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.
