The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps (26 page)

As the rhetoric inside the conference became more bitter and the conference deteriorated into a blatant anti-Semitic attack against Israel, President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the Israeli delegation exited the proceedings in protest. Some conference-goers took to the streets to parade vile posters with swastikas and pictures of Jews with fangs that dripped blood. Richard Heideman, president of B’nai B’rith International, in an open letter to all Jewish community leaders, said of the Durban Conference:

The British representative of the World Jewish Congress, Lord Greville Janner, said it “was the worst example of anti-Semitism I’ve ever seen.”
¹⁹

The conference was attended by a number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the Ford Foundation and drawn from the ranks of the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the National Lawyers Guild (labeled by J. Edgar Hoover as a subversive organization and possibly a cover for the Communist Party), and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

Leftist groups that had once focused on social justice turned their focus almost entirely on Palestine and Iraq. These two terrorist-harboring and supporting states became the darlings of the liberals worldwide. Countries and organizations that differed ideologically became frightful enemies. Their venom focused on one group in particular, the World Trade Organization, whose projects were deemed to be a major cause of environmental concerns worldwide.

The hatred for this organization and its participants congealed into one of the largest protests, some 50,000 strong, ever seen in Seattle, Washington. Anarchy ruled as streets were blocked, Molotov cocktails destroyed local businesses, and chaos reigned. Successive meetings of the World Trade Organization in Czechoslovakia, Canada, and Italy were also disrupted by demonstrators. From these protests was born the World Social Forum, a group whose professed aim is to “mobilize solidarity for the Palestinian people and their struggle for self-determination as they face brutal occupation by the Israeli state.” Simply put, this world coalition of leftist liberals has one aim: the emasculation of the United States and the destruction of Israel.

P
ALESTINE:
T
HE
C
ATALYST

The various wars that have occurred in the Middle East are over what is perceived to be skirmishes on the periphery of the current war on terror and therefore completely separate from the jihad declared on the United States. It is easier, then, to view the terrorists as despairing victims and not the murderers and hate-mongers they are.

When the original UN partition plan was drawn for Palestine, the Jews and Palestinians were to occupy 20 percent of the Palestine Mandate initiated by the League of Nations in the 1920s. Great Britain was entrusted with the execution of the mandate. The League of Nations and Britain determined in September 1922 that a homeland for the Jews would not include any of the land east of the Jordan River, three-fourths of the territory outlined in the mandate. That area would ultimately become the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, an area with a Palestinian majority. Jews were banned from settling anywhere in that area.

In 1937, a royal commission of inquiry was given the directive to try to resolve the differences between the Palestinians and the Jews. A plan was put forth to divide the territory into two separate states. This was rejected by the Arabs because it called for the creation of a Jewish state in which some Palestinians would live. The Jews resisted the plan because it only allotted them approximately 1,900 of the available 10,310 square miles in the territory. They, however, agreed to negotiate, while the Arabs refused.

Again, in 1939, the British tried to persuade the Arabs to agree to a state in Palestine, and a limitation on the number of Jews that would be allowed to immigrate. This was also declined by the Arabs. How can one explain, then, the vilification of the Jews that has resulted simply because they occupy 1 percent of Arab lands in the Middle East and only 10 percent of the entire Palestine Mandate?

The Middle East conflict is not about land or the establishment of a state for the Palestinian people. This has been offered and rejected various times—at Oslo in 1939, at Camp David, and in Washington DC. The conflict is about the destruction of the State of Israel and the annihilation of the Jewish people. The Palestinian Authority doesn’t want a portion of Jerusalem, but rather all of Jerusalem. They do not simply desire to occupy the West Bank, but all of Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It is not a matter of “land for peace”; it is a matter of using any means possible to rid the Middle East of the Jewish population altogether. They do not wish the subjugation of the Jewish people; they wish their destruction. This was Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s agenda. It was Yasser Arafat’s agenda. It is the agenda of Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Perhaps Yasser Arafat condensed the Arab-Israeli conflict into the most succinct statement of all when he said: “We shall oppose the establishment of this state to the last member of the Palestinian people, for if ever such a state is established it will spell the end of the whole Palestinian cause [the obliteration of Israel].”
²⁰

U
NFINISHED
B
USINESS

Political pundits are quick to point out that the war in Iraq is President Bush’s war, when, in fact, it is an unfinished chapter in the presidency of Bill Clinton. When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, Clinton was in office. It was under his watch that Americans were targeted by Islamic radicals. It was the Clinton administration that failed to hold the regimes responsible for the attack. It was in 1998 that Saddam Hussein defied the UN and expelled the weapons inspectors. Clinton went so far as to call for a regime change and launched air and missile strikes against Iraq, but considered nothing further. Former CIA director James Woolsey had this to say about the effectiveness of the missile strikes:

When President Bush picked up the gauntlet thrown down by Saddam Hussein and began his campaign to pursue terrorist-supporting and terrorist-harboring states, he was strongly supported. Even his previous opponent in the run for the White House, Al Gore, strongly supported the action. However, once the troops were committed to engage Hussein’s forces, the detractors began to rise to the surface. Democratic leaders were urged to abandon Bush and resist the call for the invasion of Iraq.

A petition signed by thousands, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Gloria Steinem, and a host of Hollywood celebrities, caused the political Left to rethink their commitment. Suddenly Al Gore, once a proponent of the war in Iraq, began to criticize President Bush when he saw that doing the right thing might be politically dangerous to his agenda. He was soon joined by former president Jimmy Carter, who seemed to have conveniently forgotten that President Bush had sought the help of the UN Security Council. He also seemed to have forgotten that Democratic president Bill Clinton had approved strikes against Afghanistan and Iraq, among others, without prior UN sanction.

Carter and Gore proved to be just the tip of the iceberg of quick Democratic opposition to the war. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi made her dissatisfaction known just as quickly in a press conference soon after American forces entered Baghdad. Said Pelosi, who voted against going to war with Iraq, “I have absolutely no regret about my vote on this war…. The cost in human lives, the cost to our budget, probably $100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue [referring to the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein] for a lot less.”
²²
(Following the 2006 elections, Ms. Pelosi was elected House majority leader.)

Before the war began, the liberal Left set a course to defame, denigrate, and malign President Bush with no thought for the thousands of troops stationed in and around Iraq. They had no regard for the newly elected Iraqi officials who have struggled to build a stable government on the rubble of Saddam Hussein’s evil dictatorship. The president’s credibility, veracity, and ideologies have been questioned. He was accused of having conducted a pointless and independent war, devoid of allies such as Russia and France.

It was pointed out time and again that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, as the president had led the American people to believe—despite the fact that Hussein had used chemical weapons in the war with Iran, and again to murder scores of his own people in the Kurdish north. No credence was given to the proposal that Hussein had ample time before the beginning of the conflict to move those weapons across the border into Syria and entrust them to al-Assad. And the fact that some twenty-five million Iraqis had been freed from the control of the vicious Hussein was casually overlooked.

The liberal Left continues to obsess over weapons of mass destruction while, at the same time, infecting the nation with “weapons of mass deception.” I doubt that few, if any, of these “bleeding-heart liberals” have visited the mass graves of the Kurds gassed by Saddam Hussein. Even as I write this, I am looking into the faces of Kurds who experienced Hussein’s unspeakably horrific acts against the Kurdish people. The sadness reflected on their faces is heartbreaking.

The presidential election of 2004 was an all-out assault against the Iraq war, the Bush doctrine on terror, and the American people who strongly supported the president. It proved the truth of the adage that if you’re told a lie often enough, it becomes believable. Howard Dean, a rabid war critic, tossed his hat into the candidate ring, then Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and John Kerry. The candidates vied for the honor of producing the most hateful campaign rhetoric against the war in Iraq. It was even suggested that the war on Iraq was conceived before the attack on America on September 11, 2001.

At the end of a bitter and divisive campaign during which Senator Kerry proffered that the war on terror was simply a police action and could easily be handled by occasional military intervention and accused the White House of assaulting the basic freedoms of the American people, George Bush was reelected to another term as president. The liberal Left, however, remains firmly committed to the agenda of appeasement and apathy.

A
TTACK OF THE
L
IBERALS

Attacks against America’s spiritual and moral foundation have been ceaseless during the past decades. Yet according to the Barna report, 47 percent of American adults attend church in a typical weekend, 71 percent believe in God described as the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect Creator of the universe who rules the world today, and 54 percent of all Americans identify themselves as Christians. Americans, in general, are still church attendees. Witness the success of the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins,
The Purpose Driven Life
by Rick Warren, and Mel Gibson’s
The Passion of the Christ.
The Bible is still an all-time national best seller.

Why, then, has a largely Christian nation allowed the marketplace and the political arena to be stripped of everything godly? Why has abortion flourished? Why has God been taken out of schools, while the distribution of condoms is allowed? Everything anti-Christian is promoted, and Christians are ridiculed. The desire to fit in has reduced the average Christian to a spineless jellyfish, afraid to speak up for fear of derision.

Many churches, once strongholds of everything good and right, have become just another club where people gather to socialize. They, too, have fallen prey to the corruption of the secular and have become watered-down versions of their former self, palatable to all and effective for none. Christians have become indistinguishable from the nonbeliever down the street. Researcher George Barna had this to say about Christianity today: