|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 14, 2004 / 24 Nissan, 5764 White House Lessons By Michael Freund
http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
Perhaps the best thing Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush can do prior to their meeting today to discuss a possible Israeli withdrawal from Gaza is to take a quick tour of the White House.
The stroll down memory lane will not only give the two men a chance to take a short break from the daily demands of their jobs, it just might help to put the folly of retreating from Gaza in the proper perspective.
While wandering the halls of the great building they might wish to stop and peek into the Lincoln bedroom, which is said to contain the ornate bed where the great president himself slept.
This brush with history would enable the two leaders to ponder the events that took place exactly 143 years ago this week, when Abraham Lincoln, shortly after his inauguration, faced his own dilemma over a question of withdrawal.
The year was 1861 and seven southern states had seceded from the Union, forming the Confederacy and choosing a president and vice-president of their own. The breakaway states were busy forming an army, preparing to wage war and threatening to tear the United States apart.
The federal army, under Lincoln, still maintained isolated military garrisons in the southern areas, including Fort Sumter, located in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Under the command of Major Robert Anderson, Fort Sumter was both of symbolic and strategic importance, as it sent a clear message to the rebellious South about the Union's determination to hang on and prevail.
But supplies were running low at the fort, and Lincoln faced the question of whether to withdraw his forces or attempt to resupply the fort and keep the Union flag flying.
Secretary of war Simon Cameron and secretary of state William Seward, as well as the commander of the army, general Winfield Scott, all pressed Lincoln to retreat, arguing that maintaining the fort was not worth the effort involved, while withdrawing it could lay the ground for peace with the rebel states.
But Lincoln rejected their advice, recognizing that weakness could hardly serve as the basis for a lasting solution. Instead he insisted on sending an unarmed flotilla laden with provisions to resupply the fort.
On April 12, 1861, the Confederate forces responded by opening fire on Fort Sumter, setting off a struggle that led to the defeat of the rebels and the rescue of the Union. Thanks to Lincoln's bravery, and his unwillingness to capitulate in the face of terror, the United States survived to become a unified and cohesive nation.
But if going back that far in history is too much of a stretch for Bush and Sharon, they need only look to the events of more recent years for reminders of why giving ground to terror is simply not an option.
They could start with a leisurely walk through the Rose Garden, which might just jog Bush's memory and bring to mind the speech he gave there on June 24, 2002. "A Palestinian state will never be created by terror - it will be built through reform," Bush said.
"Today, Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure," the president added.
In the nearly two years since Bush made those remarks, have the Palestinians changed their tactics one whit? Have they ceased using terror as a tool to murder innocent Israelis and to try to achieve their political objectives?
No, they haven't. If anything, they have intensified their campaign, adopting even more ruthless measures, such as dispatching young children to become suicide attackers, and even attempting last week to set off a bomb laced with AIDS-infected blood.
So there is simply no reason for Bush, let alone Sharon, to now embrace the idea of handing over territory to Palestinian control.
BUT IF the Rose Garden doesn't do it for them, then perhaps a swing by the White House's Cross Hall would strike a chord with the two leaders. For it was there, on March 17, 2003, that President Bush delivered his televised ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war.
Speaking to a global audience, Bush declared, "If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them will face fearful consequences. We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater."
Recalling the lessons of history, Bush invoked the danger of appeasing terror.
"In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth."
Those stirring words apply no less equally today, when, according to the head of the Shin Bet, Palestinian terrorists are reportedly seeking to build long-range artillery guns as well as delivery systems for chemical weapons to be used against Israel (Ma'ariv, February 24).
Prudence demands, therefore, that Israel reinforce its hold on Gaza and clean out the terrorist infrastructure there rather than withdrawing and allowing the Palestinians to enhance their arsenal of destruction.
Moreover, it was just last month, in a March 19 address delivered from the East Room of the White House on the first anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, that Bush himself underlined the dangers inherent in retreat.
"Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence and invites more violence for all nations," Bush said.
That same day, in a phone call with Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski, Bush was even more emphatic. "Those who are pulling out, showing their weakness, are very naive to expect to be guaranteed safety and be spared terrorist attacks," he asserted.
These remarks echoed what Sharon himself was saying only eight months ago, when he told interviewers on the eve of Rosh Hashana: "Any unilateral step, without an agreement, will result in Israel withdrawing in the face of terror. Terror will continue."
With so much now riding on Sharon's meeting with Bush, and the future of Gaza possibly at stake, one can only hope that the two men will not ignore the lessons of the past.
But if history won't be their guide, the least they can do is heed their own rhetoric from recent months and reject the idea of a unilateral Israeli retreat under fire.
For were such a move to come to pass it would not only hurt the Jewish state, it would undermine the global war on terror, sending a message of weakness and vulnerability at a crucial juncture. And that is something which is not in either of the two countries' best interests.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. JWR contributor Michael Freund served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning under former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Comment by clicking here.
© 2004, Michael Freund | ||||||||||
