The U.S. State Department is scrambling to prepare for yet another Middle East peace conference between Israel and Yassar “Terrorist? Who Me?” Arafat. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who in his career as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff convinced the senior Bush to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory during the Gulf War, apparently hopes Israel will make the same sort of concession with Arafat that Bush, Sr. made with the Butcher of Baghdad.
Which is to say: Powell hopes to convince Israel — as he did the senior Bush — that any further acts of self-defense will (somehow magically) become acts of aggression. The magic in this case is provided by the sleight-of-hand called, moral equivalence, i.e., postmodern moral relativism.
Postmodernism is based on the assertion “that there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival interpretations of an event is the true one.” Postmoderns, despite their protestations to the contrary, aren’t just claiming it’s impossible for man to tell truth from falsehood. They’re claiming, as far as man is concerned, that there is no difference. If there are no objective standards to distinguish truth from falsehood, there can be no moral standards distinguishing honest men from liars; rape victims from rapists; self-defending Israelis from Arab attackers.
Secretary Powell’s insistence on a compromise in the Middle East follows such a course of moral correlation. His position is certainly not the result of ignorance. No one would admit to being that ignorant, not even the Secretary of State:
- May 15, 1948, approximately one year after the UN had recognized the rights of both the Jews and the Palestinians to establish independent states in the Middle East, and one day after the Jews had announced the establishment of such an independent state for themselves — to be called, Israel — Egyptian, Trans-Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, Saudi Arabian, Iraqi and Yemeni armies attacked Israel.
- After Israel had won that first Arab-Israeli War, 75% of the land previously partitioned by the U.N. as the future home for Arab Palestinians was annexed by the Arab nation of Trans-Jordan.
- In the following twenty-one years, nearly all of the remaining 25% ended up under the control of the Arabs; yet not one inch of it was set-aside for the Palestinians.
- Since 1948, the Arab tyrannies have attempted to destroy Israel, either by conventional war — in 1956-57, 1968 and 1973 — or through terrorist bombings, similar to the following few recent examples:
- 19 October 1994: Hamas militant sets off bomb, killing 23 on a Tel Aviv bus.
- 24 July 1996: Unidentified Arab bomber kills six passengers and himself on a bus outside Tel Aviv.
- 31 March 2002: An Arab terrorist attacks a restaurant in Haifa, northern Israel, killing himself and 14 Israeli Jews and Arabs. On the same day, another Arab bomber kills himself and wounds four people in an attack on an office for paramedics at the Jewish settlement of Efrat, south of Bethlehem.
- 29 March 2002: An Arab woman bomber kills herself and two others at a Jerusalem supermarket.
- 7 May 2002: While Bush and Sharon meet in Washington, a homicide Arab bomber murders 16 Israelis and kills himself in a pool hall in Tel Aviv.
- Since the late 1960’s, such terrorist bombings have been primarily the work of one man, the same man who now offers cash prizes to the families of killed terrorists — the man with whom Secretary Powell now seeks to negotiate: Yassar Arafat.
Given the transparency of the rationalization that is moral relativism, which a drunk, half-witted drug addict hopped up on PCP could see through; given the documented history of the region for the past half-century, on which even the Arab racist terrorists concur; given the bloody and duplicitous record of Yassar Arafat, with which anyone this side of the grave is thoroughly familiar — and Powell’s peace overture to Arafat, like Chamberlain’s to Hitler before him, is the result of one thing only: a monumental act of evasion.
OK, fine. If Secretary Powell wants to rely on the evasions of moral relativism, then he ought to give the devil his due and follow them to their logical conclusion: He should urge President Bush to immediately annihilate Israel. I recommend nuclear-armed Cruise missiles to avoid any American casualties. Those will come later when American cities are flattened via suitcase nukes carried by terrorists who have been unleashed by those Arab tyrannies no longer restrained by Israel.
It ought to be obvious by now to even a village idiot that Secretary Powell’s rhetoric of compromise represents a breach in our national security and poses a very real and very imminent threat to the freedom and safety of the United States.
If, indeed, the President is for the United States and against terrorism, then he should fire Colin Powell immediately; he should then make it plain and clear to the rest of the world that America is intractable in Her moral support for the government of the State of Israel; and he should, if necessary, fully arm the Israeli military with every weapon in our American arsenal.
I think I speak for the vast majority of Americans who do not confuse murderers with victims when I say: Mr. President, there can be no compromise with evil.
Perhaps you may recall those words, Sir. They are — or were — your own.
 “Condemnation Without Absolutes,” by Stanley Fish, dean of the college of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago; New York Times, October 15, 2001.