[sixties-l] (no subject)

From: David Horowitz (Dhorowitz@earthlink.net)
Date: 10/07/00

  • Next message: radman: "[sixties-l] Mercy for a Terrorist? [SLA]"

    A different view is of course heresy on this list, but here's one Paula might
    think about:
    > >From The Washington Post
    >  Friday, Oct. 6, 2000
    >  Arafat's War
    >  By Charles Krauthammer
    >  Friday, October 6, 2000; Page A31
    > Fighting has broken out in the Middle East, we read. This use of passive
    >  phrasing, almost universal in media reports on the violence in Israel, is
    > a way of deliberately expressing agnosticism about the cause of the
    > fighting. It is a scandal. It is akin to writing that on Sept. 1, 1939, war
    > "broke
    > out" on the German-Polish frontier.
    >  Few wars break out spontaneously. And certainly not this one. Does anyone
    >  believe that Ehud Barak, who went to Camp David and offered the
    >  Palestinians peace terms of breathtaking generosity, would be starting a
    >  war? Does anyone believe that the most dovish government in Israeli
    >  history, feeling itself just inches away from concluding a permanent
    > peace, would initiate gun battles?
    >  The plain fact is that Yasser Arafat, thrown on the diplomatic defensive
    > by rejecting Barak's offer (to the astonishment and dismay of the American
    >  mediators), has done what he has always done: resort to violence to regain
    >  the initiative and, most important, mint new underage martyrs--on world
    >  television--to regain the international sympathy he had forfeited by
    >  turning down peace at Camp David.
    >  His pretext was that the Sept. 28 visit to the Temple Mount by Israel's
    >  leader of the opposition so offended Islam that the faithful erupted in
    >  violence. The audacity of this claim is astonishing. Yes, the Temple Mount
    >  is the third-holiest place in Islam. But it happens to be the single most
    >  holy place for Jews. Why does the Muslim claim so trump all others that
    >  Jews may not set foot on their most sacred site, their Mecca?
    >  The war that followed was as spontaneous as a Havana demonstration. The
    >  preacher at the al-Aqsa mosque called at Friday prayers to "eradicate the
    >  Jews from Palestine." Official Palestinian television began playing over
    >  and over archival footage of the Palestinian intifada of 1987-1993 showing
    >  young people out in the streets throwing stones.
    >  In case one still didn't get the message, Voice of Palestine radio began
    >  playing patriotic war songs. Arafat then closed the schools and declared a
    >  general strike, causing everyone to go out into the street. With Arafat's
    >  chief political lieutenant on the West Bank orchestrating the militias,
    > war then "broke out."
    >  The doves are stunned. Avraham Burg, speaker of the Israeli parliament and
    >  one of the architects of the Labor government's bend-over-backward peace
    >  proposals, writes perplexedly, pathetically: "Do we really understand what
    >  is going on? After everything was given, there are still demands on the
    >  other side."
    >  "Suddenly we discovered," he continues plaintively, "that what we mean by
    >  peace--which is mutual reconciliation--is not being met by the other
    > side."
    >  Suddenly? Where has he been for seven years? Seven years during which
    >  Arafat built his "police force" into a 40,000-man army now unleashed on
    >  Israel. Seven years during which Arafat repeatedly said that the peace
    >  process was one option and that if he did not get everything he wanted
    >  there was another. Seven years during which his state-controlled
    >  television, radio, newspapers and now children's textbooks inculcated in
    >  his people an antisemitism and anti-Zionism so virulent that it has
    >  succeeded in producing a new generation bred on reflexive hostility to
    > Israel.
    >  Seven years during which he repeatedly called for "jihad" for Jerusalem.
    >  Well, it has now arrived. That is the meaning of the current fighting.
    >  This is, as the Palestinians openly call it, a war for Jerusalem. Not, as
    >  the world press has reported endlessly and fatuously, an expression of
    >  Palestinian "frustration." Frustration with what? Israeli occupation? It
    >  ended years ago; 99 percent of Palestinians live under the rule of Yasser
    >  Arafat. Over territory? Barak has conceded virtually the entire West Bank.
    >  Over political subordination? Barak offered full recognition of the first
    >  independent Palestinian state in history.
    >  The Palestinians are less frustrated than emboldened. Emboldened by an
    >  Israeli government so desperate for peace it has given up "everything," as
    >  Burg admitted. Emboldened by the fecklessness of Burg and his colleagues,
    >  so impervious for so long to empirical evidence of Palestinian
    >  implacability that in this moment of supreme crisis they admit openly to
    >  disorientation.
    >  Emboldened by an American administration so craven that it refuses to
    >  condemn Arafat for cynically starting this war, indeed for repeatedly
    >  violating his single obligation under Oslo: the renunciation of violence.
    >  "After everything was given," laments Burg. Yes everything, except one
    > last thing: the Temple Mount. Why, Barak went wobbly even on that. He
    > offered
    > to relinquish sovereignty over Judaism's holiest site and internationalize
    > it
    >  under the U.N. Security Council.
    >  Arafat refused. He demands ownership--the audacity is breathtaking--of
    >  Judaism's holy of holies. Hence this war.
    >  It is not spontaneous. And it is not without direction. Arafat knows what
    >  he wants, and he is prepared to sacrifice as many of his own people as it
    >  takes to get it. Preferably on television.
    >   2000 The Washington Post Company

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/07/00 EDT