Bush Embraces Wild-Eyed Radical Jew!

Here’s a headline from today’s Washington Post that more or less illustrates how badly our media has missed the story of the Israeli/Palestinian problem: “An Israeli Hawk Accepts the President’s Invitation”

Now from that, you’d assume that the person in question advocates war with the Palestinians. You’d be wrong. But let’s look at the lead paragraph and see what else might be happening.

Those looking for clues about President Bush’s second-term policy for the Middle East might be interested to know that, nine days after his reelection victory, the president summoned to the White House an Israeli politician so hawkish that he has accused Ariel Sharon of being soft on the Palestinians.

And further on, there are stronger words about him.

Sharansky made waves this spring when he rallied with Jewish settlers to oppose the Likud prime minister’s plan for a unilateral pullout from Gaza — a plan that Bush had endorsed. Sharansky, head of a Russian immigrant political party, said Sharon’s plan, though supported by a number of Likud hard-liners, would be “encouraging more terror.” A figure who has previously railed against the “illusions of Oslo” and described that famous accord as “one-sided concessions,” Sharansky resigned in 2000 from Ehud Barak’s government over the Labor prime minister’s plan to attend a peace summit in Washington.

There’s that word hawkish again. So who is this villain who would wage war on the Palestinians and thinks that Sharon’s a big softie on settlements?

His name is Natan Sharansky. And, deeper in the article, we can see what his positions really are.

Sharansky’s ideas are clear: no concessions, funds or legitimacy for the Palestinians unless they adopt democracy, but a modern-day Marshall Plan for the Palestinians if they embrace democratic ways. The same hard line that worked for Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union, Sharansky argues in his book, would work for Israel against the Palestinians.

In his book, Sharansky echoes many of Bush’s favorite lines, talking of the need for “moral clarity” in fighting evil. Likening the fight against terrorism to the struggle with Nazism and communism, he described a world “divided between those who are prepared to confront evil and those who are willing to appease it” — a common Bush dichotomy. “I am convinced that all peoples desire to be free,” Sharansky writes. “I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe.”

Does he believe that Sharon is too soft? Yes, only in that he would not give concessions to the Palestinians unless they embrace democracy and foreswear blowing up Israelis. He has said consistently that good behavior ought to be rewarded well and that we shouldn’t give them any rewards until they do exhibit good behavior. Eventually, the Palestinians will get tired of having their money stolen from them by corrupt leaders and of living in squalor and violence and will put in leaders who will look after their best interests but only so long as we continue to show them what lavish benefits they could have when they do.

The “carrot and stick” sttrategy is exactly what worked in the case of the Soviet Union. Sharansky has a ringside seat there, too. But you might get that view while spending nine years in Soviet prisons asa political prisoner. He better than most realizes how necessary freedom is in stopping tyranny.

Is that radical? Is that “hawkish”? The Washington Post seems to think so.

No related posts.

Category: Oh, THAT liberal media.