Hal Lindsay —————————————————————————- —-

Posted: June 5, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern

 © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

Never was the old adage, “politics makes strange bedfellows” more appropriate than when examining Washington’s curious love-hate relationship with organized terror.

Officially, we deplore terror and terror states – especially the terrorists behind the Sept. 11 attacks on Washington and New York.

But politics is what determines who qualifies as terrorists and terrorist states and who does not, rather than the body count.

Take, for example the U.S. position on the two conflicts currently threatening to explode into regional – or even nuclear – war.

In the Middle East, we qualify as Israel’s ally mostly because we are Israel’s least-dangerous enemy. Israel is a textbook example of Western-style democracy’s ability to flourish, even in regions where democratic thought is culturally forbidden.

As such, it should enjoy the unqualified support of the other Western democracies.

Israeli democracy has survived despite 50-plus years of constant war, flourishing and achieving unheard of prosperity as the dictatorships around them remain stuck a half-century behind.

However the Arabs have the oil. We want it, and Israel is the asking price. If Israel is betrayed all at once, the price is too high. But Washington’s conscience seems to be able to justify betraying Israel in small installments. [The price is too high all at once, but piecemeal, a bit at a time has seemed a fair price to Washington.]

To maintain the oil supply and appease the Islamic world, we’ve looked the other way – even when Palestinian terrorists have claimed American citizens among their victims.

We’ve forced Israel to accept an avowed terrorist as a negotiating partner for peace. Even after the Israelis uncovered a hundred times more evidence against Arafat than we have against Osama bin Laden, we continue to insist that Israel negotiate with him.

Would Washington negotiate peace with Osama bin Laden? To the east, another successful Western-style democracy is also engaged in a war against state sponsored terror. The head of that terror state has been a direct sponsor of al-Qaida for a decade or more and was an open supporter of the Taliban. He came to power – not by democratic election, but by a military coup.

Again, it would seem logical that Washington would immediately throw its support behind the democratically governed pro-Western state of India.

But the politics of the war on terror finds Washington supporting the military dictator of the anti-Western Islamic state of Pakistan.

The administration’s successes so far have been based entirely on the strength of America’s commitment to the principles of democracy and freedom.

The success of the Islamic terror networks is measured entirely against their ability to erode that commitment.

Despite the Bush Doctrine that clearly repudiates negotiations with terrorists, Washington demands that Israel negotiate with Yasser Arafat – the documentary evidence of his sponsorship of terror notwithstanding.

In South Asia, the administration again finds itself at odds with its own doctrine. First by its involvement with Musharraf who has provable past connections with al-Qaida.

And secondly, by demanding that India negotiate with Pakistan – the documentary and anecdotal evidence of Musharraf’s sponsorship of terror notwithstanding.

America’s war on terror is a war based on principle. That principle is that terrorism can have no safe haven, no voice at the negotiating table, no representation before the councils of civilized men, because terrorism has no legitimacy.

Our principles are either negotiable, or they are not. And if they are, we may well have already lost.

—————————————————————————- —-