Jewish World Review Oct. 8, 2001 / 21 Tishrei, 5762

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

With allies like these -- OF the five countries described below, can you identify the one(s) excluded from the US-led coalition in the war on terrorism?

Country A is free and democratic, a steadfast ally of the United States. Its citizens know what it means to be victimized by terrorism, and they were deeply shaken by the Sept. 11 atrocities. Thousands of them lined up to donate blood for wounded Americans; rescue teams volunteered to fly to New York. Country A has formidable military and intelligence capabilities, and it instantly made them available to American officials.

Country B, a military dictatorship, has been the leading supporter of Afghanistan's Taliban regime. In a recent report on world terrorism, the State Department admonished Country B for "providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisers." Islamist terrorists operate openly in Country B. Many of them are armed by the government, which refers to them as "freedom fighters."

Country C is a theocratic monarchy that enforces the same extreme brand of Islam favored by the Taliban. Perhaps for that reason, it was one of the very few countries to extend diplomatic ties to the Taliban before Sept. 11. Osama bin Laden recruits heavily from Country C and was behind the terrorist attacks that killed 23 US servicemen there. Those attacks were never properly investigated, because the monarchy refused to let the FBI examine evidence or question the suspects.

Country D, a major Arab power, is also a major recipient of US foreign aid. Nevertheless, the people of Country D were joyful over last month's slaughter of Americans. As one wire service reported: "Students, taxi drivers, and shopkeepers crowded round television sets stacked up in store windows..., celebrating a string of elaborate attacks on New York and Washington. 'Bull's-eye!' commented two taxi drivers.... 'Mabruk! Mabruk! [Congratulations!]' shouted a crowd..."

Country E has long been on the State Department's list of states that sponsor terrorism. In April 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell described it as "the primary state sponsor of terrorism." Country E has actively incubated terrorist attacks on Americans, and calls for anti-American violence are a staple of the government's rhetoric.

If you follow the news, you will recognize Countries A through E as Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran. Of the four, the only one not invited to join Washington's anti-terror front is Israel -- the loyal American ally, the regional military power, and the nation with more experience than any other in fighting Islamist terror. Less than a week after the September 11 massacres, Powell told the Arabic television network Al-Jazeera, according to The New York Times, "that he saw no role for Israel in any military response to last week's attack."

Incredibly, the United States seems to be going out of its way to give the back of its hand to the only nation in the Middle East and South Asia that shares its democratic values, while extending an olive branch to nations that harbor, foment, or celebrate terrorism. On September 27, the State Department spokesman actually announced that terrorism against Americans and terrorism against Israelis are "essentially ... two different things." In one case, he said, "there are violent people trying to destroy societies," while in the other, "there are ... political issues that need to be resolved in the Middle East."

So terrorists who butcher innocents in the World Trade Center are evil, but terrorists who butcher innocents in a Jerusalem pizzeria or Tel Aviv discotheque must be indulged because they have "issues." Is that really what Washington believes?

Apparently so. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah, two of the bloodiest terror groups on earth, was included in President Bush's executive order freezing terrorist assets. "This isn't a Hezbollah moment," a US official told reporters. "It's an Osama bin Laden moment." But if the United States cannot say unambiguously that organizations it has labeled terrorist for years are targets in the war on terrorism, what kind of war on terrorism is it?

It is one thing to acknowledge that geography compels us to make an arrangement with Pakistan, or to decide that the Arab world will be more forthcoming if Israel's role is muted. It is something quite different to imagine that governments that nurture and protect terrorists can be induced to help us crush terrorists.

Pakistan is an unabashed sponsor of radical Muslim terrorists in Kashmir. Iran and Syria are the leading backers of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia is a key source of funds for fanatic Islamists -- including Al Quaeda. Yasser Arafat -- whom the Bush administration decided to reward last week with a declaration in support of Palestinian statehood -- is one of the most notorious terrorists of modern times. If these are the partners we are relying on in our war to rid the world of terror, that war is as good as lost.

When Bush addressed Congress on September 20, his words rang with clarity and truth. "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." That must be our guiding principle, for if the war against terrorism means anything, it means abolishing the regimes that keep terrorism alive. If we choose instead to embrace those regimes -- to "fight" terror by winking at terror -- we will have squandered our moral authority. And 7,000 victims will have died in vain.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2001, Boston Globe