Letter from New York

by

David A. Harris

Executive Director, The American Jewish Committee

September 15, 2001

            As I write this letter in the wake of the calamitous events of the past week, rescue workers in lower Manhattan continue to sift through the rubble, while families of the nearly 5,000 unaccounted persons who worked in the World Trade Center search frantically for any sign of their missing relatives.

Fear of the possibility of other terrorist attacks persists, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is engaged in a massive hunt for the terrorists still at large and those who may have assisted them, and President Bush and his senior advisers are considering the range of military options.

The president has begun to prepare the American people, as he indicated in a radio address to the nation earlier today, for the fact that American-led action would constitute a “comprehensive assault on terrorism,” to include organizations and those nations which harbor and support the terrorists.  He said that our nation’s response would be “sweeping, sustained and effective,” and asked the nation for “patience, resolve, and strength.”

The United States is currently engaged in a full-court diplomatic press to line up international support for a coalition of forces to attack terrorism at its sources, and has made clear that those who are not with us in this struggle will be considered against us. Significantly, the 19 NATO members, for the first time since the collective security alliance was established in 1949, have invoked Article 5, which stipulates that an attack from abroad against any NATO member constitutes an attack on all.

The Congress, with one dissenting voice, has lined up squarely behind the president, giving the White House authority to use military force against the perpetrators of these horrific terrorist attacks, authorizing the call-up of up to 50,000 military reservists, and allocating $40 billion to help rebuild the damaged sites and provide a down payment on the massive expenditures required to mount an appropriate military campaign.

While all this activity is going on at the national and international levels, daily life in New York, needless to say, has been affected.

Given that 50,000 people worked in the two towers and another 150,000 passed through the buildings every day, not to mention those employed in the immediate vicinity, the sheer number of people directly touched was huge.  It meant that just about everyone in the New York area knew someone who worked in or visited the towers, or the nearby buildings.

From the moment American Airlines Flight 11 flew into the north tower, followed 18 minutes later by United Airline Flight 175 striking the south tower, sirens began wailing in the streets of New York, as fire engines, police cars, and other emergency vehicles raced to the southern tip of Manhattan Island. 

Billowing smoke from New York’s two tallest buildings were clearly visible from our vantage point three miles from “Ground Zero.” Within an hour, Third Avenue was clogged with pedestrians making their way north – in some cases fleeing on foot from the stricken area, often covered in dust and ash, in other cases evacuating office buildings in the midtown area.  People were trying to get away from the center and reach their homes and families, but for many it proved impossible, at least in the short run.  Trains stopped running, bridges and tunnels were shut down, and buses were few and far between.  And for those from other cities or countries who were in New York at the time, getting home proved a lot tougher.  In fact, five days later, some are still stranded here, unable to find seats on reduced flight schedules.

Strikingly, there was no panic.  People looked grim, stunned, and ashen-faced, but instinctively seemed to understand that everyone was in this together and behaved accordingly.  A city celebrated for its diversity – a diversity that was reflected in all its richness among those who worked at the World Trade Center – was dramatically reminded on September 11 of the ties that bind.

There were appeals for blood donations.  The response was overwhelming.  People lined up outside donation centers to the point where the centers could not keep up with the supply.  It reflected a remarkable outpouring of community spirit, fulfilling the words of a poem written on another ominous date in history, September 1, 1939 – the Nazi invasion of Poland:  “May I, in the darkness and dust, show an affirming flame.”

New Yorkers wanted to help.  Our city had been attacked and, for the moment at least, the only way we could fight back was to unite and to volunteer whatever skills we had to offer.  As with the pool of those eager to donate blood, the supply of volunteers exceeded the demand, and the city eventually announced that no additional help, by volunteers at least, was required.

A reporter asked one New Yorker if she planned to leave the city after the attacks. The woman looked horrified and said the thought had never occurred to her.  Still, no one could know if more attacks were planned.  As a matter of fact, in the days after September 11, there have been a number of threats and alarms, resulting in the temporary evacuation of area airports, Grand Central Station, midtown office buildings, and at least one school, but slowly the tempo of life is picking up and some sense of normalcy is returning, even if nerves are more than a bit frayed.

America has been desperately in need of heroes, of role models for our nation and especially our youth.  For years, the country has made do with often deeply flawed personalities from the worlds of politics, entertainment, and professional sports.  Today, out of unspeakable tragedy have emerged the true dimensions of heroism – unsung individuals who exhibited staggering courage.

Several passengers on hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, traveling from Newark to San Francisco – who realized they were headed for certain death in a hijacked plane that had become, in effect, a lethal missile bearing down on the nation’s capital – attacked the terrorists and forced the plane to crash near Pittsburgh, thereby averting an even worse disaster.  What can one say about such remarkable people, whose lives were extinguished in the crash?

And here in New York, the firefighters, police, medical personnel, and emergency rescue workers have been working around the clock in an effort to save as many people as possible. In the process, many have made the ultimate sacrifice. The image of firefighters rushing into the World Trade Center towers as people were fleeing the burning and crumbling buildings has been etched in the nation’s consciousness.

As Fire Chief William Feehan said in an interview to National Public Radio shortly before he gave his life on September 11, “A firefighter has to be ready at any moment to go into harm’s way and be ready to help in any way. The culture of the Fire Department is very special. It’s to go to the aid of those in peril. It’s not about money. It’s about much more.” Chief Feehan had been a firefighter for over 40 years. He died at the age of 71 and was buried yesterday.

Even as I write these words, the reality hasn’t fully sunk in. 

America was attacked in a breathtakingly bold and well-coordinated attack that revealed our nation’s striking vulnerability and represented a colossal failure of our intelligence and security capacities. 

More than five thousand people are presumed dead, and countless other lives are shattered.  The World Trade Center, the symbol of America’s soaring economic power, is gone, and the Pentagon, the emblem of America’s military might, lies badly damaged. 

The world’s unquestioned superpower was gasping for air.  What the Axis nations in World War II and the Soviet bloc during the Cold War couldn’t even contemplate, a shadowy enemy had accomplished.  America was caught totally unprepared, dealt a body blow, and left badly shaken.

It’s always tempting to second guess.  Hindsight, after all, affords perfect vision.  Even so, who could have foreseen such an act of war?  At the same time, the truth is that terrorism against American targets by the forces of radical Islam didn’t start yesterday.  Time and again, these forces have made clear their hatred of the United States and everything it represents.  They detest American, indeed Western, secularism, modernity, culture, and power.  They cannot fathom the notion that “infidel” troops are stationed on “holy” Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia.  They hold the United States responsible for “aggression” against Iraq, a Muslim country.  And they long for the restoration of Islamic unity and glory.

Just as Hitler spelled out in Mein Kampf, in 1924, the diabolical program he intended to pursue, so did Osama bin Laden offer his world view for all to see.  According to Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, the text of bin Laden’s views was published in London in 1998.  Entitled a “Declaration of the World Islamic Front against the Jews and the Crusaders,” the document includes the following passage:

“By God’s leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God’s command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them and whenever he can.  Likewise, we call on the Muslim ulema [authorities on theology and Islamic law] and leaders and youth and soldiers to launch attacks against the armies of the American devils and against those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan.”

As a nation, the United States dealt with the threat of radical Islamic terror episodically, not consistently, and approached it less as a war and more as a matter of the long arm of the law.  We had our share of successes in tracking down wanted terrorists and managed to curtail the activities of Libya’s Qadhafi, but the total effort was less than the sum of its parts.

Can anyone argue that the United States reacted with sufficient resolve to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983?  Or to the destruction of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam in 1998?  Hundreds of people were killed in Lebanon and East Africa in those attacks, yet the inadequate American response sent a clear message that Washington wasn’t prepared for what would necessarily be a dirty war.  And these were far from the only terrorist attacks against American targets by various Middle Eastern groups united by a desire to inflict the maximum possible damage on American interests.

Throughout the years, there were those persistent voices – including that of the American Jewish Committee – urging the United States and the rest of the Western world to recognize the true nature of the peril, to connect the dots and draw the appropriate conclusions, and to meet the challenge head on in such a way as to leave no doubt about our will.  Otherwise, the toll would only mount.

But our intelligence agencies had come to rely increasingly on electronic collection rather than human sources – though no one should underestimate the difficulty of penetrating groups like bin Laden’s loosely organized worldwide network – and the FBI was faced with various political and legal hurdles in its ability to monitor effectively Arab and Islamic activity.  And, as a nation with global interests and a vast agenda, our nation had to juggle its counter-terrorism objectives with other, at times conflicting, diplomatic, political, and commercial concerns.

In addition, the United States received uneven support abroad.  Our European allies at times claimed that Washington – ever in need of an enemy, some Euro cynics asserted – was exaggerating the threat of radical Islam.  But then again, it was France and Italy, and perhaps other European nations, who made a deal with the devil in the 1970s, when they secretly reached agreement with the PLO to keep terrorism off their soil in exchange for tacit support of some kind, so what could one expect?  And European nations, dependent on export markets and imported energy, have been especially eager to engage such countries as Libya, Sudan, and especially Iran, despite credible evidence that these countries have been supporting international terrorism. 

But that was then and this is now.  The more pressing issue is what happens next.

The United States has set down the markers.  This will be a war against terrorism, not simply the firing of a few missiles at terrorist training camps in Afghanistan or a one-shot strike at a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan.

As Francis Quarles, the seventeenth-century English poet, wrote: “Beware of him that is slow to anger; for when it is long in coming, it is the stronger when it comes, and the longer kept.  Abused patience turns to fury.”

He could have been describing the United States today.  The fury is there.  So is the government’s determination.

As American leaders plan our nation’s response, some questions come to mind:

Will the national consensus, so strong today in the United States, remain intact, or will it begin to splinter as time passes and the prospect of combat nears?

Do Americans have the stomach for what could be a protracted and complex conflict?   The last two major military actions in which we were involved – the NATO bombing of Serbia and the Gulf War – were far more straightforward in their objectives, our enemies were clearly defined, and relatively few American fatalities resulted. 

What will be the objectives of such a war?  What exactly constitutes victory?  The Bush Administration speaks of a war against international terrorism, including the nations that offer refuge and support to terrorist groups.  Apart from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria are all on the State Department’s list of countries involved with terrorism.  Does that make them all potential targets? 

Who will comprise the coalition?  It’s clear that the democratic nations will participate, and the Administration is eager to enlist Arab and Muslim countries as well, both to refute any impression of a civilizational conflict between the West and Islam and, as a practical matter, to have access to staging areas closer to the intended targets. 

But will the Administration be asked to pay a price for their inclusion?  In the case of the Gulf War, for example, Egypt received a huge and largely unnoticed dividend – cancellation of billions of dollars in debt owed the United States, and that wasn’t all.  This time, might it be the promise of new weapons deliveries to such countries as Egypt? Or a willingness to try to move the Israeli-Palestinian peace process faster than Jerusalem feels it is safely prepared to go?  Or perhaps an unspoken understanding to define the aims of the war more narrowly than the U.S. Administration might otherwise wish in deference to the insistence of, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia?

What will Washington do about Syria?  The American position, as noted above, is clear – either a country is with us or it’s against us.  If Syria “agrees” to end its involvement in terrorism, would it be eligible to join the coalition, bearing in mind that it was part of the U.S.-led group during the Gulf War, for which it was handsomely rewarded even if its contribution to the effort was essentially non-existent?

Can a common understanding of what, in fact, constitutes terrorism be reached, or will differences be glossed over for the sake of appearances? 

For example, would Syria be asked not only to end its longstanding hospitality for radical Islamic groups seeking Israel’s destruction but also to halt all support for Hezbollah in Lebanon – a country whose independence Syria does not even formally recognize – including the transshipment of weapons originating in Iran and destined for the terrorist group? 

How will the Administration handle Chairman Arafat’s offer to participate in the coalition?  And conversely, how will it deal with Prime Minister Sharon’s insistence that the Palestinian Authority should not only be excluded from the coalition but, as a terrorist infrastructure, ought to be among the targets of the entire exercise?

Speaking of Israel, Sharon has said that the coalition should comprise “democratic countries,” but, by definition, that would exclude any Arab country.  The Bush team will not heed that request because it needs an Arab and Islamic cover, which brings us to the question of whether there is a place in the coalition for Israel. 

As is well known, during the Gulf War the Bush administration excluded Israel from the alliance.  Israel was told to keep its head down and place its trust in the U.S.  It absorbed 39 Iraqi-launched Scud missiles, but exercised remarkable restraint under the leadership of Prime Minister Shamir. 

Would Sharon insist on a place in the coalition this time around, all the more so given Israel’s unrivaled experience in coping with Middle Eastern terrorism?  Or, would Israel again agree to lay low – perhaps limiting itself to unpublicized assistance – based on Sharon’s oft-stated confidence in President Bush’s commitment to Israel and recognition that Jerusalem stands to gain greatly from a successful outcome to the military campaign?  Would Israel show the same restraint if, for any reason, it was attacked in a region where missiles have become almost commonplace? 

How about the Europeans?  Will they see eye to eye with Washington on the objectives of a potentially wide-ranging war against terrorism that could target not only Afghanistan but also, say, Iraq?  How would they react if asked, as an initial step, to reconsider their growing commercial ties with Iran, arguably the leading bankroller of international terrorism in the world today?  Will the façade of unbreakable unity begin to fray at the edges down the road, with the British likeliest to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States till the very end, the Germans growing nervous if anti-war demonstrations should start taking place in the streets of major cities (as occurred during the Gulf War), and the French becoming uneasy about pursuing anything more than a narrowly defined military mission for fear of hurting other national interests? 

The Europe that I saw up close over the past year could find itself divided if the conflict endures and there is no clear consensus on military objectives.

On the one hand, most governments feel an abiding loyalty to the United States right now, which, after all, came to Europe’s rescue in two world wars, helped rebuild a ravaged continent, and extended its protective umbrella during the Cold War, and is now asking for full support against what is, in truth, a common enemy. 

On the other hand, in many European quarters there is a growing repugnance of war as an instrument of state policy, a belief in dialogue, peaceful conflict resolution, and international tribunals as alternatives, and little sympathy for America’s recent approach to world affairs, which has been described by some Europeans as insufficiently sensitive to the views of allies.

The Europeans would do well to heed a front-page column in the influential left-of-center Italian daily, La Repubblica (September 13):

“It is in tragedies that individuals and peoples rediscover the deep roots of their real identity.  The terrorist attack against America is one of those historical moments that require us to undertake this assignment … An absolute rejection [of Western values] which today strikes the Americans but involves both sides of the Atlantic Ocean.  Because in the final analysis, even if in ordinary times we emphasize the reciprocal differences [between the United States and Europe], we are linked together in a world of its own.  The West, to be precise.  One family.  The decision of our alliance to consider the attack on America as an attack on us all, according to Article 5 of the NATO Charter … leaves no space for ambiguity or waltzing around.  If someone tried to, they would immediately and irremediably lose any claim to membership in the Western community.”

How about the objectives themselves?  Afghanistan clearly would be a primary target.  But it is a rugged, inhospitable country, as Soviet forces discovered at great cost over a span of ten years.  And bombing the country couldn’t bring it back to the Stone Age because that’s precisely where it is today.

Would Pakistan fulfill its commitment to Washington to sever, for once and for all, its vital support for the Taliban and permit the country to become a staging ground for a vast military operation against its neighbor without internal repercussions?  Osama bin Laden, observers note, is practically a folk hero in Pakistan.  As elsewhere in the Muslim world, Osama has become among the most popular names for newborn males in honor of the Saudi exile.  Given the country’s inherent stability, could we witness internal turmoil in Pakistan as a result of the green light from General Musharraf to U.S.-led forces? 

In some respects, Pakistan encapsulates within its borders all the longer term challenges of impoverished, corrupt, aggrieved Islamic states, which have high birth rates, a shaky economy, weak institutions of civil society, and, in this particular case, possession of the nuclear bomb.

And is it possible to duck a large, foreboding question?  Could the battlefield be transferred to the region without enduring more terrorist attacks on the United States or American personnel and property spread around the world? 

There is every reason to believe that the support base for radical Islam in the United States extends well beyond the hundred or so terrorists identified by the FBI since September 11.  And this does not even begin to address the universe of latent sympathy for Osama bin Laden and his ilk which exists in other Western countries, much less the actual network of operatives, sleepers, and supporters scattered around the world.

            This threat will challenge domestic law enforcement as never before, and could be further complicated by an inherent tension between national security and civil liberties concerns that is likely to resurface after the initial wave of revulsion passes.

            It also means, I earnestly hope, a careful re-examination by government and other sectors of American society of those U.S.-based Muslim organizations that have inexplicably been conferred legitimacy and accorded high-level access, while serving as mouthpieces for radical Islam and apologists for the use of terror. 

Further, it suggests the need for far more careful scrutiny by law enforcement officials of fundraising efforts in this country to channel money to Middle Eastern terrorist groups, often under the guise of assistance for “widows and orphans.” 

And it requires the media to emerge from what appears to be a self-imposed censorship, hitherto failing to tackle these and related topics, despite repeated urging, for fear that they will be labeled anti-Arab or anti-Muslim or, more simply perhaps, out of fear.  The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been a notable exception in this regard, as has the reporting of Judith Miller of The New York Times.

            Speaking of the press, what about the latest Palestinian attempt to muzzle the foreign media? 

After reports of the destruction wrought by the terrorists in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania, Palestinians began assembling in the streets to celebrate.  In Nablus alone, as many as four thousand people gathered.  The attempts by Western film crews to record these events met with intimidation, just as occurred when Western media attempted to film the gruesome lynching of the two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah.  Fortunately, in the latter case a private Italian television crew was able to smuggle out footage, which was subsequently broadcast around the world.  This time around, though, Associated Press has been unwilling to air its footage from Nablus because of fear for the life of its correspondent. 

None of this, of course, has stopped the leading Palestinian spokeswoman from seeking to deny that joyous demonstrations ever took place and to try to shift the focus of discussion to Israel, in repeated television interviews with uncritical, at times sycophantic, reporters. 

Such a Palestinian voice, no matter how glib, is unlikely to serve as a credible source on the subject of terrorism for the vast majority of Americans. In any case, Americans are too smart to believe that the nightmarish events of the past week should somehow be blamed on Israel or America’s ties with Jerusalem.  They understand that Osama bin Laden and his followers target the United States because of what we stand for, pure and simple.  These religious fanatics seek America’s disappearance from the face of the earth; nothing less will satisfy them. 

Moreover, I trust that Americans understand that bin Laden is not at all interested in a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, to the extent he even thinks about the issue.  He would not be content unless Israel was completely destroyed and Muslims in his image were in control of the land.

That said, it doesn’t help our efforts in the United States at this time to see some of the comments made by Israelis, either the “we told you so” variety, which comes across as self-serving, or the “America ought to push Israel to the peace table right now,” which suggest a connection between the terrorist attacks and Israeli-Palestinian issues.  These Israelis should heed the advice of Plutarch:  “Silence at the proper season is wisdom, and better than any speech.”

As I write this letter, every once in a while the radio punctuates its round-the-clock broadcasting with the names of more victims from the World Trade Center and Pentagon.  It’s so horrendously painful to imagine that just a few days ago these people were spending time with their families, thinking of the future, perhaps wondering who to vote for in the New York mayoralty race primaries, or speculating whether Michael Jordan might actually resume playing pro basketball.  Instead, as their bodies are identified, funeral plans are made, the lives of their loved ones are shattered, and a weeping nation expresses its condolences.

This great country will regain its footing.  Of that I am absolutely certain. Notwithstanding all the daunting challenges before it, I have every confidence that the American people shall exercise the “patience, resolve, and strength” that President Bush asked for and that our nation will successfully meet the test of wills before it.

It might be worth remembering the words of an exceptional statesman, Winston Churchill, whose nation also faced and met the ultimate test: “An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity; a pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity.” 

American optimism has always been a defining feature of this extraordinary country.  Despite the tragic events of this past week, it will continue to be so.

And as for my beloved New York, who said it best?  Maybe it was none other  than Frank Sinatra in that legendary song of his – “I’m going to make a brand new start of it in old New York…It’s up to you, New York, New York.”

This has been a difficult twelve months.  It began with Arafat’s repudiation of the peace process and a new wave of Palestinian-instigated violence, followed by repeated deadly terrorist attacks against Israelis and persistent efforts to isolate Israel in the international community, culminating with the Durban fiasco.  And it ended with a deadly war brought to American soil.

We should never forget that, no matter how daunting the challenges, our tradition teaches us to believe in the possibility of a better tomorrow. 

L’shana tova.  May 5762 be a better year for all of us.

Note:  For copies of any of the ten previous letters in this series, kindly contact Alina Viera at the American Jewish Committee – vieraa@ajc.org or 212-751-4000, ext. 203.