Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Lines in Mideast sand

Thursday, May 9, 2002 | 8:44 a.m.

THE PROBLEM with drawing a line in the sand ...

Given the lines the United States has been drawing ever since Sept. 11 happened to us, it is difficult to get a clear picture about which side of what line decent and honorable people should be standing.

Especially as our line-drawing relates to the sands of the Middle East. There the lines not only move with every whim of the oil rich sheikdoms that want to lead the Western World back to the days of Islamic glory, but also with the shifting sands that seem to move with the wind ... and in whichever direction those winds tend to blow.

How else can a person of modest intelligence even begin to make sense out of what is happening in that part of the world except to believe that lines are meant to be moved and the sand beneath them meant to move more often. That's the only way to view such matters if we want to maintain some semblance of rationality because to expect more is to drive ourselves nuts trying to understand. And, yet, we must expect more if we are to leave a world to our children that is based on law, civility and decency.

Take this latest visit to the United States by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Not only was Israel's incursion into the West Bank successful in stopping many more suicide bombings -- albeit not completely so given the latest tragic news -- but it also bore fruit in terms of intelligence gathered about the who, what, when, where and whys of the Palestinian Authority's direct involvement in the murders of so many innocent civilians.

So, while President George W. Bush invited Sharon to Washington to talk about turning another cheek in the name of peace, Israel's leader came prepared to talk about the man who would rather make war.

It was to Israel's incontrovertible proof of Yasser Arafat's duplicity in his complicitous role of managing, directing and inspiring the suicide killings of innocent men, women and children that our president had to accede because to do otherwise would be untrue to his own mission in life.

And yet in the face of the proof, in the face of more terrorist attacks while the two leaders were meeting, in the face of the cameras which could not hide the grief and anguish on the face of innocents, there were spokespeople for Yasser Arafat who refused to accept neither the reality nor the blame.

And depending upon which newscaster or talk show host you happened to be watching Tuesday night, they either got away with their lies or were called to task because of them.

How can it be that Alan Keyes could see so clearly where the lines in the sand have been drawn while some of his counterparts on other networks were having trouble finding the sand upon which they were drawn?

Are these life and death issues subject to the same ratings games that the talk shows seem to be hung up on, to the point that telling the truth or, at the very least, requiring the guests of the shows to speak truthfully is no longer a prerequisite for responsible television?

Don't worry, I know the answer to the question. I just wanted to ask it again because I can't believe we have stooped so low in America that truth no longer matters, only ratings.

And, then, as if bombing the hell out of the peace talks in Washington between Bush and Sharon weren't enough, the United Nations stepped in to show its bias in the matter.

The General Assembly voted 74 to 4, with the U.S. voting "no," to condemn Israel for "assaulting" West Bank towns and rejecting a fact-finding mission of the U.N. into the Jenin incursion.

There can never be an apology from Israel for doing what it needs to do to protect its citizens, just like our own country must never shrink from doing the same in the face of terrorism. And, as for Israel's rejection of the U.N. "fact-finding" mission to Jenin, it was done so because Israel has never caught an even break from the Arab-dominated world body. The vote yesterday is additional proof of their concerns, as if 50 years of one-sided resolutions isn't enough proof!

I know our president is having a difficult time juggling all the moving parts to this difficult puzzle, but if he can remember to heed his own admonition following Sept. 11 he will find his path to justice an easy one to follow.

His line in the sand had on the one side, peace-loving nations who abide by the rule of law. On the other stand those countries and people who either terrorize innocents, pay for the terror, train the terrorists, teach terror to their young or turn their backs on others who commit terror in their name. Those people, we call enemies.

How much longer is President Bush going to give our enemies -- all of them -- to cross over the line toward the good?

Put another way, how long must we wait before Bush's line in the sand stops moving?