Dei'ah veDibur - Information & Insight
  

A Window into the Chareidi World

14 Cheshvan 5762 - October 31, 2001 | Mordecai Plaut, director Published Weekly
NEWS

OPINION
& COMMENT

OBSERVATIONS

HOME
& FAMILY

IN-DEPTH
FEATURES

VAAD HORABBONIM HAOLAMI LEINYONEI GIYUR

TOPICS IN THE NEWS

HOMEPAGE

 

Produced and housed by
Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Shema Yisrael Torah Network

Opinion & Comment
Who Would Have Believed?

by Yitzchok Roth

It was not a mere slip of the tongue or mistaken phrasing. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon read words he had written himself for a press conference he held following the downing of a Russian plane carrying dozens of Israeli citizens and the bloody attack in Afula. "I am calling on Western democracies, particularly the US, the leader of the free world, not to repeat the terrible mistake made in 1938 when European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia as an easy interim solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense. Israel will not allow itself to become another Czechoslovakia."

Perhaps Sharon would not have delivered this speech had he foreseen the harsh reactions it was to receive from the US. The friendship between Israel and the US has weathered tougher storms, and Sharon may not have intended to accuse the Americans of abandoning the State of Israel. Nevertheless, Americans were not happy with Sharon's comparison of Czechoslovakia in 1938 to Israel in 2001, and scathing protests were not long in coming.

In 1938 Czechoslovakia was abandoned by the nations of Europe in hopes of checking the infamous Nazi leader's appetite for war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain traveled to Germany three times to negotiate with the Nazi ruler, who was demanding that parts of Czechoslovakia with large German populations be transferred to German control in exchange for a guarantee that Germany would give independence to the remaining parts of a truncated Czechoslovakia. In 1938 the British Prime Minister signed the famous Munich Agreement with the Fuhrer and returned to England waving the signed agreement and promising the people of Europe peace and tranquility. The British leader was convinced that this agreement would satisfy the German ruler's appetite, and would prevent war from breaking out.

Hitler, of course, did not keep his word, and within a short time he invaded all of Czechoslovakia. Only then did the nations of Europe realize the war against Germany was unavoidable. Since then the Munich Agreement has become synonymous with capitulation to terrorism and Chamberlain is remembered as a disgrace for his acute failure to perceive and prevent the Nazi fiend's intentions.

In his speech, Ariel Sharon intended to make a sweeping comparison between the days of the Munich Agreement and the present. He never considered comparing George Bush to Neville Chamberlain. There is no comparison between Chamberlain's conciliation and Bush's declaration of war against terrorism. Sharon's only intention was to protest US policy's apparent (or potential) view of Israel as an expendable nuisance in battling terrorism.

Sharon's remarks were made following a difficult week of bloody terrorist attacks in the wake of the "cease-fire" Arafat and Peres had declared. Sharon revealed how the US government set up the international coalition against terrorism by garnering the support of leading terror states Syria and Iran, while openly ostracizing Israel.

Sharon was pressured to reach an agreement with Arafat while under fire in exchange for the willingness of the chairman of Palestinian terror organizations not to resist the US' struggle against terrorism. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conducted a lightning tour of the Middle East to recruit Arab countries to the coalition, intentionally skipping Israel. All of Israel's official requests to be included as part of the visit, even for just a few hours, were rejected outright with the claim that the US Secretary's schedule was too packed. The US also refused to include Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah on the list of anti- American terrorist organizations because their attacks are aimed primarily at Israeli targets. However, they later included some members of Hizbullah on their list because they were responsible for killing Americans.

Sharon's speech conveyed a sense of panic. He wanted to signal to the Americans that they should not think appeasing terrorists would prevent terrorism. Czechoslovakia was merely cited as an illustration. Not a very good one, but the point came across. Sharon quickly issued an apology, yet his words left a lasting impression. Yasser Arafat, of course, had a big smile on his face, for he saw how terrorist organizations could continue to kill Jews while becoming the darlings of America. Just six weeks ago, in the aftermath of the attacks on the US, who would have believed that this is how events would play out?

Writes Israeli columnist D. Rosenblum: "Where are all of the expert analysts who only through great self-restraint managed to avoid saying outright that the terrorist attack on the US on September 11th was `good for the Jews?' That the collapse of the World Trade Center would also bring about the downfall of Arafat in a cloud of dust, would put an end to the idea of a Palestinian state, would make Hamas and Tanzim members start to sweat, would shine a great light on Israel's righteousness and release the fetters that had prevented it from passing judgment on all of the various terrorists for so long?

"During the [six] weeks since then, it is so sadly ironic how much Israel's status has declined that it almost seems to be an illusion (at least from the optimists' perspective): On September 11th, who would have believed that at the beginning of October, White House spokesmen would unleash their wrath on Israel and its Prime Minister, saying `the President is beside himself with fury' following Sharon's remarks about Czechoslovakia--as if another bin Laden has sprung up in the world?

"Who would have believed that following the attacks in the US, Israel would be cast, increasingly and systematically, on foreign television networks as almost the leading villain in the plot of the pursuit of the Taliban--`a nuisance' as the reporters refer to it, if not a terrorist entity itself? Who would have believed that Syria and Iran would be included in the coalition against terrorism, while Israel would be left outside like an international leper? Who would have believed that four weeks after the declaration of `a war on terrorism,' Hamas and Jihad members would sally forth from their short-lived hiding places and would once again revel publicly, with posters of bin Laden and songs in praise of terrorism against a blood- splattered background of displays showing the slaughter of Jews, or women and children being blown up in a pizzeria? Who would have believed that in the aftermath of the attacks in New York and Washington, Israel would be forced to `contribute its share to the coalition against terror' by coming to terms with stepped-up levels of Palestinian terrorism (or `what Israel defines as terrorism' in BBC parlance), while its quota of bloodletting holds steady at 3-4 killings per day? That every military reaction to terrorist attacks would be portrayed as a terrorist act worse than the terrorist attacks themselves?

" . . . Isn't there a bit of truth to the words that issued forth from Sharon's throat? Doesn't this outcry articulate real and legitimate feelings of distress that may be justifiable once in a while? Even if this sense of banishment and tightening siege may be exaggerated; even if it may be excessive to describe the world as morally inconsistent and hostile, as particularly indifferent to Israel's plight and its very existence, so be it. Can a Jew no longer cry out, `Gevaldt!'?"

In today's topsy-turvy world everything seems to lack logic, defy analysis and contradict common sense. Is it any surprise that an analyst who can point to events he forecast and later came true is so hard to find these days? The whole world is upside-down and inside-out. But as believers, we know that way up High all of these events are directed toward a specific outcome (though we do not know what it is) in which Israel plays a central role.

One has to be blind not to see that the Jewish people are involved one way or another in every event of international proportions. And one has to be a fool to think that this is merely an annoying coincidence. The wise man opens sefer Bereishis to the posuk, "Bereishis boro Elokim es hashomayim ve'es ho'oretz." Says Rashi, "As Chazal tell us, this verse demands a homiletic interpretation . . . For Israel who are known as `reishis.'"

All of Creation was only for the sake of Am Yisroel, and since the first six days of Creation until the present, Israel has been the axis on which the universe rotates. Anyone who fails to comprehend that Am Yisroel plays a central role in Creation and that every event that takes place is intended to remind us of our purpose, cries out "Gevaldt!" in vain.


All material on this site is copyrighted and its use is restricted.
Click here for conditions of use.