The question that is the title of this article concerns
Daniel Pipes who is writing about Danny Danon. Pipes is not asking who Danon
is; he seems to think he knows him well. But after you read the Pipes article,
you will probably find yourself asking the question: Who is Daniel Pipes? You
see, Danny Danon could be a rising star in Israeli politics, says Pipes in an
article titled: “The Right Moment for Israel's Danny Danon?” It was published
on August 7, 2013 in National Review Online under the subtitle: “His principles
and vision could make him a rising start.”
You will ask the question about the identity of Pipes for
two reasons. First, he mentions the word principle at least four times in the
article, and that gets you thinking. He does it when he lists “devotion to
principle” as one of Danny Danon's qualities. And again when he explains:
“Danon has remained true to the core principles of his party and his country.”
And again when he expresses the wish: “I hope and expect he [Danon] stays true
to his principles.” And once more when he speaks of the “principled Yitzhak
Shamir.”
As well, Pipes writes about Danon's “righteous opposition
when his party makes mistakes.” You see, righteous is close enough to being a
synonym of principled; you can exchange one for the other. In that same vein,
Pipes writes about Netanyahu's “immoral concessions to the Palestinian
Authority” by which he means to say that Netanyahu has not always been
principled. So you want to find out what the word “principle” means to this
man, Daniel Pipes.
Second, it perplexes you to read a passage like this: “On a
personal note, through the two decades since Shamir, I have constantly looked
for someone with the character, energy, skills and vision to lead Israel.” So
you think to yourself: I want to know who this man, Daniel Pipes, is – not only
by unveiling his identity as an individual but also by discovering what lay
behind the public figure whose loyalty is clearly planted in Israel, yet often
speaks as an American articulating not America's right but America's obligation
toward Israel. He displays this tendency here again as he lauds Danon's book in
which the latter argues that: “history shows us Israel is often better off when
she acts on her own behalf … even if that means contravening the wishes of the
U.S. administrations.”
And so you go over the Pipes article and discover that he,
like Danon, is outraged by Netanyahu's decision to hand Palestinian prisoners,
he calls killers, to the Palestinian Authority. Well, like they say, one man's
killer may be another man's freedom fighter, and no one would agree more with
this principle than Yitzhak Shamir, the founding father of the Jewish groups
that terrorized the British and the Palestinians, displacing the latter, taking
over their lands and properties, then allowing Shamir to make himself the
founding father of Israel.
That was Shamir's principle. So you ask yourself: Where did
the Palestinian prisoners fall short of living up to that principle – that
Shamir principle? Is Pipes scornful of the Palestinians because they have not
as yet succeeded in displacing the Jews? Have not as yet replaced them with
Palestinians? Have not as yet taken back the lands and properties that were
stolen from them? Have not as yet turned Israel back to Palestine? Could this
be what goes on inside the head and heart of Daniel Pipes?
If that is the case, it must be that the man has a secret
wish, not toward himself but toward Israel. It could be that he is so
conflicted inside; he will start admiring the Palestinians if and only if they
begin to act as ruthlessly as Shamir, and start succeeding as well as he did.
If this happens he, Daniel Pipes, will consider them to be as principled as
Yitzhak Shamir. And where Danon was deemed to be “a major stumbling block
toward Palestinian statehood,” he will root for the Palestinians when they
resolve never again to see a Jewish state established on their stolen land.
But what could be the reason why Daniel Pipes, the lifelong
arch-Zionist, has turned sour on Israel, the place he considers his spiritual
homeland? The evidence exists that he harbors a secret that makes him see
Israel for what it is, a failed experiment that should never have been. This is
the image that many people – Jews and non Jews – paint of Israel. And so the
question is whether or not Pipes has joined that crowd. Could it be that he has
grown tired of being Israeli when he should be American? If someone doubts
there may be a hint of validity in this hypothesis, consider the following
passage:
“Looked at in historical perspective … Shamir's successors
engaged in political betrayal, ethical corruption and delusional egotism.
Sharon … his financial shenanigans had him in constant trouble with the law.
Olmert had to resign owing to a cloud of corruption charges. Netanyahu … his
recent offer of murderers disturbingly contradicts the electoral platform of a
half-year ago.”