Lunch Money For Peace

TruthNews Commentary, February 20, 2002

On the McLaughlin group last week, Pat Buchanan asked a rhetorical question about Israel that demands an answer. Buchanan asked, "Is the United States going to play the role of honest broker, or are we just going to be a cheerleader for Ariel Sharon? That's the question, because that's all we are right now."

A rhetorical question is an important debating device because it asks a question to which the answer is obvious, and thus leads the listener to the desired conclusion. In this case, of course, Buchanan wants people to agree with his point that the U.S. should be an "honest broker." Even the words "honest broker" are chosen to lend weight to the argument. After all, no one wants America to be a "dishonest broker."

But the whole argument around America being an honest broker implies that the two sides are morally equivalent. When the dispute is between good and evil, no one expects an honest broker. In the war against terrorism, President Bush pointed out exactly this, when he told the nations of the world, "You're either with us, or you're against us."

With Israel, the whole crux of the matter, and the reason that Buchanan's argument registers with many, is that many people, even in America, regard the Israelis and Palestinians to be morally equivalent.

But the terrorist attacks of this past weekend show how completely uninformed this view is. On Saturday evening, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a pizza parlor near Tel Aviv, killing two teenagers, Nehemia Amar and Keren Shatsky. On Monday, a Palestinian sniper killed Ahuva Amergi, a mother of two small sons, at the entrance of Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. Two Israeli soldiers were killed in the ensuing gun battle with the sniper, who eventually blew himself up. An Israeli policeman was killed when he stopped a Palestinian suicide bomber enroute to Jerusalem. The Palestinian blew himself up, killing the policeman, who probably saved many others from death or injury had the suicide bomber reached Jerusalem. Add this to terrorist attack on a bus in the West Bank that killed 10, including 2 teens and a mother of 5 children, the suicide bombing of a Haifa bus that killed 15, most of them senior citizens on an outing, the suicide bombing of a pedestrian mall in Jerusalem that killed 11, nine of them teenagers, the suicide bombing of a Jerusalem pizza parlor that killed 15, including mothers and 8 children, the suicide bombing on a Tel Aviv disco that killed 21 people, 15 of them teenagers, and numerous other terrorist attacks on malls, school buses, and other civilian targets. Arafat condemned the attacks (some carried out by his own PLO) to the western media, but to his own people, he said of the suicide bombers, "Do you know what a mother of a martyr does when she is informed of the martyrdom of her son? She goes out to the street with cheers of joy saying 'Allah be praised.'"

The Palestinians would argue that they, too, have suffered civilian casualties. This is unfortunately true, but the moral distinction between the Israelis and Palestinians is this: the Palestinian terrorists deliberately target women and children and shield themselves among the innocent of their own population, while the Israelis are only fighting back against those who perpetrate the terror. True, there are sometimes innocent Palestinian casualties, but these are a direct consequence of the Palestinians hiding among the innocents and of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's refusal to control the terrorism. The Palestinians have turned the situation in Israel into a war, but the terrorists, under the Geneva Convention, are "unlawful combatants" who do not wear uniforms or answer to a national authority and engage in war crimes by deliberately targeting civilians.

No matter how one feels about who should own what land in the Middle East, the end does not justify the means. Nothing can ever justify the deliberate and premeditated murder of innocent civilians, women, and children. There is no moral equivalency here. Terrorism is evil, and there can be no "honest broker" between good and evil.

Buchanan would probably argue that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances that need to be addressed. This is true, but their grievances stem from two causes, neither of which is Israel's fault. First, the Palestinians attempted to eradicate the nascent Jewish state in 1948 and drive the Jews into the sea. They lost and have been paying the price since. Well, that's war. As Germany has seen, if you start a war and you lose, you're likely to pay the price for years to come. Following World War II, ethnic Germans were driven out of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Would anyone today have any sympathy if the descendants of these Nazi collaborators claimed the "right of return"?

The second cause of Palestinian suffering is Yasser Arafat and his dictatorial reign of terror over the Palestinian people. Like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, he has led his people down the path of destruction. To the extent that they support Arafat, the Palestinian people share the responsibility for their own suffering. The answer to this grievance is simple: get rid of Arafat and his dictatorial regime. To date, both the Palestinian people and the Israeli government have been unwilling to implement this solution.

So what could America's "honest broker" role be in the Mideast conflict? Buchanan and his ilk seem to take the view that if the school bully wants to steal your lunch money, you should let him have it, because then he'll like you and won't try to steal your lunch money tomorrow. This is the gist of the "land for peace" idea that Shimon Peres and Bill Clinton tried to implement in the Oslo accords. It didn't work – Israel found out that the bully still hates them and wants more lunch money.

President Bush has apparently seen the fallacy of the lunch-money-for-peace concept. He refuses to meet with Arafat and has consistently supported Israel. It's better to be a cheerleader for good, than an "honest broker" between good and evil.

More TruthNews