Agreed, but when?

Submitted by Dean Esmay (United States), May 11, 2002 at 15:20

My biggest issue (as I discuss at http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000035.html with others) is that it continues to strike me as premature to take such a strong stance toward Israel now. I would ask the esteemed Dr. Pipes this question:

Would it not make more sense to take down the butcher of Baghdad first? This event should increase Arab perceptions of our power and put us in a stronger position in supporting Israel. Thus, wouldn't temporizing over Israel right now serve our best strategic interests? And Israel's?

The Bush administration is already being tougher on Arafat in public than any administration in the past, or so it seems to me. I would think our moral defense of Israel's right to exist would be more respected if we finished the job in Iraq first.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".