  09-30-01 22:14Hrs--Rochester, NY--- It is little discussed in the press, and less understood in the general public, that the kind of terrorism brought upon these shores on September 11th, is more or less a daily event in Israel, and has been so since 1948 .One would think that our country's leadership would grasp that linkage more clearly after being pummeled by it for so long. Alas, that they seem more interested in listening to the pacifists in this country and the world, rattling on and on about how we should examining the 'root causes' of the recent violence against the US?. That we should understand, as one pundit put it, the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East.
Reality counsels us that it was exactly this kind of non-thinking, this seeking the "root causes of crime" during the 60's here in the US, which created our overly soft policies toward crime, and which, thereby, led to the truly grotesque crime rates of today. So, now, we're to find the 'root causes' of someone's desire to level two buildings full of 10,000 innocents? Perhaps the desire here is to induce more of this kind of behavior as our 'soft on crime' fellows of the 1960's so generously provided us? Ironic, too, that the two suggestions are from the same sources. Let's be realistic. Those who attacked us on September 11th, and their fellow terrorists are of a particular mindset.
(I call them terrorists. To call the attackers Arabs, insults the majority of Arabs and the majority of Muslims,, and I won't do it here) These terrorists will not be appeased by anything less than the annihilation of the west. They have demonstrated this desire for this destruction, and their ability to provide it, time and again, for decades.
It's not like the West, mostly the US, hasn't tried. Every chance for peace has been provided, every consideration shown and every forbearance provided, even after it was demonstrated many times that such chances were unwarranted, and not in the best interests of peace in the region, and the world. Doctor Thomas Sowell echoes my comparison between our bumbling with the Middle east, to the west's pre-WWII stance, vis'a vie Neville Chamberlain: "Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war. " He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war. " In other words, the British Prime Minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract, where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -- and contempt for him by Hitler.
What Winston Churchill understood at the time, and Chamberlain did not, was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them. " That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center. " Dr. Sowell is, of course, quite correct. More often than not, peace is simply not within reach at the peace table. There are, however, other noteworthy similarities, too, between this and the pre-WWII era?
For example, take the anti-Semitism of both Hitler, and Bin Laden's people. It is this same hatred as Sowell mentions, that causes suicide bombers to blow up Israeli teen-agers at a disco or Israeli families at a Jeruselem Sbarro pizzeria, along with themselves. And... Oh, my!... it's the same group of people, that flew those planes on the 11th. Do you suppose anyone in Washington has made this link, yet? Yes, we saw some Arab countries and cultures express remorse at the loss of life, but NOT at the TACTICS. Some goodness, some morality is struggling to get out, over there. However, it would appear that the morality suffers under the weight of what passes for political reality in the Arab world today. Take Iran for example, who at first, following the attack, made statements that seemed to be very friendly indeed, and then only later made statements denouncing the 'disgusting' Americans, and arrested it's own people for partaking in candlelight vigils in respect to our dead in New York and Washington. Clearly, these delayed anti-western responses, are reactions to political pressure within the Arab block.
So it was that after the attack on America, we got all these expressions of support, but no denunciation from the Arab world, of the terrorists themselves, and what they were about. Consider, too, that there were no Arab voices raised in condemnation when suicide bombers blew up Israeli teen-agers at that disco full of kids, and Israeli families at that Jeruselem Sbarro pizzeria. Indeed, the mass-murderers were called martyrs to the cause. At the moment, that same phrasing is being used by some Arabs to describe the lothesome bastards who killed over 6500 Americans last month.
So, how is it that our leaders here in the west apparently haven't figured out what's what? The problem is that they, too are bowing to political pressure. The problem is the pervasive humanistic view, fed to us in the 60's and reinforced hence by the country's left wing, that there is good in all people, and all we have to do is placate them long enough to find it. Or, as I put it a few months ago, the belief that sacrifice and bloodshed will not be necessary; and that peace and prosperity are the universal goals of mankind. I hope and trust Mr. Bush is not among those swayed by this claptrap, as Chamberlain, and Clinton were., and as the rabid left here in the US continues to be. As an aside: Such nonsense is clearly the view of Jesse Jackson, whose efforts to act as a 'bridge' are raising questions. "...there must be some bridge, even a civilian bridge. ", notes Jackson. Ummm... A bridge between what, Jesse? Between the Americans and the Taliban? Does this mean you are not American? The subject of Mr Jackson's motivations in this matter is a lengthy one and perhaps worthy of a column to itself.
Perhaps I'll tackle that one next week. Anyway, alas that peace and prosperity for all is not a universal goal. The reason is simple: There are some people in the world that are simply evil. Our own prisons are filled with such people.Oh, I know it's not politically correct to call people who are in jail, 'evil'. Well, face facts, people... some of them are. Indeed, most. That established, Is it really so much of a shock that we would find such players on the world stage, playing for larger stakes, such as a Hitler, or a Bin Laden? And isn't it ironic that the very leftists who were quick to call Timothy McVeigh, 'evil' after the attack on OKC's Murrah, are the same folks who are telling us we need to look at the 'root causes' of the attack on the world trade center? Why is it they did not look for the the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" in McVeigh and yet are willing to do so for BinLaden?
If simply calling something evil and dealing with it as such is good domestic terrorism policy, why is it less sound in international terrorism policy? On the surface, it would seem something else is influencing the judgementt. of the left here in the states. All one can hope is that the influence of these people remains as low as it's been in the last few days. To that end, we need to ask ourselves: How many more people in the west are going to have to die before we learn the lesson of the double standard, and deal with these war criminals, and their supporters, as such? 
