In a few days, Americans will choose between voting for George Bush, or for John Kerry.
Simultaneously, in Israel, a nation is being torn apart by a vote, as well. True, not in a general election, but it has definitely been a historic week, when the Knesset voted for the first time on the destruction of Jewish communities in Gush Katif and northern Samaria. Supporting or opposing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "disengagement" plan - that is where Israelis will have to position themselves these next few weeks.
Though many would say these are two different events completely, they do have one major common denominator to them. In fact, they are almost identical.
In the US, those who are called in the polls "undecided" have to choose between voting for Bush and voting against the war. It is clear that the contest in the US this time is between G. W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Probably only a few voters are faced with the dilemma of voting for Bush or for Mr. Kerry's fascinating, charismatic personality, and his personal history as a public figure.
And yet, people understand what the vote is about. Sending George W. Bush back to his Texas ranch next week will be a victory for the Bin-Ladens and Saddams. It will be a painful blow to the brave decision America made as a nation, to sacrifice the lives of their troops, billions of their dollars and a lot of world sympathy for the benefit of Free World interests and values.
It always amazed me how much energy the American liberal and anti-war circles have spent on bashing the administration on the issue of where the Iraqi WMD really are, or how come they have not been found. Suppose Saddam Hussein was only pretending he had them, and managed brilliantly to deceive both Israeli and American top intelligence agencies. So? Was he not a destabilizing force in the Middle East? Was he not committed to truly obtain those weapons at the first chance he would get? Did he not annihilate Kuwait? Has he not fired 42 Scud missiles at Israeli cities during the first Gulf War ? proving that if he will ever get his hands on those unconventional toys, he would use them, immediately, and with no provocation on Israel's part? Is this not a First World affair? Has he not murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and more Kurds, and planted them in mass graves all over the desert? What exactly is there to apologize for? And what about Afghanistan? Why are they (anti-war groups) not mentioning that? Why is the Bin-Laden-Afghanistan link acceptable, and the Saddam Hussein?Iraq link not?
And so, the vote this next week is a statement. A statement that the Americans are not fooling around when it comes to choosing between good and bad in the world. A statement of commitment to true global values. It is hard for a free country to fight a war on the other side of the globe. It is easy to think, if you are an American, "We have no business over there." And this is exactly what the vote is about. Between those who painfully accept the role of the US as a sole world superpower, and understand the responsibility that goes with the benefits, and those who don't. Plain and simple.
The 'Kerrys' in America are good people. They hate war. They despise conflict. They want peace badly. They just forget one thing. A reluctance to use force, hesitance to punish the aggressor, never pays off in the long run. You may be tempted to run away from the Bin-Ladens, Husseins and Ayatollahs of the world. You won't have to run far. They will come to you.
Likewise, in the Israeli situation.
Those who support Mr. Ariel Sharon's plan to uproot 8,500 Jewish Israelis from their homes do not support this out of a cold heart or hatred towards the people who live there. They genuinely believe that Israel has "no business" in the south-central corner of the Gaza Strip. They truly believe that Israel invests way too many resources in maintaining a large military force to defend those small villages. They want Israel's well-being and to walk away from conflicts. They are good people, too. They hate war. They despise conflict. They want peace badly.
But just like with the 'Kerrys' in America, the "Disengagers" in Israel make a fundamental mistake. The question of the logic of the settlements in the Gaza Strip, or those in northern Samaria bound to be evacuated as well, is not the issue at all. The issue is the principle. What is Israel doing in response to four years of brutal, cannibalistic Palestinian terror? What lesson will the Palestinians learn from Sharon's actions? What legacy, rhetoric and culture, will they develop around Israel's self-imposed destruction of a dozen villages in the midst of a war the Palestinians elected to start?
The answer is obvious. Just like Israel should not give the Palestinians any reward for their choice of terror and aggression, the American people need to show commitment to their global role in the world. Sending Bush back to Texas, like destroying settlements in Israel by Israeli hands, is sending the wrong message.
It is Bush and stopping the irresponsible "disengagement" plan, or Kerry and proceed with the "disengagement" plan. But you cannot have Bush and "disengagement" if you wish to maintain your intellectual integrity.
With the two heads of states, Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon, awaiting the verdict of the voters, those who support and feel thankful for the US efforts in the world in the last three years have to hope for one thing: that one of them will go back to his ranch. But not the one in Texas....
Simultaneously, in Israel, a nation is being torn apart by a vote, as well. True, not in a general election, but it has definitely been a historic week, when the Knesset voted for the first time on the destruction of Jewish communities in Gush Katif and northern Samaria. Supporting or opposing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's "disengagement" plan - that is where Israelis will have to position themselves these next few weeks.
Though many would say these are two different events completely, they do have one major common denominator to them. In fact, they are almost identical.
In the US, those who are called in the polls "undecided" have to choose between voting for Bush and voting against the war. It is clear that the contest in the US this time is between G. W. Bush and the war in Iraq. Probably only a few voters are faced with the dilemma of voting for Bush or for Mr. Kerry's fascinating, charismatic personality, and his personal history as a public figure.
And yet, people understand what the vote is about. Sending George W. Bush back to his Texas ranch next week will be a victory for the Bin-Ladens and Saddams. It will be a painful blow to the brave decision America made as a nation, to sacrifice the lives of their troops, billions of their dollars and a lot of world sympathy for the benefit of Free World interests and values.
It always amazed me how much energy the American liberal and anti-war circles have spent on bashing the administration on the issue of where the Iraqi WMD really are, or how come they have not been found. Suppose Saddam Hussein was only pretending he had them, and managed brilliantly to deceive both Israeli and American top intelligence agencies. So? Was he not a destabilizing force in the Middle East? Was he not committed to truly obtain those weapons at the first chance he would get? Did he not annihilate Kuwait? Has he not fired 42 Scud missiles at Israeli cities during the first Gulf War ? proving that if he will ever get his hands on those unconventional toys, he would use them, immediately, and with no provocation on Israel's part? Is this not a First World affair? Has he not murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and more Kurds, and planted them in mass graves all over the desert? What exactly is there to apologize for? And what about Afghanistan? Why are they (anti-war groups) not mentioning that? Why is the Bin-Laden-Afghanistan link acceptable, and the Saddam Hussein?Iraq link not?
And so, the vote this next week is a statement. A statement that the Americans are not fooling around when it comes to choosing between good and bad in the world. A statement of commitment to true global values. It is hard for a free country to fight a war on the other side of the globe. It is easy to think, if you are an American, "We have no business over there." And this is exactly what the vote is about. Between those who painfully accept the role of the US as a sole world superpower, and understand the responsibility that goes with the benefits, and those who don't. Plain and simple.
The 'Kerrys' in America are good people. They hate war. They despise conflict. They want peace badly. They just forget one thing. A reluctance to use force, hesitance to punish the aggressor, never pays off in the long run. You may be tempted to run away from the Bin-Ladens, Husseins and Ayatollahs of the world. You won't have to run far. They will come to you.
Likewise, in the Israeli situation.
Those who support Mr. Ariel Sharon's plan to uproot 8,500 Jewish Israelis from their homes do not support this out of a cold heart or hatred towards the people who live there. They genuinely believe that Israel has "no business" in the south-central corner of the Gaza Strip. They truly believe that Israel invests way too many resources in maintaining a large military force to defend those small villages. They want Israel's well-being and to walk away from conflicts. They are good people, too. They hate war. They despise conflict. They want peace badly.
But just like with the 'Kerrys' in America, the "Disengagers" in Israel make a fundamental mistake. The question of the logic of the settlements in the Gaza Strip, or those in northern Samaria bound to be evacuated as well, is not the issue at all. The issue is the principle. What is Israel doing in response to four years of brutal, cannibalistic Palestinian terror? What lesson will the Palestinians learn from Sharon's actions? What legacy, rhetoric and culture, will they develop around Israel's self-imposed destruction of a dozen villages in the midst of a war the Palestinians elected to start?
The answer is obvious. Just like Israel should not give the Palestinians any reward for their choice of terror and aggression, the American people need to show commitment to their global role in the world. Sending Bush back to Texas, like destroying settlements in Israel by Israeli hands, is sending the wrong message.
It is Bush and stopping the irresponsible "disengagement" plan, or Kerry and proceed with the "disengagement" plan. But you cannot have Bush and "disengagement" if you wish to maintain your intellectual integrity.
With the two heads of states, Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon, awaiting the verdict of the voters, those who support and feel thankful for the US efforts in the world in the last three years have to hope for one thing: that one of them will go back to his ranch. But not the one in Texas....