The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Awful Truths

1.31.06 @ 12:01AM

DEMOCRACY, HAMAS, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Re: David Yerushalmi's Democratically Elected Fascists:

While I agree that democracy does not create peace, I think this argument misses an even more important point. Democracy creates accountability. Throughout the battles that Israel and the Palestinians fought, the horrors that the civilian population endured were the front page stories. Palestinians were innocent civilians caught between Israel and Hamas. Palestinians have now elected known terrorists. There are no longer any innocents. If the freely elected government chooses to promote terrorism, the Israelis are free to answer in kind. The election of Hamas was the best thing the Israelis could have hoped for.
-- Joseph R. Davey

Though I might concur with your general theme you miss the most critical factor. Lacking any other means of consensus, the Palestinians could hide behind a strong man one rule government like Arafat -- "We are for peace, it's Arafat that is the problem." But now we have a duly elected Hamas government. The burka is off, so to speak. So now the Arab street is as complicit in the actions of the militant Hamas as Hamas itself. And that is a significant milestone.

No longer will the Palestinians be able to claim innocence. No longer can the U.S. government deal in a blind faith that the "People" can be saved if only by moderating the interests of the militants. No longer can Hamas claim status as a nonbelligerent entity lacking any power other than self-defense.

From this point forward, Israel can view any attack by a Hamas follower as the equivalent as an attack by the Palestinian Authority and act accordingly under international law.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

I agree wholeheartedly with the contention that, where our enemies are concerned, "A strategy of conquer and control must be contemplated, devised and made ready for implementation." I disagree, however, with his repudiation of the Bush doctrine. It is difficult to wage war on a nation (or pseudo-nation, as in the case of "Palestine") whose leadership we have propped up. Israel (with the help of the U.S.) legitimized Arafat and his PLO thugs, believing, among other things, that a strongman in power in the territories could better tame the radicals than Israel could. This was part of the Realpolitik thinking that Bush has for the most part rejected. The result, exemplified by the victory of Hamas, is an even more radicalized population today than before Oslo. That should be proof enough that systems do affect people's behavior -- not in the way the left contends -- but in a significant way nonetheless. Just as the welfare state creates a culture of dependency, the fact that the Palestinian Arabs have never been able to assume responsibility for their own leadership has kept them in a collective childlike state. They have for years been ruled by a dictatorship who deprived them of any means of sovereignty, happiness or prosperity while insisting that those responsible for their miserable condition were Israel and America; and who pretended to accept Israel's right to exist, while pursuing the "phased plan" of destroying the Jewish state. And that leadership was one that Israel and America brought to power and called our "peace partners!" It was a ridiculous charade that was allowed to go on much too long.

The only way to reverse course is to make the Palestinian Arabs responsible for their own destiny, starting with last week's elections. The Palestinians chose a leadership openly dedicated to annihilating Israel. Now, Israel doesn't have to pretend that the Palestinians are peace partners and can and should respond as any responsible nation must: by defending herself and, yes, contemplating a "strategy of conquer and control." When the Palestinians feel the repercussions for their actions, they will finally be on the road to "adulthood." Feeling the self-inflicted pain that their choices bring upon them is the only way they can possibly emerge out of the bloodthirsty, diseased culture that they have become.
-- Alison Milstein
Brooklyn, New York

David Yerushalmi replies:
In response to the letters from Messrs. J. McGinnis and J. Davey, you are absolutely correct in your strategic assessment of what must follow. But that is really not the main point. The main point is what any country does to protect its national existence. President Bush seems to have a good idea, if we assume he is holding some of his cards close to the vest, as is often necessary in foreign policy and war.

As it relates to Israel, we know Fatah was also "elected" and everyone knows that it used its own Al Aqsa Martyr Brigades to terrorize no less than Hamas. Fatah pointedly refused to disarm the militants. Hamas is just more brazen. But if you see the main point in "strategy," then you box yourself in a corner when Hamas comes out and says it has now split itself into two separate entities: one a political, and one a paramilitary/terrorist. The political arm will disavow the terrorist side when it speaks in English, the way Fatah did, and the world will once again clamor for Israel to negotiate with this now "moderated" arm (citing examples of the IRA and Sinn Fein) and you will be right back where you started with the war of terror and attrition in full bloom.

National existence always includes elements of "strategy," but that is never the main point. The Left in this country would have us strategize with nuance, diplomacy, capitulation, compromise, and retreat without even getting to the main point: the threat to our national existence. National existence as such and its defense requires a look past "strategy" to the core before coming back to understand what is required to establish a good and viable strategy.

As to the point by Ms. Milstein's letter, Arafat was elected President and Fatah was voted into power enthusiastically. Granted, there was no real opposition but all of the polls and the reality on the ground were clear: the Palestinians wanted the world renown terrorist and father of the PLO to head the PA. You are absolutely right that Israel chose to ignore the threat to its national interest when it permitted Arafat to leave Lebanon and then later to enter the Israeli controlled territories soon to be deeded to the PA. That, however, was not Realpolitik; rather it was national destruction. If the point is that now the Israelis should "get it" and finally wake up, don't hold your breath. They might feint a move here or there, like Ariel Sharon did when he initially invaded Gaza to clean out the hornet's nests of terrorists, but like Sharon, they will, if they follow the pattern, capitulate and begin negotiating a no-win terror-laden "peace process." The political/military class in Israel has never learned what it takes to take your enemy out. Let us hope the U.S. leadership does.

BRING IT ON
Re: Jed Babbin's Make Our Day:

Great overview of the Dems' problems with Judge Alito. My question to the N.Y. Times and the Dems is, if Sam Alito is such a conservative nut and he is against everything that America stands for, why weren't they screaming about him which he was on the Court of Appeals? Why weren't they calling for his impeachment from the bench? Why wait until he is ready to be put onto the Supreme Court? We all know the answer.
-- Tom Corry
Ridgefield, Connecticut

I understand the necessity of responding to the often times faulty, mostly ridiculous, positions taken by the left. And nobody does it better than Mr. Babbin. But I fear that our intellectuals aren't following these arguments far enough. It is not enough to parse the arguments and point out the inconsistencies and lies. To stop an analysis at this point is to leave the consumer of information with the idea that the left is just a bunch of stupid or loony people who are just "wrong." Obviously this is not the case. So the question must be asked and commented on, "Why does the left expound these arguments that are so easily dealt with?"

The answer is that they are steeped in socialism, Communism or anarchism and invested in the defeat of capitalism. They will say or do almost anything to win this political war that has been going on since the Civil War. The first expressions of this war were unionism and utopianism against industrialization and working conditions. In modern life it is a fight for government benefits against private competition in a rich society. Deep down the left knows it has some weak even false arguments, but that won't stop them from wiggling to try to gain an advantage with voters.
-- Howard Lohmuller
Seabrook, Texas

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Education, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Business, Religion, Catholicism, Books, Hollywood, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, Socialism, Communism, Oil