what are the consequences? (my view too)

  1. 5,748 Posts.
    What are the Consequences?
    Tovia Singer
    04 June 2003

    Question:

    Can the Prime Minister of Israel stand up to the United States, given the debt he owes the US for standing with him? What do you feel would be the consequences? Could Israel withstand these consequences?

    Answer:

    While campaigning for president, George W. Bush repeatedly promised America that, if elected, his administration would never pressure the Jewish State in the manner of his predecessor. It would “only make suggestions,” he assured voters. That important promise meant a lot to Americans who were deeply concerned about the reckless manner in which President Clinton pushed his deadly vision for “peace” in the Middle East. It was a promise, however, that Bush would never keep.

    Quite the contrary, no sitting president in US history ever unilaterally called for a Palestinian State, and no previous US administration ever demanded that Israel “willingly” accept a document inspired by Israel’s most implacable enemy, Saudi Arabia. Yet, apparently, Prime Minister Sharon is having great difficulty withstanding the crushing pressure that the Bush administration is applying to his bewildered country.

    To make matters worse, Israel is crawling through one of its worst economic crises in its young history, and Bush knows it. Its once flourishing tourism industry was shattered by a crushing, low-grade war, brought on by America’s not-too-ingenious “peace” initiatives of the past decade. Reckless schemes from Madrid to Oslo engulfed the Jewish State in a bitter conflict that not only produced thousands of grieving Jewish families, but countless empty Israeli hotel rooms as well.

    Bear in mind, the intifada was born out of high expectations in the Arab world that were conceived in the Pentagon, and went unsatisfied. The Arabs have a laundry list of demands that they thought America’s “peace” initiatives might deliver. They insist on sovereignty over all of ancient Jerusalem, and dream of the day their “refugees” flood Israeli cities like Yafo and Haifa, and bring an end to a Jewish homeland. In the end, the Arabs were disappointed, so they launched their intifada, which exterminated more than 1,000 innocent Jewish lives and devastated Israel’s promising economy.

    Now more than ever, Israel must challenge the PLO in the manner that the US confronted the Taliban: on the battlefield. When Bush declared that he would not negotiate with the monsters who destroyed 3,000 innocent American lives on that horrible Tuesday morning on 9/11, he was directing his country on a firm course for success. The debacle of limited Vietnam-type military campaigns would not be repeated. America’s new enemies in the Middle East would be brought to their knees.

    Although the US has, to this date, not veered from that unyielding road map in its own relationship with terrorists, the same American administration demands that Israel never take that path. Instead, Bush slapped on Israel’s little table a non-negotiable Road Map and demanded a Jewish signature. In one fell swoop, he unwittingly adopted the well-worn European mind-set that Jews can be ordered where they may and may not live. Needless to say, the eerie parallelism to the dark ages of the mid-19th century are chilling, and the Europeans love it.

    Does Israel’s sovereignty permit the Jewish state to destroy Arab organizations that commit ethnic genocide against the children of Israel? History says that it has no choice. Does the Prime Minister of Israel have the obligation to protect his terrified citizens from Arab executioners? That is Sharon’s mandate. Will the Bush Administration threaten sanctions against Israel should it refuse to comply with a plan for a Palestinian state by the end of the year? There is no doubt. Would the American people permit its government to choke the beleaguered Jewish State? Not on your life.

    Americans are still mourning the dead who perished together in lower Manhattan, and recall as though it were yesterday when Palestinians danced on their streets in raw celebration over the destruction of the World Trade Center. Americans have a deep love for Israel that is only strengthened by our shared moral principals. After all, both the US and Israel were born out of the same crucible: We were both fleeing European intolerance. We are sister countries; Israel can say “No” to her well-heeled sibling.

    Moreover, a presidential election year is around the corner, and if Bush lifts a finger against America’s only friend in the Middle East, his core constituency - patriotic, conservative Americans - will stay home election day. Israel can say “No” to the nervous Bush administration.

    Finally, thanks to the American constitution, the Executive branch cannot act unilaterally. Given that both Houses of Congress are more pro-Israel than the Knesset, Sharon has little to worry about. The unwavering notion of an eternal, undivided Jewish Jerusalem has become more popular in Washington than in Jerusalem. Israel can say “No” to the president, and the halls of Congress will applaud.

    No doubt, London is demanding from Washington that British loyalty during the recent Persian Gulf War be rewarded in Israeli currency. Sharon must now dig deep, real deep, and courageously declare to Powell and Blair that the PLO are little more than the Taliban with a public relations firm, and Israel has a job to do in Ramallah. Israel can say “No” to the State Department and its European coddlers, and the American people will applaud.

    The question that now remains, is Sharon ready for the ovations?

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.