Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Frank Gaffney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Staticidal Zealotry
by Frank Gaffney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is behaving like a zealot. In her ever-more-rash pursuit of a Palestinian state, she is exhibiting the syndrome defined by the philosopher George Santana, as one who redoubles her efforts upon losing sight of the objective.

Let’s recall: The objective laid out by President Bush, when he decided in June 2002 to support the creation of a homeland for the Palestinian people, was to provide a stable, secure neighbor for Israel, committed to leaving peaceably with the Jewish State.

Mr. Bush explicitly preconditioned such support on: an end to Palestinian terror; a Palestinian leadership that was not tainted by ties to terrorism; and the elimination of the infrastructure in Palestinian areas that enables such behavior. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States was in the business of eliminating terrorist-sponsoring regimes, not creating them.

Now, however, it is crystal clear that the only outcome from Condi Rice’s idée fixe – namely that she will convene a Middle East peace conference at the U.S. Naval Academy for the purpose of extracting from Israel the territorial concessions needed rapidly to establish a Palestinian state – has nothing to do with the original Bush vision. Under present and foreseeable circumstances, the best that can be hoped for from such a meeting is failure. For success will result in a new safe-haven for terror that is a mortal threat not only for Israel, but for the United States, as well.

Unfortunately, even the failure of Condi’s Folly at Annapolis is likely to be a very bad outcome. To the extent that her actions are raising unwarranted expectations on the part of Palestinians and their Arab friends, past practice suggests it will translate into a pretext for new violence against Israel. That will be especially true if, as is also predictable, the Israelis are blamed for the outcome for not being sufficiently willing – in the face of Palestinian intractability – to make what are euphemistically called “painful” moves for peace. Another way to describe such moves are as reckless concessions that are certain to jeopardize Israel’s security, and quite possibly ours.

After all, it is only reasonable to expect the West Bank to follow the trajectory of the Gaza Strip and, before it, southern Lebanon – both of which Israel abandoned to her foes, only to have those territories become staging grounds for attacks on Israel and secure incubators for terror against us. Among those operating from such areas are Islamofascist terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the newest addition to the State Department’s list of such entities.

Condi Rice is nonetheless demanding that Israel now relinquish the West Bank and East Jerusalem to yet another terrorist organization: Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah. To be sure, the Secretary of State would have us believe that Fatah is no such thing. In fact, the entire Annapolis house of cards is built on the fraudulent foundation that the Palestinian faction established by Abbas’ mentor, Yasser Arafat, is a reliable partner for peace and effective counterweight to Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

Only a zealot who has altogether lost any sense of reality could make such an assertion. Treating Fatah as the cornerstone of American diplomacy and demands on Israel is nothing less than perilous and irresponsible. Consider the following sampler of recent counter-indicators:

* Last August, five Fatah operatives assigned to Abbas’ security detail conspired to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during a visit by the latter to meet the Palestinian “president” in the West Bank city of Jericho. After their arrest on information from Israel’s internal intelligence agency, Shin Bet, several of these individuals were released by the Palestinian Authority.

* This is in keeping with past practice. By some estimates, Fatah and its Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade have claimed responsibility for the murder of roughly as many Israelis as has Hamas. In those rare instances when the perpetrators are actually arrested by Palestinian police, they are generally set free in short order. How could Israel possibly entrust physical control of the West Bank – from which virtually the entirety of the Jewish State’s population can be subjected to rocket or even mortar fire – to people with such a record?

* Speaking of the Jewish State, in the run-up to the Annapolis meeting, Abbas and his subordinates have lately become quite brazen in denouncing Israel’s right to exist as such. Their statements not only speak volumes about the degree to which Condi Rice’s desperate bid for a “legacy” is now being clearly read as bullies always do: as evidence of contemptible and exploitable weakness. They also make a mockery of the premise that Abbas and Company are preferable to Hamas because, unlike the latter, they are truly willing to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors.

* In fact, only the most willfully blind could maintain such a pretense in light of the incessant propagandizing and indoctrination about killing Jews and destroying Israel that passes for official or at least officially sanctioned broadcasts, sermons and speeches emanating from Abbas’ rump Palestinian Authority.

The only Palestinian state that can possibly come from Condoleezza Rice’s zealotry is one that will be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel and a new safe-haven for terror aimed at the United States and other Western nations. Even if a corrupt and politically unrepresentative Olmert government in Israel is prepared to play along, Americans who understand the stakes for the Jewish State as well as our own, must reject her desperate and unacceptable bid to launch a Palestinian one at Annapolis.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Hindsight is 20/20
What the Israelis should have done after the 1967 war is to annex the captured territory, especially Judea and Samaria (the MSM's 'West Bank') and either assimilate or expel the Arabs (their individual choices).

The other thing they should have done is to execute Arafat and bury him under a dead pig. Muslims believe that if you're buried that way you'll never get to Paradise. Hmmm, maybe we could start doing that with the Muslim terrorists we capture.


Frog
Very good account of Masada and the zealots.
To which I would add: the true meaning of zealots has more to do with ZEAL, but for some reason it has become a perjorative akin to fanatic.
The utmost reason for the Zealots refusal to fall into the hands of the Romans was the lost of the freedom to follow their God and religion.

The Zealot's were ...
an honorable Jewish sect that committed mass suicied rather than be enslaved by the encroaching Roman army. The held the nearly impervious fortress of Masada and refused to attack their Jewish brethren who had been enslaved by the Romans and were building a ramp to reach the top of Masada. The story of the mass suicide is at once both heart breaking and honorable.

Knowing that the fortress was going to be breached the next day, the Zealots committed mass suicide, again to prevent themselves from becoming slaves. Each man was responsible for taking the life of his wife and children. The decision was made to not destroy their food and water provisions lest history distort the reasons for their suicide.

The term Zealot has become a negative term due to their willingness to end their own lives. In light of the horrible way the Romans treated their slaves, death almost seems by placid by comparison. Maybe they should be held in higher esteem.

zealot??
Interesting terminology, Gaffney. According to Marriam Webster, a zealot is:

1) a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine

2) a fanatical partisan (a religious zealot)

If anything, US foreign policy has been entirely zealous *in favor of* Israel. The US powers that be (particularly Bush) block any attempt by the UN to censure Israel for violating 40 year old UN resolutions... and of course, Bush further killed our credibility by invading Iraq... because of, you guess it... violation of UN resolutions. So on the one hand, when Israel is in violation, no biggie, but when Iraq is "in violation" (and where are those WMDs?), it's war. As if that's not enough, Bush said he didn't agree with granting expelled Palestinians the right of return, guaranteed by UN resolutions dating back to 1948. If that's not zealous, I don't know what is.

My solution: stop getting involved and let the chips fall where they may. Don't choose sides, and stay out of it entirely. Any involvement in foreign entanglements hurts We the People. That's why our Founders warned us against it. I'm neither pro- nor anti-Palestinian, and I'm neither pro- nor anti-Israeli. I'm pro-American. I don't see how our involvement in this mess helps us in any way whatsoever.

Israel VS. Arabs:
Gallup Polls on American Sympathy Toward Israel and the Arabs/Palestinians

Gallup Poll results of the 40 years most consistently asked question regarding American public attitudes toward the Middle East: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations?"


Israel|Arabs
year - %|%

1967 38 3
1967 56 4
1969 50 5
1969 44 5
. . . . .
2002 49 15*
2002 49 14*
2002 47 14*
2003 58 13*
2003 46 16*
2004 55 18*
2005 52 18*
_________

Middle East Sympathie. Feb. 6-9 2006. The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ

by Religious Preference
Israel % / Arabs %

White Protestants
63 / 14

White Catholics
64 / 13

White other religions
Israel % / Arabs %

66 / 10

White no religion
Israel % / Arabs %

45 / 19

__

by Party Affiliation
(2002-2006 Aggregate)
Israel % / Arabs %

Republicans
72 / 11

Democrats
47 / 20

Independents
49 / 16

____

by Ideology

Israel % / Arabs %

Conservatives
67 / 11

Liberals
43 / 25

Moderate
52 / 16
___

by Race

Israel % / Arabs %

Whites
58 / 14

Blacks
40 / 24
__________________________________

Top the List of Countries Seen as Our Closest Allies, According to Harris Poll

How American People Rank the US Closest Allies


1. Great Britain
2. Canada
3. Australia
4. Israel
5. Japan

6.Mexico
7.Italy
8.South Korea
9.Germany
10.Sweden

The Harris Poll® #70, September 14, 2005
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID= 600

milktoast
Have others noticed that Pres Bush now has all internationalist, big corporate, old establishment types in his major cabinet posts? He has reverted to Bush 41 style which we should have expected I guess. It is a shame though. He now governs with his tail between his legs, just taking orders from the old international corporate establishment types that kowtow to the Saudis, the Chinese government merchants and their corporate suck-ups here in the States, and the EU and their "see no evil" F the Jews rationale. This is my worry about Mitt Romney, from what I see he is basically an old establishment corporate internationalist that could care less about the average voter.

Inkling, excellent
What is called "Palestinian land" is actually disputed territory but the idiot appeasing Jews have decided to call it quits.

Extrapolating a bit
on a comment by Inkling, isn't "Arab"-Israeli
something like the drive by some in this country
to create a state that relieves much of the pop-
ulation from actual work? Isn't there a resentment here by many of the "upperclass"?
Doesn't freedom and self determination (Israel)
require hard work and purpose? Who likes to be
shown up as lazy, ineffectual and stupid? Building a country requires a strong defense against those whose failures engender homicide
and excuses.

Inkling
Just read your post. I hate a plagiarist, that was not my intent,great minds think alike? You
say it well.

Legacidal
Of course this is Legacy 101. Carter, fearing a
barbeque of his tenure, Clinton for a distraction
(Oh yeah, he was impeached) and now Geo. Bush
Soon to be considered the Republican "FDR". How
stupid do you think we are? Don't answer that.

Yep. Santayana.
Apparently the editor used "Spell Check" to edit this piece, and never studied any philosophy.

How can she single handedly
establish two states when the zealots on the other side do not want two states. They want Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Then they want one state, Palestine. This is no secret. Palestinian militants have spoken loud and clear. Why should Israel give up more land? There is no such thing as "land for peace" so long as the militants only want the elimination of Israel.

koolaid foreign policy
Why is Gaffney trying to make a distinction between Bush and Rice on this issue?"

After all, it was not Rice but Bush who pressured Israel to permit elections in Gaza, resulting in Hamas victory.

Yet Gaffney would have us believe that Rice is ill-serving Bush.

It is Bush's policy. It is his administration. It is absurd to think Rice would enter into any negotiation without the blessing of Bush.

Is she being set up as the administration's "fall-guy" for another debacle on foreign policy?

The entire premise undergirding this administration's policy toward the mideast is predicated upon the idea that democracy, elections, the will of the people, will be an andidote for Islam extremism. Neocons within the administration heralded the creation of a "democratic" Iraq as a dynamo that would encourage other muslim nations to emulate...reducing the threat to Israel.

But as we have seen in Gaza, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, elections increase the power of the extremists.

With most polls indicating far more support for Osama bin Laden than for Bush among the muslim man-on-the-street, why would we be surprised by this?

Bravo, SteveL, and still...
...you have to go a few steps further.

SteveL gets it mostly right in his 9:11 AM post, which says: "There was NEVER any such nation as Palestine there. The West Bank belonged to the Jordanians, and before that to the British Empire, and throughout history to various other peoples like the Romans and the Phoenicians."

He then suggests the West Bank should be given to Jordan. That's a mistake.

You see, Jordan, itself, is the creation of a British attempt to create a Palestinian state. The British captured the area from the Ottoman Turks in WWI. They immediately recognized that they'd inherited an uncomfortable conflict between Zionist settlers and native land-holders. They made a sincere attempt to settle the matter by creating separate states, which they called "Palestine" and "Trans-Jordan". The dividing line between the two was the Jordan river (hence the name, Trans-Jordan.) Palestine was supposed to be for the Jewish settlers, and Trans-Jordan, for the "Arabs". (See the movie Lawrence of Arabia for a working definition of "Arab." There's truly no such thing.)

We know how well that division worked. Jordan is now truly, completely non-Jewish. Jews were forced to leave. And now, the non-Jewish residents of Palestine want to do the same to their land as well.

Before 1947, there were two periods in history when the area we now call Israel was self-governing. The first was the roughly 600 years the Hebrews governed themselves, from about 1200 BC to around 600 BC. The second was the Hasmonean dynasty, from around 150 BC to around 60 BC when the Romans invaded; the Hasmoneans were also Hebrews.

The West Bank is not Jordan's land.

It's a late-term disease...
...that seems to infect every Presidential administration.

They all seem to get the urge to solve the Israel-Palestine question before they leave office.

It's a repetitive exercise in futility.

The Islamic peoples have never stopped publishing violent, anti-Jewish rhetoric in their own language. They still advocate pushing Israel into the sea. No amount of official posturing for western governments indicates a genuine willingness to live with the Israelis on "their" turf, especially when the Israelis so very clearly prove that with a little education, ingenuity, and hard labor, middle eastern poverty could be lifted in a couple of generations.

Condi, say it ain't so. Stand fast in the conviction whence you began. There can be no game so long as the stated, whole-hearted, serious intent of the players on one side is to murder the other team.

Who Cares?
The Palestinians have shown adequately that they wholeheartedly support terrorism and mass murder. When they danced in the streets on 9/11 that should have been the end of any aid or notice given them. Let the Israelis reduce them to a feuding patchwork of Bantustans, whose psychopathic leaders spend their time torturing and murdering their fellow Palestinians. What US national interest is being pursued is impossible to imagine. our enemies in the region are Syria and Iran, our ally is Israel. Condi should spend her time denouncing the Syrian assassinations in Lebanon and calling for the overthrow of its government.

Condi=Colin
Condi is a failure. She is a reflection of the incompetence of the Bush Administration. Has she been consulting with James Baker?

for Boutte
Boutte writes: 'You see, if the Palestinian Arabs get their country back"

It's not "their country," sir. There was NEVER any such nation as Palestine there. The West Bank belonged to the Jordanians, and before that to the British Empire, and throughout history to various other peoples like the Romans and the Phoenicians.

We in America do NOT buy into the Muslim claptrap that all Muslims are one nation. There is no Muslim "nation" in Palestine, there are only Palestinians who never had a country with diplomatic recognition.

Hence if Israel ever does give up the West Bank, it should give it back to its rightful owner--Jordan.


Santayana vs. Santana
I prefer to derive my philosophy from scientists, actually. To wit;

"Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time."

- Albert Einstein

This accurately describes the U.S. diplomatic policies vis'-a-vis' the "Palestinian question" for the last six decades. We force Israel into concessions in exchange for- well, actually in exchange for nothing, as the PLO & Co. routinely refuse to give up any part of their quest to destroy Israel, and equally routinely violate whatever agreements they do make.

I long ago came to the conclusion that the primary objective of most Western governments- including our own State Department (always a law unto itself)- is to throw Israel to the wolves if they can do so without actually getting caught at it by their own people. Apparently in the belief that doing so will buy them "peace" with the Muslim world.

My question for them is; since the "Muslim world" was openly and avowedly at war with the West for over a millennium before the modern state of Israel existed, what leads them to conclude that sacrificing Israel will make them change their ways?

(Other than just encouraging them to redouble their efforts on the basis of our perceived weakness, that is.........)


cheers

eon

Illusions
It seems increasingly evident that our pre-occupation with Iraq has led to a determination for a resolution elsewhere that is as dangerous as what we originally perceived Iraq to be. We have embraced the very organization that under Arafat, was directly responsible for executing much of the terrorist actions against Israel that dominated the period of 2000 to 2006. The leopard has not changed its spots. Fatah is still Fatah. This is an illusion built upon an illusion.

Thank you Frank Gaffney
for a superb op-ed. Every light shines with the light of truth and reason. If only Norman Podhoretz, William Kristol, or Charles Krauthammer had something to say about these urgent issues.

Is that Carlos' Brother?
Isn't the philosopher's name George Santayana, not Santana? Those who refuse to learn how to spell are forced to edit it again.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.