A crucial week, a flag-burning fool, the Bush touch, &c.

October 21, 2001 9:00 a.m.

his is a crucial week for Israel. It could turn out to be one of the most crucial in its history. Unfortunately for Israel, it has had many such weeks since its founding more than 50 years ago. The Israelis have barely had a moment’s peace, and they will never have peace, as long as their enemies refuse to co-exist with them. Those enemies could have peace tomorrow — today — if only they’d consent to co-exist. But will they ever give that consent?

The Sharon government has to decide whether to move decisively against Arafat and the Palestine Authority — and it has to calculate what the reaction of its ally, Washington, will be. Israel has saved Arafat’s life on several occasions, reasoning that it is better to deal with him than with his Palestinian rivals. But now the government is thinking, How much worse is it likely to be?

Many Americans seem not to realize what Israel has suffered over the last year or so: all the murder, all the terror, all the uneasiness. As Yossi Klein Halevi says in his current piece in The New Republic, “The Bush administration — which expects Israel to continue negotiations with Arafat as if nothing had changed — is badly underestimating [the] country’s trauma.”

The Israeli people must have hoped that 9/11 would strengthen America’s appreciation of their own predicament. But perhaps the opposite has happened — perhaps Israel has become more than ever the object of resentment.

It’s no light thing for a cabinet minister to be gunned down in cold blood. Think how we Americans would feel, for starters. Yet the attitude of many of us is, Israel ought not to mind its dead so much. They’re used to this kind of thing, aren’t they? Isn’t it a price of living in that neighborhood? Isn’t there senseless violence on both sides? Israel will just have to suck it up, again — sit and take it.

No nation, however, can tolerate near-daily terror indefinitely. On the 11th, we lost about 6,000 out of our 280 million. Israel may have 25 murdered at this pizzeria, another 15 murdered at that disco — in a nation of 6 million people. This has an impact. It instills fear and dread in every citizen.

Last week, the Sharon government moved tanks into Bethlehem, to subdue the Palestinians who were shooting at civilians. The tanks left after six hours — and still our administration condemned Israel for it. So what will we say this week if Sharon follows through on his ultimatum and takes far wider action? That is the question resting on Israeli minds today, and it is also a question resting on American minds.

Interestingly enough, those Israeli tanks withdrew after Arafat promised there would be no more shooting. But wait a minute: We’re told — by Arafat and his apologists, some of them well-meaning — that the chairman has no control over these acts of terror and murder. Well, which is it? Is he an innocent bystander, or can he turn the mayhem on and off, like water from a spigot?

There are some fundamental points to make here, as this is a time for fundamental-point-making: Much of what Israel does has to be pre-emptive. Given its size and population, it can’t afford to take a great hit. It can’t afford to absorb too many casualties. In 1981, Israel did itself and the world a favor by sneaking into Iraq and destroying that French-supplied nuclear facility. It had to do so, because Israel can ill afford to wait and take its chances. Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to destroy Israel and Israelis — thereby becoming the supreme, all-time hero in the Arab world — if he could.

As for Ariel Sharon himself, think about what it means for him to be prime minister at this hour. He has been a warrior all his life, one of his country’s most famous hawks; and he wanted his prime-ministership to be a peace-making one. But that has not been his luck: He may simply have to do the necessary, act in such a way as to buy his country more time, in the hope that there will be peace by and by. But then — to ask it again — what will the U.S. administration do? Support Israel, say nothing, or assail it?

Presidents named Bush aren’t known for their love, tolerance, or understanding of the state of Israel. Neither are the advisers around them (think James A. Baker III). And yet, I recall what Condoleezza Rice told me in an interview I had with her in the summer of 1999. Here is the relevant paragraph pulled from that piece:

“When it comes to Israel, Rice professes an emotional attachment, a pull that goes beyond the bounds of the coolly analytical. Israel, she says, ‘is a struggling democracy in the midst of non-democratic states that would do it great harm.’ This was a nation that ‘nobody wanted to be born, that was born into a hostile environment, and that, without so strong a moral compass and so strong a people, might not have made it.’ For the United States, Rice contends, Israel is no less than ‘a moral commitment.’ ‘I’ve told you I’m a Realpolitiker, but this one is different.’”

If Sharon goes after Arafat and the PA, chances are that the administration will condemn him, as we condemned Begin when he raided Iraq 20 years ago. We will say that Sharon has spoiled our broader war effort, has complicated things needlessly. Many will say that Israel has acted opportunistically, exploiting a moment of uncertainty and belligerence, and threatening our “coalition.” There will not be much point in noting that Sharon is only responding as we ourselves have responded, to attacks on us. We have pledged to pursue our enemies unrelentingly, untiringly, for as long as it takes. But we urge on the Israelis endless “restraint.” We say that the terrorists who menace us — chiefly al Qaeda — are evil. We say, or imply, that the terrorists who menace Israelis — the PFLP, Hamas, Hezbollah — are something else. But the dead don’t know the difference.

It is a crucial week, yes. Sometimes I am asked, Will Israel’s Arab enemies ever agree to co-exist with that country? I answer that it seems impossible — inconceivable. But then I remark that I never expected to see the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its empire (hell, I never expected to see a Republican House of Representatives — it had been 40 years). So for the rest of my life, I will hesitate to brand a situation intractable. And yet, the outlook is bleak.

The best we can hope for is that the big, American-led war will not only defeat al Qaeda, but will lead the Arab countries to recognize that they must live harmoniously with the rest of the world, including the tiny Jewish/Western outpost in their midst. That would be a great, convulsive effect.

At Amherst College, several students burned American flags. One of them, a Dan Griffin from Minneapolis, explained that the United States is a pox on the world. According to a news report, he said that the U.S. “has helped continue a spree of genocide that dates back to Columbus in 1492.” I couldn’t help thinking — for the thousandth time — of those priceless lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II: “You have to be carefully taught.” Yes, you have to be carefully taught. Dan Griffin and his confreres are products of a contemporary education system that, in some respects, is a disgrace — and a dangerous one.

How strange it is to know someone who has been subjected to anthrax. Johanna Huden, who works on the editorial page of the New York Post, is a friend of mine, and a good friend of my wife’s. She is brave, she is defiant, and she’s fine. But it sort of concentrates the mind about the war we’re facing. For the last many years, we’ve heard about “victims” who aren’t really victims — and then, you know someone who was inflicted with anthrax, just because she opened the mail at work, just because a terrorist wanted someone — anyone, as long as it was not a co-religionist — on the other end of the letter to die.

Strange. And, again, mind-concentrating, and resolve-strengthening.

On Friday, President Bush said, “The thing that’s important for me to tell the American people is that these soldiers will not have died in vain.” This sort of touched me, in that it reminded me of the first President Bush, who — quoting his instructions, or prep material — said, “Message: I care.” That is the touching Bush awkwardness.

I imagine it like this. Someone says (to W.), “Sir, the important thing to communicate is that these soldiers will not have died in vain.” And then, instead of saying (for example), “These soldiers will not have died in vain,” Bush says, “The thing that’s important for me to tell the American people . . .” He sort of pulls the curtain back, lets you know what the counsels have been.

Several Impromptus (Impromptuses?) ago, I took to task the following liberal Democratic line: You see how important government is now? Shouldn’t the right wing be ashamed, for knocking “big government” all these years, in that the actions of our government are now utterly crucial?

Jacob Weisberg encapsulates this view in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine, with a column titled “Feds Up.” In it, he recalls the Ronald Reagan line, “The eleven scariest words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.’” Then he says, “It isn’t a joke anymore. It’s the literal attitude of Reagan-revering Republicans who toured the devastation at ground zero.”

Okay, once more: We — we “Reagan-reverers” — have always said that the primary responsibility of government is the physical protection of the people. Not “free false teeth,” as Bill Buckley would say, but the physical protection of the people. On September 11, we were attacked by ruthless enemies who destroyed 6,000 of us. Of course this is the government’s responsibility. But that doesn’t mean prescription drugs for the well-off are; that doesn’t mean midnight basketball is; that doesn’t mean the degree of wetness in a person’s backyard is.

No conservative should feel apologetic for his point of view. We don’t privatize war and “homeland security,” for heaven’s sake. What do you think we’ve been saying for all these years?

Many of us right types have been praising Sen. Charles Schumer, the normally noxious liberal Democrat from New York, for his stand-up behavior since 9/11. And then he went and said something really snarky and “old-Schumer.”

There’s a debate taking place now about whether the government should withdraw Bayer’s patent on Cipro. It is the administration’s position, currently, that such a drastic action is unnecessary. And here is what Schumer had to say: “I know there’s concern about what the pharmaceutical industry thinks, but we’re in an emergency situation and everybody has to give.”

I know there’s concern about what the pharmaceutical industry thinks: a line right out of the Gore campaign! We’re not talking about “the pharmaceutical industry,” of course. We’re talking about a particular company, Bayer. And yet Schumer knows that “the pharmaceutical industry” has become one of the Democratic party’s great bogey phrases. And the meaning of “I know there’s concern about what the pharmaceutical industry thinks” is, Leave it to a Republican administration to look out for its corporate buddies even in the throes of war.

They were just a few words, yes — but not especially good ones. Maybe normalcy is returning.

Who are the journalistic MVPs? Well, there are several, but I can’t let another week go by without singling out Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, whose essays since 9/11 have been collectible, all. These pieces can be found, through easy searching, on the magazine’s website. Perhaps the finest of them is from the October 8 issue, “Clippings,” in which Wieseltier opposes an overly poetic, too-pretty response to the disaster. Wieseltier has a talent for putting exactly what others feel or sense only vaguely.

In recent columns, we’ve been remarking on a new appreciation of Don Rumsfeld, or what some have even dubbed a new “cult of Rumsfeld.” I receive mail saying, “Rumsfeld reminds me of my uncle, who was a beat cop and is a scrupulously honest, plain-talking, patriotic guy.” A female reader now writes to say that a friend of hers — who is a liberal Democrat and other things — has been having what I can only describe as . . . well, Rumsfeld fantasies. “So I guess I don’t feel so foolish about thinking that our SecDef is pretty hot for a guy his age. He really looks like he’d kick your butt and go have a beer and not cry in it. It’s great!”

Donald Rumsfeld, this war’s Betty Grable.

Another reader wrote to praise America’s current “intellectual engagement.” He’d seen Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East scholar, on Charlie Rose, and, “though I’d never ordered a videotape of any television show before, I was inspired to call and inquire about how I could go about getting a copy of this particular one. The woman who answered my call was obviously harried and had to put me on hold twice. When we did talk, she said, ’You’re interested in the Lewis interview, I assume?’ So I asked whether there had been many inquiries, and she answered that the phones had been ringing constantly. I think this bodes well.”

I do too.

Last time, I observed that blood libel, sadly — and outrageously — seemed to be “common as water” in the Middle East. More than one correspondent pointed out that water, in fact, is scarce in those parts — perhaps “sand” would have been better.

This reminded me of a couple of weeks ago, when, in a public forum, I remarked that the U.S. had frequently “saved Arabs’ bacon,” as in Kuwait. Our Kate O’Beirne pointed out that perhaps “bacon” was not the justest of mots.

Roughly 8 million Italian-Americans wrote in to say, Dona de Sanctis doesn’t speak for me! Ms. de Sanctis is the National Italian American Foundation official who blasted me for “alienating 25 million Americans of Italian heritage.” (I had criticized reported statements by a minister of the Italian government.) Many of the letters said, “Make that 24,999,999 Americans of Italian heritage.”

Here is a sampling:

“As an Italian-American, I certainly want to get on the victimhood gravy train. As I am being held responsible for slavery now (despite the fact that my relatives were busy farming in the Italian mountains at the time), and I am expected to pay out and apologize, I now expect to receive compensation for all of the hurt I feel every time I hear references to organized crime, large meals of pasta, and the prowess of the Italian military.”

Another one: “My grandfather and uncle served in World War II, asked to fire upon Italians. . . . My family left the brutal poverty of peasant life in Sicily, giving their posterity the chance for a better, freer life. They defended that life in war and peace. Even if I disagreed with my country politically (and I often do, since most of my adult life has been spent grieving over various Clintons), I would never dishonor my own family’s sacrifices by scorning what they purchased for me so dearly.”

And then, “On the subject of ’identity politics,’ here’s a little story from my own experience. We moved from south-central Kentucky to New Jersey when my son was six years old. When I took him to get his first haircut there, it seemed like he was talking a lot to the girl cutting his hair. Afterwards, I asked what they’d found to talk so much about. He said, ’She wanted to know what I was.’ I asked him what he meant, and he said that she wanted to know where he was from. Thinking she was wondering about his southern accent, I asked if he’d told her he was from Kentucky. He said, ’Yes, but she didn’t want to know that. She wanted to know what country we’re from.’ She asked if my son was German, then Irish, then Italian. Of course, he couldn’t have known about our ancestry — we had never discussed it. He said she’d asked, finally — in an exasperated way — ‘Do you know what you are?’ and he said, ‘Yeah, I’m an American.’

"I told him he gave the perfect answer.”

Many readers wrote to defend Barry Bonds and Rickey Henderson, against their fellow readers. Concerning Bonds, several cited the following item, culled from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web”: “Seventy-three home runs in a single season is an amazing feat. Barry Bonds performed another one last weekend, fielding questions from Bob Costas on NBC’s ‘Today’ show. When Mr. Costas pressed him about his father being at a charity golf event in Connecticut the night he broke the home-run record in San Francisco (‘some people thought that was very odd that [your father] wasn’t there’), Mr. Bonds replied that it was, after all, his father’s tournament, and ‘it would be a shame if my dad didn’t show up to his own tournament.’ When Mr. Costas asked him whether President Bush had called him with congratulations, Mr. Bonds responded: “He’s way too busy right now. And that is well understood. As much stress as he’s under and as much responsibility he has on us, as a country, I think he’s handling it better than I’ve ever seen any one man handle it.’ Another home run.”

Last, a few readers wrote to complain about something that Oprah Winfrey apparently said at the Yankee Stadium prayer rally, or however it should be described. One reader thought that, after the singing of “We Shall Overcome,” Oprah announced that this was “the African-American national anthem.” How disgustingly divisive (said the reader), especially at a time like this.

Actually, what is traditionally known as “the Negro national anthem” is “Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing,” the great James Weldon Johnson composition from 1900, written in honor of Lincoln’s birthday. I have always cherished this song, and would like to relate a memory about it.

Between my freshman and sophomore years of college, I was a counselor at Camp Watagamie, outside Elgin, Ill. (camp nickname: “Camp Want-my-Mommy” ). We began each morning, I believe, with the singing of a patriotic song, after we’d raised the flag. Usually this was “America the Beautiful,” “God Bless America,” or the anthem — the anthem — itself.

I decided I wanted to introduce the kids to “Lift Ev’ry Voice . . .,” as it’s something all Americans should have in their repertoire, and hearts. The camp director — a magnificent man, by the way — readily agreed.

"Negro” — or “African-American” — “national anthem” though it may be called, it is a great and glorious American song. And, as with “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and other songs, the more verses you sing, the more religious it gets. It ends, “. . . true to our God, true to our native land.”