Paying for trouble

How can anyone justify giving financial aid to “terrorists”? We are commanded to “love our neighbor,” and this week’s Torah reading gives ample examples of practical situations in which “loving” another human being can be actualized (see Leviticus, chapter 21). But, funding the Palestinian Authority goes way beyond “love of neighbor”! It starts to look very much like the concept of “enabling” a “dysfunctional person,” except — in this case — it is the enabling of a dysfunctional “nation,” which is an avowed enemy of the State of Israel. A “nation” where hated of the Jews is seen as a badge of honor and of patriotism … this was stated in the PA official daily paper by Fahmi Huwaidi. Yet, even the moderate Arab nations do not fund the PA to the same extent as the USA!

Americans need to read “What Do The Arabs Know, While Foggy-Bottom Is Clueless?” which claims that “… Saudi Arabia and other Arab oil producers bankrolled the Islamic intifada against the Soviets in Afghanistan (some $1BN in 1985-6), but would not finance the Palestinian intifada of 1987-92 and the current PLO war on Israel. The U.S., on the other hand, provides $100MN annual aid to the PLO (channeled through PLO-controlled PA and NGO’s) more than all Arab countries combined.”

But is it the case that the United States is really “clueless”? There is at least one U.S. Senator who’s making more than just noise about this situation! “The bountiful U.S. aid package for Egypt, unchallenged for two decades, was questioned Tuesday by a powerful Republican senator who complained that Egypt’s government-supported press had “been spewing anti-Semitism at an all-time high.” Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, also came under criticism by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for walking away “from the best deal the Palestinians will likely ever see.” “What more can Israel offer?” McConnell asked Secretary of State Colin Powell. (This question was in reference to the Camp David offers of the Israelis to the PA from last summer.)

Speaking of Colin Powell, and the U.S. taxpayers’ money going to fund Chairman Arafat’s PA, people in the United States should consider calling the White House (and Powell’s State Department) and giving their opinion on a pressing issue! I’m talking very specifically about the equating of “self-defense” (in the case of Israelis) and “murder” (in the case of the Fatah & Tanzim organizations). Even in the Bible, if someone accidentally killed someone, there are places where an individual could go (i.e., cities of refuge) if a court determined that the death was indeed accidental.

However, President Bush (last Friday) was asked if he “equated” the murders of those two Israeli boys with the death of an Arab infant, caused by Israel’s response to a mortar attack. And Bush did proceed to equate them — condemning this “cycle of violence” — not the Arab attacks which lead to Israeli defensive responses! The “cycle of violence” is the phrase adopted by the State Department of Colin Powell — and also the media — to blame both sides for instances of Palestinian murder or attempted murder of Israelis. Where is the justice in this? And U.S. citizens support this “type of murder” with their tax dollars?

Meanwhile, certain Arabs further escalated this “cycle of violence” on Al-Nakba Day … their commemoration of the formation of the Jewish State is referred to as a “catastrophe” (Arabic: nakba). Yet, my research into the history reveals that many Arabs (at that time) refused peace with Israel and refused to share this land in a “partitioned” Palestine, with each of them (i.e., the Jews and the Arabs) allocated their own portion. The Arab world at large had encouraged the “Palestinian” Arabs (remember Jews were also called Palestinians at that time) to leave their land, until after the Arab war against Israel was won, when they could then go back to their villages. The PA is now trying to “finish” winning that war today by using violence and terrorism against Israel to “force” this issue of the Arabs going back to their 1948-49 villages, which had been abandoned by them at the insistence of the Arab countries. This is the so-called “refugee situation,” which the Jews abhor, having pleaded with their Arab neighbors to stay put and help to build this new nation. But, to allow these people back in to Israel proper now, with the continued incitement to violence and the “hatred of the Jews” would mean a death warrant to the Jewish State.

Most westerners don’t understand Arafat’s double talk. In addition to all the incitement to violence in Arafat’s words on Nakba day, he had claimed that the Palestinians will go on fighting until all the so-called “settlements” in Gaza and West Bank are removed, and until all the Arab “refugees” from Palestine return to their “ancestral lands.” The only problem here is that Arafat is not only talking about the “settlements” in Gaza and the West Bank (i.e., that territory which was “occupied” by Jordan during the 1948-49 conflict, until the ’67 war). Arafat is also talking about the return of Arab “refugees” to the towns and villages that they had occupied prior to the Israeli War of Independence of 1948-49! These are towns within the Green Line of Israel proper today (e.g. Netanya, Ramle, Lud)!

Will it never end? Will this co-called “cycle of violence” and PA terrorism be used as a “negotiating” tactic by the PA until all of the State of Israel is destroyed? Some of the Arab peoples have never wanted to live “side by side” with a Jewish State. And it seems like they are still the loudest (albeit a minority) voice within the Middle East, whereas the majority are silent — which in most cultures still means “consent.” That is why Israel will need to reconsider continuing to negotiate with this president of the PA, Yasser Arafat. His treachery — and also lack of sincerity in wanting peace — is beginning to become obvious! But, then again, it’s a phenomenon that perhaps the moderate Arabs have known about, or suspected, all along! The American public has the ability to influence the U.S. to maintain the status quo — or to change things — based on their interactions (or the lack thereof) with the White House, the State Department and their Congressional Representatives.