Who Really Is the Enemy of the World???

June 5, 2007

“These people” keep saying that the “enemy of the world” is the “Muslim Jihadist.” Let’s see. For 1500 years or so the enemy of the world was the “Christian Jihadist,” now it’s the “Muslim Jihadist.” Let’s take turns… “my dance…, your dance…” Both of these Jihadists, of course, really think the Jews are and always have been the “enemy of the world.”

Wake up! The “enemy of the world” is poverty and ignorance!!! Now you know why both Jihadist movements hate Jews. Jews don’t espouse poverty, ignorance or Jihads. Wherever the true Jewish spirit goes- they try to build educational bridges and create national (common) wealth. If you want to keep people down, you cannot permit these things. Dividing wealth between “haves” and “have-nots,” (the Right Wing Extremist Credo since time immemorial) precludes education and freedom of expression.

Unfortunately, even extremist Right Wing Jews are not immune either. The Israeli government over even more than the past 6 years has treated many citizens of Muslim origin as Apartheid (as President Carter so aptly exposes in his book). With the help of our own Right Wing Extremist government, they have stayed in power by exploiting the terrorist threat- real as it is- to stay in power. They have nothing else to offer!! If terror dies down, they need to repromote it as Mr. Sharon did in his heinous march through Jerusalem.

Being tough does not mean being stupid! Stupidly and gleefully mounting an all out attack on Hezbollah terrorists and destroying ½ of Lebanon was not as unfortunate as “stupid.” President Bush’s “stupidity,” looking on like a fan (-atic) and rooting for Israel to destroy Hezbollah may have been morally justified, but “stupid” usually does not work, “moral” or not. Unfortunately, Israel’s generals were both ignorant and stupid as well.

Why attack Lebanon when the instigator is Iran? Why not have a “policy” on terror? Between the U.S. and Israel, neither has a viable policy on terror. First of all, the U.S. has learned, ever since President Carter’s failure in Iran, that you cannot fight terrorists unless you force the governments that back them to deal with the terrorists. If you want to be technical, President Carter did save the lives of our hostages, but at the expense of our future and many more terrorist attacks. He did nothing to deal with the government of Iran.

We need a “policy.” Submit a “policy” to the UN, for instance, and ask them to help modify it. This is for two reasons, (1) it acknowledges to them that we want “fairness.” (2) It makes us believable if we are consistent. Evaluate our policy, criticize it, but we demand that the evaluation be fair. For example, let’s say that we will consider any government that sponsors and encourages terror a target of our policy. Unlike Zalmay Khalizad, later Bush’s Ambassador to Iraq, whose early then retracted idea (under threat of the Baker Act) was to invade any country with suspected access to nuclear weapons and the possibility of giving the weapons to terrorists, our policy will involve as little killing as possible.*

Why not start with Iran- a government and President who brag about training terrorists, that teach terrorism in the schools, that take credit for suicide bombings in Israel and worldwide. Why not submit to the UN that we will warn Iran that for every suicide bombing anywhere, it is Iran’s job to police this activity and to stop training their children in terrorism, that for every suicide bombing, we will take out an oil well. We will warn them in advance to avoid casualties. We will advise Israel to do the same in case of any attack by Hezbollah.

Why not tell the UN that we will deploy 2 or 3 Nuclear Submarines in the Mediterranean at all times to “stabilize” the region? Submit the “plan” for their approval.

The problem we are facing here, of course, is “energy.” It dominates our lack of foreign policy and completely stagnates our thinking. It fans the flames of bigotry against “towel heads” instead of respecting them as human beings. To us they are a source of energy and if we didn’t need their oil, we would not care about their quality of life, their safety or their rights as human beings. An intelligent policy, for instance, in Iraq, might lead to disagreements with Saudi and Jordanian dictators and other allies, much more dangerous, in the long run, than an evil but freely elected (if demented) President in Iran.

The best example is our current policy in Iraq and the third grade (maybe Kindergarten) grasp of the situation by both the Bush Administration and the Democratic Congress and Senate. It becomes apparent that just as a precious few of these people had read the National Intelligence Estimate regarding the situation in Iraq before their “ignorant” vote. The same perpetrators certainly don’t seem to have read either the Patriot Act (virtually all of them have admitted this). Worse yet, after two egregious failures, they have proudly failed to read the Iraq Study Group Report as well!

Reluctantly, we see Vice President Cheney “chatting” with the Saudis- apparently he is afraid they will be sending troops to protect the Sunnis from annihilation. The Egyptians and Syrians also will have to send forces to save the Sunnis. The Iranians will have to send forces in to bolster the Shiites, of course, and the Turks will as well to keep the Kurds in check. All this is a “natural progression.” It’s not “good guys” and “bad guys” (except for Al Qaida)- It is people doing what they have to do. Why not negotiate with all these parties. Why not form a coalition- get the forces under a UN umbrella. Use the “surge” for “negotiating” clout, not to win an unwinnable “war” that’s not a war, but a struggle for survival. Urge European countries to add their forces- as trainers for Iraqis. Then we can pull a portion of our troops out of Iraq without seriously endangering them with timetables.

In other words, we cannot (physically, financially) police this area without the inhabitants working with us. Give them some responsibility- we have to- it’s the first step in something called a “policy.” The second step is arranging a treaty between Israel and Palestine. Work with Mr. Abbas- don’t look a gift horse in the mouth as President Bush did when he foolishly asked for new elections in Palestine. 3rd and most important- initiate any sort of halfway decent energy policy already. What the heck are you waiting for??

Instead of creating a timetable to ensure the murder of as many American Soldiers as possible, instead of dwelling on benchmarks that the Iraqi government can’t attain, the Democratic Congress should base funds on negotiation. No negotiation, no funds. Period…

Allen Finkelstein, D.O.

* Cobra II, M. Gordon and General B. Trainor, page 72