This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.

   
September 21, 2004
by Dinesh D'Souza
 
Dear Concerned Citizen,
 

The critics of the Bush administration, including many in his United Nations audience today, have tirelessly pointed out the perils of the U.S. going it virtually alone in Iraq. Just this week Kofi Annan said on the BBC World Service that he believes the war in Iraq is "illegal". To Annan, and many others, the moral authority of a world consensus is lacking, so the U.S. cannot claim to be acting “on behalf of the civilized world,” as it did in the first Gulf War.

Second, having broken Iraq the U.S. now has the sole responsibility of fixing Iraq, whereas it would clearly be better for us to share the burden with the rest of the world.

Finally despite America’s official transfer of power to the Allawi government in Baghdad, the Iraqis know that the U.S. is still calling the shots in Iraq and therefore they are in the humiliating position of having another country tell them what to do. This provokes ingratitude and resistance, even when the Iraqis are being asked to do the right thing.

But if unilateral action has its dangers and limits, so does collective action.

Once again, it’s instructive to start with the first Gulf War. Today’s pundits are fond of saying, “It’s a pity that we didn’t get rid of Saddam Hussein the first time. It’s a pity that our troops didn’t go all the way to Baghdad.” But the reason that American troops couldn’t go all the way to Baghdad in 1991 was that we had a coalition. President George H.W. Bush had assiduously assembled an international alliance that included all the Western countries and even several Muslim countries. But this alliance decided in advance that its mission would be restricted to pushing the invader Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Once this was accomplished, the alliance breathed a sigh of relief and declared, “Mission accomplished.” At this point President Bush could not risk sending the troops on to Baghdad. To do so would risk the condemnation of America’s own Western allies, not to mention our Muslim allies. And so Hussein survived in 1991 and over the next decade he consolidated his power and rebuilt his forces.

Presidential candidate John Kerry, up until yesterday, seemed to agree with President George W. Bush that the Iraq invasion was both necessary and justified. Kerry’s criticism was, “But there was a better way to go about it.” For Kerry, this better way meant bringing in that great instrument of collective action, the United Nations.

Now it must be conceded that the United Nations has a role to play in Iraq, a role that President Bush himself has belatedly discovered. That role is to lessen the humiliation of the Iraqis by giving them the illusion that it is not the U.S. but the “international community” that is guiding the country’s future. It is less embarrassing for Iraqis to tell themselves, “The international community is helping us out,” than to tell themselves, “The U.S. is telling us what to do.” So a rainbow alliance of Asian and African and Latin American faces in Iraq can help to serve this symbolic purpose.

But it is a foolish leap from this modest role for the United Nations to conclude, as Kerry seems to do, that the United Nations can do a better job than the United States in determining the future of Iraq. How is this possible? What America is attempting to do in Iraq is to impose (there is no reason to shrink from the harsh word) democracy. This is not easy, given that there is no history of democracy in the Middle East. But even Kerry and the cynical Europeans cannot deny that the experiment in sowing the seed of democracy in the Middle East is a worthwhile one. Even if it fails, it is worth attempting.

This is a task, however, that cannot be turned over to the United Nations. Of the nearly 200 nations that make up the U.N., less than 50 are democracies. How can the United Nations effectively impose democracy in Iraq when it cannot effectively impose democracy on the nations that make up the U.N.? It is a simple matter of credibility.

Moreover, there is another problem. The governing principle that determines legitimacy according to the U.N. is “sovereignty.” This is the core principle of “international law.” But sovereignty simply means that it is illegitimate to trespass across a nation’s borders.

What is the moral basis of “sovereignty”? Consider Saddam Hussein. He came to power by force. He maintained himself in power by force. So what moral right did this man have to rule? None. What moral objection could be raised to another party pushing him out by force? None. The concepts of “sovereignty” and “international law” both act to protect Hussein’s position in power, just as they protect other despots and tyrants who sit comfortably in the halls of the United Nations.

Perhaps this is why the United Nations has been so slow to act in the Sudan where even ethnic cleansing has drawn little response from this ineffectual organization.

Or consider Iran’s snubbing of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This past Saturday the IAEA commanded Tehran to suspend their enrichment of uranium, a process required for the production of nuclear bombs. The Iranians have recently tested missiles capable of carrying such a warhead as far as Israel. This week's New York Times reported that the former Iranian president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, declared that Iran would lodge a complaint against the IAEA if the IAEA demanded that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Perhaps such a development will give the United Nations the moral clarity and courage needed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

None of this is to say that collective action is a bad thing. As I have tried to argue here, there are times when it is a good thing. But we should remember the severe limits to its utility and never consider it our only course of action.
 

Response to: Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?

As a reader from the UK, I feel that writers in the USA should be VERY careful about expressing opinions about what Israel should do. Have you in the USA made full reparation to the Native Americans who you dispossessed, in breach of treaties, in the 19th Century? Have all Christians in the US publicly repented over the way the Native Americans were treated? If you feel it's right for Israel to give away half its land area, you should first do the same with half YOUR land area! And, like Abraham with Lot, give the Native Americans first choice over which half to take back. Manhattan? New York State? The whole Eastern seaboard? When the State of Israel was created, by UN vote, in 1948, the Palestinians were offered land and statehood too. But they refused to accept it, preferring to wage war on Israel and to try to drive all Jews into the sea. Israel is already a tiny piece of land, with ever-growing pressure of population on what little land it has. - K. A.

The US is making reparations to Native Americans. Have you ever heard of the National Indian Gaming Association? - Editor

I spent a summer in Israel in 1976 and have stayed in touch with ministries to Jews and Arabs for decades. This latest conflict with Saddam Hussein is so complex that it can't be so simply answered, but your "solution" is short-sighted at best and disastrous at worst. Study the responses by the Arabs to every proposal from every group which has sought to bring peace to the area. The United Nations proposals became heavily one-sided to the Arabs, proposing solutions completely unfair to Israel, especially in light of their victories in combats which were mostly initiated by the Arab states. "Atrocities" by Israelis have existed but pale in comparison to those atrocities committed against them. The refugee camps are not the Israelis fault. The Arab states could have easily absorbed their "brothers" but instead used them as propoganda weapons and now as literal weapons of suicide attacks against Israel and her supporters. Her supporters have fled from Israel when they've learned that they might pay a price for their support. We in the west in a supportive connection to Israel are viewed as "infidels" and "jihad" is encouraged against us. I don't argue that we (and the Israeli government) have made mistakes in relationships with the Arab states which have made us appear to be enemies. But I can also argue that we've made many mistakes in assuming that some Arabs states and leaders have been trustworthy. We erred greatly in allowing Yasser Arafat to assume so much power and influence and we're paying dearly for that. As much as I try to learn how and why we chose to attack Saddam Hussein I still feel totally inadequate to defend or oppose our government's decisions. They challenge me to pray to the sovereign God. - G. L.

Dinesh D'Souza while suggesting that the future Palestine state should comprise of Gaza and the West Bank has not mentioned the two most contentious issues - that of East Jerusalem and the status of the Jewish settlements in the West bank that Sharon is now fencing off from the rest of the West bank; in other words taking away some more territory from the Palestinians. The US political scence is such that no politician, Republican, Democratic or Independent can dare criticise Israel's "intransigence" and not be instantly crucified by the media. Such is the power of the Jewish lobby in the US ! How does D'Souza expect the US government to take the honest broker stand that he advocates ? That too from George Bush ! Only when Israelis tire of the violence inflicted on them by Palestinians that they will be ready for compromise and the moment for US "good offices" would have arrived ! Israelis believe they are winning now and hence will continue supporting Sharon - and if not him, another right wing macho politician. They have no patience for the plodding approach of Shimon Peres and other "compromise" politicians. Their time will come only when Israelis realise they cannot win peace and security through a war of attrition and counter terror. - H. P.

For my assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I'm sure a number of readers will immediately label me as a "Christian Zionist". If that soothes one's moral conscience and lends one a false sense of intellectual superiority....so be it. Mr. D'Souza touched on normally valid points in his article on the "Fences and Neighbors" issue. However, his folly is that he fails in his totally secular approach to consider that the God of Abraham made covenant with Abraham's descendants through Jacob(Israel), not Ishmael, that the land would belong to the Jews from the "river of Egypt to the river Euphrates". Now if there is a contention over the West Bank, it should realistically be over the west bank of the Euphrates, not the West Bank of the Jordan. And, if the Israelis were contending over that piece of real estate on the Euphrates, I would be the first one to label them as the aggressors. However, since the Almighty God put His seal on the land of Israel for His purpose, anyone....Arafat, Sharon, or Bush should consider the ultimate ramifications of breaching that "contract". Since the Palestinians (Latin for "Philistine") were nomadic, trans-Jordanians, and none of their Arab "neighbors" refused to make room for them in their respective countries, it has behooved the Jews to allow them (Palestinians) to remain in Israel. And, the Jews were more than willing in the tradition of "good neighbors" to share their "home" with them, even to the point of allowing the Dome of the Rock to remain standing on the most holy site of the Jewish faith. That is until Arafat and his PLO thugs started killing school children on buses. So, now the Israeli's are building a fence to control potential threats from some of their Palestinian neighbors who might want to blow themselves up in a college student union, or outside a synagogue, or in a restaurant, or on an elementary school playground. Finally, if Mr. D'Souza and I were neighbors, living on either side of a homicidal maniac with the potential and intention to kill my children, I would be building a fence....a big fence. Mr. D'Souza might be a "good neighbor" by not building one, but at least I would the "live" neighbor. - D. P.

"..both sides are going to have to give up something. Israel must give up the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians are going to have to give up complaining and accept that Israel is here to stay and has a right to protect itself." - F. M.

I disagree with Dinesh D'Souza. Israel should not have to give up ANY land to ANYone. The Palestinians are pawns being used to incite hatred for Israel. They want NOTHING less than to destroy Israel from the face of the earth. There is much more under than the surface lie of fighting for land and autonomy. - S. G.

Your assert that “the only way for the Palestinians to have a viable state is for Israel to concede both the West Bank and Gaza. Once Israel gives that, it has satisfied the legitimate Palestinian claim to autonomy and statehood.” This is a gross oversimplification of the problem. Even without regard to on-going religious tensions, geography alone invalidates such a resolution. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are separated by over fifty miles of undisputed Israeli territory. Traffic between them would be controlled entirely by Israeli jurisdiction. Something as basic and essential as the shipment of food or other essential products would become an international process. Can a nation survive while the lifeblood of daily commerce must flow through a foreign nation? Given the predictably precarious economy of any newly created sovereign state plus the historic animosity between Palestinians and Israel, a Gaza-West Bank Palestine “solution” would only create insuperable difficulties. All other logistical considerations aside, the Israeli-Palestinian problem will not be resolved until the heart of the conflict is resolved. Like a man and wife who argue incessantly about side issues and never work on resolving the underlying problem, Israel and the Palestinians argue about Gaza and the West Bank, but the problem is Jerusalem. The centrality of Jerusalem to the conflict and its importance religiously and politically to both sides cannot be overstated. In short, the key positions are: Israel must control all of Jerusalem. (the Israeli position) Israel must not control all of Jerusalem. (the Palestinian position) As long as these positions are diametrically opposed, all other negotiations and plans are moot. Negotiating borders, building or not building homes in disputed territories, even arguing about whether the Israeli separation barrier is a new Berlin Wall or security fence, are simply quarrelling about side-issues. These quarrels are often deadly, but they are not productive. - G. J.

The problem with the Israelis is that the leadership is a small minded terrorist group itself which is not going to give up anything. - R. M.

i strongly disagree with your presupposition the the palastinians get any of israeli land. according to mark twain, it was barren desert prior to israel's occupation. why doesnt syria donate land, or jordan? to the palastinian real estate issue? why must israel have to give up territory that was originally part of the 'promised land' three thousand years ago? - W. B.

THERE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE FOR SUICIDE BOMBERS KILLING HUMAN BEINGS, INCLUDING INFANT CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE, AND CIVILIANS AT LARGE, INTENTIONALLY AND INDISCRIMINATELY AND WITHOUT SHAME AND MORE THE WORSE CLAIMING GOD AS THEIR SPONSOR. WHEN HAVE PALESTINIANS EVER TAKEN A PEACEFUL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM? IN WHAT YEAR OR YEARS?, TELL ME THAT AND IN DETAIL IF YOU PLEASE. AS FAR AS THIS CITIZEN IS CONCERNED, THESE "BEASTS" SHOULD BE ELIMINATED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, AND THE SAME FOR THE CRETCHEN T E R R O R I S T killers. - E. R.

Interesting article by Dinesh D'Souza on 9/9/04 article in TotheSource. I'm not sure if handing over Gaza and West Bank would stop the killing. It would be a good step if framed within a new set of accords to promote peace and not just a means to gain advantage for more attacks on Israel. One correction to the article is recommended. The article refers to the "tragedy in Chechnya". Although the school hostage-taking and deaths were linked to Chechen separatists, this tragedy actually took place in Beslan in Russian North Ossetia, not in Chechnya. Thought you'd want to know. - K. J.

I have long appreciated and admired Mr. D'Souza's keen insights. On this issue, however, he seems to have overlooked one thing. The Palestinians do not want simply their own national state; they want the complete annhilation of the state of Israel. And short of that, they do not want peace. Mr. D'Souza's proposal does not satisfy what they are after, and if carried out, would not produce the peace he thinks it would. - T. O.

I recently read a book authored by a Christian Palestinian. I learned lots of things, one for sure is that we need to ask the insiders (as broad a cross section of them as possible) what they think is needed. It is pretty easy to think we know from the outside. The book is Bethlehem Besieged, Stories of Hope in Times of Trouble by Mitri Raheb. It is a very complicated area with many people making claims for the same land. I think you are correct when you say that everyone will have to sacrifice something. - M. S.

Israel is to give up land and the Palestinians are to give up complaining. If you have any land you would be willing to give me in exchange for my willingness to stop complaining, please contact me. - P. B.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Click on the banner below and it will take you through the process of connecting to tothesource articles from your website.
We value our readers! Please notify us of any changes to your email address and forward this to your friends and family. tothesource provides this service free of advertisement and solicitation of any kind.
  
   
Your Name   Your Email
 
Friend's Name   Friend's Email
 
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
 
• Full text: IAEA Iran resolution
• Iran nuclear resolution 'agreed'
• Q&A: Libya's secret WMD
• UN General Assembly Website
• Symposium: Atomic Ayatollahs
 
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Dinesh D'Souza
Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, and What's So Great About America. He is the designated expert on current American culture for tothesource.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.