The best one can say about 2001 is good riddance and we hope we never see the likes of you again.
A black day in September gave a whole new meaning to 9-11 and brought the threat of terrorism home to every American. The death toll outnumbered Pearl Harbor 60 years earlier, and the attack has had global repercussions.
A new, inexperienced president was confronted with the greatest challenge any president can face, and he seemed to mature rapidly — once the Secret Service and aides let him return from a Florida photo-op.
That maturation has had important implications for U.S.-Israel relations in an explosive time, and for the just-begun U.S.-led war against terror.
For Israel it was a year in which friends worried about the new administration’s attitudes since George W. Bush got a majority of Arab-American votes but fewer than 20 percent of Jewish votes.
But it turned out to be a very good year for U.S.-Israel friendship, with only minor blips in an overall positive American policy that was reflected in public opinion polls.
Much credit goes to the president himself and some top advisors such as Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and to Israel’s friends on Capitol Hill, but don’t overlook the enormous contributions of Yasser Arafat, Hosni Mubarak, the Saudi royal family, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Without their help it could’ve been a much tougher — even traumatic — year in U.S.-Israel relations.
Most of all we can credit Arafat, who just doesn’t understand that violence will bring neither peace nor Israeli surrender, only more pain and suffering for his people, whose trust he has repeatedly betrayed.
And thanks to Mubarak and the Saudis for encouraging Arafat’s misbehavior and for failing to give America support and help when it needed it most after Sept. 11. They and much of the Arab world bought into Osama bin Laden’s lame excuse for savagery on a mass scale: America’s friendship for Israel was responsible for history’s most horrific act of terrorism.
If only Washington would be more even-handed and lean on Israel, our putative allies whined, they could be more helpful to the American-led war against terror. Bush fell for that — briefly. But when there was no response from the Arab world and the suicide bombings and terror attacks against Israelis only worsened, the stature of those fickle friends began to drop.
Only with much of the world turning against him did Arafat finally give a speech professing peaceful intentions and calling for an end to suicide bombings. The Europeans and Arabs quickly hailed it as a historic breakthrough, demanding Washington and Jerusalem reward the Palestinian leader.
But did anything really change? There’s been no significant crackdown, the top terrorists are still free, and it only took Arafat two days to resume glorifying suicide bombers.
It’s time to recall his Nobel Peace Prize.
His fellow Nobel laureate, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, was one of those aghast when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared Arafat “irrelevant” and vowed not to speak to him. Not that they had spoken that much before then, either, but Sharon was trying to escalate the pressure.
The United States and most other countries declared they’re still willing to deal with Arafat. The most unusual response came from the Arab League, however.
Israel’s refusal to speak with Arafat dims the prospects for peace, declared the Arab League, which stridently opposes reconciliation with Israel.
They’ve got a point, though. If enemies are to make peace, they must at least speak to each other. Now if only the Arab League would take its own advice. The irony seems lost on the Arab League, which steadfastly refuses to speak to the “Zionist entity,” much less accept its existence.
Instead, Arab foreign ministers held a meeting and voted again for yet another boycott of Israel, and only two members — Jordan and Egypt — will even speak openly to the Jewish state. Syria called on all to break relations with Israel and show solidarity with Palestinians by backing Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other groups that Washington has branded terrorists and Syria calls “legitimate national resistance movements.”
Had the Arab League followed that advice it would have been tantamount to declaring war on the United States and enlisting in Al Qaida.
Saddam Hussein came the closest when he praised Sept. 11 and endorsed anti-Israel terrorism. His call for an emergency Arab summit at Mecca last month was shunned by the Saudis, who don’t want him in their country, much less calling the shots at a summit. Only Ariel Sharon would be less welcome.
When Saddam is in trouble he tries to portray himself as the defender of the Palestinians and liberator of Jerusalem. It didn’t rally fellow Arabs around him in 1991 — except for Arafat — and it won’t work this time.
Saddam has to be the most nervous man in the Middle East. President Bush has been dropping hints that his regime could be the next target in the anti-terror war, and some of Bush’s closest advisors at the Pentagon and White House are urging him to finish the job begun by his father a decade ago.
For the record, Bush II policymakers defend Bush I’s decision to let Saddam escape, but privately they are highly critical and chomping at the bit to erase their old nemesis. Saddam has continued to tyrannize his people, sponsor international terrorism and in 1993 he tried to assassinate Bush Sr.
Publicly, Arab leaders are warning Bush that his coalition will collapse if he decides to go after Saddam. But beneath public rhetoric, they do want to see Saddam toppled. Yet they’re scared of what he’ll do to them if he survives, and scared of his popularity among their own people. Privately, Arab leaders are reportedly telling the Bush administration to finish off the bastard and do it right this time.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey is one of the most vocal advocates of targeting Saddam. He told a Jewish community group here recently that there is reasonable evidence of Iraqi involvement in several terrorist incidents against the United States since 1993 and a strong likelihood of “some connection” linking Iraq to Sept. 11 and the anthrax letters (despite administration failure to verify that).
“He should be in our crosshairs,” said the former spy master. So should Iran and Syria, he added. That is the best thing we can do to help Israel and bring peace. Woolsey expressed confidence Bush would pursue the anti-terror campaign after Afghanistan.
If 2001 will be remembered for the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks, 2002 could be the decisive year in the war against terror — and that could lead to a breakthrough in Middle East peacemaking.