Several weeks ago, Iraqi Prime Minster Ibrahim al-Jaafari called for the United States to begin withdrawing American forces from Iraq by as early as 2006. President Bush correctly deflected the Prime Minister's statement by refusing to set a time table for the American disengagement from the war-torn land as such an action would give the terrorists a clear cut date to plan an organized offensive when American presence would be at its weakest. Other more extreme voices in America and abroad have called for the immediate removal of U.S. troops, using words such as "occupiers," "crusaders," "infidels," etc.
Regardless of what one might think of the reasons (and mistakes) that brought our nation into Iraq, the fact of the matter is that at this juncture we are the righteous party in this conflict. This is a much-overlooked fact. The terrorists are ruthless murderers who do not simply attack American and Iraqi military targets, but also have targeted crowded markets and shopping centers without an "occupier" in the vicinity.
President Bush stands firm with the understanding that al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq cannot be allowed to dictate the terms of American withdrawal and risk the fledgling Iraqi government to fall into their claws. An American retreat from terrorism half a world away would give their ideology a massive jumpstart and would leave us vulnerable to terrorism in our own backyard.
The President's hard-line ideological stance against terror is widely seen as consistent towards all terrorist organizations around the globe and is exemplified in his resolve to stay the course in Iraq. However, most have overlooked (or turned a blind eye to) the similarities between the American "Global War on Terror" and Israel's own struggle against terrorism. The President's hypothetical resolve to fight terrorism wherever it exists is lost in contradiction and hypocrisy when placed next to his support of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in the wake of years of bombings and Intifada.
The main issue that President Bush fails to address as he walks his diplomatic tightrope over Israel is that terrorist organizations exist in Gaza in an organized infrastructure integrated to a greater extent than the terrorists in Iraq, are maintained within the mainstream of Palestinian society and have legitimate political influence.Hamas enjoys enormous popularity in Gaza and is threatening to overthrow Palestinian Authority control in Gaza once the disengagement is over.
Already, the organization's members have clashed with Palestinian police only a month ago, shooting a top Palestinian official and overturning and burning Palestinian Authority police cars in Northern Gaza. Why? Because the Palestinian police stopped an attempt to lob Kassam rockets at Israeli settlements in the region.
This tactic of intimidation could become extremely successful against Mahmoud Abbas' hold on power in the Gaza Strip as he has tried to corral and cajole Hamas without confronting or disarming it.
As Mr. Abbas is showing weakness, Hamas is showing strength independent of the centralized PA government. Their leaders have been holding their own news conferences before the Israeli withdrawal, claiming victory in ending the occupation in Gaza and promising to continue the armed struggle against the Israelis.
What is the Hamas definition of this armed struggle against the Israelis? Unfortunately, the organization has historically attacked the vulnerable and innocent, murdering in cold blood without regard for human life.
Fifteen people killed, including seven children, at the bombing of a Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem in 2001. Hamas claimed responsibility.
Nineteen killed by a suicide bomber on an Egged bus in Gilo in 2002. Again Hamas. Two toddlers were killed by a rocket attack fired from Gaza into Sderot in 2004. Hamas.
The worst and most frightening prospect is that Hamas is threatening to secure a victory to control Gaza legitimately through elections and illegitimately, if necessary, through intimidation and violence.
With the settlements and military outposts removed from Gaza and the possibility of a Gaza seaport, Gaza could be the major center of operation for Hamas and other terror organizations in all of the Palestinian territories.
After all, it appears that its brand of violence has caused the Israelis to give up a major bloc of territory worth its weight in gold, which the terrorists are claiming as justification for suicide bombings and their other methods of murder.
The Iraq War's parallel to the Israeli Gaza withdrawal would be what President Bush has been preaching against all along: no withdrawal until the Iraqi government can control the terrorist situation.
The Palestinian government cannot yet handle its own extremists, and many terrorists are actually in the government itself. The Gaza Strip is being given to the Palestinians as a prize for the Second Intifada for nothing in return, when it could have been used in future negotiations as a bargaining chip for the disarming of terror groups and the future security of Israel.
President Bush has supported Israel's disengagement as he attempts to show solidarity with Prime Minister Sharon in his bid for peace. However, when a plan is weak and shortsighted, a strong leader would not support it, even at the expense of a friend.
As a passive accomplice to PM Sharon's biggest gamble, President Bush has forgotten his values.
