The American Spectator

Reader Mail

The Babbinization of America

11.29.05 @ 12:01AM

NO ISRAELI "REBELLION"
Re: Ben Stein's As Thanksgiving Approaches:

I admire Ben Stein no end but I really wish he hadn't said that "suppressing rebellions has been done in Egypt, Algeria, and Israel" in reference to the possibility of surprising the so-called Iraqi "insurgency." The situation of Israel is nothing like that of France when it occupied Algeria.

To start with, the Palestinian territories are not a sovereign state invaded and occupied by a foreign force. The Palestinians may have their own banks, school system, media, and stock market (none of which Israel interferes with) but they have twice turned down official title to this disputed piece of land. Furthermore, in the French/Algerian conflict an indigenous people had fought to drive out foreign occupiers (quite brutal ones, at that). In this situation both groups are indigenous -- in fact, if one really wants to dredge up ancient history, the Jews may have the older presence. Let's remember the order of events here: Both groups of people had been living on the same piece of land, land owned by a confusing patchwork of owners. Israel gained official title to a piece of this land and was declared a state in the eyes of the world when the League of Nations, who administered these territories called "Palestine," designated a narrow strip as the state of Israel. The Palestinians could have been granted title and statehood of another chunk of "Palestine" at that time but that would have meant taking a smaller piece than they wanted (they wanted the whole thing) so they rejected the offer presumably because they thought they could chase "the Jews" out militarily. They tried three times and they failed. In the 1967 attempt, Arab forces attacked from points in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel routed enemy troops from those areas and then took possession of those territories (in a very partial and mostly benign way) to ensure they would not be attacked from those hilltops and wadis again.

Thus is Palestinian violence against Israel really classifiable as "rebellion" -- as opposed to another incarnation of this continuing war? To call Palestinian attacks a rebellion confuses cause and effect. The Israelis have entered and stay in the West Bank because the Palestinians continue -- to this day -- to use homes, schools and places of worship in that region as weapon depots, bomb factories, and staging areas in a continuing war (not rebellion) against Israel.

Furthermore, Israel has not, to use Stein's phrase, managed to "stamp out" terrorism -- if we are looking for models of what is possible in Iraq. The Israeli police and military manage to stop about 90% of attempts. What Israel has shown is that it is possible to reduce attacks on civilians to a tolerable level -- or a level at which a thriving democracy and economy can function day by day. This is what we can strive for in Iraq.
-- Stephanie Gutmann
Author, The Kinder, Gentler Military (Scribner 2000) and The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy (Encounter 2005)

I love it when someone is intelligent enough to pinpoint what is wrong with what's going on and what we have to do to succeed. Obviously Mr. Stein has that intelligence. Apparently America's new Democratic Party doesn't... Thank you for publishing Mr. Stein's Special Report. Indeed it gives us something to be thankful for.
-- Donald Gazzaniga
California

REPORTING FOR DUTY
Re: Lisa Fabrizio's In Disservice to America and Herman's letter (under "Traitor Pull") in Reader Mail's The Agony of Defeat:

About Ms. Fabrizio's article, and one letter written in response:

It is true that Franklin D. Roosevelt served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy prior to his time in the White House. But it is also true that he took the job because Uncle Ted had served in that same position, and found it to be bully preparation for the presidency. It is also true that FDR, while serving the Navy Department, made an official trip to France during the last days of World War I, dressed in a uniform of his own design, its style heavily influenced by Uncle Ted's Rough Rider uniform; it was a costume appropriate for the presidential guard in Munchkin Land. But, unlike Uncle Teddy, FDR didn't get close to the trenches, and real soldiers serving there resented him.

As for the honorable Clinton and his kind, one can easily imagine the shrieks and low moans that would have ensued had the first President Bush stepped up to the podium at the 1992 GOP convention and declared himself to be, "Lt. George H.W. Bush, reporting for duty," in an attempt to make his (genuine) heroism eclipse his position on the issues. We can be sure that if one of the first Bush's surrogates had compared "my hero" to "your deserter," as Michael Moore did in 2004 with the incumbent president and feminist general Wesley Clark, legions of ACLU types would have suffered hip displacement and ruptured tear ducts trying to contain their outrage. Their ability to practice such doublethink tells us who they are, and what.

The left is reacting to a situation they find distasteful in much the same way small children often respond to events beyond their comprehension or control -- by calling names and throwing mud. It is additional evidence that boom-babies are growing old without growing up. Someone buy Maureen Dowd a new Tickle-Me Elmo. Get a couple for Clinton, too.
-- Edmund Dantes
Coshocton, Ohio

INVITING FAILURE
Re: Jed Babbin's The Vietnamization of Iraq:

Mr. Babbin has hit the nail on the head, once again. Short-term political expediency has trumped long-term benefits to the American people. It has become more important to U.S. politicians to protect their current positions or gain advantage for higher ones than it is to protect the people they are sworn to serve. To do that, they, Democrats and Republicans alike, have decided to present themselves as anti-war adherents.

People like Senators Biden, Kerry and Kennedy, have been trumpeting the lie that the administration lied concerning intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq. The truthfulness of these accusations having been crushed by Bob Graham's assertion that the Senate Intelligence Committee was presented with contrasting intelligence reports as was the administration. That the Congress came to much the same conclusion as the administration has become lost on them.

People such as Senator McCain are doing their part to destroy the war effort, and anything else that would increase the safety and security of this country, with bills and amendments handcuffing our intelligence gathering efforts by limiting our interrogation techniques to forcing terrorist captives to watch re-runs of Sesame Street. Why? Does he actually believe that such restrictions will make the world a safer place? Or is the Harold Stassen of the 21st century simply ramping-up for another Presidential campaign?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Religion, Catholicism, Islam, Books, Military, Iraq, Russia, Israel, NATO, Nuclear Weapons