Arabs however incited that Israel was attacking the Temple Mount and that Muslims must defend it. According to the Jerusalem Post Editorial
In Gaza, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and elsewhere, Muslims are up in arms about what even a moderate like Jordan's King Abdullah called "a threat to the foundations of the Al Aksa mosque."
"What is happening is an aggression, we call on the Palestinian people to unite and protect Jerusalem," said Muhammad Hussein, the top Muslim cleric in Jerusalem. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for the Islamic world to "retaliate" and make Israel "regret" what it had done.
Shortly afterwards Arabs rioted on and around the Temple Mount, wounding police officers and causing the evacuation of the Western Wall prayer plaza. According to Israel National News 2/9/2007:
Stones were thrown at worshipers and police Friday, despite the decision to limit entry to the Temple Mount to Muslims over the age of 45. Three police officers were wounded by rioters.
Young rioters pelted police with stones and then took cover inside the Al-Aksa Mosque. Security sources said the youths had probably holed up inside the mosque earlier this week, and waited for Friday to begin rioting. Police refrained from entering the mosque due to concerns that it would serve Muslim propaganda efforts and claims that Israel is seeking to destroy it.
3,000 members of the security forces were standing by in expectation of Arab violence as a result of calls for an Israeli-Arab Intifada by Muslim leaders. The calls come in response to the repair and replacement of the Rambam (Mughrabi) Gate walkway, which was in danger of collapse.
In the 1930s and 40s when desperate Jews were trying to escape Europe for Palestine, the British blockaded the entrance to Palestine in order to appease the Arabs. The British wanted the Arabs to help them against Hitler and thought they could win Arab support by betraying the Jews. Yitshaq Ben Ami in his book Days of Wrath, Days of Glory wrote about the consequences of British appeasement.
Their pro-Arab policies brought them no recompense The Arabs did not lift a finger to help the Allies. They acted according to their narrow self-interest, shifting and adapting according to the fortunes of war. Once the Allied position became precarious in North Africa, the Pan-Arabists and the Mufti turned actively to Hitler.
Had the British permitted into Palestine the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were ready to leave in the 1930s... these would have constituted a reservoir of more than half a million people, who would have loved nothing better than the chance to fight Hitler. As things worked out, though, most of their lives were just thrown away.
The British didn't realize that influence comes from strength. If the British had at their disposal a half million man army of Jews the Arabs would have been much more likely to cooperate than when the British were weak and losing to the Germans. The British also appeased Hitler by turning over the Sudetenland to him with the result that Czechoslovakia fell and with the ultimate result that many more Englishmen died than would have if Britain had come to the defense of Czechoslovakia.
As Israel was about to be born the Arabs gathered their forces to destroy it. Britain and the United States embargoed arms to the Jews who they believed were certain to be destroyed by the Arabs. The United States did not want to get on the bad side of the Arabs by helping the Jews defend themselves.
In 1967 troops from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait attempted to annihilate Israel. Then too the United States embargoed arms to Israel.
Members of the Senate felt differently than the State Department. At a conference on May 8th 1948 organized to counter the State Department's Middle East policies three senators spoke. Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico said:
We will fail in our duty if we withhold support from the brave Hebrews who are manning the outposts of American democracy in the Middle East...if we continue the immoral and incongruous policy of embargo against those who are victims of aggression...
At the conference congressman Andrew Sommers pointed out that it wasn't in the best interest of the United States to sacrifice Israel on the alter of appeasing the Arabs. He said:
Some day, circumstances may arise in which we, the United States, will need a strong and loyal ally in the Middle East. I have no faith in the trustworthiness of any other regime in that region. But I know with absolute certainty that the Hebrew Republic of Palestine will be our friend.
In the summer of 1970, Israel - under American pressure agreed to a ceasefire with Nasser's Egypt, to end the "War of Attrition" with Egypt that had continued since 1968. That war had taken the lives of a few soldiers each month and the Labor Party was anxious to stop the shooting to save the lives of these soldiers. Steve Plaut wrote about what happened next: (9/19/02 email broadcast)
As part of that "ceasefire", Egypt committed to the US not to move any of its anti-aircraft missiles, especially not to bring them close to the Suez Canal, still serving as the border with Israel. So naturally within the first week of the ceasefire, all the missile batteries had been moved right up to the Canal's bank for all the world to see. Israel raised a fuss and screamed to the US, which as usual insisted that the dog had eaten its copy of the ceasefire agreement and so Israel should just stifle itself and exercise restraint while the US checked into things for a few years.
In the Knesset debate on the Egyptian violation of the ceasefire, Uri Avnery led the attack on the government's "hysterics", accusing it of raising red herrings and irrelevant scares to panic Israel into abandoning a real chance for peace. After all, the ceasefire proved that Nasser was seeking peace and Israel as usual could have peace for the asking if it did not blow things the way it had been blowing chances for peace with the Arabs all along ever since 1948 (a la Avnery).
The bottom line is that in the end Israel did nothing. It acquiesced to the domestic and American pressures and did not respond to the Egyptian violations. It wanted tranquility. It wanted happy mothers of soldiers stationed at the Canal. It wanted to prevent some of its soldiers from being killed in attrition. It wanted to signal its moderation and flexibility, send a goodwill message, and to prove it wanted peace.
And as a result of the failure to act, in part a capitulation to the antics of Avnery and his libelous accusations, 2700 Israelis were killed and God knows how many were maimed in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. When those same irrelevant missile batteries not worth making a fuss over came very close to producing the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust.
In September 1993 Israel signed the Oslo Agreements with Yassir Arafat in order to bring peace to the region. The idea behind the Oslo Accords was that Israel would make territorial concessions in return for Arafat's promises of peace. Evelyn Gordon in an article called "The Deadly Political Horizon" (Jerusalem Post 5/27/02) wrote:
Within two and a half years after Oslo was signed in 1993, Palestinian terror had claimed as many victims as it had during the entire preceding decade, which included the period of the first intifada. By five years after the accords were signed, the terrorist death toll had surpassed that of the 12 worst years of the pre-Oslo period the years of Yasser Arafat's mini-state in Lebanon (1970-82), which included such spectacular attacks as the Munich and Ma'alot massacres and the Entebbe hijacking. And all this is before we even get to the 500 Israelis killed in the last 20 months. In total, almost 800 Israelis have been slain by Palestinian terror since September 1993 nearly five times the 162 deaths of the 1970-82 period.
Nine years after the Oslo accords, terrorists
emerging from areas ceded to Arafat, regularly murder Israelis, heads of state meet with
Arafat and then condemn Israel for her actions of self defense against terror, and the
region is closer to war then ever.
Amnon Dankner a former active member of the Israeli peace camp wrote an article in the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, July 13, 2001 called "The Big Scam" in which he reminds us what the situation was like before the Oslo Accords.
In 1993, the Intifada was wearing down almost to a point of a halt, Arafat was an international outcast, boycotted in the Arab world, and his power and influence hit an all time low due to his support of Saddam Hussein, and he was in Tunis, subject to be transferred, with his headquarters, to Yemen. No one has yet heard of suicide bombings, and there are no regular armed Palestinian forces at a walking distance from Israeli towns and military bases.
Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director of the International Christian Zionist Center tells how:
A top P.L.O. official told a friend of mine: Before Oslo we, Palestinians, feared and respected the Israelis. Then came Oslo and we came to really know the Israelis. We saw them grovel for peace in front of us and we realized we did not need to fear or respect them.
A web site Israeli Victims of the Oslo War reveals just how extensive and tragic the consequences of Israel's Oslo concessions have been.
According to an article by Avigdor Haselkorn, author of The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence, the Israel initiated the peace process, in order to cope with the growing threat of Arab missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction. The opinion of the politicians who initiated the process, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin was that the inability to stop such weapons from reaching Israel meant that a political solution became essential. Israel would thus defuse the risk that it could become a target. According to Haselkorn this approach has failed miserably.
Politicians often forget the truth set forth by the behaviorists which is that if one rewards behavior that behavior is reinforced. Appeasement consists of rewarding threatening and violent behavior and the consequence is more violence. The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza said in response to a wave of terrorism in December 2000: "The more concessions Barak makes, the more terrorism there will be--because the Arabs see that the more they shoot, the more land they get." The donor Arab countries to the Palestinian Authority also reward violence. This was explained by Yassir Arafat when he told Marwan Barghouti, one of the senior organizers of the violence (Israel Radio, Nov. 9, 2000)
Every time you hear me declare a cease fire or halt in violence, ignore these declarations. We are in a difficult financial situation because of the intifada. Our only hope of getting more money is from the Arab states but they will not give money if there is not blood. Therefore, press, press, press.
Netanyahu explained in an interview with Paula Zahn (April 2, 02) that:
If we start compromising with Arafat, if we start rewarding him for the awful hourly terror that he's waging against us, unlike any that's been waged against any country and any people in history, then I would say that you're going to get more terror, not less of it. And I think many in Washington apparently understand it.
After escalating suicide bombings and shootings of Israeli civilians Israel mounted an offensive in which it entered refugee camps and seized weapons and destroyed Qassam rocket factories. These rockets were being fired at Israeli cities. Bush responded by saying in a briefing:
Frankly, it is not helpful what the Israelis have recently done.
He then vetoed additional aid he had been considering giving Israel.(New York Post 3/14/02)
In a column titled "Rewarding Terror" (New York Post 3/14/02) Eric Fettmann quoted Bush as saying:
America encourages and expects governments everywhere to help remove the terrorist parasites that threaten their own countries and peace of the world.
Fettmann then writes:
Unless of course, those terrorists are Palestinians. And their victims are Jews living in the state of Israel.
Sharon demanded 7 days of quiet before any negotiations with the Palestinians. He never got even one day of quiet. Instead he got day after day of gunmen shooting Israeli civilians, planting bombs and committing suicide bombings. Instead of targetting Arafat (he promised Bush that he would not target Arafat) Sharon just targetted Palestinian terrorists. In addition he gave in to a request by President Bush and dropped his demand for 7 days of quiet. Shortly afterward, in March of 2002, Bush sent Zinni to help bring about a cease fire. In response to Gen. Zinni's efforts for a ceasefire and Prime Minister Sharon's consent to participate in one a PA official said:
We have proven that we can withstand the attacks by the IDF, while on the other hand our own attacks have pressured and weakened Sharon. We are therefore not rushing to any meeting that will give Sharon a life-saver, and we will continue to insist on a full withdrawal from all Area A and significant easings of the closures [before agreeing to a ceasefire]."
Since the IDF would not target the Palestinian administration and does everything it can to avoid hurting civilians, it was easy to withstand the "attacks of the IDF". That became a reason to continue making terrorist attacks. Sharon's giving up his demand for 7 days of quiet was interpreted (rightly so) as a sign of weakness which was another reason to continue making terrorist attacks. In fact the day the Palestinian official made the above statement (3/17/0?) the following attacks were carried out (Arutz 7 news 3/17/02).
1) A terrorist began shooting in all directions in downtown Kfar
Sava shortly before 1 PM Three policemen on the scene shot and killed the murderer, while
others took chase after a possible second terrorist. It was reported that the Arab
was attempting to enter a nearby school when he was shot.
2) Two hours later, in Jerusalem's French Hill junction, a suicide bomber blew himself up. Two hours later another suicide terrorist blew himself up on the northern edge of Pisgat Ze'ev, at the Hizme Checkpoint.
3) Arab forces fired at a Border Guard patrol in the Gilboa region.
All this during cease fire negotiations! The terrorist at Kfar Saba during his shooting spree killed an 18 year old girl named Noa Auerbach and wounded 16 other people. Noa Auerbach, a social science student at Tel Aviv high school, had left with her friends after classes to buy falafel for lunch. She was fatally wounded in the shooting. "She was a beautiful girl and a good student, with a wonderful sense of humor," said the school principal.
Despite the disastrous results of appeasement the State Department keeps encouraging the president to appease. Krauthammer in a column titled "A Guarantee For More Violence" in the Washington Post (6/20/02) wrote:
Colin Powell has urged the president, is to give the Palestinians a "light at the end of the tunnel" by giving them their own "interim" or "provisional" Palestinian state -- even as the massacres continue, like the blowing to bits of 26 Jerusalemites in two consecutive suicide bombings this week .
This rewarding of terrorism is not just a moral scandal. It is disastrous diplomacy. What does this provisional state say to the Palestinians? You can reject the state you were offered two years ago, start a war, murder daily and then be re-offered a state -- this time without even having to be asked to make peace.
For an American foreign policy whose major objective is stability and nonviolence (if for no other reason than to give us freedom of action elsewhere in the region to fight terrorism), one could not devise a worse policy. If two years of blood-letting gives the Palestinians an interim state -- without even a simple cease-fire, let alone a real peace -- what possible disincentive do they have to continue the violence?
Statehood before peace is guaranteed to increase the violence. After all, what does "provisional statehood" mean? There has never been a "provisional state." Powell will have to make the concept up as he goes along. But if statehood means anything, it means three things:
(1) Territorial inviolability. Today terrorism is reduced (Israel stops 90 percent of planned attacks) because the Israeli army goes into Palestinian territories to seize and stop terrorists. After statehood, this becomes an invasion of another country. The terrorists will have sanctuary. Every time Israel pursues them, the Security Council will be called into emergency session, and America will be censured unless it condemns this Israeli "invasion." The net effect will be more terrorism and increased resentment of American diplomacy.
(2) Arms. The basic premise of American policy for 25 years has been that the only way to ensure peace is to have a demilitarized Palestinian entity. Sure, in offering "provisional statehood" the United States will insist on limits to Palestine's buildup of weapons. These limits will be broken as surely as were the limits on the Palestinian "police" that were in the Oslo accords. But it will be worse. Once you have statehood, the Palestinians will say that every self-respecting state has the right to arm itself as it wishes. Why not Palestine? The West Bank will bristle not just with the weapons of guerrilla war (machine guns and car bombs), but the weapons of regional war: Katyusha rockets and antiaircraft missiles. What do you think happens when civilian planes trying to land at Ben Gurion Airport come under fire from such an armed Palestinian state?
The Bush Administration trys to appear tough on terror yet Israel National News states that Rice “has proposed a $100 monthly allowance to terrorists who agree to lay down their arms and retire or find another profession (Buying Off Sharia, Frontpagemag.com 2/10/05)
The Bush administration is arming and training Abbas's terrorists with the excuse that he is peaceful and he needs the arms to defeat the terrorists. Say what? Contrast this to the following item from December 2006
Israel Getting the Shaft From USA?
Israel has no better friend than the Bush Administration — which makes it especially terrifying for the lone outpost of civilization in the Middle East that Bush and the State Department may be pulling the rug out from under Israel to suck up to the Saudis whose citizens brought us 9/11.
There has been an unofficial suspension of arms deliveries since late September, despite the fact that Israel is as always in a perilous situation and might be needing the weapons desperately at any time. Foggy Bottom has prevented Northrop Grumman from providing Israel information on its Skyguard laser weapon, designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles.
Two reasons given for Israel's marginalization in US strategy are its perceived failure to defeat Hezbollah and the desire to get Saudi Arabia to help America in Iraq. A diplomatic source told Middle East Newsline:
There's nothing like stopping the weapons flow to Israel to show the Saudis that the United States means business.
Just like there's nothing like airliners flown into skyscrapers to show that Saudis mean business. If Saudi Arabia does anything helpful, it will only be to help themselves. Sacrificing a civilized country to curry favor with Muslims who want us destroyed is sheer moonbattery.
This withholding of weapons was reinstated in 2008. Emanuel Winston wrote (Condi Tips Her Hand 4/7/2008):
"Coincidentally", just after Rice’s team left, it was revealed that America will hold back military re-supply to Israel "until Israel needs it". This would ostensibly save Israel "billions of dollars" in storage costs for "equipment and weapons it may never use".
Holding back military re-supply is an old State Department tactic, used best by Henry Kissinger in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in order to insure that Israel would be "more flexible" when she was forced into post-war negotiations. I remember hearing that Kissinger said: "Let Israel bleed a little. She’ll give up more in negotiations if she bleeds a little." Kissinger’s deliberate delay of re-supplying Israel until the eighth day of the war led to many needless deaths and endangered Israel severely.
So, on top of the State Department making Israel remove roadblocks in order to give Terrorists greater freedom of movement - with more Israelis dead, they also want Israel to incur greater casualties in any upcoming war. Like Kissinger, the State Department and C. Rice want "Israel to bleed a little" - or a lot!
We can’t help but notice how this comes together nicely, with the $60plus Billion dollars of American arms that have been supplied to Egypt the past years since the Camp David Accords. Don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of American tax-payers’ dollars that have gone to the Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas for weapons - only to be captured by Hamas as soon as they took over Gaza....
The billions to Egypt and millions to the Palestinian Authority continued apace and grew exponentially during the 8 years of the Bush, Rice years.
A major motive for Israeli appeasement of the Arabs is American pressure. Israel needs America as an ally in an increasingly hostile world. Yet appeasement of America with dangerous concessions only leads to pressure from America for more dangerous concessions. Steve Plaut wrote about this in the March 2004 issue of Outpost as follows:
Every set of concessions by Israel has resulted in escalated demands for new concessions, as well as renewed accusations that Israel is obstinately blocking peace. Ehud Barak's suicidal offer to the PLO at Camp David II resulted not in congratulatory telegrams for Israel's demonstration of generosity but only triggered new demonizations of Israel, new assaults on Israeli legitimacy, and new outbreaks of anti-Semitism all over the planet.
Israeli demonstrations of generosity are nothing more than precedents for even more acts of open-ended generosity and appeasement. They never trigger quid pro quos from the Arabs and they never defuse the pressures on Israel. They simply fuel greater pressures and escalated demands. When the Likud government of Yitzhak Shamir generously agreed to grant the Palestinians autonomy, within years it was taken as a foregone conclusion that Israel would be willing to grant them a state. And when Israel was signaling it might grant them a state, it was taken as obvious that this state should control East Jerusalem and the Old City and the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
Ted Lapkin in an article titled a Tale of Two Bombings (frontpagemag.com 3/23/04) wrote how Israel is condemned no matter what she does. He wrote:
When the Israeli army adopts a strategy of active defence in which armed terrorists are killed before they can carry out suicide bombings, the Jewish state is castigated for its "assassination policy." Yet, when Israel adopts a strategy of passive defence that involves a barrier to keep suicide bombers off the streets of Tel Aviv, the Jewish state is dragged before the International Court of Justice. It seems that the international community will reflexively damn the Israelis if they do, or if they don't.
Former Federal Prosecutor John Loftus in his article (The Truth About Jonathan Pollard, Moment Magazine 6/03) wrote about how Americans appeased the Saudis:
In this "Keystone Cops" affair, one wing of U.S. intelligence was hunting terrorists while another winked at the Saudis recruitment of them. I have spoken to numerous FBI and CIA counter-terrorist agents, all of whom tell a similar story. Whenever the FBI or CIA came close to uncovering the Saudi terrorist connection, their investigations were mysteriously terminated. In hindsight, I can only conclude that some of our own Washington bureaucrats have been protecting the Al Qaeda leadership and their oil-rich Saudi backers from investigation for more than a decade.
I am not the only one to reach this conclusion. In his autobiography, Oliver North confirmed that every time he wanted to do something about terrorism, Weinberger stopped him because it might upset the Saudis and jeopardize the flow of oil to the U.S. John ONeill, a former FBI agent and our nations top Al Qaeda expert, stated in a 2001 book written by Jean Charles Brisard, a noted French intelligence analyst, that everything we wanted to know about terrorism could be found in Saudi Arabia.
ONeill warned the Beltway bosses repeatedly that if the Saudis were to continue funding Al Qaeda, it would end up costing American lives, according to several intelligence sources. As long as the oil kept flowing, they just shrugged. Outraged by the Saudi cover-up, ONeill quit the FBI and became the new chief of security at the World Trade Center. In a bitter irony, the man who could have exposed his bosses continuous cover-up of the Saudi-Al Qaeda link was himself killed by Al Qaeda on 9/11.
Robert Baer, in his book, Sleeping with the Devil writes how he read stories how the State Department barred O'Neill from entering Yemen, even though he was heading up the investigation into the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Baer wrote:
O'Neill knew he was being stiffed by both State and the Saudis, and when he started to complain, it wasn't long before the knives came out.
That may be another reason O'Neill quit the FBI.
John Loftus, wrote about how the State Department protected the number two man in the Islamic Jihad organization. He wrote that he asked his friends in the FBI and CIA "Why haven't you prosecuted this guy? You've known about him since 1989." and they responded:
"We'd love to. We've tried to prosecute him but we were told we couldn't touch him because he gets all of his money from the Saudis, and we are all under orders not to do anything to embarrass the Saudi government." (Isranet Daily Briefing 9/10/2004)
The pathetic depths of appeasement to which the United States will crawl was exposed in an article by Michael Freund called Did We Learn Anything From Sept 11? which appeared in The Chicago Sun Times. In it he wrote:
Though less than a year has passed since 15 Saudi nationals joined four other hijackers in wreaking havoc on Sept. 11, America is now set to train yet another cadre of Saudi airmen.
I kid you not.
In a report Monday in the English-language daily Arab News, Saudi Arabian Airlines Vice President for Technical Affairs Ahmad Jazzar announced with evident pride that some 202 of his employees were being sent to the United States for what he described as ''advanced training in aircraft maintenance.''
The employees, said Jazzar, would study at various unnamed ''aviation institutes in the U.S.'' and would then receive ''international licenses for aircraft maintenance.'' (The text of the article appears at: www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=17697)....
But there is another little twist to this story--one that only further underlines its utter absurdity.
Ironically enough, on the same day that the news item appeared about Saudi Airlines employees studying in the United States, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal made an announcement of his own. He declared that the desert kingdom would refuse any request from Washington to extradite 16 al-Qaida members recently handed over to Riyadh by Iran.
After a Saudi national was
convicted in Colorado of keeping an Indonesian nanny as a family slave and
sentenced to life in prison, the State Department crawled before the Saudis and
dispatched the Colorado attorney general to Riyadh to apologize to King Abdullah
for American justice and the 14th Amendment. REAL RESPECT FOR MUSLIMS AMONG US
By Wesley Pruden THE WASHINGTON TIMES (11/3?/2006).
The influence of the Saudi Government on the U.S. State Department became very apparent when a Saudi princess had an illicit romantic liason while in Britain. The couple was killed by the Saudi Government when they went to Saudi Arabia. Serge Trifkovic, in his book The Sword of the Prophet writes that:
When ATV in Britain and PBS in the United States were about to air a documentary based on this tragedy, "Death of a Princess," unprecedented pressure came from the British Foreign Office, from the U.S. State Department, the Saudi royal family, and the oil interests to cancel the show.
On June 19 2002 Sharon's government announced a new land for peace policy in which Israel would occupy and stay in disputed areas until the violence stopped. Lo and behold the next day an ad appeared in Al Kuds with Hanan Ashrawi as a signatory asking that the violence against Israelis be stopped. Under U.S. pressure Israel kept retreating from these areas and the violence started up again.
The policies of deterrence that kept Israel alive in its early years were to a large part abandoned by Prime Minister Ehud Barak whose response to Arab violence was concessions and appeasement. Even during the height of Arab violence his government continued to transfer funds to the Palestinians. During his effort to defeat Sharon before the 2001 elections in his effort to win Arab votes he offered Barak announced he would like to visit with each of the families of the 13 Israeli Arabs who had been killed while participating in violent pogroms and clashes with police during the Jewish High Holidays of 2001. Barak said he wants to visit with them to issue to each an official "apology". The 13 families indicated that they were uninterested in hosting Barak for any apology session. Steve Plaut (Jan 22, 01) wrote:
Now I think this is highly significant. The "13" were killed while
standing in the midst of armed hordes attacking Israeli police and Jewish
bystanders with rocks, molotovs, and gunfire, and probably the 13 were doing
more than their fair share of violence themselves.
Barak wants to apologize to their families? How come he does not feel
he owes any apology to the hundreds of families of Jews who have been
murdered thanks to the "peace process" that he and his party imposed upon
Israel, when they forced the country to commit Oslo? He has yet to
apologize to any of them. Not even to the family of the 16 year old child
tortured and murdered by the Fat'h when it induced him to come to Ramallah
through an internet chat group this past week.
According to Steve Plaut appeasement has led to Nazification of the Arabs. He wrote (Jan 21 01)
Now it has been our contention since the very start of Oslo that it
would produce not pacification of the Arabs but their Nazification. First
among the Palestinians, but also among Israeli Arabs. Everything so far has
been consistent with that prediction coming true. The latest fad of
murdering Jewish children is but a single manifestation.
But for anyone skeptical, consider the latest banner and symbol being
hoisted by the proud Palestinians for peace. It is the Nazi swastika.
Think I am joking? Check out page 5 of Haaretz Jan 21.
In any case, we now know what the PLO means by the inalienable rights of
the Palestinians. They mean the right to murder Jewish children.
The latest fad of murdering Jewish children referred to the luring of an Israeli teenager to his death by a woman who turned out to be a central "activist" in the Fat'h, the central organization within the PLO under the direct command of Yassir Arafat. She did this initially through an internet chat room.
Instead of demanding that the Palestinian's stop shooting before negotiations proceed, Barak offered them more concessions. This just encouraged more violence and more demands.
The more you offer the Palestinians, the more they demand
Netanyahu said from Jerusalem on "Fox News Sunday 12 24 2000." He asserted the key to peace is a strong Israel, not one that advances major concessions as part of a policy of "peace at any price."
Robert Barley of the Wall Street Journal wrote on April 2, 2001:
The frenetic compromises of Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton have projected an image of weakness. So today, with Egypt receiving $2 billion a year in U.S. aid, a columnist for a government-sponsored newspaper there writes that Secretary of State Colin Powell has "the brain of a bird." An editorial in another Egyptian newspaper reads, "Don't be misled by your false power, because among us there are people who are not afraid of death. These are the same people who forced you to withdraw humiliated from South Lebanon, from Vietnam, from Somalia and from the Sinai."
The Vietnam-Lebanon-Somalia line was "a litany I encountered everywhere," Princeton's Prof. Lewis reports of a recent visit to the region. This is a "dangerous misreading of Israel and the U.S." Dictators have trouble understanding democratic politics, have convinced themselves that casualties will force withdrawal, and see concessions as weakness. "Their religion doesn't teach them to turn the other cheek."
A few days after Israel's May 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon Hezbollah's leader, Hasan Nasrallah said:
Israel may own nuclear weapons and heavy weaponry but, by God, it is weaker than a spider web.
In the two years that followed Israel's retreat Hezbollah has initiated more than 40 strikes against Israeli targets. In early April 2002 things further heated up with almost one Hezbollah attack per day. These involved 1,160 mortar rounds, 205 anti-tank missiles, and several surface to air missiles (Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Schanzer, Winning by Retreating, New York Post 5/22/02). According to strategist Gal Luft, Hezbollah
has the capability to drag Israel into a regional war.
May 23, 2002 marked two years since the Israeli withdrawal from the southern Lebanon security zone under Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The families of now-defunct South Lebanese Army (SLA) members living in Israel held a gathering to mark the occasion. An SLA spokesman said that the IDF withdrawal was a mistake because of the way in which it was carried out, and because it ended in the elimination of the only entity in Lebanon that could have assisted Israel. He said:
In the end, even peace was not achieved. You have to know that in the Middle East, you cannot achieve peace by projecting weakness. Strength projects the ability to make peace.
Arieh O'Sullivan quoted in the Jerusalem Post (6/24/02) a senior Israeli military official as saying that a major conflagration along the northern border, sparked by Hizbullah and quickly spreading to an Israeli retaliation against Syrian forces in Lebanon, is "unavoidable". Arieh wrote:
His comments came after Hizbullah again fired 57mm anti-aircraft shells at the Galilee Panhandle yesterday. Hizbullah has accumulated more than 8,000 Katyusha rockets and longer-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets capable of reaching Haifa and its bayside suburbs...According to some military commanders, Hizbullah's steadily increasing arsenal will entice it to actually initiate a conflagration. The expectation is that even if the IDF retaliates against Syrian forces in Lebanon, Hizbullah will strike back hard at Israel with its massive arsenal.
Speaking at a rally on 5/25/05 on the fifth anniversary of Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon Hezbollah terror chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said that
"The entire north of occupied Palestine [sic], its settlements, airports, seaports, fields, factories and farms is under the feet and hands of the Islamic resistance."
According to Israel National News as of May 2005, Hezbollah has 12,000 missiles aimed at Israel from Lebanon. (Israelnationalnews.com 5/26/05)
In 1967 Israel won
by destroying the Egyptian Air force before the planes could be flown off the
ground. Missiles could execute the 1967 war in reverse. Missiles
could destroy Israeli aircraft on the ground. Major
General Israel Tal wrote in 1996 that the strategic pillar of Israel's security
is the Air Force and that in the wake of the deployment of hundreds and perhaps
thousands of surface-to-surface missiles around Israel, that pillar was liable
to be broken within five to ten years. That was ten years ago. In my view, it
has been proved beyond any doubt that Talik was right. The strategic pillar of
Israel's security has been broken." (Shavit, A., MK Yuval Steinitz, We Could
Lose the Next War, Haaretz, April 21, 06)
Israel withdrew from Lebanon in return for an agreement (UN resolution 425) that the border with Lebanon would be peaceful, in order to avoid exposing their troops to terrorist attacks by Hezbollah and in their effort to avoid conflict with Syria. As a consequence elderly Hamas terrorist leader Sheikh Yassin said that (Arutz-7 News: Tuesday, May 30, 2000)
After Hizbullah's victory in Lebanon, a new era in Palestinian-Israeli relations has begun: It has now been proven that violent resistance is the correct way The Hamas military wing knows what to do Thousands of Palestinians are willing to die as martyrs
Dr. Walid Phares in his article "Christians are New Targets for Palestinian Suicide Bombers" (FrontPageMag Oct 7, 2003) quotes Jihadis as saying: The
infidels were driven out of Lebanon today, tomorrow the other infidels will be driven out of Palestine
Charles Krauthammer (4/10/02) wrote about what happened next:
Israel had been in Lebanon for about 20 years. It was a classic defensive occupation. Israel laid claim to not an inch of Lebanese soil. It diverted not a drop of water. It had no interest in staying. It was in there for one reason. To protect Israel's northern frontier from various guerrillas--first Yasser Arafat's PLO, then the Lebanese Shiite Party of God (Hezbollah)--using south Lebanon to attack Israel.
Yet for two decades, Israel was hectored to comply with U.N. resolutions demanding Israel's withdrawal. In May 2000, it complied. To ensure that there could be no possible residual territorial dispute, Israel asked the United Nations to draw the line demarcating the true Israeli-Lebanese border--the so-called Blue Line--then pulled back behind it.
Hezbollah was not mollified. While its ostensible mission was the liberation of Lebanese territory, it did not disband. On the contrary. It occupied south Lebanon, imported huge new supplies of weapons from Iran, and began sporadic cross-border attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah has killed Israeli soldiers situated in Israeli territory. It kidnapped three soldiers who have never been seen since. Just one month ago, infiltrators from the Hezbollah territory shot and killed seven Israelis on a road in northern Israel. And now, since the end of March, Hezbollah has embarked on a serious and deadly escalation, firing rockets into Israel.
Hezbollah is armed with 8,000 Katyusha rockets. Practically all of northern Israel lies under its guns. They are ready for firing. Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah threatened Monday to hit Haifa with Katyusha rockets if Israel dared respond to Hezbollah attacks.
Were that to happen, the entire northern front would explode. Israel has been sending urgent messages through the United Nations and the United States that it would not tolerate such aggression. It would be forced to counterattack--on Lebanon, on Syrian army positions in Lebanon and possibly even on Syria itself, Syria being Hezbollah's boss and patron.
Syria could not withstand such an Israeli attack conventionally. It might then launch its missiles equipped with chemical weapons into Israeli cities. And that could trigger Armageddon. Israel was established so that never again would the gassing of Jews be permitted.
Not only, therefore, is Lebanon the most dangerous piece of tinder in the region. It is the most instructive. The Arabs claim that their grievance is Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Give it back and you'll have land for peace. Like the Lebanon peace?
Israel National News reported on June 11, 02 that Sharon told President Bush that the thousands of Hizbullah missiles aimed at Israel from Lebanon are the
biggest threat facing Israel today.
According to an article by Caroline Glick, (Ending the Ostrich Strategy by Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post 11/8/02)
Hizbullah has a large Iranian- and Syrian-supplied arsenal of long-range Katyusha rockets and mortars capable of reaching targets as far south as Netanya. Sources familiar with Hizbullah's capabilities explain that it has developed advanced guidance systems that enable it to hit specific targets. This situation exposes not only civilians to attack, but also endangers sensitive strategic targets like the oil refineries in Haifa and military installations throughout the north and center of the country.
Even more foreboding was The Sunday Times of London's report last month that Hizbullah recently acquired Zelzal-2 ballistic missiles with a range of 250 kilometers - capable of hitting Tel Aviv - that can be armed with chemical warheads.
Caroline quotes Dr. Boaz Ganor, director of the Counterterrorism Institute at Herzliya's Interdisciplinary Center, explained why Hizbullah is a growing cause for alarm.
Before the precipitous IDF pullout from south Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbullah was simply an annoyance, a tactical threat to Israel. Since the pullout, because it is deployed directly across the border and because it has significantly upgraded its capabilities, it now for the first time constitutes a strategic threat to the country.
David Hornik, in an article titled Israel's Gaza Gamble" (frontpagemag.com 3/11/04) wrote that:
Southern Lebanon, once patrolled by Israeli troops until Ehud Barak yanked them out as part of his peace juggernaut, is now Hizbullahland, the border lined with twelve thousand Iranian-supplied missiles that hold northern and central Israel in a blackmail of terror.
Amazingly the Israeli left still clings to the delusion that the Lebanese withdrawal was a good idea. Steve Plaut wrote in regard to this (12/03/02):
Yes, the body count dropped significantly after the surrender. There has been no massive saturation shelling of northern Israel. Tranquility of a sort has prevailed. And in Op-Ed after Op-Ed, the Left screams, "You see?
Plaut draws the analogy between this kind of thinking and the following (pre 9/11) joke.
A man jumps off the roof of the World Trade Center in Manhattan and as he passes someone sticking his head out the 20th floor window he yells, "So far so good". See, all those people who told me it was dangerous to jump off the roof of the tower were wrong!!
On Jan 22 03 Israel National News reported that:
In a strong blow at the "land-for-peace" formula, a Lebanese government minister said that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 does not mean that Hizbullah should stop its military activities against Israel. International Affairs Correspondent Michael Freund reports that Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi Aridi issued a public call on Monday to Hizbullah to intensify attacks on Israel. "We think very differently from those in or outside Lebanon who believe that the battle with Israel has ended," Aridi told the crowd. "We see the battle with this enemy as moving to a new stage," and attacks on Israel are "a need, a duty and a right. We call for strengthening it."
The day following Aridi's call, Hizbullah terrorists fired dozens of anti-tank missiles and mortar shells at IDF outposts in the Mount Dov area, the first such bombardment of its kind in five months. The IDF reported that Israeli forces, aided by combat helicopters, returned artillery and tank fire towards the source of the shelling. A senior IDF source said last night that Hizbullah continues to arm itself with the aid and backing of Syria, Lebanon and Iran. He emphasized that Hizbullah is operating from areas under full Lebanese control, and as such "the Lebanese government and its Syrian ally are fully responsible for attempting to escalate the situation."
On August 8th Hezbollah launched 3 days of rocket attacks against Israel. One of their rockets killed a sixteen year old teenager. Another rocket landed on an empty kindergarden which was probably empty because the children were in bomb shelters. Maj.-Gen. Amos Gilad, IDF Coordinator of Activities in Yesha and the head of the political-security desk in the Defense Ministry said that "Hizbullah's involvement in terror attacks in Yesha and within the Green Line exacted a much higher price than that which we paid when we were still in Lebanon." (Israel National News August 11, 2003)
Israel has lost it's ability to counterattack in response to attacks from Lebanon according to an editorial titled "The Threat from Gaza" which appeared in the Jerusalem Post 8/31/03. According to the editorial:
When Barak ordered the pullback from Lebanon, he again derided warnings but undertook to react harshly to any aggression. So far, however, Israel has refrained from substantial response, because enhanced Hizbullah firepower now poses real danger to the entire Haifa metropolitan area, if not even considerably to its south.
On January 29, 2004 Israel released over 400 Palestinian terrorists and those who had aided terrorists from its prisons in exchange for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers and a civilian who had been kidnapped by the Hizbullah terror organization. Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was presiding over a celebration in Beirut marking the return of the dozens of Lebanese terrorists released by Israel in the exchange. During his address to the large crowd, Nasrallah stated that his organization would kidnap more Israelis in order to obtain the release of other terrorists imprisoned in Israel. Noting the numbers of prisoners released by Israel in the exchange, Nasrallah taunted that just for information on Ron Arad, Israel will release all of its security prisoners (Israel National News 1/30/04). Arafat's Fatah "emphasized the necessity to follow in the footsteps of the act of Hizbullah, so that all prisoners and detainees will be released." (Palestinians See Kidnapping IDF Soldiers as Hostages as Precedent,Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin 1/30/04)
Israel by releasing 400 prisoners in exchange for three bodies and a civilian simply encouraged the Arabs do kidnap and kill more Israelis. In July 2006 Hezbollah kidnapped more Israelis and shot rockets into Israel. This led to a major Israeli attack of Hezbollah in Lebanon. According to Israel National News 7/17/06,
More than 1,200 rockets have been fired at Israel by Hizbullah terrorists in south Lebanon since the beginning of the Reengagement War at the northern front last week .
As part of a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah Israel rewarded terror by agreeing to calls for negotiations leading to Israel's relinquishing of the Shebaa Farms a small, 200-square-kilometer bloc situated between Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Aaron Klein reported that (Syria to Form Its Own Hezbollah wnd.com 8/17/06)
On the heels of what it views as a Hezbollah victory against the Jewish state, Syria is forming its own Hezbollah-like guerilla organization to fight Israel in hopes of "liberating" the Golan Heights, an official from Syrian President Bashar Assad's Ba'ath party told WorldNetDaily yesterday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Syria learned from Hezbollah's military campaign against Israel the past month that "fighting" is more effective than peace negotiations with regard to gaining territory.
He said Syria's new guerilla force would be trained by Hezbollah leaders.
According to an article titled Dirty Rockets Ready, that appeared in Worldnetdaily, 7/21/2006, Hezbollah has a large number of missiles loaded with uranium from Iran ready to launch at Israel.
Major Shawn Pine, in an article called "Whither Israeli Deterrence Capability" (Freeman Center Broadcast 6/21/02) wrote:
If there is one thing that has become painfully clear in the last year it is that Israel has lost its deterrence credibility... The importance of this deterioration should not be underestimated because it is critical in preventing the outbreak of a wider regional conflict...
Shawn Pine writes that Sharon has responded to Palestinian terror with weak retaliation but that these responses have been ineffective and that:
Every Israeli response to terrorism, no matter how targeted or muted, is being reported as an atrocity by the Palestinians and the international media...
One hypothesis Major Pine gives for Sharon's policies is that Sharon:
truly believes that he can ultimately reach a political settlement with Arafat that will bring security to Israel. If it is the latter, then we can conclude that Sharon is as delusional as Peres...
Israel possess the military might to destroy Palestinian resistance in a matter of days. Granted, to achieve such a quick, decisive victory would require the unleashing of military might that would result in enormous collateral damage to Palestinian civilians and infrastructure. Undoubtedly, such actions would engender massive international condemnation, threats and calls for international intervention. Under these conditions, Shimon Peres and the Labor Party would leave the coalition which would precipitate a political crisis leading to new elections. However, while Israel would face international isolation, which it does anyway, it would still receive critical support from the United States. President Bush, Congress, and the vast majority of the American people now understand what Israel has been enduring over the last decade and would support Israel when it counted... Sharon may have missed his historic opportunity to do the same when he could have, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, operationally destroyed
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the security forces of the Palestinian Authority. There is still an opportunity for Sharon to rectify this mistake, but time is running out.
For some reason Sharon got the idea in his head that the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is to forcibly remove Israelis from Gaza and hand it over to the Arabs. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar, the Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip wrote about the take home message of Sharon's withdrawal and it isn't a message of lets be peaceful. He wrote:
"The withdrawal is an achievement for our people and for the intifada and is considered the result of the victims they sacrificed. ..."
Hamas must continue to ensure "the enemy's withdrawal must be unconditional," states the memo. The withdrawal confirms that terrorism has paid off, writes al-Zahar.
"The withdrawal, if it is implemented, is an important achievement by the Palestinian people, its intifada and armed struggle, its determination and great sacrifice, and confirms the willingness, correctness, and usefulness of employing an armed struggle and its ability to attain political objectives."
Similarly Ahmed al-Bahar, a top Hamas leader, said (Jewish News Wire 3/28/05)
"The painful and qualitative blows which the Palestinian resistance dealt to the Jews and their soldiers over the past four-and-a-half years led to the decision to withdraw from the Gaza Strip,"The suicide attacks have taken their tolls on the Jews, both psychologically and economically, in addition to the high number of casualties... All indications show that since its establishment, Israel has never been in such a state of retreat and weakness as it is today following more than four years of the intifada,.. The withdrawal marks the end of the Zionist dream and is a sign of the moral and psychological decline of the Jewish state. We believe that [terrorism] is the only way to pressure the Jews.
Mohammed Dahlan, Minister of Security of the PA said in Feb 2004 that "The withdrawal of the Israeli Army from Gaza is one of the most important achievements of the intifada"
Mohammad Dief a Hamas leader said on March 2004 "Israel leaving Gaza is one of the biggest signs of victory and Israel's fall is near." The following Hamas poster says regarding the Gaza withdrawal (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Palestinians: Withdrawal is Victory for Islam, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin 8/18/05)
"With those two together the victory has been achieved."
A poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, found that 74 percent of Palestinians saw Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to destroy the Israeli communities in Gaza and northern Samaria as a vindication of terrorism as a national strategy. (Carolyn Glick, The Sharansky Moment, Jerusalem Post 3/3/05)
A video on the Hamas web site shows Images of Israelis being evacuated from Gaza and destroyed Israeli buildings while these words are sung: (New Hamas Video: Gaza Leads to Haifa PMW bulletin 1/22/06)
"The invaders fled. The army of the Jews has been defeated
The home and homeland is returning through blood
Not through negotiations, surrender or promises"
While the words, the
"homeland is returning," are sung, an image of the Israeli city of Haifa is
displayed, stressing that the Palestinians see all of Israel as their "homeland"
to be targeted.
Click here to view the clip online
Moshe Ya'alon, the IDF Chief of Staff said that:
This Gaza plan will blow up in Israel's face... Immediately after the disengagement we can expect a burst of terrorism.
Ya'akov Amidror, the former deputy chief of Israeli Military Intelligence said that
If Israel withdraws from Gaza, it will become a Hamas terror state.
Natan Sharansky a member of the Israeli government and famous former Soviet dissident said
I oppose the disengagement plan, which is a tragic mistake that will exacerbate the conflict with the Palestinians, increase terrorism, and dim the prospects of forging a genuine peace.
2004, Yaakov Amidror and David Keyes, predicted that Gaza would become a future
sanctuary for Al Qaeda. The danger of Al Qaeda according to Dr.
Ely Karmon, a senior researcher at
Another problem with the Gaza plan was that it allowed Egypt to bring border guards into the Sinai which unravels the achievement of the Israeli Egyptian peace treaty which was demilitarization of the Sinai.
After the withdrawal from Gaza the Arabs used those areas including the beaches where Arabs go swimming as launching pads for thousands of rockets against Israel many of which are hitting the Israeli town of Sderot.(For information about the rocket attacks see Rocket lands feet from defense minister's home , Ex-Gaza commander slams West Bank withdrawal ) Israel's plan was that after the withdrawal if the Arabs fired rockets they would respond with overwhelming force yet they can't for fear of hurting civilians. Despite their best efforts to just target the rockets civilians die. In one case that achieved publicity in newspapers throughout the world, a photographer caught a Palestinian Arab girl crying over her Dad who died in an explosion on a Gaza beach close to a time period when the Israelis were firing artillery shells at rocket launchers. An Israeli army investigation cleared Israel but the Palestinians then claimed they had evidence that it was Israel and even though the Palestinian Arabs kept changing their story the press took it seriously. The lesson here is that Israeli appeasement of the Palestinian Arabs by uprooting Israelis from Gaza did not gain Israel good publicity, it resulted in barrages of rocket attacks against the city of Sderot and bad publicity when the Israelis counterattacked against the rocket launchers. The press does not condemn the Arabs for launching rockets from among civilians, it does not publish pictures of crying Israeli victims of Hamas rocket attacks, it selectively publishes pictures that hurt Israel. Israel closed its border between itself and Gaza to keep terrorists out so the press talks about the suffering children of Gaza. One wouldn't know that the border with Egypt is open or that Israel allows in humanitarian supplies or that the Israeli children are being rocketted from Gaza.
The only way for the Israelis to stop the rocket attacks is to invade and seize Gaza (Ex-defense minister: Israel must recapture Gaza ) That's exactly what Israel had to do 11 months after leaving Gaza after Arabs tunneled across the border, murdered some Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another one. As predicted by opponents of the withdrawal, the Israeli army was forced to return to the areas of Gaza from which they had uprooted their Israeli brothers and sisters. They had to do this to stop rocket attacks. (Pre-Expulsion Predictions Actualized, Israel National News 7/6/06)
As a result of the massive influx of weapons and rocket attacks the Israeli Defense Force presented a plan for a large scale offensive in Gaza to Prime Minister Olmert. "We should never have withdrawn in the first place," a senior IDF officer told WND 10/24/06. "The greatest admission of the Gaza withdrawal's failure would be for us to have to reoccupy any part of Gaza. I don't think that will happen. Olmert will also have to contend with major international backlash for any such move.
The Arabs are taught by Israeli appeasement that they will win through violence. Hamas leader Yasser Ghalban said (wnd.com 6/23/06):
Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo. The prisoners will be released by Allah's will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun."
Lt. General Moshe Yaalon, IDF Chief of Staff until the implementation of the Gaza withdrawal in an interview with Haaretz said (Israel National News 7/6/2006): “When the steps are withdrawal after withdrawal after withdrawal, we convey weakness, And he who conveys weakness in the Middle East is like a weak animal in nature: he comes under attack."
David Hornik in an article titled Israel's Shattered Trust (12/20/07) wrote that:
Two years ago Israel evacuated Gaza partly, it is thought, so that then-prime minister Ariel Sharon could win a promise from Bush that Israel would eventually retain substantial lands in the West Bank . Today Israel keeps being pushed along in a “peace process” with PA leaders who say openly that they will never accept anything but total Israeli withdrawal followed by Israel ’s inundation with “refugees.”
And since the pullout from Gaza , the rocket fire has climbed from a couple of hundred hits per year to about a thousand per year—still without any substantial Israeli response.
Hornik wrote that:
Israelis who were unhappy with this charade were assured that it was all part of a U.S. strategy, ultimately working to Israel’s benefit, of demonstrating concern for the Palestinian issue and thereby putting together a bloc of moderate Arab states that would stand with America in confronting Iran....Israel is now stunned by the perception that the return on all this costly compliance is the NIE—widely believed by the political and security establishment to mean the Bush administration has bowed out of confronting Iran and left Israel to face it very much alone.
One of the motivations to disengage was to improve Israel's image especially with the United States which wanted Israel to withdraw. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon used to say about the Disengagement that if he wasn't making peace with the Palestinians, at least he was making peace with the Americans. A Hebrew University study shows that Israel's image in American and British media temporarily got better during the disengagement but got worse after the Disengagement from Gaza and the destruction of the Jewish communities there. Perhaps the reason is that the world reasoned that if Israel withdrew its presence in Gaza must have been unjustified to begin with and it shouldn't be in Judea and Samaria either.
The title of an editorial in the New York Post (11/12/01) which speaks about Egyptian hostility to the United States despite funding by the U.S. (2 billion a year) was called appropriately "In De-Nile on Egypt".
Tanzim leader Marwan Barghouti told a Time magazine correspondent (Time Feb 26, 2001 p46) that the intifadeh not only brought Barak crawling back to the table but also pressured him to give new concessions until the violence drove him from office.
of the authors of The Seventh War was interviewed by Israel's Channel 1 in
September 2004. H esaid that the general consensus among Hamas leadership he had
interviewed was that: "The Israeli left-wing and your 'peace-camp' are what
ultimately encouraged us to continue to carry out suicide bombings. We tried, through our
attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing
encouraged us in that regard. When we heard about the 'Pilots' Letter' and the elite
soldiers refusing to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza], it strengthened our confidence in
the effectiveness of the suicide bomber."
Yissocharov also said that the Hamas leaders saw "the disengagement from Gaza is proof of our victory. The fact that Sharon is willing to withdraw unconditionally is basically equivalent to raising a white flag and retreating. Only by force are we able to teach the other side what to do."
On Sunday, March 12, 2000 Middle Eastern affairs expert Dan Shiftan painted a grim picture of how appeasement has affected Israel's deterrence capabilities. Speaking on Israel's Channel 7 , Shiftan said,
Relative to this region's Arab states, Israel has basically lost it deterrence capability. The Arab leaders believe that Israel is basically ready to accept pretty much any Arab dictate. The Arabs assume that the Israeli public is not ready to fight, and is prepared for diplomatic deals with its Arab neighbors pretty much at any price.. The question for the Arabs is no longer where lies Israel's red line, but does it have such a line?
He said that the atmosphere in Israeli-Syrian talks of the past few years is as if
Israel was the one that had been defeated in the Six Day War.
The Israelis have made large numbers of concessions for peace but the outlook is that war is likely to break out. The Palestinians have threatened that when they declare a state they will march on the Jewish settlements. Palestinian Authority Justice Minister Fraih Abu Meddain said that the Palestinian Authority is ready "to sacrifice thousands of people in the case of a military confrontation with Israel."
Mr. Falouji said that there will be a war over Jerusalem, and predicted that
No settler will be able to return to his home.
Yet the Israeli government continued to offer still more concessions for a peace that is clearly not materializing. Why? An article from the Freeman Center about possible reasons is included on this web site.
In October 2000, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount as a move to stand up for Jewish Rights to visit there. The Arabs under the encouragement of Arafat reacted with widespread rioting and violence. Natan Sharansky, a former prisoner of the Soviet Union and member of the Israeli government and author of Fear No Evil, wrote an excellent article explaining how appeasement by Israel led to this state of affairs. An excellent column about the subject How the Peace Process Built a Deadly Threat was written by Sidney Zion and appeared in the New York Post October 17, 2000.
One of the responses of the Israeli left to critics of appeasement is that they have no alternative. There is an alternative which was promoted by former President Ronald Reagan, "Peace through strength". After the attack on the United States of September 11th there was widespread support for Osama bin Ladin. In the video of Osama bin Ladin released by the Department of Defense Osama attributes that support to his success. In the video he says:
When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.
Once the United States became victorious against him Osama lost a lot of his support.
Daniel Pipes in a column titled "Victory Shifts the Muslim World", (New York Post 11/19/01) how after the Taliban lost their first major city the Associated Press reported that:
Pakistani holy warriors are deserting Taliban rands and streaming home in large numbers.
Daniel Pipes continues:
In the streets of Peshawar, we learn, "portraits of Osama bin Laden go unsold. Here where it counts, just across the Khyber Pass from the heartland of Afghanistan, the Taliban mystique is waning....
The Arabic-speaking countries show a similar trend. Martin Indyk, former. U.S. ambassador to Israel, notes that in the first week after the U.S. airstrikes begain on Oct. 7, nine anti-American demonstrations took place.
After the fourth week Martin Indyk noted
The Arab street is quiet.
Daniel Pipes writes:
For two decades -- since Ayatollah Khomeini reached power in Iran in 1979 spouting "Death to America" --U.S. embassies, planes, ships, and barracks have been assaulted, leading to hundreds of American deaths. In the face of this, Washington hardly responded.
This encouraged militant Islam to commit more audacious acts including the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Daniel Pipes wrote:
The pattern is clear: So long as Americans submit passively to murderous attacks by militant Islam, this movement gained support among Muslims. When Americans finally fought militant Islam, its appeal quickly diminished.
Victory on the battlefield, in other words, has not only the obvious advantage of protecting the United States but also the important side-effect of lancing the anti-American boil that spawned those attacks in the first place.
The implication is clear: There is no substitute for victory. The U.S. government must continue the war on terror by weakening militant Islam everywhere it exists, from Afghanistan to Atlanta.
During the second U.S. war with Iraq in 2003, Daniel Pipes wrote an article (New York Post Apr 8, 2003) about why he did not think an allied victory in Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism. He gave the example of Afghanistan and wrote:
The U.S. victory diminished the appeal of militant Islam. "The commitment of fanatics tends to melt away when they see their cause losing," explained Stuart Taylor, Jr. of the National Journal just as this phenomenon was happening.
In the first week after the U.S. airstrikes began, there were nine anti-American demonstrations in Arab countries. The second week saw three; the third week, one; the fourth week, two; then zero. Muslim anger turned against bin Laden, accusing him even of being a Zionist agent sent to discredit Islam. Governments felt emboldened to crack down on militant Islam; Pakistani authorities, for instance, closed hundreds of offices and arrested more than 2,000 people...
As bin Laden himself put it, "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." An allied victory will establish who the strong horse is, diminishing the ardor of its enemies to fight.
Charles Krauthammer in his article "Victory Changes Everything" (Washington Post 12/4/01?) wrote in regard to the war in Afghanistan:
Hundreds of holy warriors lie dead in a prison near Mazar-e Sharif. Ramadan is violated by the hail of American bombs. Infidel Americans land in force on Muslim soil near Kandahar. "We now own a piece of Afghanistan," says Brig.Gen. James Mattis.
Just weeks ago the Middle East experts were warning that such violations of Islamic sensibilities would cause an explosion of anti-Americanism. Where, then, is the vaunted "Arab street," the pro-Osama demonstrations, the anti-American riots? Where are the seething masses rising up against America and its nominal allies from Egypt to Pakistan?
Nowhere to be seen. Bin Laden T-shirts are going begging in Peshawar. The street is silent...
The Arab street has fallen silent not because the president hosted Muslim envoys for a White House Iftar dinner. Nor because American children convinced their Muslim pen pals of our goodwill toward Islam. But because the United States astonished the street with one of history's great shows of arms: destroying a regime 7,000 miles away, landlocked and far from American bases, solely with air power and a few soldiers on the ground -- and with but a single combat death (thus far).
Krauthammer in an article called The Hundred Days (Time, December 31, 2001-January 7, 2002) wrote:
Yemen...would not give us the time of day in the investigation of the Cole. Indeed, it impeded us. That was then. Last week Yemen suddenly launched attacks on its own al-Qaeda camps. Yemen joins the war on terrorism? This is new. This is news. And it comes not from love of America. It comes from deep fear and newfound respect.
Senator Connie Mack's Speech On Appeasement in the Middle East (Feb or March 1999)
U.S. Senator Connie Mack (R-FL) tonight condemned the Palestinian leadership for failing to abandon the incitement of hatred, persecution and terrorism toward Israel and called President Clintons current policy towards the Middle East foolish appeasement. Mack said: How is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who maintain the right of obliteration, the feeling of hatred, or with people who harbor the dream of one day destroying another people? Peace is a matter of the heart. I believe in the depths of every persons heart is a desire to live in peace. But what I saw which was the outcome of Palestinian Authority rule convinced me that hearts and minds are set on other goals. The Palestinian leadership does not want peace they want, first their own state, which they can control with total power. Then they want to use that state to eliminate the State of Israel.Lets be clear. The peace process, to be meaningful, must be about more than rules and laws and lines on maps. We can reach a short-term agreement on these points. But if the Palestinian leadership fails to abandon incitement of hatred, persecution, and terrorism, then we are all dreaming only dreaming. And our Presidents behavior must be labeled foolish appeasement. Today, the Israeli people are exhausted by fifty years of violence against their homes and families of sending their sons and daughters into the army and they dream of a promised peace now. This is our hope and our dream. But we must not get confused. History is replete with examples of compromises which bring terror and destroy dreams.In the United States, many people seem to think that if we do not confront these obstacles to peace, and if we look the other way, then we will be able to come to an agreement. The reality, however, is just the opposite. If we dont acknowledge the attitudes and acts of those at the peace table, then the peace process is over already and we just wont admit it. In other words, the surest way to kill the peace process is to avoid confrontation, to fear upsetting a belligerent force, and to avoid addressing incitement, violence,persecution and terrorism. The only way to keep the peace process alive is to focus on truth, freedom, security and justice. The United States must demonstrate principled leadership and end the appeasement that perpetuates the cycle of violence....We should do three things: First, we should insist upon the strict adherence to Oslo and the reciprocity codified at Wye. Second, we should stop paying Arafat. And third,we must aggressively seek the bringing of Palestinian terrorists who kill American citizens.These are very basic principles. Now is the time for a return to our principled stand that the only way to truly attain peace is to support freedom, democracy, and justice and oppose the cycle of hatred. We must face tyranny and oppression where it exists, condemn it, and stand up for peace real peace based on security, freedom and a change of heart.
American policy in many parts of the world has been a policy of appeasement disguised as a policy of peacemaking. The United States has been arming both sides of the Middle East Conflict. It has been bribing Arab countries to make peace agreements with Israel, with arms. Both Egypt and Jordan have been sold the best American fighter jets. Egypt now manufactures the American Abrams tank. What America has done is told the Arab countries, if you sign a peace agreement with Israel we will arm you. American policy makers never ask themselves, "If the Arabs intend to make peace with Israel, why do we have to bribe them with arms?" Of course making the Arab countries more powerful increases the chances that they will attack Israel. As the Egyptians do joint exercises with the Americans their defense minister makes statements about war with Israel. So in order to bring peace to the Middle East, America is increasing the chance of war there. In addition tunnels originating in Egypt are used to smuggle arms to terrorists in Gaza from the Sinai desert. (Egypt's Heling Hand For Terror, P. David Hornik, FrontPageMagazine.com) According to Israeli intelligence Israel the Palestinians are planning to use tunnels to smuggle in Stingers, anti-aircraft missiles that could shoot down attack helicopters Israel often uses in Gaza, and could also threaten Israeli warplanes or civilian aircraft flying close to the coastal strip. In addition, the Palestinians were trying to smuggle Katyusha rockets, which would have the range to hit Israeli cities near Gaza. ("Army enters Rafah to demolish tunnels; four Palestinians killed" Associated Press 10/10/03)
An appalling example of appeasement of terrorists was the behavior of the Clinton administration to Stephen Flatow. His daughter, Alisa Flatow was killed in Gaza by Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorists. During his re-election campaign, President Clinton signed a law giving Stephen the right to sue the Iranian government for its role in the murder. After Flatow won a $247-million judgment in court, Clinton invoked a "national security waiver" that prevents him from enforcing it.
Amir Taheri gave some examples of the craven appeasement of the West in an article in the New York Post (The Mullah's Shock 9/7/03). He wrote:
On many occasions, EU states have ignored their laws to
let Iranian suspects escape police arrest. In 1996, a Berlin court issued an arrest
warrant for Ali Fallahian, a mullah who was the Islamic Republic's Minister for
intelligence and Security at the time. Fallahian had been charged with participation in
the murder of four Kurdish dissidents in Berlin in 1992. At the time the warrant was
issued, Fallahian was visiting Germany at the invitation of his counterpart, Brend
Schmidbauer. Learning of the warrant, the German authorities arranged for the mullah to
fly back to Tehran before the police arrived.
The French have done even better. In 1994, Prime Minister Eduarad Baladur ignored a Swiss demand for the extradition of two Iranians charged with political murders in Switzerland and helped them fly back to Tehran - first class.
Before that, in 1986, President François Mitterrand allowed Tehran's key terror agent in Europe to return home without answering any questions by the French government's own anti-terrorist judges.
Even earlier, the Italian government ignored the fact that Tehran's embassy in the Vatican had become a center of terrorism in Europe. Four Iranians involved in a series of assassinations in Italy were never troubled, although they had been called in for questioning by Italian courts.
Britain's own record wasn't so bright. John Major's government allowed an Iranian agent, convicted by a British court of murdering two Iranian dissidents in London, to return home after serving half of a three-year prison term. The man was received as a hero in Tehran and, when he became a candidate for parliament, based his campaign on his success in "eliminating two evil anti-Islamic elements" in Britain. There are similar cases concerning other European countries.
Crawling in front of terrorists and arming hostile countries does not bring peace. Peace without honor is no peace at all. American policy toward Iraq after the Gulf War has been one of appeasement. George Will in his column "When The World Is Wrong" (New York Post Nov 1, 2001) wrote that on the afternoon of June 7th, 1981 Israel sent eight Israeli F16s to Iraq where they destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. They did this after learning that Iraq was about to receive a shipment of enriched uranium for the reactor, enough to build four Hiroshima size bombs. After the destruction of the reactor the U.S. State Department said that Israel's destruction of the reactor jeopardized the "peace process" and that relations with Israel were being "reassessed" and suspended deliveries of military equipment including F16s to Israel. The commander of the Israeli air force at the time of the attack on the Osirak reactor was David Ivry. George Will writes:
Today on Ivry's embassy office wall there is a large black and white photograph taken by satellite 10 years after the raid, at the time of the Gulf War . It shows the wreckage of the huge reactor complex, which is still surrounded by a high, thick wall that was supposed to protect it. Trees are growing where the reactor dome had been.
The picture had this handwritten inscription. "For General David Ivry, with thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job he did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981 -- which made our job much easier in Desert Storm." The author of the inscription signed it: "Dick Cheney, Sec. of Defense 1989-93."
Former Head of Air Force Intelligence, Maj. Gen. (ret.) George Keegan said that Israel was worth 5 CIAs to America for on-ground Intelligence which Israel funnels to the U.S. During the Gulf War Israel gave the United States valuable intelligence on Iraq which probably saved many American lives. General Dugan, who publicly thanked Israel for this was summarily fired the next day by General Powell and President Bush, Sr.
The United States finally went to war with Iraq and deposed Saddam but then allowed a radical anti-American Islamic military to take form the country. Amir Taheri in an article titled "Time To take Off the Gloves" (NYPost 4/9/04) wrote that:
It is a mystery why the Coalition allowed the Saddamites the luxury of a safe haven in which to regoup, rearm and plot attacks against the Americans Ramadi and other towns where the Coalition kept a low profile have also attracted a motley crowd of professional criminals, contrabandists, and more recently self styled jihadists from outside Iraq....
Why the Coalition allowed Sadr to organize his militia and carve off a fiefdom in parts of Baghdad is also a mystery.
Ralph Peters wrote about how the coalition refused the offer of assistance from the Kurds. He wrote regarding the Kurdish offer (NYPost 4/9/04):
It's madness to turn down the help of capable allies just to make our enemies happy. And it's going to cost us still more American lives.
Instead of eliminating Sadr the U.S. let him into the government reasoning that he had a lot of popular support. It seems to me that Maliki the prime minister did what Sadr wanted him to do which was to order U.S. troops to kill Sunnis. The U.S. complied in order to "stabilize" Iraq and quell civil war. The U.S. idea was not to act against the wishes of the Iraqi government.
Although U.S. soldiers became a militia for the Shiites that didn't stop Shiites from shooting at them. In response to the defeat of U.S. goals in Iraq a U.S. commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker recommended that the U.S. ask Syria and Iran to help stabilize Iraq and offer to pressure Israel out of the Golan as a reward. (worldnetdaily 12/6/06)
"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin.
According to Abu Abdullah, a senior leader of Hamas' so-called military wing, Baker's report is a victory for Islam brought about by "Allah and his angels."
"It is not just a simple victory. It is a great one. The big superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen (fighters). Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that was carrying every American soldier?" exclaimed Abu Abdullah, who is considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department.
"It is no doubt that Allah and his angels were fighting with them (insurgents) against the Americans. It is a sign to all those who keep saying that America, Israel and the West in general cannot be defeated on the ground so let us negotiate with them," Abu Abdullah said.
Abu Abdullah said following a withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. will be defeated on its own soil.
"America must understand that with anti-American governments in Latin America and with Islam growing and reinforcing, including in the U.S. itself, the next step would be a total defeat on their (American) land, not a relative one like they are facing in Iraq," he said.
Abu Nasser, the second-in-command of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group in the West Bank, called the Iraq Study Group report a "great victory" from which other jihadist organizations can learn.
"The Iraqi victory is a great message and lesson to the revolutionary and freedom movements in the world. Just to think that this resistance is led by hundreds of Sunni fighters who defeated hundreds of thousands of Americans, British and thousands of soldiers who belong to the puppet regime in Baghdad. What would be the situation if the Shiites will decide to join the resistance?" commented Abu Nasser.
Baker may believe that if Israel is gone the Arab world will not hate the West anymore. Even a man as stupid as Baker must realize that by ceding the Golan Israel jeopardizes her security.
After the attack on the World Trade Center of Sept 11, 01, Prince Alaweed Ibin Talal a nephew of Saudi King Fahd, offered Giuliani a 10 million dollar donation. Giuliani turned down the money after the prince said that the United States must now change its policy in the Middle East and be "more balanced towards the Palestinian cause... our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of Israelis while the world turns the other cheek." Giuliani rejected this position outright, saying, "To suggest that there's a justification for [the attacks] only invites this happening in the future. It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous. And one of the reasons I think this happened is because people were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism. So I think not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem." Morally bankrupt appeasing U.S. federal government officials were quick to issue a statement distancing themselves from the mayor's decision.(Arutz 7 Oct 12, 01)
Although U.S. policy after the attack on the World Trade Center is to target bin Laden and drop bombs on the Taliban The State Department demanded that Israel refrain from ever entering Palestinian Authority-controlled territory in pursuit of terrorists( New York Times, Oct. 22, 2001). The State Department made this demand after Israel entered Palestinian Authority controlled territory in pursuit of the killers of Rechavaam Zeevi. This demand besides being the height of hypocrisy is contrary to the Oslo Accords Oslo II, Article X, Par.4 states that despite the withdrawal of Israeli troops from some parts of Judea-Samaria and Gaza, in those areas "Israel shall continue to carry the responsibility for external security as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order." Oslo II, Annex I, Article XI, Par. (a) & (b) state that in any area "where Israeli authorities exercise their security functions," Israel has the right to undertake "engagement steps" that are "aimed at preventing or terminating" any "act or incident constituting a danger to life or property." Israel may "take any measures necessary to bring to an end such an act or incident."
The United States often expresses concern when Israel goes after terrorists in Palestinian towns but according to Rafie al Issawi, a doctor at Fallujah General Hospital a strike by U.S. planes killed 26 Iraqis including women and children and wounded 30 others. This was a strike on 4 houses by American forces (New York Post 4/7/04)
In a speech in Washington on September 20 at a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee Tom Lantos, Democrat from California said:
Some months ago I introduced a piece of legislation calling for the government of Lebanon to secure its entire border with Israel, not allowing Hezbollah to engage in cross-border terrorist strikes. The Department of State saw fit just a few months ago to send two letters to all of my colleagues urging them to oppose my amendment and not to vote for it. It passed by the narrowest of margins: 216 to 212.
A minimal requirement of any peace process is compliance with existing agreements. On September 28, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in order to stop an amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill, which was due for a final reading after already having achieved a majority in the House of Representatives, sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In the letter Powell stated:
The Palestinian compliance legislation you introduced with Senator McConnell would be counterproductive to our coalition-building and peace process efforts and we would like to see it withdrawn The bottom line is that we agree with the need for the Palestinians to comply with their commitments and control the violence... But in this critical period I ask you not to tie the President's hands and restrict our ability to engage with both parties to help achieve these goals.
John Podhoretz in an article General Zinni, Won't You Please Stay Home, (New York Post Jan 11, 02) wrote that
You can't broker a cease-fire when one of the two parties to that cease fire doesn't want to cease firing.
Iran has threatened to blow up Israel with nuclear weapons once it has them and Iran is well on the way to producing them. In addition the likelihood of Iran giving such weapons to Islamic terrorists to use against the enemies of Islam e.g. the United States is very high. Iran is sending massive numbers of agents into Iraq in order to make sure it becomes a pro-Iranian anti-American Islamic state. An Iranian opposition group, called the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) have over 3,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq, dedicated to one goal: overthrowing its "archenemy," the Islamic Republic of Iran. To curry favor with Iranian "moderates" the State Department in 1997 designated MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Although 150 members of Congress publicly opposed this designation, a U.S. court of appeals upheld it. On April 5, 2003, the U.S. army signed a cease-fire permitting the MEK to keep its weapons and use them against Iranian regime infiltrators into Iraq. This deal infuriated the State Department which then convinced the president to undo it (A Terrorist U.S. Ally?, Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson, New York Post 5/20/03). Although the State Department is afraid to anger Iran by supporting its enemies Iran has no such fear when it comes to supporting the enemies of the United States. Amir Taheri in an OPED "Afghanistan Aboil" (New York Post 7/2/03) wrote that:
...the Mullahs of Tehran have allowed the Taliban to use Iranian border areas to regroup... Tehran has helped create a 10,000 man army of Hazara Shiites in Bamiyan and Maydanshahr, in central Afghanistan. This is twice the size of the new Afghan national army created by the United States in Kabul.
Joel Mobray in an article in the Washington Times called A Tangled Web (July 6, 03) wrote:
As a sop to the thugs running Iran, the State Department's number two official, Richard Armitage, called the nation a "democracy" in February. Even while the White House is supporting the thousands of protesters, Secretary of State Colin Powell last Wednesday called President Mohammad Khatami "freely elected." But considering that the ruling mullahs rejected 234 of the other 237 candidates who wanted to compete with Mr. Khatami, calling the puppet of the mullahs "freely elected" is a not-so-subtle jab at the president's description of Mr. Khatami and the mullahs as the "unelected few."
Iran is not an isolated example. The commander in chief has been repeatedly undermined, both directly and indirectly. The State Department careerists ? apparently under the orders of Mr. Armitage ? tried to pressure auditors to help "shut down" the pro-democracy Iraqi National Congress, even though President Bush has explicitly ? and repeatedly ? supported the INC. And lest we forget, this spring State concealed for three weeks North Korea's stunning admission that it had started reprocessing plutonium. Because the State Department did not want North Korea's declaration to derail scheduled talks, even the White House was kept in the dark.
The State Department's harmful policies of appeasement are discussed further on the Creation of Delusion web page.
On December 3, 1984, Charles Hegna, a 17 year veteran of diplomatic posting in the State Department was killed by Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists aboard Kuwaiti Airlines Flight 221. After telling the terrorists he was an American, he was shot in the stomach and thrown from the plane on the tarmac in Tehran. According to the New York Post the State Department has been blocking Mr. Hegna's relatives from getting compensation from Iran: (6/30/03)
More than 18 years later his widow, Edwena, and their four children are still battling for compensation....
After Congress passed a law in 1998 allowing families of terror victims to access the frozen assets of rogue states, the Hegnas took Iran to court and won a $42 million judgment.
After the Bush administration said that victims of Iranian sponsored terror could finally access Iranian assets State Department lawyers filed court papers to block the Hegnas again.
The U.S. govt also interfered with a lawsuit for compensation of American victims of the Mumbai massacre. The Indian statement was in response to an affidavit filed in a US court earlier in the week in which the US government said Pakistan’s ISI and its former chiefs, Ahmed Shuja Pasha and Nadeem Taj, “enjoy immunity” in the Mumbai attacks.
In order to create an Islamic coalition against Bin Laden, George Bush has been making concessions to Islamic States. Bush declared his backing for a Palestinian state (New York Post, Oct 3, 2001). Joseph Farah wrote the following about this in World Net Daily Oct 3 01:
Viewed through the eyes of the Islamic world, President Bush's announcement that he favors the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive Middle East peace initiative can only be seen as a huge strategic victory for terrorism...
The message is loud and clear: Keep up the violence, intensify it, keep raising the stakes, make the U.S. pay a price and your demands will be met...
Bush's decision will result in more bloodshed beyond our imaginations. It will result in more terrorism in the U.S. - much more deadly even than what we witnessed Sept. 11.
This is worse than negotiating with terrorists. This is unconditional surrender to them...It no longer matters what the U.S. does to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. He has already won the war. He has managed to enshrine himself as the hero to hundreds of millions of radical Muslims worldwide whose goal is - and always has been - the destruction of the Jewish state and, ultimately, Islamic hegemony over the whole world. Alive, he will be a hero. Dead, he has achieved martyrdom status.
Shortly after Bush's announcement, Arafat increased the violence verifying Farah's assessment. Sharon reacted by warning the United States (New York Post 10/5/01):
Do not appease the Arabs at our expense. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia.
He also said (Karin Laub, The Associated Press (Sharon to U.S.: Don't placate the Arabs
at Israel's expense
I call on the Western democracies and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: `Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense,"'
Czechoslovakia was overrun by Nazi Germany in 1938 after British and French leaders decided at the infamous Munich conference to appease Hitler, in a futile attempt to avoid war.
The United States in order to get Arab support for its planned attack on Iraq has been pressuring Israel to make concessions to the PLO. Frank Gaffney in his article (The Inconvenient Ally Freeman Center Broadcast, March 19, 02) wrote:
Tragically, efforts aimed at appeasing the Arab states by compelling Israel once again to make herself vulnerable to attack will catalyze the Arabs' appetite for war, all right, but not against Saddam Hussein. Like appeasement at Czech expense over sixty-years ago, it will more likely encourage them to engage in aggression against -- and even perhaps precipitate the destruction of -- a freedom-loving nation that made the mistake of becoming an inconvenient ally.
George Will in his column Siding with Terror (New York Post 3/26/02) wrote that:
The war on terrorism is suddenly going terribly wrong.
Suicide bombers serving Yasser Arafat, the world's senior and most successful terrorist, have caused U.S. policy in the Middle East to buckle and become more accommodating. So more than six months into the war on terror, terror is more vindicated as a tactic than ever before.
After daily suicide bombings Israeli forces entered Judea and Samaria to clean out the terrorists hiding there. President Bush insisted that they withdraw. The suicide attacks resumed shortly after.
After Israelis killed Shehadah a top man in Hamas and some civilians died when Israel destroyed his house, Israel buckled under mounting International Pressure and released 15 million dollars to the Palestinian Authority. On July 31, 02, I was looking at the Breaking News ticker of the online New York Post. The first item was Jerusalem University Hit by Blast. The item immediately following it was Israel Transfers $15M to Palestinians. Apparently giving millions of dollars to the Palestinians to appease them did not result in peaceful behavior on their part. Israel never learns.
The United States came out with a roadmap for peace in the Middle East and pressured Israel into accepting it. That roadmap forces Israel to accept the creation of a Palestinian State and makes it much harder for Israel to defend herself against terrorist attacks. The lesson learned by the Arabs, "Terrorism Pays". In reaction to Israel's collapse to American pressure, Hizbullah has called on their Muslim brethren to continue their terrorist activities, since the suicide attacks have achieved the "victory" over Sharon and Israel. (Arutz 7 Radio English Program, Ruth Matar 5/28/03)
Much of the European Press has legitimized Arab terror against Israel. Chen Keinan, whose mother and baby daughter were murdered in a terrorist attack in Petach Tikvah in May 2002, said in a CNN interview to European audiences:
You're next buddies... You are appeasing terrorism! ... The more fear you show, the faster it's going to be on your doorstep - and then, G-d help you, because you gave it legitimacy."
Previously I mentioned how rewarding behavior reinforces it. The Saudis reward American appeasement with money. Daniel Pipes in a hearing before the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives (June 12, 2002) titled "Should the United States Do More to Help U.S. Citizens Held against Their Will in Saudi Arabia?" spoke about several ways in which the United States appeases the Saudis and said that the U.S. even breaks their own laws to appease the Saudis. One explanation for this given by Dr. Pipes is Saudi bribes. Dr. Pipes said:
One finds over and over again that Americans in position of authority are acquiescing or even preemptively acquiescing to what they imagine the Saudis would like. An answer to why this is happening can be found in a statement by the current Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He said the following, and this was quoted in the Washington Post of the 11th of February, 2002. He boasts of his success cultivating powerful Americans who deal with Saudi Arabia. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office, you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."
The heart of the problem is a very human one. Americans in position of authority bend the rules and break with standard practice out of personal greed. One finds over and over again that old Saudi hands are doing very well once they leave office. Over and over again, ambassadors-and I give names in my testimony-are now in positions of authority. Two or three of the individuals mentioned previously here today are in my testimony-Walter Cutler, Edward Walker, Wyche Fowler. Former Ambassador Horan has noted this pattern. Others have noted it.
Another page on this web site that discusses appeasement is the Creation of Delusion page. An outstanding article about Middle East appeasement was written by Max Boot for the Weekly Standard ("The End of Appeasement" The Weekly Standard 2/10/03)
c o p y r i g h t ( c ) 1 9 9 c 9 - 2004 Karl Ericson Enterprises. All rights reserved
Hit counter started 3/12/04
Table of Contents