As we gather here this evening, our thoughts turn to Lieutenant Colonel Jonathon Netanyahu. We recall the quality of his personal character, the inner devotion to public good, his voluntary performance of the most demanding duties that the defense of democracy entails, and the sacrifice consummated in the heroic rescue at Entebbe, Jonathon’s heritage is an unpurchasable treasure of the spirit of that moth and rust cannot consume nor thieves break through and steal. When, in George Bernard’s play, they tell of Joan of Arc that they are going to burn at the stake, she foresees the effect upon the people. "If I go through the fire," she says, "I shall go through it and into their hearts for ever and ever." So Jonathon went through the Entebbe fire to our hearts for ever and ever. I believe that international terrorism is a modern day form of warfare against liberal democracies. I believe that the ultimate but seldom stated goal of these terrorists is to destroy every fabric of democracy. I believe that it both wrong and foolhardy for any democratic state to consider international terrorism to be "someone else’s" problem. If you believe as I do, then you must join me in wondering why the community of liberal democracies has not banded together more effectively to oppose these international murderers and to loudly and vigorously expose those states, which cynically provide terrorists with comfort and support. One of the great Cover-ups of this century is the effort by Western Governments, who know better, to muffle the facts about Soviet Bloc support for international terrorism. I’m not talking about individual acts of madmen. I’m talking about highly organized groups with international connections and support and consistently rely on major acts of violence as a political instrument. I’m thinking of the Basque and Puerto Rican terrorists, the European terrorist groups, and the PLO attacks, or threats of attack, against moderate Arab states which might be motivated to support the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. I have in mind the PLO attacks against moderate Palestinians – the murder of the moderate leader in Gaza is a recent brutal example. I am reminded of radical Palestinians terrorist attacks on airliners servicing Israel. I’m thinking of the Palestinian operation in Lebanon and the activities of the Turkish terrorists. Such acts of terrorism are part of a broad campaign aimed at the disintegration of democratic societies through undermining the confidence of their citizenry in their governments. International terrorism is a special problem for democracies. To a totalitarian regime like the Soviet Union, it is mainly a nuisance. The government applies whatever force is needed to liquidate the group and it’s members: borders are closed to unwanted entry or exit; individual rights are held subservient to "law and order;" publicity can be denied. The biggest difference between the Soviet Union and such states as Libya, Iraq and Iran is that these governments are not as efficient – yet. A democratic government, on the other hand, rests on the consent of the governed. It is responsible for assuring the democratic freedoms of speech, assembly, travel, press and privacy. These conditions, obviously, facilitate terrorist operations, directed against a particular government or the battleground for opposing terrorist groups. When the PLO and Iraqi terrorists were at war, they chose to fight it out in Europe, not in the Middle East. Terrorism is not a new phenomena. What it new is the international nature of terrorism. Today’s terrorist have modern technology to help them, permitting rapid international communications, travel and the transfer of monies; they can work with others of like mind across the international borders of the world’s free nations. More important, however, these groups receive extensive support from the Soviet bloc. Most terrorists use Soviet or East European weapons; they have been trained in Warsaw pact countries or in Middle Eastern countries such as South Yemen and the PLO-controlled areas of Lebanon; they generally flee for protection and rest to Eastern Europe or to such countries as Libya. The primary supporters of international terrorism are the Soviets support; the Warsaw Pact and the radical Arab camp. Modern terrorism is a form of "warfare by remote control" waged against free nations or against nondemocratic but moderate states which dare to sympathize with freedom. In this kind of war, the totalitarian regimes see little risk of retribution against them. What can be done? First and foremost, liberal democracies must acknowledge that the international terrorism is a "collective problem." Everything else follows this. When one free nation is under attack, the rest must understand that democracy itself is under attack and behave accordingly. We must be allied in our defense against terrorists… Let me emphasize two propositions whose truth should be evident to all democracies. To insist free nations negotiate with terrorist organizations can only strengthen the letter and weaken the former. To crown with statehood a movement based on terrorism would devastate a moral authority the rightly lies behind the effort of free states everywhere to combat terrorism. Secondly, every free nation must work against Soviet and radical state efforts to define terrorism. The idea that one person’s "terrorist" is another’s "freedom fighter" cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don’t blow up busses containing noncombatants; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don’t set out to capture and slaughter schoolchildren; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don’t assassinate innocent businessmen or hijack and hold hostage innocent men, women and children; terrorist murderers do. It’s a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word "freedom" to be associated with the acts of terrorists. Third, we must turn the publicity instruments against the terrorists, and we must expose Soviet and other state support of terrorist groups wherever we identify it. When PLO terrorists toss a bomb into a marketplace or murder a holy man or shoot rockets randomly at a village, each and every democracy in the world should stand up and condemn those radical Arab states and the Soviet Union who train, arm, finance, harbor and encourage them. When an act of terrorism occurs, the odds are it will occur in one of the free countries, democracies should unite in sponsoring resolutions in the United Nations condemning the act. Where we have evidence of support for the terrorists by some other state, this support must be censured in the strongest terms. If the Soviet Union, its allies, and the radical Arab and Third World states want to vote against such resolutions, let them. Let’s educate the whole world as to who opposes and who tolerates international terrorism. I am convinced this will make a difference; I am convinced, for instance, that the exposure of the East European support of European terrorism has contributed to the lessening of this support and to the signs of some cooperation to combat terrorism between these countries and the nations of West Europe. Fourth, liberal democracies must work together to apply sanctions against countries that provide sanctuary to international terrorists. The Bonn Anti-Hijacking Agreement is a good start. It is ironic that the pilots and the airlines, and not our statesmen, provided the leadership which led to this agreement. We can do more. For instance, is it moral to trade openly and freely with states who use profits from such trade to finance the murder of innocents. Why would those who conduct remote control warfare against us rest easy that we will contribute to financing our own destruction? Fifth, within each of our own countries, we must organize to combat terrorism in ways consistent with our democratic principles and with the strong support of our citizens. Israel has long done this. And the nations of Western Europe are moving in this direction. In my country, we are making some progress in organizing federal, state and local agencies to deal more realistically with terrorist threats. Now this final word: In providing for her own defense against terrorism, Israeli courage has inspired those who love freedom all around the world. The Entebbe rescue was a classic lesson for all free nations that terrorism can be countered with strength, skill and determination. These are qualities in short supply in many countries where freedom comes more easily. Indeed, the great need in the world today is for men and women who stand in the tradition of Jonathan Netanyahu – strong, dedicated, courageous, dependableThis sppech was given at an International Terrorism Conference held at the Jonathan Institute in July, 1979. The speaker was a well respected Senator from Washington State, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat. I'd be willing to bet, Scoop would be with the disgards of the Democratic Party today, confined to the company of Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) and Senator Joe Liberman (D-CN). I'd say Scoop would be in great company!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Who Said This: A Speech on International Terrorism
The following speech is from a few decades gone by, and except for the references to the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries, it could have been given in our current times. There is good advice here, some of which (precious little, but some) has been done. Much more of it hasn't been, yet the incredible foresight of the speaker is something worth studying. I have empahsized some sentences. Look in here for words of advice to Michael Moore, other free countries, the "chees eating surrender monkeys" and the Democrats of this very day. I think you will find this interesting....