From the streets of Ramallah to the caves of Afghanistan, terrorists around the world were celebrating this week, as they commemorate the anniversary of not just one - but two - of their biggest coups against Israel and the West.
This past Monday, of course, was 9/11, the day upon which Osama Bin-Laden declared war on America. With a few sharp instruments in hand, and a lot of fanatical determination, Bin-Laden's henchmen succeeded in carrying out the largest act of mass murder ever committed on US soil, killing over 3,000 innocent human beings.
They set a chilling new standard for international terrorism, both in terms of the audacity of their assault, as well as the insolence of their aim: to undermine the very pillars of Western civilization. For that alone, Bin-Laden and his cohorts have earned a central place in the annals of infamy.
But September 11 is not the only significant occasion appearing on the terrorists' calendar this week.
There is another date as well, one that embodies just how crafty the practitioners of terror have become. It is 9/13, the date on which Yasser Arafat stood on the White House Lawn 13 years ago and signed the Oslo Accords, professing peace even as he was pursuing war.
With just a pen and a smile, Arafat succeeded in fooling the government of Israel and much of the West into believing that he had cast aside his boundless hatred and replaced it with a newfound yearning for reconciliation and peace.
Arafat's ultimate goal, as the ongoing Palestinian terror campaign has amply demonstrated, was no less lethal nor depraved than that of his Saudi-born colleague: to kill as many people as possible, all in the hopes of bringing his foes to their knees.
Though different in form and in substance, 9/11 and 9/13 do share one important trait in common: they both exemplify the danger of Western inaction when confronting an implacable enemy.
Remember: 9/11 was the second, not the first, attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in Manhattan. In 1993, a truck bomb exploded underneath one of the towers, killing six Americans. Had the Clinton Administration reacted as it should have, and launched its own war on terror, had it hunted down the perpetrators and refused to rest until Osama Bin-Laden was behind bars, who knows how much pain and suffering and even death might later have been averted?
Once Bin-Laden had joined the ranks of international terrorists, he should have been treated accordingly. But the sad fact is that he wasn't, and on 9/11, we all learned just how shortsighted and deadly that decision proved to be.
The same can be said for Israel's willingness in 1993 to sign an accord with Yasser Arafat, treating him as a lofty statesman rather than a lowly killer. Brushing aside three decades of PLO terror, the government of Israel handed Arafat the keys to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and allowed him to create a corrupt, authoritarian terrorist entity straddling the Jewish state's narrow boundaries.
It was a sad exercise in self-delusion. The desire to appease the enemy led Israel's leaders to think that yesterday's murderer could serve as today's peace-partner.
Instead, had Israel acted as it should have, arresting Arafat and trying him for murder, rather than transforming him into a head of state, who knows how much turmoil and bloodshed might have been prevented?
All told, over 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since the signing of the Oslo Accords, which is nearly twice the number that were killed in the 25 years that preceded the agreement. Clearly, the decision to accommodate Palestinian terror, rather than eliminate it, has proven to be a grave and fateful error on Israel's part.
The lesson, then, of this week's two anniversaries should be clear: the only way to get rid of terrorism is to get rid of the terrorists.
Apathy and appeasement may buy a few years of quiet. But in the end, the price of refusing to respond forcefully to terror is, inevitably, still more terror, and on a much larger scale.
With a little more foresight, and a lot more courage, the events of 9/11 and 9/13, and the destruction that was wrought as a result, might never have come to pass.
Let us hope and pray that Washington and Jerusalem will at last act to ensure that they never again recur.

Jacques Chirac has done it again.

The man who sought to protect his buddy Saddam from being toppled from power, has now stepped into the fray in an effort to salvage the terrorists of Hizbullah.

After taking the unusually cooperative step of producing a draft resolution together with the US, Chirac has now back-tracked, insisting that revisions be made to the text in order to satisfy Arab demands.

Speaking on Wednesday after meeting with some of his cabinet ministers, Chirac was critical of the US, saying that it would be "most immoral" not to impose an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon.

"Most immoral"?

Since when is it "immoral" to hunt down terrorists and eliminate the threat they pose to civilization?

Essentially, France wants to try to save Hizbullah by forcing Israel to stop its assault against the terrorist group. Motivated by a desire to please its Arab friends (and business partners), France is once again taking the lead in providing diplomatic cover to terrorists.

Indeed, France has long been one of the main opponents of designating Hizbullah as a terrorist organization and has blocked the EU from doing so.

So, once again, Jacques Chirac has tried to earn a few cheap political points domestically by "standing up" to the US and asserting France's contrarian view – even if it means allying himself diplomatically with the aggressors and the terrorists.

It's not surprising, nor unexpected, but it is disappointing nonetheless. Will the French leadership ever learn?

The world became a whole lot safer yesterday, after the US took out Iraqi terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Israel eliminated his Palestinian counterpart, Jamal Abu Samhadana.

In both instances, solid intelligence backed by a healthy dose of airpower neutralized these two evil men, whose daily regimens consisted of trying to figure out how to murder as many innocent human beings as possible.

Samhadana was far less well-known in the West than al-Zarqawi, but that does not take away from his heinous record of bloodshed, which included attacks on Israeli soldiers and involvement in the October 2003 bombing of a US diplomatic convoy in Gaza.

Both these men deserved what they got, and got what they deserved, and we should all be grateful to the US and Israeli military forces for a job well done.

Not surprisingly, the Palestinians came out into the streets to protest – not just against the killing of Samhadana, but also of Zarqawi too.

The fact that they identify with that ruthless thug, and mourn his passing, should be proof enough that they neither warrant nor merit Western understanding or support.

It is a rare occasion indeed when patriotic Israelis find themselves in agreement with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen).

With his history of empty promises and deceit, including the publication of a book denying the Holocaust, the Palestinian leader can hardly be looked to in order to provide truthful political analysis.

But in interviews published over the weekend with a British and an American newspaper, Abu Mazen – for once – has hit the nail squarely on the head.

Addressing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s plan to carry out unilateral withdrawals in Judea and Samaria, Abu Mazen said, “The Israelis say: 'OK, we'll impose a unilateral solution' -- which means that they will postpone, delay ... and they will not solve the problem. After 10 years our sons will feel it is unfair and they will return back to the struggle... Nobody will accept it. The struggle will continue.”

As the Palestinian leader implicitly points out, one of the key weaknesses of Mr. Olmert’s plan is that Israel will be abandoning further territory in exchange for nothing – no agreement, no peace and no end to terror. If anything, Mr. Olmert’s plan will only serve to strengthen the hand of Palestinian terrorists, giving them additional territory alongside Israel’s borders from which to carry out further attacks.

Abu Mazen’s prediction is that the Olmert plan will lead to war. It is a gloomy assessment – but sadly, it is also likely to prove accurate.

I am off to Russia to visit with the Subbotnik Jews of the former Soviet Union (you can find out more about this intriguing community here), so I won't be posting for the next few days. Please check back on Friday, September 1, when I hope to start re-posting. Thanks.