The Warnings Of Terrorism The Media Won't Address
Joe Sobran Being His Awful "Paleo" Self ;-D9/12/01 3:30:33 PM

Joe SobranCommentary -- Sharon’s War on Terrorism

August 28, 2001

You can believe that Zionism is racism, that the state of Israel is
tyrannical,
that the Palestinians have been deeply wronged, that armed resistance against
the Jewish state is entirely justified, and much else.

But however deeply you believe all this, you still have to be horrified when
a
bomb in a pizza joint kills 20 people. “Terrorism” is a feeble and
inadequate
word for such a sickening act. And there have been too many such acts.

In response, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced and begun to execute a
policy of state assassination, killing suspected instigators of terrorism. No
arrests, no trials, no formalities or niceties. Israeli forces — nobody is
calling them “death squads,” for some reason — just single out those the
government decides to hold responsible for terrorism and kill them. Monday
they
fired missiles into the office of the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine and killed Mustafa Zibri, a senior Palestinian leader.

Such discretionary killing by a state is obviously troubling. One reason for
holding trials is to ensure justice for the accused; another is to present
evidence to assure the public that the government is not acting arbitrarily.
This is especially important when the government considers itself at war with
a
whole ethnic group, as Sharon’s government does.

Sharon has few scruples when it comes to non-Jews. He considers that the
disputed land of Israel/Palestine belongs exclusively to Jews and he has
never
said what rights, if any, the Palestinians have. He feels justified in doing
whatever is necessary to consolidate Jewish power over the land claimed by
Israel, including the occupied territories. He neither recognizes Palestinian
rights nor admits limits on Jewish rights.

It was predictable, then, that he would react with little restraint to the
recent atrocities. His defenders, even in the American press, say he has no
choice but to target suspected terrorist leaders for death, even if innocent
people are killed in the process. The trouble is that for Sharon and his
defenders suspected terrorist leaders is a very broad category.

By their logic, Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestinian Authority, would
qualify. They hold him responsible for the atrocities. There is no evidence
that he favors these acts or could control them if he wanted to, since many
Palestinian militants despise him as a quisling and homemade explosives used
by
suicide bombers are beyond his reach. But who’s splitting hairs? In his own
mind, and by the logic of his partisans, Sharon would be fully justified in
killing Arafat himself.

Is Sharon really trying to stop terrorism, or is he using terrorism as an
excuse for killing off the Palestinian leadership? Given his ideology and his
record, we are entitled to suspect that he sees an opportunity to rid himself
of his enemies without having to justify himself in court. War nearly always
serves as an occasion for serious expansions of state power and the
destruction
of legal protections.

A further problem is that these state assassinations aren’t being enacted
with
homemade bombs; they employ American-made missiles, jets, helicopters, and
other weapons, which are supposed to be used only for defense against foreign
attack. When Sharon attacks his enemies, he makes still more enemies for this
country.

This is why American interests are at stake in the endless Middle East
conflict. The United States is Israel’s chief benefactor; it doesn’t follow
that Israel is a “reliable ally” of the United States, as its partisans
claim.

Yet American politicians are rarely candid about the stakes for this country.
They may sometimes shake their heads over Israeli “excesses” and even murmur
about Palestinian rights, but they almost never discuss the price the United
States pays in international hostility, even when Americans become the
targets
of terrorism.

Israel’s journalistic “amen corner” here unremittingly defends its harshest
treatment of Palestinians and its military strikes against its neighbors.
Even
if all these acts were morally justifiable, the question would remain: What’s
in it for America? Why should we be enmeshed in a bitter ethnic struggle on
the
other side of the globe?

The United States has sacrificed its interests and betrayed its principles in
its support of the state of Israel. The policy may be bad for the country,
but
it seems to be lucrative for our politicians.

Joseph Sobran
Libertarian Socialist News
Post Office Box 12244
Silver Spring, MD 20908






Reply via email to