JERUSALEM — As the West claims to fight the war on state-sponsored terror, it exposes itself to an emerging terrorist state on the Eastern Mediterranean seaboard. The Palestinian terrorists, expert at using the rhetoric of Western liberalism to justify their terror, have successfully convinced the liberal world that Muslim jihad is an alternative lifestyle worthy of respect and tolerance.
In Israel this week Palestinian terrorists are using the old liberal prop of the hunger strike to demand that they be allowed to coordinate terrorist strikes from Israeli jail cells. Fourteen-hundred Palestinian prisoners say that they will starve themselves to death unless their Israeli jailers provide them with phones, allow them to meet visitors unimpeded by security glass, and stop strip searching them. Perhaps cell phones in jail can be added to the United Nations’ catalogue of rights.
The Western press wants to know why the Israelis have forced these peace-loving Gandhis into a hunger strike. Israeli prison officials point out that this year alone they have found 850 cell phones on Palestinian prisoners. “They want us to stop doing the searches which are necessary since we find hundreds of phones hidden in their bodies,” Israel’s Internal Security Minister Tzahi Hanegbi said to the Jerusalem press. “But we have caught the phones and have prevented them from planning attacks.”
Meanwhile, the Palestinian terrorists, while decrying the “mistreatment” of denied cell phone rights in jail, continue to plot their daily attacks. The security wall, as one blatantly pro-PLO Western diplomat grudgingly said to me, is “working.” But the Palestinian terrorists will take what they can get. On Sunday morning near the Old City of Jerusalem, an Arab came up behind an Israeli border policeman and tried to slit his throat. The terrorist was shot dead. He had been in jail previously for killing Jewish residents of Jerusalem but was released after seeing a psychiatrist. Terrorism is apparently a mental illness the West regards as therapeutically treatable.
The international community is shocked by Israel’s security measures. But most Americans would find it amazing that Israel’s defense isn’t even more aggressive. It is hard to imagine, say, Americans tolerating routine attacks in Washington, D.C. as their government negotiates with those same terrorists for land in Northern Virginia.
In 2002 Palestinian suicide bombings took place weekly. The situation has improved but only because of the very security measures the U.N. decries. “You can’t solve anything with a wall,” I’ve heard Western U.N. typers here in Jerusalem say, as if walls were an entirely new concept in the region. You would think that they could crack open a history book. The history of Israel is a history of walls. No ruling regime in Jerusalem — from the first Jews to the Greeks to the Romans to the Turks — has been stupid enough not to build walls.
A world without walls and borders is the U.N. fantasy the Palestinians need to advance their intifada. Last week the terrorists anticipated that Israel’s security fence might prevent their suicide bomber from entering Jerusalem. But they tried anyway, hoping to use a Western assumption to deceive the guards: they intended to conceal the bomb in a baby carriage. The baby carriage tactic having failed, they now move on to another image designed to induce laxity — the hunger strike.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?