Anti-Sharon and pro-Israel? Or just soft on terror?

-->

Robert Wright wants you to know that he is pro-Israel. Yes, he is. And he is anti-Sharon. He wants you to know that all of this is possible and probably healthy. Never mind that Richard Cohen already covered this ground earlier when he stated that he was anti-Zionist but not an anti-Semite. Both writers made their arguments elegantly and in a sophisticated manner. But in both cases it was totally beside the point. Because, unless you really are an anti-Semite, this whole thing is most definitely not about Israel. It is about the war on terror. And if we are choosing up sides then I think we ought to be deciding who's hard on terror and who's soft on terror. Wright justifies his stance with an appeal to compassion for Israel

:...since Sept. 11, I’ve worried about the fate of Israel more than ever. My highly non-altruistic reason is that it’s clearer than ever how deeply intertwined America’s and Israel’s fates are.

Sounds good so far. Israel's war on terror is, after all, the same war on terror that is mandated by the Bush Doctrine, right?

If the Palestinian problem doesn’t get solved, Israel will see years and years of increasingly horrendous violence, probably culminating in nuclear and/or biological attacks that kill hundreds of thousands of Israelis.

I can't decide if this is condescending crap or fatalistic nonsense. Either way, Wright has caved to the terrorists and we're only a few months into this war!

And Americans, too, will be at much greater risk - because, though Osama bin Laden’s actual grievances had little to do with the Palestinian cause, continued Palestinian-Israeli conflict is probably the biggest recruiting asset for al-Qaida and other such groups.

So it's not enough that the Israelis throw in the towel, but the US should surrender right now as well.

Of course, those “pro-Israel” American conservatives say that they, too, have America’s interests at heart.

How nice of you Mr. Wright to concede that someone else besides you has America's interests at heart.

They think a take-no-prisoners policy toward terrorists around the world (regardless of differences in, say, the legitimacy of the grievance) will make America more secure even as it makes Israel and other nations more secure.

Well, there it is: "regardless of ...the legitimacy of the grievance." Mr. Wright, terror is never justified. The killing of innocent bystanders is never justified. Terror is indivisible. We don't subdivide terrorists into groups of "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists." And so, Mr. Wright, if you think that there is any grievance that justifies terrorism, then you are soft on terror.