Ruth King
On August 12, 1998, dozens of American newspapers reported Israel's agreement to join in talks on a treaty banning production of nuclear-arms material. Every single article and column mentioned that Israel was forced to overcome its understandable reluctance to join such a treaty, by pressure from the United States. The prodding was intervention by an American administration, which is powerless and supine in its dealings with thugs like Saddam Hussein, Saudi kinglets, Iranian ayatollahs, Russian hoodlums, Libyan despots, and Syrian mass murderers. Only Israel gets tough talk and pressure from the present American administration.
This bullying of an ally did not occur in a vacuum. After all, in spite of initial tough talk by Israel's government, that nation has acceded to every single American demand, no matter how harsh or how unfair. Bullies thrive on weaklings and this situation is no exception.
Former Prime Minister Shamir once complained that Israel was no "banana republic." Yet it was he who ignored Israel's national interests, bowing to American pressure not to respond militarily when Iraqi scuds rained on Israel's terrified population during the Persian Gulf War. Since then, Israel has become a virtual political lap dog of the American State Department. Ironically, those nations in Central America which formerly were called banana republics enjoy more self-determination, security and independence than Israel. Certainly they could not be prodded to accept suicidal policies--but, then again, they never had to contend with Rabin and Peres.
Among the myriad asinine statements made by Monica Lewinsky's first lawyer, the one regarding Israel took the cake. Clinton, we were told, was the best friend of Israel among American presidents, and, therefore, no one wanted to tear down his presidency. As legal strategy, that statement was really dumb, but one could say that President Clinton "could" have been one of Israel's strongest advocates, if only Israel loved itself.
No president in American history has had
so many Jewish friends, advisors and supporters.
Jewish access to the upper reaches of the Oval Office and
private quarters of the White House is unparalleled.
Jewish Americans are disproportionately represented
among White House "sleep-overs", big party funders, legal
staffers and spokesmen. Among his "spinners," Jews
like Sandy Berger, Mickey Kantor, Rahm Emmanuel,
have continual dialogue with the President. Almost all of
his show-business friends--entertainers, producers,
studio moguls--are Jewish. Indeed, his friends Steven
Spielberg and David Geffen are already planning ways to
financially cushion Clinton's retirement, by putting
him on the boards of their various enterprises. It can
safely be stipulated that President Clinton actually likes
Jews and probably felt benevolent about Israel--a
benevolence based not only on political considerations but on his
generally liberal outlook. Why then, one could ask, is
his administration so stridently anti-Netanyahu?
Israel's Prime Minister is, after all, no less likable, no less
political, and no less poll-driven than Mr. Clinton.
Given Clinton's philo-semitic proclivities, he would easily
understand Israel's problems, if only some of his
Jewish friends understood them and alerted him.
But for all his exposure to Jews, he never hears support for Israel's strategic, political, and historical rights from them. They are so intoxicated with Oslo, that they fail to understand the ruinous path of appeasement, surrender, and weakness it represents. Even a weak reed like Bibi is viewed as a hawk by these affluent doves. While they continue to bask in wealth, unparalleled opportunities, and acceptance, they are failing in their responsibility to perpetuate their enhanced status by ensuring Israel's survival. They are missing a historic opportunity to do the right thing, and, unfortunately, Israel is abetting its own destruction by encouraging them.
Bob Dole as Republican presidential candidate was mystified at the lack of outrage over his opponent's transgressions--Whitewater, FBI files, and Travel Office firings--even before the latest scandals. The answer was in the polls. Americans felt safe, prosperous, and confident in the future.
No such luxury exists in Israel. The economy, while seeming to thrive, is still beset by government controls, regulations and bureaucracy--the hallmarks of socialism. Instead of weaning Israel from its addiction to American foreign aid and interference in its policies, Netanyahu has tethered all Israel's domestic and defense policies to the Clinton administration and the continuation of an "allowance."
The future is as bleak as it can be in Israel. How can citizens feel safe when terrorists are released from Israel's jails, armed, and set loose to kill and maim innocent civilians? How can they ignore the murderous rantings of the Arab press, which incite to hatred and violence against the Jewish State? How can they turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the escalating, state-sponsored anti-Semitism in Egypt, which is ostensibly at peace with Israel? How can they remain confident in a government which continues to implement and expand the Oslo agreements, even in the face of PLO non-compliance with every relevant paragraph including abrogation of its murderous covenant?
Finally, where is the outrage when two
(Continued on p.11)
Outpost - 10 - September 1998