e-Letter 163: "It's good
to be a terrorist" (with apologies to Mel Brooks)
March 1, 2003
In the comic movie
"History of the
World Part I" Mel Brooks plays King Louis XVI who
mischievously says "It's good to be the king!" Yasser Arafat
must have seen this scene and paraphrasing Brooks tells
himself several times daily that "it's good to be a terrorist"
and fully meaning it. Or in legal language: crime does pay.
And how.
After some persistent discussion
on Arafat's private fortunes, Forbes Magazine has ranked him
among the rich despots in a company that may not find it
pleasant to have him in their midst ("Billionaires:
Kings, Queens & Despots," Forbes, 03.17.03). Estimated at
having amassed at least $300 million his new finance
"minister" argued that these funds belong to the Palestinians
and not to Arafat....
But he certainly feels good being
a (rich) despot enough to send Saddam Hussein a warm holiday
greeting ("Holiday
Greetings from Yasser Arafat to Saddam Hussein," MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Palestinian Authority/Iraq, February 26,
2003, No. 475). And of course in addition to bestowing
blessings on the Saddam he is also asking for his help by
using all the hollow Palestinian rhetoric: "Any kind of
support and assistance from you in these difficult times will
enable us to continue our persistence and resistance until we
put an end to the occupation, in all its manifestations, of
our holy Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and the Islamic and Christian
holy shrines, and exercise our legal and lasting rights, based
on international legal resolutions, and most importantly our
rights for self determination, for repatriation, and for
establishing our independent state with its capital Al-Quds
Al-Sharif [Jerusalem]."
The most help actually came from president Bush who earlier in
the week spoke about the necessity to help the Palestinians
establish a state provided they will relinquish terrorism.
Instead of expressing gratitude and showing civility they have
repaid the president by declaring the U.S. as the "enemy of
Islam." This from an organization that not so recently
marketed itself as secular ("PA defines USA as an enemy of
Islam," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, February 27, 2003).
Yet it is an organization that relies on the "holy" when
convenient and the genocidal suicide bombing clearly are a
case in point. Even opposition "martyrdom" in Egypt is based
on how negatively it affects the Palestinians and the
"glorious Arab nation" not that killing is inherently
unacceptable. Moreover, Israel is still referred to as the
"enemy." This from an opposition paper in an Arab country that
has a peace treaty with Israel ("Egyptian
Opposition Daily Condemns Suicide Martyrdom Operations,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Egypt/Reform in the Arab and Muslim
World, February 25, 2003, No. 474).
Given that President Bush has
spoken on behalf of a Palestinian state it might be worth
examining the rhetoric around the Palestinian narrative and
one of the best debunkers of it comes from an Arab-American
journalist who exposes the Palestinian hollowness, deception,
and real objectives ("An
unconventional Arab viewpoint," Joseph Farah,
WorldNetDaily.com, February 24, 2003). He aptly compares
Hollywood with the Palestinians as both are experts in
myth-making and he has experience in covering both: "The
common denominator is that they both deal in the realm of
unreality. They both rely on myths. In fact, the imagination
of the Arabs in crafting fables, reinventing history and
fictionalizing facts would make Oliver Stone blush." An
additional valuable lesson in history is provided by Chuck
Chriss ("What
is the history of other countries in the Middle East?"
Jewish Internet Association, 2-23-2003) and an illustrative
details are available at
Palestine Facts.
The connection between the Palestinians and Iraq has been made
several times mostly by those who tried - unsuccessfully - to
delay action against Iraq until the Palestine problem has been
"solved." The latest drive in that direction is evident in a
joint British-Norwegian suggestion that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is "an equally important
precondition for long-term peaceful development in the
region." Of course, the underlying assumption as well as
claims in the body of the statement is that Israel is to blame
for the situation with only passing mention of Palestinian
terrorism ("Straw
creates direct link between Iraq, Israel," Douglas Davis,
The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 23, 2003).
Indeed, President Bush's speech
this week proved that the road to Jerusalem goes through
Bagdad and not the other way around ("The
road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad," Zalman Shoval,
The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 28, 2003). While it became evidently
clear that U.S. policy is to liberate Iraq and clean it from
its current despotic regime first and only then move to deal
with the Palestinians, it is also clear that there will be a
road to Jerusalem. Namely, if according to Bush "terrorism
will cease" and people will "trust each other enough" then the
two-state solution is his goal. And he has sent one clear
political message to the Palestinians by his determination to
arrest The Florida professor suspected of supporting terrorism
("Politically
correct terrorists," Caroline B. Glick, The Jerusalem
Post, Feb. 28, 2003).
This is extremely important given
the tendency in the previous administration and current
presidential aspirants to tolerate terrorism or look away when
those responsible are reachable. The latest such example is
the "understanding" that Democratic candidate Kerry shows
toward the legitimate "plight" of terrorists ("John
Kerry's 'Complaints': What does he find "legitimate" about
terrorism?" Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, February
24, 2003).
However, unless Bush has a plan to
replace the Palestinian leadership the same way he has for
Iraq there is no reason to expect that any changes will take
place to evidence a willing shift from strategic terror to
genuine peace. Short of that, any overtures towards the
Palestinians will be perceived as the victory of terror and
will reward them for their violence. Unless the Palestinians
will be disabused from adhering to strategic terror as a way
of life (and death) no substantive change will come other than
incentive for further terror ("The
Other War," William Safire, The New York Times,
02-24-2003).
And the road to Bagdad is not such a freeway as the U.S. would
have liked it. Willing coalition partners have to be financed
(Turkey) and even then the legislative procedure is so
cumbersome to an extent that if successful it might be to late
to deploy U.S. forces there in a timely manner as is evident
from the Turkish parliament's speaker vetoing the deployment
of U.S. forces ("Turkish
Official Nullifies Approval of G.I. Presence," The
Associated Press, The New York Times, 3-1-2003). And then
there are the classical obstructionists like France, Germany,
and Belgium ("Europe's
Monomania," George Will, Jewish World Review, Feb. 24,
2003).
It has gotten to such a level that for the U.S. the facts on
the ground are starting to become more important than the
opinions of those who object to the necessary action. Indeed,
The Bush administration shows its displeasure by third-tier
administration sending arrows at those who are putting
obstacles and are trying to delay action in any way possible
("Top
Bush aide savages 'selfish' Chirac ," David Rose, The
Observer, February 23, 2003).
The preparations of a campaign
against Iraq continue in high gear as Saddam's brinkmanship
offers new creative ways for nerve-straining international
complications as he declares one day to a
pathetic TV anchorperson that he will not destroy his
missiles (which comprise only a small component of his weapons
of mass destruction) only to be followed by a "reversal" later
in the week that he is ready to do so to which the French and
the Chief U.N. Inspector react - expectedly - as an "important
development" simply because it might delay or even prevent a
war.
Despite the urgent need to hear
strong Muslim opposition to terrorism and the grand Jihadist
designs that the extremists have for the West, once in a while
such a voice in the wilderness is heard. One Muslim academic
added his voice to castigate OBL and the Saddam in no
equivocal terms ("Islam
Says Otherwise," Muqtedar Khan, The Washington Post,
February 16, 2003): "I conclude by calling upon you and your
al Qaeda colleagues, and Mr. Hussein, to surrender to an
international court and take responsibility for your actions
and save thousands of other innocent Muslims from becoming the
victims of the wars you bring upon them."
However, rarity of criticism in the West is not the staple of
current politics. The opposite is the case in the U.S.,
Europe and Israel ("Israel's
Leftist Fifth Column," Steven Plaut, FrontPageMagazine.com
| February 25, 2003):
"The pro-Saddam Left in the US and in Europe has long been
little more than a fifth column, composed of people who
despise their own countries. The Israeli Leftists have
followed in their footsteps, has even led the campaign to
indict their own Prime Minister for manufactured "war crimes",
all this with horrendous results for their country."
How misguided are the opponents of
action against Iraq is well articulated by Amir Taheri, an
Iranian-born Paris-based journalist who mocks Rev. Jackson and
his co-marchers in London ("Reverend
Jackson, let me speak!" Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post,
Feb. 20, 2003) who were so self-absorbed with their march
objectives that they were not willing to discuss the real
plight of oppressed Iraqis who truly understand who Saddam
Hussein is better than the weekend marchers could ever do. As
Taheri expresses his hopes "...when Iraq is liberated, as it
soon will be, the world will remember that it was not done in
the name of Rev. Jackson, Charles Kennedy, Glenda Jackson,
Tony Benn and their companions in a march of shame."
But perhaps the most eloquent
commentary on the misguided criticism was provided not
directly against the dubious merit of the so-called anti-war
marchers. Rather the point of the morality of war is made in
the context of not winning it. From one with past left
leanings who protested against the war in Vietnam comes the
statement that "It was not fighting the war in Vietnam that
was immoral. It was losing it. Or rather, it was immoral to
fight it if there was reason to believe it could not be won."
Yet the writer offers the best lesson from Vietnam to the
situation in Iraq ("The
immorality of losing," Hillel Halkin, Jewish World Review,
Feb. 21, 2003): "If the American public decides that its
government is pursuing a wrong-headed and overly costly policy
in which Europe refuses to join as a partner while sniping
from the sidelines, the chances of this policy's success will
be smaller, and those of America leaving before the job is
done will be larger. The result might then be an Iraq freed of
Saddam, but still run by thuggish generals or Islamist
extremists who would rearm at the first opportunity. A war
that ended this way would not have been a war worth fighting.
It would indeed have been immoral --- and the immoralists
would include, paradoxically, the very people who are now
marching against it."
With developments getting into higher gear there are perhaps
three obvious lessons. First, the detractors do not have a
case but learning from their previous historical mistakes is
not evident from their behavior. By now it should be fairly
clear that the protesting brigades and certainly the
not-so-naive organizers would always be available not so much
against the war as they would be against their government.
Right or wrong they will always define it as wrong. Indeed,
examine the site of an animal advocacy group (the same one
that protested to Arafat that his people used a donkey who
accidentally exploded in a genocidal attempt against Israelis)
which now features a comparison of the holocaust experienced
by the Jewish people equating it with holocaust perpetrated on
animals (PETA). Not
a problem with loving animals and wanting to protect them but
assuming they do so because they are living creatures why not
treat human beings like animals as well? We deserve that much
from such groups. The sad reality is that this proves the
point that no matter how clear cut a threat is and how clean
is the moral ground for self-defense there will be those
objecting to it and they will always explain it away.
Second, there is now a two-week
window for the operations to begin and it appears very likely
they indeed will. Any continuing procrastination will cost
the U.S. and its allies dearly in terms of the momentum they
have and the dynamics of the protest and the international
politics of the Franco-German bloc might be successful in
shifting the pendulum. Such an outcome will not only be
detrimental to the objectives of the war but disastrous for
U.S. policy and leadership position and will indeed be most
costly for Israel as well. In short, time is starting to run
out.
Third, the U.S. has wisely
relegated the Palestinian problem to its true size and proper
priority. It remains to be seen to what extent after a
successful campaign against Iraq the U.S. will look at the
Palestinians as a "grieving" and "deserving" party. That is a
sure formula to guarantee a life-time quagmire for the U.S. in
that region because everywhere the Palestinians have been
(Jordan, Lebanon, Tunis, Kuwait, and now Israel) they have
managed to wreak absolute havoc. The best policy the U.S. can
adopt is embedded in the lines of President Bush calling on
the Palestinians to abandon terror. The question remains as
to what processes and structures are going to be put in place
to guarantee that this will be done. The formula of "land for
peace" has become for the Palestinians the practice of "piece
after piece" (of Israel). The Palestinians will have to prove
for a very long period of time that they have truly
relinquished violence before they will be a partner for any
discussions on any arrangement. Therefore a Palestinian state
as promoted by the Palestinians and by the Europeans is a
formula for disaster for the Israelis and the Americans and
eventually for the Europeans and the Palestinians as well.
Far more creative solutions incorporating Arab responsibility
and accountability will have to be devised by deviating from
the cliches of the past in order to achieve real progress in
this area.
© 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.
* * *