[(Continued from p.10)]
an ideal means of propitiating the Arab world by demonstrating evenhandedness and concern for the "plight of the Palestinians." It was George Shultz, known as a principled conservative, who formally gave U.S. recognition to Arafat and his PLO in December 1988 as one of his last acts as Secretary of State. Although the PLO briefly fell from grace again after an abortive attempt at slaughtering Israelis on a Tel Aviv beach in May 1990, by the time of the Clinton administration Arafat was back in full glory, the most frequently honored guest of the White House. Large numbers of Israelis and, for that matter, Palestinian Arabs had to die, Palestinian society had to be thrown into dire poverty, billions of dollars in aid had to be embezzled, and a whole slew of diplomatic initiatives had to be scuttled before President George W. Bush finally distanced the U.S. from Arafat -- but not from the PLO -- in 2002.But the group that was salvaged by Arafat probably more than any other was the Israeli Labor Party. After 1977, when conservative prime ministers began winning Israeli elections, Labor faced a dilemma like those that beset the left-wing in all democratic countries: how does one relate to a society in which one's status as the enlightened elite is no longer automatically recognized, in which leaders who openly voice nationalistic and even religious themes get elected instead, in which people whom one regards as the essence of vulgarity now run the country and are admired by masses of people like them? One well-known solution is to turn the perceptions of those unwashed masses and their leaders on their heads, to step further ahead of the pack, distinguish oneself more clearly, and proclaim that the country's enemies are actually friends and it is the country's own loathsome leaders who are actually the cause of war and suffering. For Labor, Arafat and the PLO were waiting and beckoning, the ideal egress from the dilemma. Today, in Israel, you can't go to the grocery store or the shopping mall without literally fearing for your life -- or, for that matter send your kids to the grocery store or the shopping mall without fearing for their lives -- and the one person basically responsible for it is Yasser Arafat. Yet when an Israeli government makes vague noises about finally doing something to end, or reduce, the Arafat menace, Labor lines up behind him to a man.
As I write this in Jerusalem, the terror-master Yasser Arafat still sits a few miles north of me in his compound, still waging his terror war, his life and freedom of action still considered sacred by world opinion. I think ahead to next year's Holocaust Day in April. What will Arafat's fate be by then -- still the Ramallah terror master? Wining and dining in Paris and Berlin? Standing trial in Jerusalem? Dead? In a sense, it won't matter; morally speaking, it will be too late. Again, on that day, we Israelis will scare our children in their classrooms with horrific pictures and stories, teach them that the mass murder of Jews, and of human beings generally, is a terrible and unpardonable crime. As for the story of Arafat . . . that will be a tougher one to tell them. I can think of a title -- Exposed: The Western World's Weakness, Cowardice, and Moral Bankruptcy. Or -- Why Your Lives Were in Danger for Ten Years and Nobody Did Anything About It.
This article appeared in FrontpageMagazine.com of September 16.
In mid September, Israel's Prime Minister Sharon visited India as an official guest of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. It is the first official visit in over forty years.
Both countries anticipate agreements on defense, environment, culture and education, terrorism, agriculture and enhanced exchanges. "The strategic alliance with India is at a very high priority, second only to the relations with the United States," the chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Yuval Steinitz, a guest at AFSI's June 2002 National Conference, told United Press International.
In fact, both countries have a great deal in common, and Israeli tourism to India has always been brisk. Both Israel and India won freedom from British colonial rule within months of each other, India in 1947 and Israel in 1948. India was host to Jewish communities in Mumbai. Cochin, Delhi and Bombay in spite of a large and hostile Moslem population. Unlike most former British colonies, both Israel and India are democracies in spite of large Moslem minorities which pose a continual threat.
Although India formally recognized Israel in 1950, diplomatic exchanges were scarce, and the Israeli consul was confined to Bombay rather then Delhi, the capital. India's first president, Jawarlahal Nehru, aspired to lead the "non-aligned" nations of the Third World. Israel was staunchly aligned with the West. In the United Nations, India continued to vote with anti-Israel blocs. Israeli diplomats are still required to obtain visas -- an insulting policy which will be abrogated during forthcoming exchanges.
As Israeli journalist Joshua Brilliant has noted: "Things began to change at the end of the 1980s. The Soviet Union collapsed and with it the concept of a bipolar world that left room for non-aligned states. The idea of non-alignment lost its allure."
Nonetheless, it is very hard to predict how this alliance will work. The Indian population remains hostile, or, at best, indifferent to Israel, the media lukewarm. On the other hand, the fact that both countries are threatened by Moslem terrorism may continue to propel them
[(Continued on p.12)]
October 2003 - 11 - Outpost