|
|
Latest Column:
The “Offense” Gambit
Or, How the “Christmas Wars” Began...
..........
CaliforniaRepublic.org
opinon in
Reagan country
..........
Michael Ramirez
editorial cartoon
@LA Times
..........
..........
Do
your part to do right by our troops.
They did the right thing for you.
Donate Today
..........
 ..........
..........
tOR Talk Radio
Contributor Sites
Laura
Ingraham
Hugh
Hewitt
Eric
Hogue
Sharon
Hughes
Frank
Pastore
[Radio Home]
..........
|
|
 Eliminating
Israel Politely
The Kofi Annan way...
[by
Daniel Pipes] 12/14/05
There is
a right way and a wrong way, strangely, to call for the elimination
of Israel.
The secretary-general
of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, provided an example of both
ways in recent weeks. When the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
stated on October
26 that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must be eliminated
from the pages of history," Mr. Annan replied
by expressing "dismay." Again on December
8, when Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be moved to
Europe, Annan responded
with "shock."
But dismay
and shock at Ahmadinejad's statements did not prevent Annan
from participating on November 29, just between the Iranian's
outbursts, in a U.N.-sponsored "International Day of Solidarity
with the Palestinian People." Anne Bayefsky of "Eye
on the UN," reports that Annan sat on the dais with an
Arabic-language "Map of Palestine" nearby that showed a Palestine
replacing Israel. It cartographically achieved exactly what
Ahmadinejad called for: the elimination of the Jewish state.
Contributor
Daniel Pipes
Daniel
Pipes is director of the Middle
East Forum, a member of the presidentially-appointed
board of the U.S.
Institute of Peace, and a prize-winning columnist
for the New York Sun and The Jerusalem
Post. His most recent book, Miniatures: Views
of Islamic and Middle Eastern Politics (Transaction
Publishers) appeared in late 2003. His website, DanielPipes.org,
the single most accessed source of information specifically
on the Middle East and Islam, offers an archive and
a chance to sign-up to receive his new materials as
they appear. [go to Pipes index]
|
Annan's contradictory
actions result from the fact that, since 1993, explicit calls
for the destruction of Israel have become offensive, but implicit
ones have become more acceptable. The latter include:
Fatah and
Hamas together display this dichotomy. Both aspire to eliminate
Israel, but they have chosen different paths to get there.
Fatah's tactics
have been opportunistic, duplicitous, and inconsistent since
1988, when Yasser Arafat nominally condemned terrorism and
began the "peace process" with Israel even as he simultaneously
sponsored suicide terrorism and promoted an ideology
totally rejecting Israeli legitimacy. This transparent
deception enabled Fatah to gain great benefits from Israel,
including a self-governing authority, a quasi-military force,
vast Western subventions, and near-control of one border.
Hamas, by
contrast, consistently has rejected Israel's existence, which
has won it ever-larger segments of Palestinian Arab public
opinion (the latest
poll shows it ahead of Fatah in the forthcoming elections,
45% to 35%). But this overt rejectionism also has made it anathema
to Israel and others, limiting its effectiveness. As a result,
Hamas in recent months has started showing more flexibility;
for example, it generally has honored a cease-fire with Israel
and is moving in the direction of entering the diplomatic process.
This brings advantages; the "Conflicts
Forum" and others, with
some success, are presenting Hamas as a newly legitimate
interlocutor.
Palestinian
Islamic Jihad might find itself the only purely rejectionist
organization against Israel.
Why do such
distinctions in style matter? Because the Fatah approach seduces
Israelis enough to work with them; Arafat-like euphemisms,
inconsistencies, subterfuges, and lies encourage them to make "painful
concessions." Contrarily, the Ahmadinejad-PIJ approach
crudely confronts Israel with overt and brutal threats that
cannot be rationalized away. Blatant calls for Israel's disappearance
make Israelis bristle, acquire
new armaments, and close down diplomatically.
These ploys
might strain credulity surely the Israelis realize that the
former is no less lethal than the latter?
Actually,
they do not. Since 1993, Israelis have shown themselves, in
the words of the philosopher Yoram
Hazony, to be "an exhausted people, confused and without
direction," willing and even eager to be duped by their enemies.
All they need are some overtures, however unconvincing, that
they will be freed from war, and they barely can restrain themselves
from making concessions to mortal enemies.
Thus does
enlightened world opinion condemn Ahmadinejad, sensing he went
too far and will cause Israelis to retreat. If he would only
tone down his comments and politely call for Israel's elimination
by, for example, endorsing a one-state solution, all would
be well.
Thus have
Israelis effectively defined which anti-Zionism is acceptable
and which is not. Kofi Annan's record of both condemning and
endorsing Israel's elimination merely reflects the etiquette
of destruction established by Israelis themselves.-one-
This article
first appeared at New York Sun
copyright
2005 Daniel Pipes
§
|
|
|
