Courtesy of SOROS
Conflicts of Interest
Lee Underwood
First, let me say that our prayers go out to all those affected by the recent terrorist attack here in the United States.
While it seems that the death toll may not be as high as first believed (10,000-20,000+), it will, nevertheless, be
devastating. We are located in Florida and, while it is quite a distance from New York City, we have still felt the shock
of this tragic event down here.
Since this news service focuses on Israel, I want to look at this from that point-of-view. Please do not think I am
minimizing this tragedy. I am merely trying to put it into focus with what has been going on in Israel for the past year,
and even before that.
In the last few days I have watched this nation go through shock, disbelief, and anger. The most striking aspect is the
response of the nation's leaders. US President George W. Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield, Secretary of State Colin
Powell and many congressmen and senators have called for the US to declare war on the terrorists (although they are not
"exactly" sure who the terrorists are as yet). Bush has even stated that this would now be the focus of his entire
administration. Within the enormity of this tragedy, we must still put it in its proper perspective.
Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe summed it up in a very concise manner: "Now that it has happened to us, the White House
is not calling for 'restraint.' The State Department is not concerned about 'escalating the cycle of violence.' There are
no editorials imploring the parties to conduct a 'peace process' and 'sit down at the negotiating table.' Now that it has
happened to us, the TV anchors are calling them terrorists, not 'militants' or 'activists.' Washington is not being warned
to avoid a 'provocative' response, or cautioned against retaliation that is 'excessive and disproportionate.'"[1]
For several years now the US administration has been asking (many times demanding) that Israel not retaliate against
terrorists (i.e. PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Hizb'Allah, Islamic Jihad). Especially recently, before the dust could settle, the Bush
administration has asked that Israel not respond with force to terrorist attacks; rather it must sit down and negotiate
with the terrorists who ordered the attack.
Bush has said that the US will go after all the terrorist leaders involved in the US attack and kill them. However, one
month ago US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher repeated the long-standing US position that it opposes the Israeli
government's policy of killing Palestinian terrorist leaders. When 21 persons [18 of whom were between 14 and 18 years of
age] were killed in Tel Aviv last June, the Bush administration condemned the attack, but never suggested Israel should
after the terrorist leaders and kill them. (On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents detonated a bomb in La Belle Disco in West
Berlin, Germany; it killed two US soldiers and a Turkish woman. On 7 April, US President Ronald Reagan ordered an air
strike against Libya "in principle." On 14-15 April 1986 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' took place: Air Force F-111Fs bombed
targets in Tripoli and Navy A-6Es bombed targets in and around Benghazi. The combined Air Force-Navy raid resulted in 130
civilian casualties with 37 killed.[2])
After the Gulf War, the US and its allies realized the importance of getting Israel to sign peace agreements with her Arab
neighbors. During the War, Israel had been the odd-man out. There had been a US/UN-led coalition (including many Arab
nations) against Iraq. Israel was not invited to participate. In fact, when Iraq began bombing Israel, US President George
Bush Sr. implored Israel not to retaliate. Any act by Israel could have caused a break-up in the coalition with the Arab
states siding with Iraq. The Bush administration was convinced the Arab states would not support a war against Iraq if
Israel were involved, regardless of the justification. (Israel was hit by 39 Iraqi Scud missiles which damaged more than
3,300 apartments and other buildings in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Two persons died as a direct result of the Scud attacks, while
another 72 deaths were attributed to the attacks. The Israeli economy took a net loss of $3.2 billion, while the increased
military budget cost Israel an additional $500 million.)
In enduring months of domestic terrorism, Israel has been saying that no other country would tolerate such a horrifying
threat to the safety of its citizens. But international voices decried Israel's policies of pre-emptive defense. Now that
the rest of the world better understands the problem, it will hopefully appreciate Israel’s need to take measures to
protect its citizens from Palestinian terror. Indeed, Israeli targeted killings will look tame compared to the expected
American military response. This situation is mindful of world condemnation when Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in
1981. Ten years later, when Western forces squared off against Saddam Hussein, there was great appreciation for Israel’s
foresight in eliminating the Iraqi nuclear threat.
According to a CBS poll, two-thirds of Americans think the US should retaliate even if innocent people are killed.
Contrast this to world reaction when Israel surgically eliminates Palestinian terrorists, and an innocent bystander is
occasionally killed as well. Why is Israel subject to a double-standard?[3]
It is particularly disturbing, in view of this demonstration of the lack of limits to which Arab terror is prepared to go,
that Secretary Colin Powell can still suggest that Israel enter into negotiations with those terrorists who are murdering
Israelis every day in Israel. How would Powell feel were Sharon to tell him that, in spite of the horrible and despicable
violence in New York City and Washington D.C., the United States must show restraint and not escalate the cycle of
violence? And, further, how would he feel were it to be suggested that the United States enter into negotiations with
Bin-Laden, or whoever the perpetrator turns out to be, in order to put an end to the violence? Of course such a suggestion
would smack of cynicism. Of course it would be an outrageous suggestion. Yet this is precisely what the US State Department
is requesting of Israel![4]
An interesting note: We hear many pundits and administration spokesmen naming names - Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq. Yet,
I haven't heard a one of them mention the home state of the chief suspect - Osama bin Laden. He's not an Afghani, by the
way. He's a Saudi - and that's where his support comes from. That's where his money comes from. That's his lifeline -
oil-rich, "moderate" Saudi Arabia. Is Washington prepared to issue ultimatums to Mecca? If not, why not? The answer, of
course, is oil.[5] |
