“Land for Peace” meets “Peace Through Superior Firepower.”

Chapter 3: The Middle East:  The Gift that Keeps on Giving

Since my friend Harry was Jewish, and I, as a Christian, was a strong supporter of Israel, the Middle East became a natural topic of conversation. 

You’d think this would mean that we’d find common ground at last.  Israel, the only democracy in the region, surrounded on all sides by hostile forces, subject to world-wide condemnation for taking the necessary and appropriate actions to defend itself — what was there to disagree about?

Well, the Clinton legacy, for one.

It all started innocently enough when I received an email from Harry in April 2000. Though not an office holder or Democratic Party official, Harry was very plugged into the local and national political scene.  His business activities put him in touch with a lot of movers and shakers in the Jewish community, and like me, politics was a passion. 

It’s been said of me that I have no real hobbies, only obsessions, and following the ins and outs of national politics is one of them.  Harry took a more practical approach, preferring to put his money where his mouth was and get involved in local politics from a volunteer standpoint.  From there, because of the pivotal nature of his state in national elections, and his growing influence in the local business community, it was an easy, natural transition to take on national issues as well.  Developing close-knit relationships with mid-range Democratic Party officials throughout his state and elsewhere, and taking an active interest in Jewish community life, I wasn’t all that surprised to receive the email message below.

Harry: Hey Phil, I have a meeting with an Israeli Diplomat that is very involved in the peace negotiations on Sunday.  Have you any insight you wish to share with me?  In particular, whether land for peace works?

Now, as Harry and I had previously discussed, I had two minds about solving the Middle East problems.  A friend of mine from my college days once remarked that there’s no problem in the Middle East that can’t be solved by a twenty-megaton thermonuclear explosion.  That seemed a little drastic, even for me, so I opted for a different approach.  Meet threats with threats, force with force, and never show your enemy a moment’s weakness.  In an area of the world where most disputes are settled over the barrel of a gun, it seemed rather silly to appeal to one’s “better nature” to resolve a conflict that was now entering its third millennium.

I was also doubly suspicious of the motives of my own government in meddling in domestic Israeli politics.  Ever since Monica and impeachment, Clinton had been looking for some kind of positive story to frame the eight years of self-congratulatory, self-indulgent, meaningless policy initiatives that characterized his term in office.  He thought he found one in bringing peace to the Middle East.  And just how did he propose to do this?   Compel Israel to give up vast tracts of land on the promise from Yassir Arafat that the Arab world would no longer be mean to them.

Phil: Tell your diplomat friend that the biggest crock I’ve ever heard is the idea that you can trade land for peace.  That may be the last step in the process, but you’d better make sure you get a lot in exchange for it, not just good intentions.  Israel shouldn’t give an inch of territory unless its interests are furthered by the act. Clinton is looking for a legacy and will press hard for symbolic gestures that harm Israel in the long run, but make Clinton look good in the short term.  If Israel ever does surrender more land, I hope it’s for tangible reasons, not just to appease Clinton.  And this is coming from a Christian.

Two further things.  Tell your diplomat friend that the U.S. isn’t going to desert Israel no matter what it does.  And second, most Christians in the U.S. still look at the Arabs over there, collectively, as a bunch of terrorist thugs.  Sure there are good people in all those countries, but they aren’t running things.  The thugoracy is.  Tell Israel to hang tough.

I should probably explain at this point what I mean by labeling myself a “Christian,” since the mainstream American news media almost always attaches the word “fundamentalist” to this word, as if snake charmers and backwoods hillbillies are the only people who identify themselves this way.  It makes it easier to mischaracterize all Christians as ignorant, deluded, Bible-thumping fools who are still living in the 14th century.  Of course, Islamic fundamentalists who blow up innocent women and children to reap the reward of 72 virgins aren’t subject to the same public ridicule.  Unlike fundamentalist Christians, these people tend to shoot you when you do something they don’t like.  And besides, respect for diversity demands that we reach out and try to understand these people better instead of automatically condemning them.
 
I am a Christian and proud of it, but I’m not a fundamentalist.  Not that I have anything against people who believe the Bible literally and act on that belief, I’m just not one of them.  Instead, I’m one of those lapsed Catholics who attends church infrequently, and cusses a lot more than I should, but who still respects the wisdom and teachings of the Christian faith even though I don’t always live up to those teachings in my own life.  I try to apply the principles I learned in Catholic school to my everyday actions — some days with greater success than others, but always with those thoughts at least in the back of my mind.  In this regard I’m like so many other Americans Christians who may not be as outwardly devout in their everyday lives as they should be, but nevertheless take comfort in the guidance we’ve been given through the teachings of their Faith.  

Well, a few months passed after I wrote to Harry.  By this time Arafat had rejected Israel’s Clinton-inspired solution and began killing innocent Jewish men, women and children.  The issue had become politicized in the U.S. because of its proximity to the November 2000 elections, so once again Harry and I exchanged emails.  

Prior to earning his graduate degree, Harry received his BA in history.  I was taken to task by him in mid-October for equating the Clinton peace plan with Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement toward the Nazis.

Harry: I disagree with your comment in appeasement not being successful in the 1930s.  I will gladly tell you that in my humble opinion appeasement was most successful in buying England time from November 1938 (at the Munich conference) to September 1, 1939, when war broke out in Europe. I can document that the number of Hurricanes and Spitfires and tanks was so overwhelming that Neville Chamberlain (probably accidentally) saved England during the Battle of Britain, yet Churchill got the credit.  Hey, what the hell.  Life is not fair.

Phil: That was quite an interesting response from you. I can only buy your appeasement logic, however, if Chamberlain intended to “buy time” through his overture to Hitler to prepare for a war with Germany he intended to fight.  But in reality, he thought he was “buying peace” and avoiding war all together. 

England was fortunate in using Chamberlain’s disaster to prepare for the war that eventually came, but this was not the result of Chamberlain’s strategy, but instead a rather fortuitous, unintended consequence of it.  Another school of thought says that if Chamberlain hadn’t appeased Hitler, Hitler would have backed down and stayed where he was. He was emboldened by England’s appeasement, and thus this appeasement brought on war with England.  There’s a good lesson in both these examples for Israel’s actions in the Middle East.

So my original charge stands.  Barak tried to appease Arafat by giving him unprecedented concessions in exchange for “peace.”  This only emboldened Arafat to press for more, and failing that, to start a new war against Israel.  Barak has armed the Palestinian authority with weapons and training to fight Israel and murder its people through his misguided attempt to appease Arafat.  Until the enemies of Israel legitimately concede the right for Israel to exist, and are prepared to accept Israel into the family of nations, Israel is at war with them (albeit at times a cold war).  To pretend otherwise for political purposes — whether it’s Barak or Clinton — is to put Israel at risk.

Of course, everything we were writing about tied back into U.S. presidential politics.  I ended my reply with a few comments about Al Gore (now “Algore”) and Lieberman, and the way they both were shamelessly exploiting the situation.

Phil: I agree with you that [because of the Palestinian uprising] the Middle East peace process is dead.  My point is that Clinton in his legacy building, and Clinton-Gore in their attempt to manipulate the 2000 election through an ill-conceived summit this summer, are the ones who killed it.  By everyone’s account the preparation was inadequate. There were no pre-agreements as is standard with most summits; Mubarak and other Middle Eastern leaders hadn’t bought into the plan (and thus counseled Arafat to hang tough) and the U.S. had no real plan to offer to break the deadlock except a Rodney King redeaux “can’t we all get along?” plea for some kind of agreement.  Barak gave up more than any previous Israeli administration in an attempt to get Bill something for his legacy, and Arafat rejected it all.  The result is that both sides “gave peace a chance,” it failed, the Arabs have now repudiated the peace-process path, and now the violence in the Middle East is worse than any time since 1972. 

The Democrats, in their haste to score short-term political gains at the expense of policy and principle, have now put Israel at risk.  Algore has no principles other than political expediency.  Did you see the clip of Barak saying indignantly that the U.S. has to choose sides — a reference to Gore’s mealymouth debate statement that “we’re strong supporters of Israel, but we support everyone else too.”  And Clinton let the U.N. condemn Israel. Lieberman has abandoned most of what he stands for since joining Gore, so he cannot be trusted to sway Gore to protect Israel at all costs, since he hasn’t held fast to any of his other principles.  The only way to “save” Israel is to elect the one man who will actually do what he says — George Bush.
 
Once again I find it ironic that the Gentile is reminding the Jew about not using Israel as a political toy for domestic U.S. purposes.

My conversation with Harry about Middle East politics returned in full force when Harry wrote me back after the November 2000 elections agreeing with my “capricious” remarks about the prospects for peace in the Middle East, which I reminded him weren’t capricious at all.   Harry concluded that, “this will be a low priority for Dubya, as Jews are not a minority block that Dubya will attempt to woo.”  This reference was to a previous email Harry and I exchanged about my belief that Bush would make inroads into the black and Hispanic vote during his 2004 re-election campaign.  Harry, who was still exorcised over the “stolen” 2000 election, was just as certain that the “Unelected, Illegitimate, Appointed One” would be deserted by the right wing of his own party, let alone stand a ghost of a chance of making any real inroads into the so-called minority vote.  Jews, in this regard, were no exception.  “Is there even a Jewish party holder in the Republican ranks?” Harry asked.  “Damned if I know,” I replied.  “We don’t go around asking people what their religion is like the Democrats do.”

It’s difficult to separate Iraq and Israel from any discussion of Middle East politics in the first few years of the 21st century.  Iraq, to be certain, was helping to encourage the Palestinian uprising against the Israelis by paying the families of homicide bombers a hefty post-martyrdom bonus, thus feeding the relentless assault on innocent Jewish citizens. Moreover, hatred for Israel was a key element in Iraq’s hostility towards its benefactor and protector, the United States, and this helped to drive the U.S. and Iraq inexorably toward war.  But each country also had its own set of dynamics independent of the other, and it is the U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian connection that I want to focus on here.

For Harry, unlike the actions of Al Qaeda that had been directed against the United States from 1993-2000, the threat posed by Islamic terrorism to Israel was unmistakably clear, and demanded immediate action. In a November 2000 email I pointed out to Harry that while he was “100% supportive of Israel’s [recent] strike against Fatah” in retaliation for a school bus bombing, he did not support U.S. action against Bin Laden for his part in the USS Cole bombing, or any other acts of Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism. It wasn’t that Harry saw no threat, or thought somehow that Bin Laden was innocent of the charges against him.  Rather, the evidentiary link between Bin Laden and the Cole bombing was just too tenuous in Harry’s mind to support retaliatory military action. By contrast, Fatah was a much clearer, and more heinous threat to Israel. 

On the face of it this appears to be one of those legitimate policy disagreements I spoke about earlier.  Black Hawk Down, the movie about Al Qaeda’s military action against the U.S. in Somalia, had not yet been released. Regardless of whatever had been previously written about Bin Laden and Somalia, it was axiomatic in American politics that until it’s seen on TV or DVD, it isn’t real.  Some blind sheik tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, but that failed and he was caught and imprisoned, so the threat was over.  Somewhere in the back of someone’s mind may have been a stray thought about a U.S. embassy in Nigeria being bombed, but that was Nigeria, so it didn’t really count.  And a couple of suicide bombers rowed a boat full of explosives out toward the USS Cole and detonated themselves. Again a tragedy, but not an imminent threat to anyone on American soil.  

In fact, the only real terrorist attack against the U.S. had come from some white male fundamentalist Christian fanatic inspired by talk-hate radio to blow up the Murrow Federal building in Oklahoma City; at least that was what President Clinton said.  And Oklahoma City isn’t New York or Los Angeles, so the country is really pretty safe and secure after all.  All in all, the biggest threat seemed to be from those crazy white militia men in Montana who owned a lot of guns and kept talking about their Second Amendment rights, or those fundamentalist Christian zealots in Waco who kept preaching about Jesus Christ. That’s where the country needed to focus its attention, not on some Osama Bin Laden guy somewhere in the Middle East.

I said, though, it appears to be one of those legitimate policy disagreements I spoke about earlier, because as de facto U.S. policy supported by Harry, in reality it was nothing more than an expedient rationalization designed to avoid upsetting U.S. Arab voters at home, or worse — actually confronting the terrorists and perhaps making them really mad.  In a sad way I supposed not taking on Bin laden before 9/11 was a good thing, since the moral relativism of U.S. liberals and the mainstream media would have blamed Neo-Con conservatives for pushing an embattled Bill Clinton into acting unwisely — who was being unfairly impeached for lying about sex and thus unable to do what was “right,” and therefore resist lashing out blindly against the alleged-terrorists.  This unwise action would have angered the “Arab street” and provoked Bin Laden into retaliating against the United States on September 11, 2001, so the entire 9/11 tragedy would have been our fault. 

I point this out because without accusing Harry of this particular logical distortion, I was shocked at the email I got from him regarding his unabashed support for aggressive Israeli action against terrorism, while counseling continued U.S. restraint.

Harry: Israel attacked Fatah after it attacked a civilian target and children.  Israel did not handpick civilian targets, but instead attacked military targets of the Fatah group. 

I wish to heck the United States would have retaliated against the Cole terrorists, but we never figured out who did it which is no surprise with our military intelligence, which is truly an oxymoron.  It is wrong as much as we want to vindicate the 17 sailors that were killed, but I cannot justify blindly [striking out. However, if we’ve identified the people responsible, and can] strike with laser guided missiles to minimize civilian casualties, go for it.

When it comes to supporting the military in a crisis situation, the line between Republicans and Democrats is nonexistent.

Oh really? Terrorists kill our soldiers and civilians, so we prohibit military action until we’ve established clear and convincing evidence of the guilty party for that particular incident.  No matter that Al Qaeda is a fragmented, shadowy group that weaves in and out of terror-supporting nations like Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria; no matter that Iraq tried to assassinate former President Bush when he visited Kuwait.  No matter that Iran bankrolls international terrorist groups, or that Syria and Libya’s fingerprints are all over airline hijackings, bombings, and political assassinations.  Until we have the name, address, and social security number of the guy who did that one particular act, and establish his guilt through proper judicial proceedings, U.S. hands are tied.  But if Fatah as a group makes public pronouncements about killing Jews, and supports or trains terrorists to execute their cowardly plans, it’s okay to take out their leadership — as long as the strike is overtly surgical.

It was within this framework of wanting to pursue Middle East peace through surgical strikes at highly vetted targets, but only when pushed to an extreme, that Harry offered his prediction about Bush.  “The next president will be severely handicapped domestically, [so] perhaps he will try to make a legacy by brokering a peace deal in the Middle East.  I am not holding my breath on that one.”  I, however, thought I had a perfect solution to the problem, based on Harry’s own observations about the current U.S. election, and the unfair way the Bush team had disenfranchised erstwhile “legitimate” voters. 

We both agreed that the Barak government would fall very soon.  Harry opined that “Bibi Netanyahu is still not the leader of the Likud Party, but he has been cleared on all the allegations [of corruption against him], and should be able to wrest power away from Ariel Sharon. Could you imagine [the disaster] if Sharon entered the Cabinet, let alone becomes Prime Minister?  I have no idea how to jump start the peace process as unlike Arabs, Israel values life and does not want to see a full scale escalation of military action since it will do absolutely no good except kill more Arabs and Jews.”

Well, I wasn’t at a loss for ideas, particularly since this was written in the aftermath of the 2000 election, where Al Gore (with Harry’s enthusiastic support) kept trying to change the post-election rules so he could count phantom votes in his favor and take the presidency from Bush, all the while trying to disenfranchise absentee ballots from U.S. service men who were expected to vote Republican.

Phil: I know how to jump start the peace process in Israel, Harry.  Hold an election in Israel where Arafat runs for Prime Minister.  Let all the Arabs vote (but don’t check their citizenship too carefully, after all we don’t do that for illegal aliens in the U.S.).  If Barak wins, start a recount only in heavily Arab sections.  And keep changing the rules about what constitutes a vote for Arafat, with the emphasis always on voter “intent,” not adherence to some “hyper-technical” law. 

Then, disqualify ballots from active-duty Israeli military because there were no mailboxes in their foxholes to postmark them properly, and keep extending the deadline for the recount until Arafat comes up with enough votes to win.  Then, install Arafat as the new Prime Minister, and ask all Jews to accept him as their legitimate leader.

Why not?  It’s supposed to work that way for Gore.

I found that with Harry, irony was often lost on the ironic, so I posed another question as well to drive my main point home.  This one went to the heart of his contention that it was okay for Israel to retaliate against the Fatah leadership for a school bus explosion that was attributed to them (but not proven beyond common sense), while it was wrong for the U.S. to retaliate against Bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole, since there was no direct proof that he was responsible for it. 

Phil: So, I ask you again, why the double standard?  I’ll give you the answer, which is why this whole U.S. election discussion with you is so frustrating to me.  Like a Good Liberal, you constantly invoke the credo “what I say today is only valid insofar as it supports my present arguments.  If I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it’s unfair to bring up my past position, because that is no longer relevant.”

Instead of relying on some consistent, definable (dare I say “legal”) criteria, you evaluate everything on your own subjective notion of “fairness.”  You apply one set of fairness criteria to judging elections, another set of criteria to international relations, and yet another to a different situation.  Thus, any decision you arrive at is “fair,” because it only has to be consistent insofar as that particular situation, since in the final analysis it’s merely a subjective evaluation on your part anyway.  “Fairness” is simply the process that supports the outcome you desire.

The natural blending of domestic and international politics that takes place under any administration became a confusing web of accusations, innuendos, and distortions of reality by Harry in the months and years after Bush came to power.  It became even more contentious as the subject of Israel-U.S. relations entered our conversation, combined with the best course of action to deal with Iraq.  I knew that in a post-9/11 world it would be difficult to separate out discussions of U.S. policy toward Israel with other U.S. actions in the Middle East.  But I also knew that stepping back and looking at the issue from a real-world perspective would provide better answers than the rote sloganeering of liberal Democrat thought. 

Much of my conversation with Harry on this subject is found in the chapter on 9/11 and its aftermath.  But one incident that occurred in May 2002 bears retelling here.  As I mentioned before, Harry would periodically have contact with high level Israeli diplomats who routinely visited the United States to take the temperature of American Jews, and the U.S. public in general.  Harry mentioned to me that he was going to see one of Ariel Sharon’s spokesmen at a function the next day, and asked if I had “any questions that you would like me to ask that are polemical and thought provoking?”  Well, you don’t get an invitation like that every day, so I couldn’t resist the answer I gave.

Phil: Yeah.  Ask him why Jews in America should continue to support the Democratic Party when its leadership (Byrd, Bonner, etc.) is so blatantly anti-Israel, and Republicans are so pro-Israel?

I’m not sure if the question was ever asked by Harry.  I did get a reply from him, though, challenging my statement that Democratic Congressman Bonner’s refusal to give “blind support” to Israel, and Democratic Congressman John Dingell’s urging that a resolution supporting Israel must be defeated because “it simply takes one side,” wasn’t really an issue of concern to American Jews. 

Harry: Try checking their [Bonner and Dingell] political constituencies and you will understand why they voted the way they did.

Phil: What a great excuse!  These guys have Arab constituencies, so they can be let off the hook for not supporting Israel. Bush, who is president of the entire country (which includes their constituencies), must ignore these same people and unconditionally support Israel, or be characterized by you as “without a policy,” or deliberately working against Israel’s interests.  Do you really think about what you write before you write it?  Or, do you simply excuse Democrats for the same thing you condemn Republicans?

Harry: [Given the fact that all Republicans and most Democrats support Israel], perhaps what you should focus in on is that the U.S. Congress is solidly behind Israel in their war on terror as it is unlike our war on terror.  Please do not tell me this is all contrived to get Saddam.

Phil: I have no f**king idea what this means.

Harry had a habit of injecting extraneous bits of flotsam and jetsam into the conversation whenever he was backed into a corner.  Leading Democrats openly speak out against supporting Israel in its do-or-die hour of need, and try to block funding for Israeli military operations.  But according to Harry, that’s “just politics” and means nothing substantive. Republicans give sustained, overwhelming support for Israel. As Harry sees it, this is an interesting, but not strictly relevant point. However, Bush tells Israel to show restraint in the face of terror so as not to inflame Middle East tension as the U.S. considers war with Iraq — but does nothing tangible to stop Israeli actions — and he’s an incompetent bumbler deserting our main Middle East ally.   

It was another case of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), a phrase coined by psychiatrist and political commentator Charles Krauthammer, which is defined as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”  Harry was fast becoming the poster boy for this new malady, if in fact he hadn’t gotten there already. 

The underpinnings of this syndrome are a moral equivocation about every facet of human life.  Clinton lied under oath in a deposition, Bush said he liked green vegetables when he really didn’t.  They’re both liars, so how dare you say that Clinton is any worse than Bush?  When there was nothing to equivocate about, hyperbole was the way to proceed.  Forget the hyper-inflation and stagflation under Jimmy Carter, under George Herbert Walker Bush we had “the worst economy in fifty years.”  Forget about the fact that even those countries that opposed U.S. action in Iraq believed Saddam had a nuclear and biological capability; Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. 

Harry was in lock step with this approach, as he demonstrated relentlessly over the years of our correspondence.  The only thing that distinguished him from Liberals and the paid Democratic Party flacks who popped up now and again on TV was that he didn’t do it as well as them. 

As aggravating as it could be at times, my debate with Harry about Israel was tepid compared to the discussion I had with my Brazilian friends in August of 2002.  Their solution to the Middle East problem was rather straightforward. "R" wrote me an email offering his thoughts as if he was the person in charge of the Israeli government.

R: First, you have to consider what the Palestinians demand:

(a)  A land of their own, with their own rights to self determination and the ability to elect their own leaders.
(b)  Jerusalem as their capital.
(c)  That Israel gives back the lands it took in 1967.

Then, as the Israeli leader, I would sit down with Arafat or whomever was in charge at the time and earnestly ask whether he could condone terrorism as a form of meeting their demands. Note at this point, Arafat’s response would only count as a statement of intent.  Every Arab nation should sit down at this meeting, so I could show them I have no intention of continuing today’s military trends, and ask for their compliance and help during this process.

Phil: Okay, let’s begin by examining a couple of your assumptions, the first of which is that all Arab leaders (and the militant factions that support them) will fully accept Israel’s legitimacy as a nation if an accommodation on land, elections, and Jerusalem can be worked out.  I don’t think so.  At least half of these bastards would rather see the war last for another millennia than make any concessions to the Jews by acknowledging their right to exist.

Second assumption: that Jerusalem is ‘just another city’ and can be a bargaining chip in any negotiations.  You obviously know nothing about the significance of Jerusalem to the Jewish people.  It’s like, in a secular sense, telling people in my country that the U.S. Constitution on display in Washington, D.C. is just another old piece of paper.

Third, the Arabs attacked Israel in 1967, and got their ass whipped. Israel didn’t “take” their land, the Arabs lost it in the war. Had they not attacked, Israel would not have had any reason to seize this land for military and historical reasons. Yeah, it’s unfair to the poor, individual Arabs who lost their homes, but it’s the price they paid for allowing the thugs who run their countries to make aggression against Israel. There’s not a prayer in the world that Israel will fully return to their pre-1967 borders.

But your reasoning also falls short on other grounds.  The fallacy of your position is that you assume that all sides have a sincere interest in reaching an honest, fair agreement that’s in the interest of all people, Arab and Jew alike.  The reality is, both sides want the other out. 

Israel wants the Arabs out of their territory.  They are willing to negotiate the borders of their country — and have already withdrawn from some areas, and proposed other withdrawals — but in other areas they have no intention of leaving.  

Most Arabs want the Israelis out of their land, period.  Hamas, Iraq, Iran, certain elements in Saudi Arabia, the list is endless.  There is no room for compromise here on the part of the Arabs, so your premise is flawed.

There was some additional back and forth about how to phase-in these concessions that would never work, how "R" was sure that Israel would be willing to give up control over Jerusalem “in the name of peace,” and other flights of fancy that Arab terrorism would stop if only Israel was a little more flexible.  I couldn’t grasp how anyone could be so naïve to propose solutions that flew in the face of decades of reality, until I read "R’s" next message.  Obviously, we’re not getting our basic information from the same source.

R: Jews and Palestinians always have lived and worked in the same place since 1947.  Mostly they get along with each other, if not for some religious wackos and other associated political wingnuts.  So, you see co-operation and living together is not only possible, but it has been so for many years.

Now I fully admit that it’s unfair to take a comment written in August 2002, and respond with the knowledge I possess in 2006, but I can’t help pointing out one inconvenient fact.  As I write this passage, Hamas has won the parliamentary elections in the Palestinian Authority and has become the new government of these people. Hamas received widespread popular support among Palestinian voters, so it can reasonably be said that its views reflect the people’s.  The following quotes are taken from Hamas’ charter, courtesy of the February 1, 2006 Christian Science Monitor:

•  "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

•  "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it." [Note: Waqf is a religious property giving revenues, as regulated by Islamic law.]

•  "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility."

•  "For Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion . . ."

My reply below to "R" in 2002 did not anticipate the Hamas terrorists taking power from the Fatah terrorists.  But that’s a small point.  The only real difference is that one group of anti-Semitic fascists was replaced with an even more vicious set of anti-Semitic fascists.  So in response to the notion that except for the odd religious fanatic or political opportunist on either side, Arab-Israeli relations since 1947 were all sweetness and love, I offered the following thought.

Phil: Sure, they work together just fine, just like blacks and whites in the South worked together for 200 years with no problems.  I know this to be true because there were race riots in the U.S. in the 1960s, but none before that time – except for an occasional slave rebellion here and there, or civil war. Still, separate out 1860-1865, and you have a history of peaceful co-existence between blacks and whites until the 1960s. Ha!
 
Your observations about Arab-Israeli relations is as superficial as my deliberately contorted view of U.S. history.  The fact is, Arabs hate working in Israel, but because of the corruption of their leaders they have no real economy in their land.  Rather than blame their leaders, it’s easier to hate the Jews.  The Jews let them work out of necessity, but hate them as well.  They facilitate terrorist infiltration of Israel to blow up buses and restaurants filled with innocent women and children.  It’s a tinderbox waiting to explode.

You are not looking at the situation realistically, but through the guise of wishful thinking. 

"R" further commented that, “If not for the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israeli expansionism [which provoked] Palestinian terrorist retaliation, that region would have been peaceful for a long time.”  So the Middle East was a peaceful oasis for 2,000 years until that fateful day in 1967 when the Jews expanded their borders for no reason at all, and then everything instantly changed. These gentle, peaceful nomads were so provoked they had no choice but to rise up against the Israeli transgressor, and in so doing transform Eden-on-Earth into a living Hell.

Right.  And pigs fly.

Fighting Israel is only the latest excuse for Middle East violence.  If Israel didn’t exist, they’d be killing themselves over some esoteric interpretation of a passage in the Koran, or just for the plain sport of it.

I’ll leave the remainder of this discussion with "R" and his fellow Brazilians to the broader issue of pacifism and pre-emptive military action, which is the subject of a later chapter.  The Rodney King School of International Diplomacy falls a little short when you apply utopian concepts to real world situations.  Such thinking leads inevitably to R’s creative solution to the terrorist problem.  These people (the terrorists) aren’t bad, they’re just trying to get their point across the only way they know how.  Rather than hunt them down and kill them, “the Israeli police and Mossad should take the utmost care to capture every terrorist alive.  It’s wishful thinking to believe no one will get killed, but their training should emphasize this feature, perhaps to the point of using non-lethal weapons to fight terrorist cells.”

A Candygram maybe?  Or perhaps a certified letter with a cease and desist order?  When a terrorist cell is planning to massacre a bunch of innocent people to make their point, I’ll put my faith in a 500-pound bomb instead of gentle, reasoned persuasion.

To his credit, after arguing repeatedly for compassion and understanding in the face of pure evil, "R" ended our exchange with a statement that even he didn’t believe that his ideas made any sense at all.  But at least he felt good about himself for advocating them.

R: By now you have come to the conclusion that this is a most utopic and unrealistic scenario; one in which Arafat agrees with me, one in which my people support my actions, or at least don’t remove me from office or assassinate me. Even with all these conditions met, my version of Israel could be drowned in Jewish blood as more and more terrorists backed by old enemies of Israel seize the opportunity to launch more and more attacks from all sides, and all fronts. Unless Israel responded with force, they would be exterminated.  My politics and ideals, if applied to the world as it is now, can be disastrous and suicidal.

Phil: Yes.  As decent a guy as you seem to be, you have offered no real solution to a very real problem.  Wishing it was different is not a substitute for dealing with a real problem, particularly when your way of life is being threatened.

Which brings us, finally, to late 2005, and the release of Stephen Spielberg’s Munich. Against my better judgment, but at the urging of another Jewish friend of mine, I went to see the movie.  As I explained in an email I wrote to my brother Dan and a few of my conservative friends, the experience changed my life.  Where before I had seen the battle between Israel and Arab terrorists as a fight between good and evil, I now understood that the world was much more complicated.  I learned some very important things that I didn’t understand before, and had now seen the light!

Phil: Here’s the important messages I took away from Munich.

Arabs massacre Jews because Jews stole their land, and this is the only way they have to fight back against these Zionist bastards.  This was an often repeated theme in the movie that was never really answered by the Jews, except to say that “we needed a place to live and we took it,” and “the ends justify the means [in stealing Arab land].”  These are actual quotes by prominent Jews in the movie.

It’s lamentable that these courageous, young, so-called terrorists had to kill the Munich hostages.  You could actually see it in their eyes and facial expressions.  They didn’t want to kill them, but the duplicity of the West (and the Jews) left them no choice.  Their only intention was to get a little TV time to publicize the Israeli atrocities against their people, then fly the hostages to another country where they would be released.  But they were attacked and had to defend themselves, and therefore the Jews were killed. 

By the way, a group of drunken American athletes helped the Arabs over the perimeter fence to the Olympic village, allowing them to take the Israeli athletes hostage, thus establishing America’s indirect complicity in the massacre.  Later we learn that the CIA is actually protecting a Black September leader, and prevent the Israeli assassination team from killing him.  When they thwart the attack, these CIA agents give the Israelis the finger.  The only country more amoral in this movie than Israel is the US.

We soon learn that the Israelis are duplicitous people who violate their own laws and throw their own supposed moral foundations away for expedience sake.  Golda Meir lied to the young man tricked into leading the operation against the terrorists.  Her main motive was to prop up her sagging unpopularity.

Sure, the Arabs can do some terrible things, like massacre civilians at the Athens airport, send letter bombs to unsuspecting Israelis, etc.  But they only did this because those self-serving, amoral, cowardly Jews hunted down their leaders and killed them.  By the way, about half way through the movie we learned that the Israeli government probably lied about the 11 terrorists who were being hunted.  Only some of them were really involved in Munich.  The vast majority were probably just people Golda wanted to eliminate.  We’ll never know for sure because the Israeli government refused to provide any “evidence” of their guilt — the implication being, probably because there was none.

The Israeli anti-terrorist operation resembled a keystone cops movie.  They were only marginally competent at what they did (their hands shaking while they pulled the trigger to kill this kindly old Arab man who just moments ago was reading a children’s book), made bombs that were too powerful and killed and blinded other innocent people, and disobeyed orders to conduct their own personal vendettas.  Oh sure, they tried hard not to kill innocent people, and felt bad about it when they did, but there’s this “end justify the means” mentality, and you know how self-serving Jews are!

When the leader of the illegal hit squad (it ceased about half-way through the movie being an anti-terrorist operation) began having second thoughts and wanted out, the Israeli secret police threatened his family to force him back in.  Now, we can’t be sure the Israeli government actually did this, because this guy was becoming unhinged with guilt over killing these poor, probably innocent Arabs, but he thinks they did. The Israel government sends a greasy, smarmy intelligence official to deny they were targeting his family, but then again there’s this “end justifies the means” thing, so you can draw your own conclusion.

Oh, by the way, killing the Arab leaders fighting for a Palestinian state had no effect at all.  These guys were replaced with even worse people. The only thing that resulted was the death of a lot of innocent civilians when the Arabs somewhat-justifiably retaliated against the illegal, immoral, Israeli assassination squad. 
 
In light of all of this, I clearly need to re-think my position on Middle East politics. I now understand that retaliation against so-called terrorists is wrong, because they (a) may not really be terrorists — just people fighting to take back their land from an “end justifies the means” corrupt state that took their land in the first place, and (b) this rogue state (Israel) probably lied about the complicity of most of these Arabs in Munich anyway, which means they are probably lying about a lot of other things. 

Also, I understand now that violence never solved any problem, it only makes it worse.  My guess is here that the Jews in Germany in the 1930s probably had it right.  When your enemy wants to put you in an oven, just get in.  If you kill the people planning your death, you’ll just get worse people to replace them.  So instead of 6 million Jews killed, had they resisted, there would undoubtedly have been more deaths — and some of those people would have been innocent of any wrong doing, which makes it doubly bad.  It’s better to be dead and morally/politically correct, than fight back and just make matters worse.

And the people who made this movie were concerned that The Passion of the Christ would be an anti-Semitic diatribe that would harm the Jews? 

The self-loathing of Hollywood Jews has done more to jeopardize Israel than anything the Christian right ever could do!  In fact, if it wasn’t for Christians (the stupidity aside of Pat Robertson saying that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was retribution from God for ceding land to the Palestinians), there would be no voice supporting Israel at all.

It will be interesting to put the message of this movie to a test in the coming months as Iran goes nuclear.  I think Spielberg should take up residence in Tel-Aviv for the next year or two, and then see if he views the world the same way.

My Jewish friend, who is a highly respected Middle East scholar and Israeli war veteran who saw active combat in two wars, didn’t take the movie as seriously as I did.  He found the movie “entertaining like The Bourne Supremacy and countless other films.”  He did have one suggestion however, a reference to my deliberate, tongue-in-cheek use of the word “Jew” and “Israeli” interchangeably.  “It's kind of like Soviet and Russian, there are differences.”

Now I should tell you at this point that the running joke between my friend and me when he was considering relocating to a Southern state was how these people viewed Jews and Israel.  Clearly there are some narrow-minded, bigoted neo-Nazi types who despised Jews simply because they are Jewish.  However, in defense of the South — and as a contemporary side note, after reflection on my recent foray into so-called paleo-conservative thought — I also pointed out that these people hated Catholics, Asians, Mexicans, and everyone else who didn’t meet their particular standards of acceptable parentage.  Not that people like these couldn’t be found in every part of the nation; it was just easier to put a bible in their hands, attach the label “fundamentalist” to their philosophy, subtract a few teeth and add an extra chromosome or two to their physical makeup, and end the analysis there. 

Regardless of whether Southern Christians believed that Jesus Christ, and only Jesus Christ, was the one true path to heaven, they were strong supporters of the nation of Israel.  I explained this seeming disconnect by reminding him that believing in the divinity of Christ and supporting a Jewish state was not in itself incompatible, but supported by the simple fact of reasoning that Jesus was a Jew, and Jews therefore aren’t really Jews.  They are “pre-Christians.”  In essence, we’re both alike — just different stages in the same religious continuum.

Now before anyone takes this tongue-in-cheek observation too seriously, I will admit that there is a grain of truth to it.  It’s no accident that Democrats and Republicans alike often refer to “Judeo-Christian” values.  It’s the understanding of what these values mean in the context of contemporary society that’s the subject of debate.  So it isn’t hard to see how one religious community could support the actions of another religious community that shares a common set of values.  The gulf between Christian and Jews, though wider on matters of religion than politics, is still rather small compared to the gulf between Christians/Jews and the followers of radical Islam.  “An eye for an eye” in the Old Testament, may be contrasted with “turning the other cheek” in the New Testament, but neither bears much resemblance to “kill the Infidel.”

So I responded to my friend’s email about distinguishing between “Israelis” and “Jews” with the following thoughts.

Phil: Most of my professional life has brought me into contact with ordinary people who, unfortunately, get their news and information from MTV and the movies.  I wrote it as they would review it — where “Jew” and “Israeli” are the same thing.  

As a Christian (even a marginally religious one like me) who cares about the fate of Israel — its flaws and all — I tell you in all seriousness that this movie is a great disservice.  It will do precisely what the hysterical Left said The Passion of the Christ would do (but didn’t).  It will marginalize Israel’s efforts to fight terrorism, feed the call for appeasement, and embolden anti-Semites everywhere who now have a foundation for the moral equivalence between slaughtering innocent Israeli school children on a bus and hunting down Arab terrorists. Both actions kill people.  Both actions are the same. Both actions are therefore legitimate.

This movie won’t be seen by the majority of people as just another action adventure movie. Because a prominent Jew made it, it will be seen as an “expose” by those who are looking to feed anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, or anti-Semitic feelings in general.  It will have an impact on policy.  Politicians who would be willing to take a hard stand against Iran, even in the face of public pressure against them because Bush “lied” on Iraq, will now think twice about a pro-active stand.  After all, if the Jews/Israelis are really no better than (or even worse than) the Arabs, why should Israel have 200+ nukes and the Arabs have none?  It isn’t “fair.”  And since the first blast will hit Tel-Aviv (or Europe), why should the US kill more of its boys to protect these stereotypically amoral Jew bastards who brought this on themselves by stealing Arab land in the first place?

The only thing I can assure you is that Southerners in general, and Christians in particular, will not abandon Israel regardless of its flaws.  But Spielberg has just given the Democratic Party the justification it needs to talk tough on Iran but block any meaningful action (embargos aren’t “meaningful”) until Tel-Aviv glows. 

I don’t think we need a few million more dead Jews to justify taking action to stop a threat, but then again, I may be in the minority on this one.  It’s not in my nature to abandon a friend, whether it’s an individual or a nation state, because resisting a threat may be unpopular or politically incorrect.  I just lament that these self-loathing American Jews see no difference between the Arabs you fought in the Yom Kippur war, and modern day Hitlers.

As one final side note, I think the interesting difference in your perspective and mine stems from our respective areas of study.  You’re looking at Middle East politics, and you may be entirely correct from that perspective.  But my field was American politics, particularly how public policy is made from the grass roots up to and through Washington, which I supplemented by several years with a Washington lobbying firm.  From this perspective, I believe that the movie will influence American foreign policy.

At least, Mr. Spielberg hopes it will — and Israeli policy too.  In a January 26, 2006 interview with the German magazine Spiegel, he was asked if he was “aware of the political minefield you were stepping into? . . . You portray not only the Palestinian acts of terrorism, but above all the tough Israeli response, the campaign of vengeance. You show agents who have doubts about their moral superiority when liquidating their enemies.”  Because of this, Spiegel noted that “you have been called a blind pacifist, even a traitor to the cause of Israel.”

And who, according to Spielberg, was responsible for the worst of these excesses directed against him?  Holocaust survivors?  No. Israeli families who lost loved ones to Arab terrorism?  No. Active duty Israeli soldiers?  No. Israeli politicians and/or the Israeli press? No. The worst of the worst was a “small but very loud minority [made up of] narrow-minded and dogmatic right-wing fundamentalists here in the USA.”  He went on to state that “I thank God that people who are important to me see Munich quite differently. Liberal American Jews, for example, but also some families of the victims from that time in Israel. They have embraced the message of the film.”

So it’s the bigoted, right wing Christians who are really the problem for Spielberg and Liberal American Jews who are just trying to bring the world together in a kumbaya moment to stop the killing.   As to the “main charge against Munich [that it] is political or, if you wish, ideological: you are accused of morally equating the Palestinian terrorists with their Israeli pursuers;" this, of course to Spielberg, was “utter nonsense.” As he explained, “wanting to understand the background to a murder doesn't mean you accept it. To understand does not mean to forgive. Understanding has nothing to do with being soft; it is a brave and very robust attitude to take.” 

He did not “humanize terror” as his critics claimed.  In a statement worthy of Harry’s reasoning, Spielberg stated, “Do these critics really mean that terrorists are not human beings? I try not to demonize them. Again, this has absolutely nothing to with relativizing their acts or sympathizing with them. But I do believe that it sullies the memory of the victims if we do not ask questions about the reasons, about the roots of terror. My film is not supposed to be a pamphlet, not a caricature, not a one-dimensional view of things. I refuse to give simple answers to complicated questions.”

My Jewish friend felt that “this movie will be as inconsequential as all other movies have been in influencing significant long-term [U.S.] political trends.  As you say, the Christian Right continues to support Israel and this movie will not deter American Jews from their support as well.” 

I think he’s probably correct about the Christian Right, but I’m less certain about American Liberals and U.S. Jews.  Again, from Spielberg’s own interview with Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: There are obvious similarities in the aftermath of these terrorist attacks that shook the very foundations of Israel in 1972 and of the United States four and half years ago. The same basic questions arise: how much freedom should a democracy sacrifice in order to combat injustice and to provide greater protection for its citizens?

Spielberg: The film has already sparked off discussion in the USA about the Middle East and about the methods used today in the "war on terrorism" declared by George W. Bush . . .

SPIEGEL: . . . in which he repeatedly emphasizes that the enemy is evil incarnate and the enemies are not human beings. The effect of this dehumanization of terrorists . . .

Spielberg: . . . is that you also no longer have to treat them as humans.

SPIEGEL: You have frequently criticized the Bush administration.

Spielberg: I criticize the Iraq war, the restrictions placed on citizens' freedom. I criticize it because I love my country.

SPIEGEL: How would you describe your attitude to Israel?

Spielberg: From the day I started to think politically and to develop my own moral values, from my earliest youth, I have been an ardent defender of Israel. As a Jew I am aware of how important the existence of Israel is for the survival of us all. And because I am proud of being Jewish, I am worried by the growing anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the world. In my film I ask questions about America's war on terror and about Israel's responses to Palestinian attacks. If it became necessary, I would be prepared to die for the USA and for Israel.

Leaving aside the Liberal bravado of the last self-serving comment from Spielberg, I’ll concede the point that American liberals and Democrats support and defend this country too.  Harry has already told me that.  But like Harry, Spielberg and other Liberals prefer to offer a stinging rebuke to present U.S. policy, over proposing any meaningful alternative to that same policy. 

“Not dehumanizing terrorists” is not a policy.  It is a perhaps an element of one.  And it is certainly a statement of personal philosophy.  But it not a prescription for action for Israel in the war against Arab terrorism, nor for the U.S. in its war against the same enemy.  Having made his non-political political movie decrying the policies of the U.S. and Israel, Spielberg is asked to provide an alternative solution that avoids these egregious errors.  His response?   

Spielberg:  I do not claim to be providing a peace plan for the Middle East with my film. But is that a reason to leave it all to the great simplifiers? Jewish extremists and Palestinian extremists who to this day regard any form of negotiated solution in the Middle East as some kind of betrayal? Keep my mouth shut just to avoid trouble? I wanted to use the powerful medium of film to confront the audience very intimately with a subject with which they are normally familiar in an abstract sense at the most — or only from a biased point of view.

Wonderful.  I now know that Steven Spielberg is a benevolent, kind-hearted, morally-superior human being who cares deeply about the intrinsic value of human worth.  But I still have absolutely no friggin’ idea how to keep my kids safe either here or in Israel, other than sit down and negotiate with a bunch of people who want me dead!  This is the best kind of Harry-logic I can find. Take an enemy sworn to your extinction, or one who views your religion as inferior and thus sentences you to death for believing in a different God, and learn what makes them unhappy so you can find common ground.

Unfortunately, when reality sets back in, we find that the only common ground for terrorists is about six feet below surface level. It’s where they expect to put you if you don’t put them there first.

But hey, like Harry, we can all applaud Steven Spielberg’s humanitarianism. It’s just too bad a lot of innocent Israelis and Americans will have to die so Liberals everywhere can go to bed at night feeling pleased about themselves. 

Look for the next chapter coming soon — "Race, Religion, and Politics: The New Holy Trinity."