e-Letter 162: It was calm at
first, everyone thought it was part of the act
February 22, 2003
As the horrors of this tragedy (be
it accident, negligence, or any other reasons the investigators
will find the and courts will determine), the lesson from this
statement is obvious as were the scenes from the video filmed on
site as the fire caught on: By the time the patrons have
realized that the fire is real and not "part of the act" it was
too late for the numerous victims. This short span between
realization, action, and consequence can and should be borrowed
and applied to the international situation with Iraq, Iran,
North Korea and the terrorists so as to realize in a timely
fashion that they ARE "part of the act" with one difference:
they constitute the "real thing."
What was made to appear as
"spontaneous" anti-war demonstrations and full page ads in the
media was a carefully orchestrated third wave of anti-American
and anti-Israeli activists who managed to draw the support not
only the likes of Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky (and organizations
like American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American
Muslims for Jerusalem, The Arab-American Forum, Campus Greens,
Code Pink for Peace, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy
and Socialism, Education for Peace in Iraq Center, Green Party
of the United States, Greenpeace, House of The Goddess Center
for Pagan Wombyn, International Socialist Organization, Left
Party, Left Turn, Palestine Right to Return Coalition,
The PeaceMongers Society, Ruckus Society, Socialist Party USA,
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation) but some who truly
believe that peace can be achieved without resorting to war.
These are the groups that are not
willing to recognize who is "part of the act." Yet not
surprisingly these demonstrators were glaringly absent when
Israelis were blown up on buses, streets, malls, and discos;
when the Twin Towers fell, the pentagon was attacked, and a
flight ended up crashing because terrorists hijacked it; when
the U.S. embassies were attacked; when the Cole was attacked;
When the Bali resort was attacked; when Israelis in Kenya were
attacked. There have selective moral and ethical standing, and
their understanding of the situation amounts to the misguided
political venom they so piously preach. Yet, their impact
amounts to siding with the enemy ("The
Western 'Street': ‘Antiwar' mobs side with Saddam and against
the Iraqi people," Amir Taheri, The Wall Street Journal,
February 18, 2003).
This is recognized not only - as
expected - by the American conservative media but also by some
in the British media which is giving its Prime Minister a very
hard time for siding with President Bush. Indeed the argument
goes that the demonstrators are for all purposes doing the
enemy's work ("The
marchers are doing Saddam's work," David Pryce-Jones, The
Daily Telegraph, 16/02/2003). Moreover, it is believed that
democracy might come to Iraq as it came to Italy and Germany and
that "It is a testament to the power of ignorance and prejudice
that so many people in Britain cannot see it. Anyone looking for
evidence of the decline of this country's moral and intellectual
authority will find it in the thoughtless stampede with which
the peace party has assembled."
Some are so critical of the
so-called "anti-war" demonstrators that they suggest not merely
the arrival of the decline of moral and intellectual authority
but an indication that these marches signify the fall of
pacifism ("The
fall of pacifism," Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 20,
2003): "it is those who care about freedom who are the real
altruists. The pacifists, while claiming to care most about
preventing the suffering of war, care more about saving
themselves the need to fight. Those pressing for liberation are
willing to support the sacrifice that war entails; partly for
their own security, but largely for the freedom of others. The
world is still recovering or suffering from the follies of
pacifism and socialism. The key to human well-being, including
the desired victory over war and poverty that those ideologies
claimed they would deliver, lies in the ascent of the value of
freedom. When we see more rallies demanding freedom than
demanding peace, the world will be on a better track, and we
will have more of both."
Not all of those opposing action against Iraq and the terrorists
march thoughtlessly in the street. Some do it in their
political office. A segment on one of the news programs this
week featured street interviews with demonstrators who had no
clue about the facts, or about why they are out in the streets.
Nor were they able to respond coherently to any question asked
of them. They looked like survivors of an acid party who are
waking up to their surrounding. But then are some political
leaders hallucinating as well? William Safire is being kind to
them and coins them as belonging to the "yes-but" crowd ("The
Yes-But Parade," The New York Times, February 20, 2003).
They agree that Hussein is a horrible dictator, "but" want to
give inspectors a chance (even against all evidence they by
virtue of the circumstances they cannot be effective even if
they wanted to be). This virtually amounts to such leaders to
appear as if they are having the cake and eating it at the same
time as the only objection they have is with the means to
achieve the end but they show no disagreement about the end.
Some in the political arena have a hard time stomaching this
leadership paralysis and bluntly suggest that the detractors
shut up as did Senator McCain several times this week ("McCain
to Carter, Clinton: SHUT UP!" Newsmax, Feb. 18, 2003).
Some in the yes-but crowd point out
that even if the Saddam is an appalling dictator there is no
(proven) link between him and terrorism - particularly Al-Qaida.
For the last couple of years Laurie Mylroie and (former CIA
Director) James Woolsey were among the rare voices who pointed
to proof of such relationships. Additional support is offered
suggesting not to look at the evidence in legal forensic terms
but rather that "The threat posed by Iraq's collaboration with
al Qaeda is born of conveniences in which the contained and
monitored Iraqi leader is only too happy to spread his viral and
chemical recipes through the Saudi fugitive's established,
ideologically driven network of willing homicidal maniacs
stationed around the world-a network bin Laden is desperate to
maintain and use" ("Hand
in Glove: Iraq and al Qaeda," Mansoor Ijaz, National Review,
February 18, 2003).
Indeed, recently unsealed court
documents point out the viral and cancerous nature of the terror
networks through charities and state sponsorship. ("Letters
From, And To, Bin Laden," CBS News, Feb. 19, 2003):
"The seized documents are a "treasure trove" and among other
things indicate al Qaeda military leaders were at times paid
salaries from Muslim charity proceeds and purchased weapons with
money from charity leaders."
What the peace-mongers fail to see
(or do not wish to see) is that by the west's purposeful
avoidance of tackling the problems as they were emerging, the
problems only got worse and far more apocalyptic ("Holiday
From History," Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post,
February 14, 2003).
"Now" we know that Iran is a threat
even though when President Bush declared it part of the
axis-of-evil he was ridiculed. This despite the clear evidence
that Iran is directly responsible for political murders,
cooperation with Iraq, supporting Egyptian and Palestinian Jihad
terror organizations, and having nuclear installations ("Top
Iranian Defector On Iran's Collaboration with Iraq, North Korea,
Al-Qa'ida, and Hizbullah," MEMRI, Special Dispatch -
Iran/Jihad and Terrorism Studies, February 21, 2003, No. 473).
One view from Asia correctly
identified this gap between action and the need to save-face
which is such a propelling force in the Arab world. An account
of the just ended (yet another) Arab "summit" meeting in Cairo
exposed how futile was the attempt by Arab regimes to present to
the world - and to themselves - an image as if they operate in
unity ("The
great Arab face-saving theater," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times,
February 19, 2003):
"Arab leaders contemplate the scenario with desperation -
because they know in the current fundamentalist American
administration mode ("if you're not with us, you're with the
terrorists"), the regimes which are not America's vassals yet
are condemned to extinction. From America's point of view, the
Roman "divide and rule" maxim as applied to the Arab world has
been a resounding success. For Arab leaders, there's nothing
left but the great Arab face-saving theater. It may not be
enough to prevent a massive political and social earthquake in
the not too distant future."
Little wonder then that some in the
U.S. are becoming impatient with the ongoing delay and are
demanding that President Bush not wait any longer for the
appeasers to "grant" him his wishes or for the demonstrators to
"offer" their support ("The
Crawl to War: What are you waiting for, Mr. President?"
Brendan Miniter, The Wall Street Journal, February 18, 2003).
That will simply not happen. And President Bush declared this
week - as did Prime Minister Blair - that the demonstrations
will not sway them.
And as the coalition is preparing
for war there are those who point out strategic problems with
the preparations that might end up rather costly in terms of
American (civilian and military) life ("The
Circle of Terror And the bureaucracy problem," Laurie
Mylroie, National Review, February 19, 2003): "The United States
is ill prepared for what Saddam might do, as we take him down.
The problem is circular, and the greatest danger is biological
terrorism. The government cannot propose civil-defense measures
without alarming the public — and that creates difficulties,
including a loss of support for war with Iraq... Bush's
commitment to the defense of the American people is beyond
question....To be able to do all he can to defend this country,
Bush must first discipline those in the bureaucracies that stand
in his way, so the administration can properly explain the
reasons for this war to the American people."
And all throughout, the obstacles
continue to come form the "coalition of the unwilling" (Belgium,
Germany, and France). Each one is embroiled in obstructing
progress in the fight against weapons of mass destruction and
terrorism for its own narrow political reasons.
The arrogance and audacity of the
Belgian court that took upon itself to accord universal
jurisdiction (by ruling that it will try Israeli Prime Minister
Sharon after he is out of office) is nothing short of devilishly
megalomaniacal. Clearly, having NATO and the European
Parliament headquartered in Brussels has clouded the judgement
of Belgian officials to an extent they ascribe to themselves far
greater importance and stature than they deserve. It also turns
international jurisprudence on its head and will create a
nuisance not merely to Israelis (how many, after all, truly care
about that) but theoretically to everyone who served in the
military or gave it orders. Perhaps the Belgians are eying
Colin Powell and George Bush and being part of the European
"Union" it means that the other members may follow suit under
the support and prodding of France.
Of course, the Belgian legal system
serves as a light unto the nations in its pious - yet selective
- pursuit of justice. It is so occupied with seeking
"international justice" that it conveniently ignores the
international crimes committed by its very own when Belgium
controlled Congo and millions were murdered. It also preferred
to look the other way when it had the opportunity to investigate
Nazi war criminals and did not ("Belgium
refused to investigate suspected Nazi war criminals," Herb
Keinon, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 21, 2003).
Interestingly enough, it took a
French-speaking Israeli commentator to adopt and condone the
Belgian-European attitudes and actually criticizing the Israeli
reaction to the Belgian court ruling as "hysterical" suggesting
that "Israel is the only country in the world that heaps scorn
on Belgium and speaks to it as though it were some minor
European appendage." Sure, Israel should have held her breath
until the French would have come to her rescue.....He then
quotes a Belgian reporter as saying that "Once you (Israel) were
a wise nation, but these days you can hardly be accused of
excessive wisdom." The Israeli reporter is of line by relying on
a Belgian jokester even if he is a fellow reporter. After all
the Belgians also have monopoly on wisdom as they certainly
managed not to be terrorized like Israel for the last 30
months. Perhaps the Israeli reporter would have preferred the
Israelis thank the Belgian court for its ruling and also
volunteer in droves to pay the airfare from Israel to Belgium to
be tried by it ("Diplomatic
impunity," Daniel Ben Simon, Ha'aretz, February 22, 2003).
After all there is good precedence for that: The Jewish victims
of the holocaust paid for their train ride to the death camps
with their personal property that was looted by the Nazis and
then given to their Ministry of Transportation for leasing the
trains....
Another Belgian-born Israeli
provides proof that some still have their brain engaged before
they have put their mouth or pen in gear. Repeating Emil Zola's
famous
j'accuse (I accuse) to the President of the French Republic,
a senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress accuses the
Belgian court and those who do not stand up against it ("The
Belgians as true Europeans: A very personal j'accuse by a former
Belgian Jew," Isi Leibler, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 20,
2003) and discusses the hypocrisy of the Belgian ruling and its
implications suggesting that: "We (Israel) are not a superpower
and could not survive in utter isolation. But if we are not
prepared to stand up and take the necessary steps to defend
ourselves because we have become unduly subservient to
convoluted international public opinion, we are doomed because
even our allies will distance themselves from us."
Then there is the arrogant posturing
of the French as dictated by the overly virile Chirac against
the U.S. and her allies, and against the newly added eastern
European NATO members (and those awaiting to join). This
arrogance is perfectly matched by the warming up to Saddam
Hussein and other dictators of his ilk ("Unmitigated
Gaul : Saddam isn't the only dictator with whom Jacques Chirac
is cozy," John Fund, The Wall Street Journal, February 20,
2003).
While perhaps not offensive to Europeans who admire their
politicians the more they are involved in salacious affairs,
Chirac's character is rather telling (and has a lot to be
desired). Known as a rabid womanizer, it appears that his
bedding conquests are yet to be matched by his international
political gains for which he gained added appetite after his
recent election victory. However, unlike Daniel Ben Simon ("Diplomatic
impunity,", Ha'aretz, February 22, 2003)
who is absolutely awed by Chirac's conquests, abilities,
and what he perceived and reports as victories, Bret Stephens is
far more sober in his analysis ("Three-minute
morality tale," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 20,
2003) suggesting that rather than gaining power, "France and
Germany have played their last card against the US over Iraq;
further obstruction, they apparently realize, will not only keep
them out of the action but irreparably damage trans-Atlantic
ties. Second and more importantly, it signals a victory of the
"New Europe" over the old. It is the first signal of its kind.
It's unlikely to be the last."
And the war against terror continues on the home front. After
eight years of being on the glaring trail of Florida university
professor's terrorist activities he was finally arrested ("Florida
Professor Charged With Operating Global Terror Organization,"
Fox News, February 20, 2003) though a combination of "legal,
political and operational roadblocks" has significantly slowed
taking action against him ("Officials
Say Case Against Florida Professor Had Been Hindered," Eric
Lichtblau and Judith Miller, The New York Times, February 22,
2003).
The professor's attorney released a statement that his client is
a "political prisoner." Apparently the attorney must think that
terrorism is legitimate as long as it is defined as
"political." With the professor three others were arrested and
four who live abroad were also charged. One of them, Bashir Musa
Mohammed Nafi, 50, originally from Egypt and now a professor
living in Oxfordshire, England, was reported to be "shocked" at
the news. As expected, a slew of Arab/Muslim advocacy groups
issued protesting statements such as "multiple
government initiatives...feed the general public's negative
impression that we are not to be trusted as full Americans," and
they did the same after it was found that the FBI is
"officially" collecting information about Arabs and
Muslim-Americans in the United States ("Protest
over FBI plan to count US mosques," Yemisrach Benalfew, Asia
Times, February 19, 2003).
In other words, the government is right - in their eyes - to be
pursuing terrorists as long as they are not Arab/Muslim. This
detained professor, Al Arian, who reportedly not only financed
terrorism, but masterminded it, screamed "death to Israel" and
later said he did not "really" mean it. Surely the hundreds of
Israeli dead and the thousand of injured, as well as the
American victims of his terrorism and the survivors and
relatives are fully accepting of Arian's good intentions. It is
the words, and the deeds they have problems with.
The Palestinians actually mean what
they say except we may have not paid enough attention to it
until recently. Lately though, Israeli and American polls point
out that less than 20% believe that Arafat will "accept" a
peaceful Palestinian state while a majority understands that the
Palestinians are out to destroy Israel ("Polls,
Palestinians & the Path to Peace," Daniel Pipes, The New
York Post, February 18, 2003). This has been obvious for years
to anyone who was willing to see it. From the Palestinian
"National Covenant" that calls for the destruction of Israel to
flags and symbols. For Palestinians the "end of occupation"
means only one thing:
the end of Israel. Perhaps when Arafat will be charged with
war crimes and crimes against humanity (not by the Belgians) he
will say - like a juvenile caught in a mischief and like
professor Al Arian: "I did not mean it."
Lately, even the European Union has
been prompted into some - belated - action. It has funded and
continues to fund Palestinian terrorism but on February 2, 2003,
170 members of the European Parliament signed a petition to
investigate the PA and the European Anti-Fraud Office has
launched an investigation into misuse of European funds to the
PA ("The
European Union and the Palestinian Authority," Rachel
Ehrenfeld, EUobserver, 21.02.2003).
It is high time that nations and
people realize what is part of the act and what is real. The
blurring of the two could proved detrimental to the victims in
Rhode Island and could prove the same to far more many lives, to
our existence and to humanity (that is the civilized part of
it).
© Robbie Friedmann, Ph.D.
To view
previous e-Letters:
Additional e-Letters and articles:
*
* *
*
Text of the e-Letter includes hyperlinks to the source
articles (where available).
* Your feedback, comments,
suggestions, and your referral of additional sources is
appreciated. Please provide complete and
precise web link addresses (URL).
* This e-Letter has been sent
for the use of the intended recipients. The message may
contain information that is privileged or confidential.
* As a recipient of this e-Letter you have
permission to distribute it.
* Should you wish to
be taken off this mailing list please indicate so in
a return e-mail.
* * *