Has not the U.S. declared a global war against terrorism and listed Syria as one of the states sponsoring terrorism? So, what is this wishful thinking of granting more time to see whether Syria and Yasser Arafat change their terrorist behavior?
It is clear, according to Israeli and American evidence, that Syria supports terrorism, including in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). So, instead of exercising a consistent policy, how can the new approach be a passive one? Homicide bombings against innocent Israeli civilians continue coming from Judea and Samaria, while the Palestinian Authority, although it doesn't say so publicly, far from eradicating terrorism, backs and supports the Al-Aksa Brigades (its terrorist arm). How can Israeli President Moshe Katsav expect that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, while still supporting Hizbollah, honestly would accept to hold peace talks in Jerusalem? To believe that would be either foolish or naive.
Interestingly, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed in a US News & World Report interview on January 8 that the U.S. "will continue to encourage the Syrians to change aspects of their behavior that we [USA] think are inappropriate." Didn't Assad fool Powell during his earlier visit to Damascus, promising that he would stop Syria's support for terrorism and shut down the Hamas and Hizbollah headquarters in Damascus? Well, that was wishful thinking on the part of Collin Powell, as nothing that he was promised then happened.
Didn't Powell learn yet that Assad and terrorists can't be trusted, or is he still on his wishful thinking parade? Someone needs to wake-up.
The statistics are clear. Deaths and injured people continue to increase. Finally, isn't it time to maintain a consistent policy against all entities and states sponsoring terrorism, including Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Iran and Libya, instead of believing in empty "peace" promises? Diplomatic and economic support to these groups has proved an ineffective approach, as witnessed an ever-increasing bloodshed. This inconsistent American policy is no doubt what increases negative attitudes towards the U.S.
The U.S., as expressed by Powell during a January 14 radio interview co-produced by the BBC, Public Radio International and WGBH TV in Boston, "has been acting on the basis of principle, we're [USA] interested in freedom, democracy, and human rights." In that case, this statement does not apply to the U.S. policy in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Freedom, democracy and human rights?
Supposedly, the U.S. is an ally and friend of Israel. Yet, when Israel ? the only democratic country in the region ? defends herself against terrorist attacks coming from the Palestinian Authority region, the U.S. criticizes, instead of supporting, Israel. Let us not forget that, as we said before, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, as part of the Palestinian Authority, proudly takes credit for several homicide bombings. Moreover, Arafat, by keeping silent, indeed backs the Brigades.
Is not Israel doing the same the U.S. is doing against Al-Qaeda, eradicating the terrorist infrastructures? Are not the homicide bombings - not one, but continued suicide bombings - despicable enough? Who are the ones attempting to commit genocide, violating the human rights of innocent civilians, acts that are even celebrated? Alternatively, we may ask, why can the UN and the world only blindly count victims from one side but not the other? Or is it that Israeli victims are not supposed to be counted, despite their being the main target?
The point is that there are 21 Arab nations that on several occasions had attacked or condemned Israel, the only democratic nation in the area. Israel, for thousands of years, has been struggling to survive. Since the establishment of the modern State of Israel, its struggle has been to fight for its right to exist. The Arabs had fought against Israel since its independence, but, interestingly enough, have lost all their wars, including the 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 Six Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur, etc.
The results? The terrorist group of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, very conveniently changed its name, and it is now known as the "Palestinian Authority", despite the fact that the same leader, Yasser Arafat, leads it. Arafat has legalized his terrorist policy and obtained the historical Jewish lands of Judea, Samaria, Bethlehem and Hebron as part of the yet-to-be-seen "Palestinian State."
Is Arafat just pursuing his original PLO goal, which is to destroy Israel? If not, how can one explain that on the PLO's official website, with the map of the envisioned State of Palestine, an Israeli state does not appear, as if it had never existed? This, despite the fact that it is Israel, not Arab-Palestine, that has existed in that area for thousands of years. Despite the historical facts, Arafat is rewriting history and the world is buying it. Thus, in the end, who is smarter, the victim or the terrorist? No comment; but the challenge becomes clear for President Bush. Bush has said that he is a man who keeps his word. He declared a war against global terrorism, so this would be a good time to stand by his word.
Arafat succeeded in selling the concept of the "Palestinian People." When, in fact, there has never been a Palestinian language or Palestinian culture, but it was only a political invention of the Romans in the second century, to erase the land's Jewish identity. The people that the world now knows as Palestinians are nothing more than Arabs. Moreover, 57% of Europeans, based on the poll sponsored by the European Commission, consider Israel, instead of the Palestinian Authority, as the obstacle to peace.
Arafat's public relations and marketing strategies - with all the millions or billions he cleverly accumulated, as reported by Forbes - succeeded, while Israel miserably fails even to keep the original names of their historical lands - Judea and Samaria. All this can be traced to the leftist policies that have misguided Israel, but fortunately, there is fresh hope that these ideas might be in the process of changing. Unless Israeli leaders prefer to believe Arafat's empty peace promises.
Bottom line: Israel and the U.S. should take public relations and marketing lessons from Yasser Arafat.
Arafat sold himself as dressed in a democratic and diplomatic uniform, which covered and still disguises his terrorist garb. Arafat's fortune, as estimated by Forbes consists of $300 million, placing him in sixth place among the richest world leaders, while the truly innocent Arab-Palestinians live in miserable poverty. Is it not time to wake up and smell the coffee? If conventional war did not destroy Israel, a terrorist policy is apparently paying off. Israel continues to make concession after concession, while the killing of innocent Israelis does not stop, but increases.
So much for Syria and Arafat as peace partners. Does Israel need more empty peace promises? What do you think?
It is clear, according to Israeli and American evidence, that Syria supports terrorism, including in Judea and Samaria (West Bank). So, instead of exercising a consistent policy, how can the new approach be a passive one? Homicide bombings against innocent Israeli civilians continue coming from Judea and Samaria, while the Palestinian Authority, although it doesn't say so publicly, far from eradicating terrorism, backs and supports the Al-Aksa Brigades (its terrorist arm). How can Israeli President Moshe Katsav expect that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, while still supporting Hizbollah, honestly would accept to hold peace talks in Jerusalem? To believe that would be either foolish or naive.
Interestingly, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed in a US News & World Report interview on January 8 that the U.S. "will continue to encourage the Syrians to change aspects of their behavior that we [USA] think are inappropriate." Didn't Assad fool Powell during his earlier visit to Damascus, promising that he would stop Syria's support for terrorism and shut down the Hamas and Hizbollah headquarters in Damascus? Well, that was wishful thinking on the part of Collin Powell, as nothing that he was promised then happened.
Didn't Powell learn yet that Assad and terrorists can't be trusted, or is he still on his wishful thinking parade? Someone needs to wake-up.
The statistics are clear. Deaths and injured people continue to increase. Finally, isn't it time to maintain a consistent policy against all entities and states sponsoring terrorism, including Syria, the Palestinian Authority, Iran and Libya, instead of believing in empty "peace" promises? Diplomatic and economic support to these groups has proved an ineffective approach, as witnessed an ever-increasing bloodshed. This inconsistent American policy is no doubt what increases negative attitudes towards the U.S.
The U.S., as expressed by Powell during a January 14 radio interview co-produced by the BBC, Public Radio International and WGBH TV in Boston, "has been acting on the basis of principle, we're [USA] interested in freedom, democracy, and human rights." In that case, this statement does not apply to the U.S. policy in the case of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Freedom, democracy and human rights?
Supposedly, the U.S. is an ally and friend of Israel. Yet, when Israel ? the only democratic country in the region ? defends herself against terrorist attacks coming from the Palestinian Authority region, the U.S. criticizes, instead of supporting, Israel. Let us not forget that, as we said before, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, as part of the Palestinian Authority, proudly takes credit for several homicide bombings. Moreover, Arafat, by keeping silent, indeed backs the Brigades.
Is not Israel doing the same the U.S. is doing against Al-Qaeda, eradicating the terrorist infrastructures? Are not the homicide bombings - not one, but continued suicide bombings - despicable enough? Who are the ones attempting to commit genocide, violating the human rights of innocent civilians, acts that are even celebrated? Alternatively, we may ask, why can the UN and the world only blindly count victims from one side but not the other? Or is it that Israeli victims are not supposed to be counted, despite their being the main target?
The point is that there are 21 Arab nations that on several occasions had attacked or condemned Israel, the only democratic nation in the area. Israel, for thousands of years, has been struggling to survive. Since the establishment of the modern State of Israel, its struggle has been to fight for its right to exist. The Arabs had fought against Israel since its independence, but, interestingly enough, have lost all their wars, including the 1948 War of Independence, the 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 Six Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur, etc.
The results? The terrorist group of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, very conveniently changed its name, and it is now known as the "Palestinian Authority", despite the fact that the same leader, Yasser Arafat, leads it. Arafat has legalized his terrorist policy and obtained the historical Jewish lands of Judea, Samaria, Bethlehem and Hebron as part of the yet-to-be-seen "Palestinian State."
Is Arafat just pursuing his original PLO goal, which is to destroy Israel? If not, how can one explain that on the PLO's official website, with the map of the envisioned State of Palestine, an Israeli state does not appear, as if it had never existed? This, despite the fact that it is Israel, not Arab-Palestine, that has existed in that area for thousands of years. Despite the historical facts, Arafat is rewriting history and the world is buying it. Thus, in the end, who is smarter, the victim or the terrorist? No comment; but the challenge becomes clear for President Bush. Bush has said that he is a man who keeps his word. He declared a war against global terrorism, so this would be a good time to stand by his word.
Arafat succeeded in selling the concept of the "Palestinian People." When, in fact, there has never been a Palestinian language or Palestinian culture, but it was only a political invention of the Romans in the second century, to erase the land's Jewish identity. The people that the world now knows as Palestinians are nothing more than Arabs. Moreover, 57% of Europeans, based on the poll sponsored by the European Commission, consider Israel, instead of the Palestinian Authority, as the obstacle to peace.
Arafat's public relations and marketing strategies - with all the millions or billions he cleverly accumulated, as reported by Forbes - succeeded, while Israel miserably fails even to keep the original names of their historical lands - Judea and Samaria. All this can be traced to the leftist policies that have misguided Israel, but fortunately, there is fresh hope that these ideas might be in the process of changing. Unless Israeli leaders prefer to believe Arafat's empty peace promises.
Bottom line: Israel and the U.S. should take public relations and marketing lessons from Yasser Arafat.
Arafat sold himself as dressed in a democratic and diplomatic uniform, which covered and still disguises his terrorist garb. Arafat's fortune, as estimated by Forbes consists of $300 million, placing him in sixth place among the richest world leaders, while the truly innocent Arab-Palestinians live in miserable poverty. Is it not time to wake up and smell the coffee? If conventional war did not destroy Israel, a terrorist policy is apparently paying off. Israel continues to make concession after concession, while the killing of innocent Israelis does not stop, but increases.
So much for Syria and Arafat as peace partners. Does Israel need more empty peace promises? What do you think?