The Fox
Recently, I've been having a hard time with
Ariel Sharon. The right in Israel has been
mercilessly hounded and harassed. The
settlements, which are mostly Sharon's
brainchild, have come under attack. There
have been arrests with no discernible cause.
Synagogues have been torn down. I've
said a few unfriendly things over the last
year or so.
Yet, something isn't right here. All this
"surrendering" and monkeying around with
people, and pandering to the snarling and
bloodthirsty Arab terrorists doesn't seem
to have any desirable political outcome.
So what
is really going on?
First of all, I think there's no doubt that
Sharon is a man who loves his country and
his people. If I had any doubts in that regard,
they'd be gone after reading
Oriana Fallaci's
account in the New York Observer. Ms.
Fallaci always struck me as an excellent
judge of character, and she definitely seems
to hold Sharon in high regard.
So if he isn't the bandit he might seem
to be, what is he? A fox, maybe. My
friend Nix 2 has some definite thoughts
on the subject, and I agree with her.
She happens to be one of the most
astute analysts of the Middle East I've
ever seen, and lately we've discussed
this rather a lot. I'll give you her analysis
in my words, without further ado:
Let's do a little thought-experiment here.
You are a general who knows that you'll
have to wage a bloody war sometime in
the not-so-distant future. But your people
is divided against itself, and the enemy is
walking among them. What do you do?
First, you unite the people. And with the
heavy-handed tactics of the government
and the GSS, the people are indeed getting
to be united. And spoiling for a fight and
revenge, which isn't a bad thing if you can
point them in the right direction.
Then, get the enemy out from among your
civilians - or, in this case, get your civilians
out from among the enemy. They're really
hostages there, and a hindrance to what
must come. Soon.
Now Sharon has gotten a few rather un-
precedented things from Bush, the most
significant of which is that Israel will not have
to go back to the green line. Most folks
seem to have a problem wrapping their
heads around the importance of this. It
completely breaks the slow progress towards
oblivion in which the EU and the Arabs have
been pushing Israel, and which they
thought
they had American support for.
When the Arabs are frothing at the mouth
now, and Chirac's face folds in on itself in
immeasurable petulance, it means that they
know that this is bad for them and good for
Israel. I wonder if the UN spasm firing off no
less than three resolutions condemning Israel
on the behest of terrorist states and entities
was triggered by a feeling of desperation?
However that may be, the new fact on the
table is that Israel has new parameters to
work with - parameters that are bad for the
Arabs and good for Israel. Some, like
Imra's Aaron Lerner, would tone down the
significance of this - admitting that the new
agreement does indeed constitute a valid
executive agreement that does obligate all
administrations, but also noting that such
an agreement can be summarily revoked by
a later President of the US.
However, if I'm not mistaken, for a President
to do that, he'll have to do it immediately upon
entering office (30 days). If not, a revocation
will reguire a passage through Congress and
Senate. So the agreement would seem pretty
stable, if a new President didn't attach
paramount importance on getting rid of it.
Which would seem pretty farfetched. But
if that is a concern, as my friend Nix points
out, it's another reason for American Jews
to vote to re-elect George W. Bush.
Not that I blame the Israelis for being a bit
sceptical about what comes out of the US.
America's record with its ally in the Middle
East has been questionable at best, and
some - I among them - would call it shameful.
Bush has been the first basically honorable
US president in this regard in a very long
time. Even Reagan, an otherwise honorable
man, let blatant antisemites in his administration
control too much of the relationship with
Israel. And other presidents were perhaps
closet antisemites themselves:
Jiminy Carter: "If I get back in, I'm gonna f*ck
the Jews!" And the Clintons seem to have
been no slouches when it comes to Jew-hatred.
But in contrast, George W. Bush has shown
himself to be a man of his word and a friend
of Israel, not to mention a commander-in-chief
who is willing to engage the swinish islamic
terrorism in battle, where Carter and Clinton
preferred backroom deals and accomodation.
Now then. The clincher, for me, was seeing
both men after the meeting.
Click for pic
The body language tells a completely different
story than the measured diplospeak coming
out in the official statements. This language
says "Yes! We're moving! They're toast!"
They look like two cats who have shared a
bowl of cream and a plate of tweetybirds.
And are still sharing a secret. In fact, they
look ready to burst.
And the Arabs are screaming like a pack of
wolves who have discovered that they are
really chickens. And that the fox is upon
them.
# Posted by The Cachelot @ 4:29 AM
