[(Continued from p.10)]
ter, Peres maintains his international platform to make a fool of himself and his country. Speaking on February 20 to the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, in Jerusalem on a "leadership mission," Peres reiterated his policy of appeasement as the proper response to terrorism. "Who are we going to fight -- women and children? We cannot keep the Palestinians in a state of hunger and poverty. It is true that we have good cause -- security -- but where does it lead? You can kill a terrorist and, in doing so, cause others to support terrorism."Contrast this flapdoodle with General Norman Schwartkopf's response to a questioner who asked if he did not think there was room for forgiveness for the people who harbored and abetted the terrorists who perpetrated the September 11 attacks on America. Said Schwartzkopf: "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is to arrange the meeting."
The Jerusalem Post has provided some interesting details about the effort to clean up Arafat's image ap- parent in the conciliatory New York Times op-ed published under his name on February 3 and an "explanatory" letter sent in his name to Powell concerning the Karine A arms ship -- even while the real Arafat was applauding terrorist "martyrs" and calling for a million more "to converge on Jerusalem." The Post reports that European Union special Middle East envoy Miguel Moratinos and U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem Ronald Schlicher drafted the letter to Powell and that former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem Edward Abingdon authored his New York Times column. The Post duly notes that a U.S. State Department official has denied Schlicher's involvement while the office of Schlicher, who passed "Arafat's" letter to Powell, refuses to comment.
As Ronald Reagan once said, "There they go again." Although pundits have agreed that the events of September 11, 2001 have transformed the political landscape, when it comes to Israel, to quote Yogi Berra, it's deja vu all over again. Saudi Prince Abdullah has found a gullible audience in amateur Arabist Tom Friedman of the New York Times. (Friedman was temporarily thrown off course after September 11, actually declaring in his columns that the Saudis are the backers, funders, supporters and instigators of Al Qaeda, but it has not taken him long to hit his old single-minded anti-Israel stride.) And so Friedman is touting as a valuable new Arab "peace plan" Abdullah's announcement to him, in a recent interview, that Israel could gain recognition of its sovereignty from the entire Arab world in exchange for total withdrawal from all areas occupied in 1967, including Jerusalem. Secretary of State Powell has quickly been heard from, saying the Saudi "proposal" is "worth pursuing."
Now where and when have we heard this before? What is hilarious is that so many sober commentators are now atwitter about this clone of the 1969 Rogers Plan. It's the old chestnut pulled out of the fire every time Israel is actually winning -- a demand for retreat, surrender of strategic territory, and abandonment of legal and religious and historic rights.
After every single war, and make no mistake about it, there is a war going on in Israel, as soon as Israel rebounds, the Rogers Plan is taken out of the political trash bin, dusted off, and presented as a shiny new gift-wrapped peace plan. Under the new coat of paint is the same tired old nonsense that gives credibility to a mythical Arab desire to make peace with Israel. In 1967, after years of unrelenting terrorism, Egypt, Syria and Jordan prepared for a military onslaught that would drive the Jewish State into the sea once and for all. Israel preempted and won a brilliant victory which left it in control of the Sinai peninsula, Gaza, the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. In the immediate aftermath of the war, the Israeli national unity government itself offered a plan, antedating Rogers by almost two years, offering full withdrawal in exchange for peace, recognition and normal diplomatic relations. The unanimous Arab response was a resounding "no."
The UN came up with Resolution 242, calling for Israeli "withdrawal" (this was actually an improvement over the initial Israeli government offer, since 242 specified secure and recognized boundaries and did not specify withdrawal should be total), and the U.S. subsequently came up with the Rogers Plan, which went further than 242 in specifying that the 1949 borders should be restored with "insubstantial changes." All the plans remained on paper, with the Arab response a continuation of terror, economic blacklists and hatred.
In 1973, after a sneak attack on Israel by Egypt
[(Continued on p.12)]
For your convenience...
AFSI is now equipped to accept all credit
card payments for membership, books, and donations. Simply call the AFSI office:
212-828-2424, and AFSI will do the rest. |
March 2002 - 11 - Outpost