Zonder-- I am not an apologist for the US -certainly not Bush, and, in fact, I'm appalled at the limited repertoire of his responses. I am even more critical of his Welfare for the Wealthy domestic policies.
However, if you look at the job given to (and accepted by) the US, as policeman for the world, there are no easy solutions. Yet our primary responsibility is obviously self-interest. That compels us to accept repressive regimes and trade with them, because both the French and the Japanese will pounce into open markets. It is easy to be right, it is difficult to be effective in the realpolitik. Indeed, much of Iraqi nuclear development was done IN France--with the condition that French Jews not be permitted on the project. The morality of the French is identical to the morality of the mafia: That which makes money is good, and that which loses is bad. In addition, the world gives us the job of policeman while asking us to not interfere in their domestic policies. Why didn't Europe handle the Balkan disaster? Because they couldn't without the US. We certainly had no other reason to be there except for humanitarian objectives.
Policeman are forever unpopular (except in Finland) where they even have clear mandates. Given the foggy mandate of the US and our primary responsibility of self-interest, making enemies comes with the job. Our backing of Israel is one sided, and the Jewish right-wing lobby is powerful. However, the Palestinians have not presented themselves as a viable alternative for our backing. They negated the '47 UN mandate, and have repeatedly avoided any possibility of peace. If there were a responsible Palestinian to deal with, I think that both Israel and the US would back it. I moved to the right on this issue (along with Israelis) when the Barak proposal was rejected out of hand, and was not even mentioned in the Arab--including Palestinian-- press. Who could the US back in Palestine? You do not mention the repeated statements of our illustrious president <g> that he welcomes a Palestinian state.
Part of the reason that I find terrorism so abhorrent is that its goal is simply to kill. The joy that I saw in Palestine and in much of the Arab world on 9/11 was similar to the festive response of the crowds during a lynching of a Blacks in the ol' South. It was nauseating! I would be horrified if I read that thousands of innocent Arabs were killed by terrorists.Terrorism has no other goal than mayhem. It won't drive Israel to the sea, and it won't deter the US. It will, and has, led to more mayhem, as our response will, tragically, lead to deaths of innocent civilians. Why, then, isn't the Islamic world condeming terrorism more forcefully? It is easy to criticize the policeman, but who else can maintain security? Please don't say that we have to understand their hatred of the US. I don't give a shit. It's wrong to rejoice at the death of innocents!
Furthermore, much of the Arab world needs the strife in Israel and the animosity to the US to deflect attention from their own gross ineptitude and inequity. Why else would they fund the terrorists who, if otherwise directed, would be a threat to the Arab regimes? These governments fan hatred. Remember the Australian Muslim internet citation claiming that Israel was planning to nuke Mecca, the Dome on the Rock and other holy places. What destructive bullshit! This morning's TV had Netanyahu quote Palestinian textbooks stating that the highest goal was to be a suicide bomber and kill Israelis. I'm sure even Netanyahu has this one right, I've read this before. Why do the Palestinians allow this while claiming that they're the victims? Given the information that the Arabs believe --including that 9/11 was due to Israel -- how can we reason with them? We're on different planets.
If you could give a viable alternative to force in combating terrorism, I would welcome it. The ball is in your court on this one.
My quotes about the Jihad were from Bernard Lewis -- pre 9/11. The Muslims didn't leave Europe voluntarily. They had their butts kicked in Vienna, in Iberia, and in most of Europe. Power shifted dramatically in the 15th or so century to the West. What we're seeing now is the residue of the overwhelming shift of power to the west.
fred |
