When Is a War Not a War?

Israel attacked a training camp inside the borders of Syria. President Bush said “right on” since it reflected his warning to those who supported terrorism.

An immediate resolution was submitted by Syria to the United Nations Security Council, of course, condemning Israel. The United Nations run by the Arab puppet Kofi Annan immediately convened the meeting for the eve of the Jewish Holy day of Yom Kippur—thus commemorating the Yom Kippur Arab defeat at Israeli hands in their prior war attempt to eliminate Israel from the Middle East. Those who rhetorically extol the sanctity of religion had no problem in seeking to defile the holiest day for Jews.

What is very interesting about the whole thing is that there has never been a peace “treaty” between Israel and Syria. Why had Israel not demanded that Syria close out the terror groups and camps and move to eliminate the threats? Why they had not taken this approach previously is somewhat difficult to comprehend.

The United Nations created an Israeli State and a Palestinian State by partition. The Arab Nations commenced a war to destroy Israel. They lost on the battlefield, but they won in their approach to control of world opinion as to the post-War Middle East.

First, the Arab Nations rejected the Palestinian state as projected by the United Nations. Next they formulated the Palestinians as stateless refugees by placing them in camps with United Nations support and little, if any, support—financial, economic assistance in developing their own society—from the Arab Nations.

The Palestinians were very effectively used as pawns in the Arab political and economic deception, ignoring that the Palestinians were being subjugated by their Arab Leadership rather than by Israel. Confirming that there is a sucker born every minute, Israel and the world accepted this deception that the fight was between Israel and Palestinians and not between Israel and the Arab Nations and the Arab League with a peace in the Middle East region eluding any probability of an immediate peace. Oil and economic greed and an Arab and European distrust of the United States prevented that.

The Arabs learned from Vietnam, et. al., that in subsequent battles, they could not defeat Israeli survival on the field of combat, so they resorted to guerilla tactics of hit and run by using terrorists in place of combat troops. In the beginning, they made claims that those groups, which were imposing havoc on the Israeli population, were offshoots and rogue groups and not the main groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, or the subjugated Palestinians, who were responsible for the ensuing Israeli deaths. Israel and the world accepted this fiction, and Israel responded by attacking Palestinians rather than those major funded Arab groups who actually planned, funded and made sure that destruction and discontent were foisted on the Israeli nation and its people.

So, the Arab Nations went unscathed, continuing their denunciation of Israel, while effectively restraining the Palestinians as was shown by Arab actions against their own Palestinians in Black September and the wholesale deportation of Palestinians by Kuwait in Gulf War I.

Israel did modestly respond by its attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility and in Lebanon, but they basically ignored their real enemies in the Arab world—the Iranians, Saudis, Iraqis, and others who funded and planned the destruction of Israel. The Arab rhetoric and public relations presentation at the United Nations and throughout the world was well-honed and effective; the Israeli response was blah.

The Arab campaign was so effective that the Palestinians, who were their subjects in all respects, were taught in school to hate the Jew and Israeli to the point that they were willing to give up their lives in suicide attacks, transforming that death into a religious experience. They sublimated Palestinian identity and integrity to the greater Arab good rather than the greater Palestinian good. And, each time this campaign of control is questioned, there is a threat of reduced oil production or some other economic threat to their world debtors or a demand that the United States pressure Israel to retreat from its own security to satisfy the hypocrisy of the anti-US countries.

Had Israel faced their Arab conspirators in the beginning by defined responses against terror groups inside Arab borders, would Israel have been worse off than it is today in facing terror attacks on their soil? Really, we don’t know the answer—it would probably result in sanctions as happened in South Africa or a threat of international peacekeeping forces or whatever—but the issue would then be what is has always been, a resolution of the Israel/Arab issue and not the restriction of a road map to nothing. That probably would have eliminated or reduced the necessity of the United States having to go into Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Israeli response to the guerilla warfare by bombing Syria was proper and should reawaken the United States to relearn the lessons of Vietnam that the only way to reduce and respond to such attacks is by forcibly employing the same tactics and going after the terrorists who come in and kill American personnel by way of access from Syria, Iran, Pakistan, or elsewhere, without concern to jaundiced world opinions.

The world community will object; but just remember, it is not their children who are dying.