Ultimately we are witness to pandemonium and confusion in the strategic defense thinking of Israel as a result of the reluctance of the leadership and society to exercise force. One of the pinnacles of the "post-security" cacophony is the saying adopted by Israeli "elite security circles" that "peace is security." This at a time when there is no genuine peace among the Arabs themselves (so how can they sell merchandise which is not in their possession to Israel, the foreign implant?); when the cold, sterile peace with Egypt is barely fit to be called peace; when the state of the conflict has never been worse; when the number of Israelis killed since the Oslo agreement is four times the number killed in the first long intifada; when "peace" according to the Arabs is no more than a formula for shrinking Israel to its "natural dimensions," in other words, a dangling limb dependent on Arab beneficence.

Under these circumstances, adopting the wretched slogan that only peace will bring security is conceptual bankruptcy. The distance to another superficial slogan, "territory and geography no longer have any significance in the age of missiles," is slight indeed. And why do geographical territory and secure borders have no signficance? Because, according to Peres, "Missiles do not stop at the border but pass over them."

When our enemies hear this nonsense and witness a mentally exhausted Israeli society which puts its trust in the Moloch of peace, they can only derive encouragement in their boldness to harass Israel. As to the question why Israel has lost its desire to fight and struggle and win, we will examine this later. (See Section 2 of this article in the next Outpost).

For the sake of intellectual honesty, it is appropriate to address briefly three additional claims sounded by those who recoil from struggle. First is the question "Will we forever live by the sword?" which, translated,means it is incumbent upon us to end the cycle of violence regardless of the conditions or cost. But life experience teaches us that the answer to this question is yes: the sword will continue to exact its price here for many more years. Nor is this dependent upon us. It is arrogance and foolishness to think that if we just lay down our sword, peace and tranquility will reign here.

The second claim is that "the solution is exclusively political and ultimately we will have to reach an agreement." But what agreement could possibly be signed with a chronic violator of all agreements who, in the Gulf War, betrayed even his Kuwaiti and Saudi brethren, who were his benefactors? And what agreement could possibly be in Israel's favor after a harsh conflict and violent confrontation in which Israel's deterrence capability has been severely shattered?

As to the third claim, the oft-repeated contention that "peace is made with enemies," this claim is only partially true. Peace is made with enemies, but only after they have been defeated or signficantly changed their conduct and character. "Peace" which is made with undefeated enemies, or those who have not changed their behavior, has no future and is dangerous, since for such a "peace," critical assets have been paid, assets which will be missing on the day of reckoning.

Funding Islamic Hate

Debbie Schlussel

The Rev. Jerry Falwell recently told Beliefnet.com, a religion website, that when it comes to applying for federal funds under President Bush's proposed faith-based initiatives program, "Islam should be out the door before they knock. ... The Moslem faith teaches hate."

Falwell was swiftly attacked by Muslim groups and was forced to apologize, explaining to USA Today that he meant that any group that is anti-Semitic, racist or in any way bigoted should be disqualified from the funds. He clearly told Beliefnet, "I think that when persons are clearly bigoted towards other persons in the human family, they should be disqualified from funds."

But my experience with President Bush's star Muslim recipient of the proposed funds--Imam Hassan Qazwini, religious leader of Detroit's Islamic Center of America mosque--illustrates that Falwell was right.

When he held his January press conference announcing the issuance of an executive order for the faith-based funds, President Bush featured Qazwini front and center, among the 35 religious leaders on stage with him. He introduced Qazwini, the only Muslim and Michigan's only religious representative at the White House press conference, as "my friend from Michigan." According to the Detroit Free Press, Qazwini met with Bush in Texas in December "to advise him on formulating the pair of executive orders issued" for federal funding of faith-based initiatives. Qazwini's mosque will certainly be a major recipient of the funds.

But Qazwini's receipt of tax-funds, let alone his close friendship with Bush and attendance at the White House, should disturb all Americans. When I attended Qazwini's mosque on November 15, 1998, it was one of the most frightening, hate-filled occasions I've ever experienced. On that day, at Qazwini's invitation, the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan spoke to the mosque's congregants and was received with a hero's welcome. Qazwini and Osama Siblani, editor of the Arab-American News, introduced Farrakhan as "our dear brother,"

[(Continued on p.8)]

April 2001               - 7 -               Outpost