Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Feb. 27, 2002 / 15 Adar, 5762

Dick Morris

Dick Morris
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The Arafat/Saddam equilibrium must be destroyed -- "IT would be a new era." That's how one of the top Israeli politicians reacted when I asked him, last week, what the impact of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq leading to the ouster of Saddam Hussein would be on the increasingly explosive standoff between Israel and the Palestinians. "You should have done it years ago," he said pointedly, aiming a barb at my former boss.

A just, real and sustainable peace in the Middle East will only be possible once the U.S. dismembers the Iraqi regime. Not because Iraq sustains the Palestinian terrorists, but because it is only by making an example of Saddam that we will motivate Hamas and Hezbollah to move toward peace.

Voltaire said it best. He suggests, in "Candide," that from time to time the British find it desirable to shoot an admiral "pour encourager les autres" (to encourage the others).

If America shows the swiftness, ease, thoroughness and finality with which it can dispose of Saddam Hussein for flouting the world's prohibition against the development of weapons of mass destruction, the lesson will not be lost on even the most radical of the Palestinian leaders.

Instead, decisive and aggressive U.S. action will send messages to all the actors in the Middle East and the global terrorist network.

To Iran, it will say: "Be careful or you're next." To Saudi Arabia: "Stop funding terrorism. We're going to win, not them." To the Palestinian terrorists: "Either you settle down and cut a deal or face the consequences." To terrorists around the globe: "We will hunt you down wherever you hide."

But, to Israel, it will also send a message: "We are here, militarily, to stay and will be here to protect you. So, its OK to take risks for peace."

Bill Clinton, in his final months in office, proved that the only obstacle to a peace deal is the unwillingness of the radical Palestinian leaders to make one.

Arafat would have loved to have taken Clinton's terms and his money. The map Clinton drew was the ideal settlement for both sides. The bribe he offered - some accounts put it as high as a $13 billion annual aid payment to the PLO - was in the best tradition of the Camp David accords.

But Arafat couldn't say yes. To do so would have slit even his elusive throat.

Jealous of Arafat's stature and status, the Palestinian radicals constantly attempt to flank him to the left and be more militant and uncompromising than he.

In reality, they are using the war with Israel as a forum within which to compete for leadership of the Palestinian state that lies over the horizon. But Arafat didn't live this long by letting someone else out-demagogue him. He moves to a warlike stance as needed to protect his political base.

But if we disrupt the equilibrium by destroying the Saddam regime, we demonstrate a chilling ability to deter terrorism and its sponsors be they states or gangs or groups.

The Saudi plan, proposed to Tom Friedman and touted on The New York Times' editorial pages, is a chimera. You can't make peace with people that don't want peace. No amount of U.N. intervention can make it happen.

The Palestinian radicals think that the United States is restrained by the timid Europeans and the self-interested Russians from removing Saddam. That was the message they got in 1991.

They know that the need for multilateralism makes a pigmy of the U.S. military might. But if the United States shows that it is willing to act on its own, all bets are off. The lion is loose.

Every day, as I look out of my office window at the Midtown Manhattan skyline, I see a vision of a mushroom cloud dwarfing 9/11 just as the events of that horrible day dwarfed the 1993 car bombing of the World Trade Center.

Those are the stakes. Iraq is the clearest threat. Every nation has a right to defend itself. Unilaterally.

Us included.

JWR contributor Dick Morris is the author of, among others, The New Prince. Comment by clicking here.


02/21/02: Campaign finance reform won't hurt GOPers
02/13/02: Dodd scurries for cover
02/11/02: U.S. 'unilateralism'? The Europeans don't have a case
02/06/02: WAR: What women want
02/01/02: They all talk in the end
01/30/01: The odd couple: Chris Dodd and Arthur Andersen
01/22/01: His father's son? Bush better get an 'Act II' fast!
01/18/01: Dubya & the 'vision thing'
01/14/01: The Rumsfeld Doctrine 01/03/01: A President Gore would have been a disaster
01/03/02: Clinton's priority: Political correctness over fighting terror
12/27/01: Terror network grew out of Clinton's inaction, despite warnings
12/24/01: Call 'em back, George
12/18/01: What Bush did right
12/13/01: Libs worry too much
12/11/01: "Open Sesame": Feinstein's proposed bill allows 100,000 non-immigrant students from anti-American countries to our shores
12/07/01: The non-partisan president
12/05/01: Both parties are phony on stimulus debate
11/29/01: When terrorists can enter legally, it's time to change the laws
11/21/01: Go for the jugular!
11/16/01: You are all incumbents
11/14/01: Clinton's failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack led directly to 9-11 disaster
11/12/01: To the generals: Don't worry about losing support
11/08/01: The death of the white liberal
11/07/01: Our leaders are being transformed in a way unprecedented in post-World War II history

© 2001, Dick Morris