Herbert London

Herbert London is author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Remembering 9/11

From the building I reside in I can see the World Trade Center (WTC) site, where a hole in the ground is a constant reminder of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. But in the area surrounding the WTC site, what we local residents call "our hole," there is extraordinary development.

The Goldman Sachs building is going up across the street. A supermarket is being built two blocks away. High-rise buildings seem to rise magically, as if defying construction requirements. Battery Park, where there are sweeping views of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, has been refurbished with a magnificent fountain and new gardens. A dramatic tunnel is under construction connecting the subway system to the Staten Island ferry terminal.

Despite "our hole," downtown New York is alive, prospering and electric with possibilities. In many essential ways this description is a metaphor for the United States five years after the 9/11 attacks.

Our country has been scarred but remains resilient. The attack has clearly affected American attitudes. People are wary about unidentified packages in the subway system, and September 11 continues to be a day of remembrance and sadness. However, the dynamism that characterizes the United States is undiminished.

As I stood on Church Street staring at the WTC site last September 11, five tourists asked if I would join them for a spontaneous rendition of "God Bless America." My wife and I sang as tears rolled down our cheeks. We were united with strangers who wished to recall what America stands for. We were sad but steadfast, united in our appreciation of America and determined to resist those who would destroy our way of life.

To some degree 9/11 has faded from our collective memory. Patriotic sentiment is recalled, as my experience would suggest, but it has lost its immediacy. What is most noteworthy is that the spirit of America remains intact.

William Tyler Page wrote in American Creed:

I . . . believe it is my duty to my country to love it, support its Constitution, to obey its law, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

Surely there are many in this land of the free who have the constitutional right to disagree, but, in my opinion, the overwhelming majority of Americans embrace this sentiment.

Pegged into this position are words such as love, honor, loyalty, pride, devotion, and sacrifice, words that suggest an emotional attachment. But patriotism for most Americans is not only reflexive emotion; it is also reasoned argument.

Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy In America claimed that customs, traditions, and a reverence for the past are emphasized, but that patriotism for Americans is a state of mind in which "citizens . . . grapple with the various aspects of America which are not so rose colored."

As I see, it 9/11 has brought to the fore liberal patriots who believe that they must work for political change consistent with their interpretation of the national creed, and conservative patriots who maintain an allegiance to the nation based on what the Founding Fathers intended. The differences are textured, representing perspective, rather than the basic concepts, which remain largely undisturbed.

September 11, 2001, was a fateful day for the nation, yet remarkably the notion of "my country, right or wrong" has not gained a foothold. Americans may be justifiably angry about those who would attack our land and people, but we are perpetually self-critical as any viewing of television news would suggest. We also have a well-ensconced memory of the good and a faith in our ability to change when that is necessary.

Hence my recollection of the horror of five years ago evokes a belief in human possibility and the stirring example of Americans who pick themselves up, dust themselves off and look to shape the days ahead.

Jacques Maritain once noted that what set the United States apart from other nations is that it is in "a continual state of becoming." The destruction the nation endured has forced Americans to look in the mirror to see strengths and warts, to regard the remarkable achievements and the challenges over the horizon.

There are, of course, those who embody the "historical grievance" position. What they see are only flaws. In each overheated claim they make, there is an incremental decline in the spirit that sustains patriotism. After all, why should anyone care about a nation of colonizers and imperialists, words that have been transmogrified into crimes?

Five years of reflection after the 9/11 attacks have refurbished Americans' belief in their country. In the end, even reasoned patriots who carefully weigh errors, mistakes, tragedy, and accomplishment, will find something positive on which to hang patriotic sentiment.

That hole in the ground sits as a reminder of human frailty and imperfectability, but it has not sapped a belief in ourselves or the will for regeneration.

There is a park soon to be completed where the World Trade Center once stood majestically. Several days ago I walked on this newly-constructed path, and in the shadow of the Twin Towers that remains embedded in my mind, I noticed a row of seedlings about to blossom.

Five years ago there was only dust on that ground; now flowers are about to bloom. Here is the America five years after 9/11: in the midst of despoliation, life appears doggedly fighting for a place in the sun.

Weighing the Scales of Justice in the Israeli-Hezbollah War

One of my many detractors wrote recently chastising me for my unequivocal support of Israel in this latest round of Middle East fighting.

He pointed to the devastation in Beirut and the 500 plus Lebanese deaths at the hands of Israeli bombing. His evocative e-mail deserves a reply; in fact, it deserves an expansive reply.

For several months hundreds of Hamas rockets were fired into Israeli towns not far from the Gaza border. Each day sirens went off and families went scurrying for underground shelters. The international press virtually ignored these attacks.

When a mile-long tunnel was dug across the Gaza border by Hamas terrorists and an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and several killed, very few newspapers noted that this was a planned provocation.

And when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and rained missiles over the Lebanese border into northern Israel, many European news accounts called for Israeli restraint.

After these assaults, which can only be described as a casus belli, Israel took the gloves off by launching retributive air bombardment. At long last the world press took notice. Now it was argued--as my detractor noted--that Israel engaged in "disproportionate" devastation. It was noted as well that part of Beirut lay in waste and approximately 500 Lebanese residents were killed (at least 150 of these Hezbollah forces) as opposed to about 50 Israelis. Israel is now committed to the cessation of bombing after the horrible destruction of a school in which approximately 60 were killed.

But these numbers do not tell much of a story. That Israeli casualties are fewer than Lebanese is not for lack of Hezbollah efforts. Their Katyushas missiles are aimed at housing projects in Haifa. While there certainly has been collateral damage resulting from Israeli bombs, which is certainly lamentable, the IDF has done everything possible to avoid targeting civilians, even through Hezbollah intentionally deployed missile launchers in housing developments, particularly areas populated by Coptics, and even in the school that prompted the cease fire.

One recently overlooked event is instructive. Satellite surveillance picked up a missile launcher on the roof of a south Lebanese high school. Dozens of missiles were fired from this location, but fearing the death of hundreds of teenagers Israel did not eliminate the site. Finally an Israeli commander called the headmaster of the school beseeching him to evacuate the premises. Only then did Israeli mortars take out the school.

Consider the contrast. Hezbollah hasn't any regard for life and limb. Its missiles are fired into population centers without any regard for who is killed or maimed. Moreover, its forces are intentionally positioned in civilian centers. If Israel strikes them, it is guilty of war crimes. If it doesn't, the enemy is free to fire and is emboldened by Israeli reticence. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

Israel is being asked to navigate the straits of Scylla and Charybdis. On the one shore are the sharks of Hezbollah--bloodthirsty and terroristic; on the other shore, is the hostile European press eager to torment Israel with accounts of atrocities. Israel is being asked to fight a war that is antiseptic, while Hezbollah is given a virtual free pass.

I don't blame my detractors for their critique of my views. How could they know any better when each night on the hourly news you get a body count of the dead and pictures of Beirut wreckage?

But even if the naive are blameless, the arguments are tiresome, tiresome because there is one standard for Israel and quite another for other nations. Every humane Israeli gesture is ignored and every Israeli imperfection exaggerated.

Even the Middle East hosts of terror, Iran and Syria, are treated with more respect than Israel. Israel is supposed to turn the other cheek when attacked. Spilled Israeli blood doesn't seem to have the same value as casualties from other lands. It is truly a wonder that these plucky people survive at all. Maybe that should be a matter my detractors consider as they watch CNN news that emphasizes Israeli-wrought devastation. So much for seeing is believing.

Predicting a Middle East Future

For those who rely on a crystal ball to predict the future, their diet as well as their predictions usually end up as crushed glass. Nonetheless, I will take my chance by offering my crystal ball analysis of the Middle East.

The much discussed peace treaty and ceasefire plan for Israel will have, in my opinion, the following outcomes.

Even if there is a period of relative quiescence with Lebanese and UN forces manning southern Lebanon, a Hezbollah military arm that is not completely crushed will reemerge at some point in the future and attack again. There isn't a substitute for victory, a lesson that must be learned and learned again.

Second, there will be Israeli political recriminations over prosecution of the war. The intelligence failures, the inadequate preparation of the military and the strategic plan to win the war on the cheap through a reliance on air power will lead to political upheavals with Kadima probably losing control of the government and Labor leader and Defense Minister Peretz forced into an ignominious resignation.

Third, Israel's border questions in Gaza, the West Bank and Golan will all be addressed by United Nations' pressure. The naive view that the Middle East can be stabilized with a Palestinian state will reemerge with new virulence.

Fourth, recognizing a psychological victory, since Hezbollah will not be ousted from Lebanon, Arab Muslim nations and Iran will be even more intransigent in resisting any peace with Israel. My guess is that Saudi Arabia and Egypt, nations that opposed Hezbollah, will revert to their anti-Israel stance in the future. Since Hezbollah has challenged Israel's seeming invincibility, the Arab dream of a Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean has been restored.

What then can Israel do?

Perhaps the first and overarching issue is a reassessment of military strength and an examination of tactics and strategy, recognizing the deficiencies in the current battles and the steps necessary for remediation.

Second, Israel's vaulted intelligence assets must be restored. It is remarkable that Mossad did not know about all the tunnels and hidden fortifications Hezbollah built in southern Lebanon during the last five years.

Third, the Israeli government must confiscate all illegal weapons in Palestinian possession. The only way to prevent an attack launched from Gaza and the West Bank is to act now in order to forestall attacks later.

Fourth, just as Israel must punish the enemies intent on its destruction, it should also reward peace-seeking Palestinians and Arabs of other nations that approve of Israel's existence.

Fifth, any vision of a Palestinian state must, for the time being, be put in abeyance. As events have unfolded, a Palestinian state would be little more than a springboard for Iran,

Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah to destroy the sovereign state of Israel and establish a pan-Muslim Middle East free of the Jewish and American "virus."

Sixth, although there is understandable resistance to the idea of a wide regional war, Israel must prepare itself for a conflict with Syria and Iran. All the forensics from Hezbollah missile attacks indicate the origin of the violence resides in Damascus and Tehran. Unless conditions undergo miraculous alteration, Israel is likely to find itself battling these two nations in addition to its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas at some point in the future.

Seventh, a robust Arrow anti-missile system must be deployed everywhere in Israel, despite the fact it is ineffective against short-range missiles. As horrible as it may seem, Israel can no longer rule out or discount a missile attack from Iran that includes nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Traditional deterrence may not forestall this horror since there is every indication religious fanaticism might trump survival.

If the war against Hezbollah has demonstrated anything, it is that peace, even stability, is unlikely against jihad-inspired forces of terror. Only military strength can save Israel, a lesson somehow forgotten or overlooked in this remarkable nation of survivors.

Orwellian Word Games in the Middle East

In the Orwellian media world we now live in, words mean whatever you want them to mean. Since the war between Israel and Hezbollah started, Sheikh Nasrallah has used the word "resistance" repeatedly in all his public comments. As might be expected, the press has followed suit.

Yet it is interesting to explore what Hezbollah is resisting. Israel voluntarily and unilaterally left southern Lebanon in conjunction with a UN accord. Israel did not respond in force to literally hundreds of rocket attacks against its northern territory until its soldiers were wantonly killed and three were kidnapped. And Israel did not challenge the UN when it didn't enforce Resolution 1559 which specifically called for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

What Hezbollah appears to be resisting is the very existence of Israel. There are two theoretical observations that make this case. If tomorrow Hezbollah gave up its weapons, peace in Lebanon would follow. Even detractors of Israel would admit this result. If tomorrow Israel gave up its weapons, Israel would cease to exist. That too is indisputable. Therefore who is resisting whom?

When Sakharov and Scharansky were dissidents opposed to the tyranny of the Soviet leadership, it was clear whom they were resisting. When Jews fought Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto, it was clear whom they were resisting. Who precisely is Hezbollah resisting?

If I were to ask, "who is Lebanon resisting?" the answer is apparent--Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. Lebanon is an occupied country that no longer represents the will of its five million residents. It is and has been a client state of Syria for years and, the Cedar revolution notwithstanding, either Syrian secret police, Hezbollah forces or Iranian Revolutionary Guard pull the political strings. To argue, as our State Department does, that the Lebanese government must be propped up is an exercise in self-delusion.

In the media universe where ignorance prevails, the word "resistance" has meaning as a cause. It reverberates with the echo of freedom fighters and nation builders. Now, of course, the word has been preempted, a casualty of double-speak.

"Resistance" is not alone in this preemption category; it is merely the latest example. In the last few years the word "occupation" was the Orwellian word of choice; it too was used by the PLO and Hamas to argue for their resistance against Israel. In this case the world seemed to buy the line since an entity called Palestine and a people called Palestinians were invented and given legitimacy.

What the West doesn't understand is that the Koran and the Islamic faith countenances "teqiya," or lying, that promotes the religion and is consistent with Allah's will. Since Allah's will cannot be determined and designs on caliphates can be contemplated, teqiya is a useful method for promoting Islamic expansion.

The part that is infuriating about this state of affairs is that American journalists are often persuaded lies are true and truth is lies. How does one know? If you start with the Chomskyan supposition that the American government always lies, you may be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Islamists.

However, there is a simple test for truth detection. Whenever Hezbollah spokesmen use the word "resistance," and whenever Hamas uses the word "occupation," you can be sure lies are forthcoming. Now, if only the American press corps would adopt this simple litmus test.

Human Rights at the UN

The Human Rights Council of the UN General Assembly, prompted by Israel's retaliation in Gaza for attacks against its military forces, requested a report "on the Israeli human rights violations in occupied Palestine." Moreover, this Human Rights Council decided

. . . to undertake substantive consideration of the Human Rights Violations and Implications of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine and other Occupied Arab territories at its next session and to incorporate this issue in its following sessions.

This draft resolution is remarkable in several respects.

First, not one word is mentioned about the Israeli soldiers who were killed after a clandestine raid on a military facility and one eighteen-year-old soldier who was kidnapped. After all, the immediate reason for the Israeli invasion into Gaza was to force the release of this kidnapped military soldier.

Second, the use of the word "occupied" speaks volumes about UN approaches. Gaza and the West Bank were territories without a clear designation after the British relinquished control of the region in 1948. Jordan claimed the so-called West Bank by force and held it from 1948 to 1967 when in a defensive war Israel conquered this area in order to secure its borders from hostile neighbors. In the interests of historical accuracy one might call this West Bank region "disputed territory," but certainly not "occupied territory." Unless, of course, you consider California occupied territory in the United States, as some Mexican radicals do.

Third, it is important to consider which states are in the Human Rights Council writing this resolution. Member states include: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cuba, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, and Tunisia. Non-member states include: Egypt, Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Not only are the majority of these states Muslim, but most are sworn enemies of Israel. Most are tyrannical and most consistently violate the human rights of their own citizens. Yet remarkably these nations sit in judgment of Israel, the only truly democratic state in the Middle East. Here is a scenario only a George Orwell could do justice to.

The United Nations has made a mockery of human rights. Presumably the only violator is Israel. Far be it for these tyrannies to look in the mirror.

Even more disgraceful is the fact that this Human Rights Council is the legacy of a reform effort, a presumptive compromise that emerged from a U.S. proposal that was summarily rejected and an even more extreme proposal--if that is possible--that came out of General Assembly committees.

If there is any question about the moral bankruptcy of the United Nations--and there are too many illustrations to enumerate here--the relentless attacks on Israel demonstrate the point very effectively. Human rights at the UN is an oxymoron; it exists only in the minds of tyrannical states. It is a notion of self-selection, a delusional idea.

There is one reform that would make sense: whenever the words "human rights" appear in a UN resolution, it should be struck from the record as if it were an item in the Soviet Encyclopedia. That way the Council would never meet and we would be spared its absurd deliberations.

The Spanish Civil War Redux

Henry Crumpton, the State Department counter-terrorism coordinator said on July 25 that Iran has been financing Hezbollah and supplying many of its weapons, but, he added, "Tehran cannot force Hezbollah to change its policy." This comment seems to defy all logic. If Iran finances and supplies Hezbollah with weapons, it can obviously influence policy by ceasing the money flow and the missiles.

A far more likely scenario is that Iran is using Hezbollah as a proxy for its own ambitions. It is Tehran's way of testing the effectiveness of weapons and strategy. It is a way for Tehran to determine Israeli military weakness and vulnerabilities.

Danny Seaman, an Israeli government spokesman, had it right--I believe--when he said "This is . . . like the Spanish Civil War." He noted, "What we are seeing is a series of conflicts, just as the Spanish Civil War prefigured the Second World War."

Kenneth Timmerman, noted expert on the Middle East, observed that Hitler used Franco to consider strategy and deployment the way Ahmadinejad is using Nasrallah and Hezbollah missiles, except that this time the weapons are more lethal than in the past.

The State Department has its own agenda that, as I see it, is an attempt to split Hezbollah from Iran so that negotiations on the enrichment of uranium can go forward.

However Egypt and Saudi Arabia recognize what the State Department denies. These governments see the visible hand of Iran in all Hezbollah actions and want to avoid a larger regional war in which they will inexorably be sucked in. That explains their condemnation of Hezbollah, despite their reflexive distrust of Israel, and the corresponding scathing criticism of these nations by the Iranian leadership.

This too has echoes of the 1930s when England and France supported the Republican army, and Germany and Italy embraced Franco's Fascisti.

Whatever one may think about the recent hostility, it was not a spontaneous war that erupted over one incident. It was planned and coordinated most likely with Syrian and Iranian concurrence.

My guess is Iran wanted to see whether Israel has the stomach for a battle of attrition rather than a mobile, strike and move strategy. Moreover, it was eager to determine whether a constant barrage of Katyusha missiles could break Israeli will. And last, since Ahmadinejad views Israel as a proxy for the United States, he was eager to see whether he can defeat or at least exhaust an enemy in an attenuated war.

History may not repeat itself exactly, but it appears to be repeating itself in some fashion in our time. In the 1930s, when Germany and its surrogates could have been defeated, the West relaxed, it denied the reality that was just over the horizon.

Iran is betting on the same scenario now. A ceasefire that leaves some Hezbollah fortifications in place would be a victory for Iran. It would signal that Israel and its ally, the United States, does not have the fortitude for an extended war.

Ultimately the will of the West is being tested in the barren soil of southern Lebanon. Iran is watching with keen interest--the wolf ready to strike if he sees weakness in his prey.

The U.S. had better be watching as well, for Islamo-fascism has many parallels with European fascism of the past. As I see it the history of the Spanish Civil War is now being replayed in the Middle East. This time we cannot wait for the enemy to get any stronger, for the next war will not be fought with mortars, but with weapons of mass destruction. *

"[I]f we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War." --George Washington