New Page 1

Perhaps that is why some commentators view the operation in Iraq as part of a potentially larger operation should other rogue regimes not collapse of their "good will" when the job in Iraq is completed ("Iraq's only the start --- Syria & Iran are next," Zev Chafets, Jewish World Review, April 3, 2003).

The Palestinians continued to offer "moral" support to Iraq ("Friday Sermon on Palestinian Authority Television," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - PA/Jihad and Terrorism Studies, April 2, 2003, No. 490). Their
sanctimonious preaching that " The Aggression Against Iraq is an Assault on Islam," rings rather hollow. Given that the Palestinians presented themselves as "secular" and that Saddam's Iraq was a Baathist socialist in character the new religious facade is a fake, the previous secular facade was fake, or probably both emanate out of political expediency. Completely ignoring the strongest support they ever had for establishing their state they shamelessly bite the British-American hand which feeds that aspiration when they say "Allah, make [American and British] Children Orphans and Their Women Widows." Regrettably, as with the Iranian revolution or Saddam's dictatorship, these threats are not taken seriously even when their available in plain view.

Recent attempts by the Americans and Brits to present a "road-map" for "peace" is becoming increasingly pathetic when particularly the Brits are all but calling to sacrifice Israel on the altar of their relationships with the Arab world. Israel is erroneously compared with Iraq as a country that does not honor U.N. resolutions and instead of suggesting that the Brits have political interest in the area as they did during their Mandatary Government (1917-1948) they are trying to demonstrate "even-handedness" as if they would have dared accepting a Nazi proxy to be "evan-handed" after WWII ("The British government is desperate,"Yoav J. Tenembaum, WorldNetDaily.com, March 28, 2003).
Indeed, some Israelis hope that the current war in Iraq will results in greater understanding to the Israeli predicament ("Civilian casualties and ugly wars," Isi Leibler, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 1, 2003): "When Saddam has been defeated and this awesome war is over, we would hope that, having now had firsthand experience of what we Israelis have been confronting over the years, our American friends will have a better understanding of what we still face on our doorstep. They will realize that we too battled barbaric terrorists who were in fact financed by Saddam and that many of our soldiers also lie in graves because of our thankless efforts to minimize Palestinian casualties. Perhaps this will encourage the Americans to resist the efforts of their British allies to offer us up as a sacrificial lamb after the war in order to rebuild bridges with the Europeans and the Arab world.."

Political expediency seems to be driving the coalition's insistence on establishing a Palestinian state by 2005. Only the Americans qualify it as depending on the cessation of terror and on offering security to Israel. The Brits are eagerly willing to give Israel away. But the fact remains that in a climate where terrorism and defense against it are assigned the same (moral) weight - as long as it is done by and to Israelis - is deplorable ("There Will Never be a Palestinian Democracy Facing reality," Barbara Lerner, National Review, March 27, 2003).

Imagine that banks would treat good customers and those who default on their loans "equally."
It is inconceivable that any bank officer will give a loan without a collateral and no bank will repeat a lone to a customer who has such a rich record of failing to repay it. Or better yet, imagine a judge punishing the victims because they stood in the way of the criminals who were attempting to carry out their crime.

And the Palestinians are not only criminal in their own right but they support the criminality of others as well. Soon after the suicide bombing that killed several allied forced troops in Iraq, the Palestinians quickly renamed a square to honor the bomber ("P.A. Honors Murderer of U.S. Troops," Arutz Sheva, March 30, 2003).
It is more than merely enhancing the culture of violence. While the renaming was done by the Palestinians, its cost was apparently born by the U.N. which manages the "refugee" camps ("Palestinians Name Square for Killer of 4 US Soldiers," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, April 3, 2003): "Palestinian refugee camps are UN property and funded by the UN, so that all expenses involved in the name change may be from the UN budget. Likewise it should be checked to what extent UN salaried officials are involved in agreeing to the name change and implementation."

Last week this e-letter relied on an erroneous report that the Red Cross was harboring terrorists. However, it turned out that the terrorists who were caught late last week in Jenin were not trying to hide out in the Red Cross offices, but rather in the offices of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Both organizations are located in the same building ("Refuge For Terrorists," Arutz Sheva, March 30, 2003). Perhaps "humanitarian" organizations ought to change their mission and classification to terrorist aiding and abetting organizations (TAAO sounds like a good acronym).

The selection of a new "prime minister " for the Palestinians may placate some western demands, but does not change any realities on the ground. Like the need to eradicate the Nazi and Japanese regimes responsible for WWII and the need for a regime change in Iraq, far more substantive regime changes need to be made by the Palestinians than the offering of an Arafat-picked puppet. Moreover, this "new" figure is neither new nor moderate ("Palestinians' premier is no moderate," Jeff Jacoby, The boston Globe, 3/30/2003): "An inflexible radical who supports terrorism is neither a moderate nor an advocate of peace -- even if he does speak good English and wear well-tailored suits. A lifelong accomplice of Yasser Arafat is not an exemplar of democracy and tolerance. A Palestinian Authority ruled by the same aging terrorists who have ruled it from the start -- albeit with a slight shift of powers and portfolios -- is not a ''new and different Palestinian leadership.''

Therefore, the road-map is very dangerous to Israel and eventually even more dangerous for the U.S. ("Reject the Road Map: Its worse than a Trojan horse, it's a time bomb," Ted Belman). To wit: while the Palestinians are "busy" "building" their "state" by destroying the one their "enemy" has they are also enlarging the conflict by sending their genocidal terrorists to fight the allied forces in Iraq ("Fatah confirms sending suicide bombers to Iraq," Khaled Abu Toameh and Douglas Davis, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 3, 2003). They dedicated their latest genocidal bombing in Israel to their "brothers" in Iraq as "a gift." And it is not only Palestinians. Allied forces found today a base in Iraq with "volunteer" terrorists from a host of Arab countries.

The expansion of Palestinian terrorism is now perceived by the FBI leadership as a direct threat against the national interests of the U.S. not only on the Iraqi front but on the home-front as well ("Terrorists at the Gate? War in Iraq and the escalating Palestinian rhetoric toward the U.S.," Eric Leskly, National Review, March 28, 2003).

In the same manner that courts are reluctant to rely on eyewitness accounts without corroborating evidence, the reading, listening, and even viewing audience should exercise great caution when digesting the information provided on the war and its related politics. It is important to ascertain the source, the timing, the political agenda and the credibility of the reports. Perhaps like cigarette cartons, food, and medication, news should be consumed with a warning label realizing full well their potential damage to unsuspecting minds as well as the potential "side-effect." The blatant and most conspicuous instances this past week were those of the crapulous Peter Arnett ("The Sins of Peter Arnett," Michael Smerconish, Philadelphia Daily News, Apr. 03, 2003) and the very swollen-headed Geraldo Rivera ("Geraldo Rivera's future at Fox unclear," David Bauder, Associated Press, The Miami Herald, Apr. 02, 2003).

However, these were the "obvious" cases. Obvious for two reasons: first, they violated journalistic ethics and professional standards as well as military regulations. Second, they were against the allied forces and their war against Iraq. However, reputable media outlets such as the BBC, The Guardian, The Independent, SKY News, do the same to Israel and Israeli reporting with impunity ("The fog of media," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 27, 2003).

And how good would the media be criticizing itself? Not very and not when it is French. Apparently the story that had great impact on the initial wave of Palestinian terror turns out to be a fake ("Report: 12-year-old Palestinian boy's martyrdom 'staged,'" WorldNetDaily.com April 1, 2003, israelinsider, Originally published by WorldNetDaily.com and reprinted with permission): "French media complicit in perpetuating 'myth' of Mohammed al-Dura: The "martyrdom" death of 12-year-old Palestinian Mohammed al-Dura at the hands of Israeli soldiers - which received widespread international news coverage and spurred on the current Intifada, inspiring countless "suicide bombers" to attack Israel - was actually a "staged" piece of street theater, according to an in-depth report in the current issue of WND's monthly magazine, Whistleblower."

It is not merely European and British media that are so strongly "anti-war" anti-Israel. Governments often take the lead ("Ingratitude and other passions," Per Ahlmark, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 27, 2003): "Instead of supporting Israel together with America, Europe has taken part in the delegitimization of the Jewish state, not least when voting for extreme resolutions in the UN. This outrageous part of European foreign policy might change in the future when countries, which were recently liberated from communism, become full members of the European Union... Will Poland, the Czech Republic and the other new democracies of Europe make the EU more understanding of both America's responsibilities and Israel's struggle to defend itself? Or will France, Belgium and some other old democracies contaminate also East and Central Europe with their anti-Americanism and repeated condemnations of Israel?"

But the problem is deeper than that because the anti-Israel sentiments are not driven by sheer economic ir political forces but they are strongly associated with a growing deadly sense of anti-Semitism couched in anti-Israel and anti-Zionist rhetoric. Thus it is now commonplace to see demonstrations against racism and against the war laced with strong anti-Israel sloganeering ("The new anti-Semitism: Hostility to Jews is strongest among those on the Left who claim to be fighting racism," Melanie Phillips, The Spectator, March 22, 2003):
"...that anti-Zionism is now being used to cloak a terrifying nexus between genocidal Arab and Islamist hatred of the Jews and deep-seated European prejudices... the evidence is being denied, and truth is being stood on its head. The result is the defamation of a people, the greater prospect of its destruction, and the disastrous failure of the populations of Britain and Europe to understand properly the threat that all free peoples now face."

With the suicide-bombing becoming an Iraqi war tactic there is indeed an eye-opening lesson for the west. Perhaps belatedly, but there is a growing understanding to what Israelis had to undergo in the last two and a half years (or the last 55 years, or even the last 120 years depending on how one counts). Despite the key difference of target the allied military as opposed to Israeli civilians, the tactic does not resonate well to westerners ("We're all Israelis now: Allies see first-hand what Israel has faced for decades," Ezra Levant -- Calgary Sun, March 31, 2003).

But what is disturbing is not only the ignorance of what is taking place in distances away from America. Some of what is happening on (prestigious) campuses in the U.S. has crossed not only the lines of good taste, civility, and normative conduct, but it verges on seditious treason. Take the example of an anthropology professor who wants to see millions of American soldiers dead ("Columbia's self-hating Americans," Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Calt Harris, The Jerusalem Post, April 1, 2003). While he has the right to say this he is wrong. His level of anti-Americanism is disturbing if only for the fact that such positions do not seem to be affected at all by the atrocities committed daily by dictatorships, by rogue nations, by terrorists, by religious fanatics. And this indeed, is exactly what debases such positions from having any moral grounds.

The "Colombia statement" has touched a nerve because it exposed an agenda not terribly obvious in reports about "opposition to the war." Indeed, what such statements offer is a rather one-sided wishful thinking that serves as the basis for dogmatic ideologies that are anti-American, anti-Israel without saying clearly that they are pro-terror and pro-dictatorships ["Moment of Truth (For the Anti-American Left)," David Horowitz, FrontPageMagazine.com, March 31, 2003): "The war in America's streets is not about "peace" or "more time for inspections." It is about which side should lose the war we are now in. The left has made crystal clear its desire that the loser should be us. Even if the left had not made this explicit, a "peace" movement directed at one side makes sense only as an effort to force that side to retreat from the battle and lose the war. Which is exactly what the Columbia professor said. If this is patriotism, what is treason?"

And if some Americans are engaged in such hateful activities why should we be surprised that those who want to enforce Islamic rule in the United States are doing all they can to indoctrinate the next generation with hate-filled educational texts? In the same manner that the Palestinians indoctrinate their children in the culture of hate and the Saudi-funded madrassas do the same all over the world, Islamic schools in New York use similar texts as part of the formal "education" they offer ("Sowing seeds of hatred: Islamic textbooks scapegoat Jews, Christians," Larry Cohler-Esses, Daily News, March 30, 2003): "The books, obtained during a three-month Daily News investigation that included visits to private Muslim schools, are rife with inaccuracies, sweeping condemnations of Jews and Christians, and triumphalist declarations of Islam's supremacy."

After two weeks of the war in Iraq, the American people are showing their support for the President and the troops and give the administration a good report card. The war is far form being over and the reconstruction of the post-war period will be most challenging. However, it is already obvious that some countries, organizations, and groups have taken the wrong side in this war. What is of greatest importance is not the "payback" for past behavior. Some of it will be evident in the near future. Yet it is the risk posed for the future by the extremist indoctrination here and abroad, the outright support for the Iraqi regime from the Palestinian corners, and the threats from the likes of Syria, and Iran. Under no circumstances should terror and bullying be rewarded politically, economically or even symbolically. So as the "embedded" news reports are saturating the airways and papers with historically unprecedented details of the war as it happens, it is important to keep our minds on the bigger picture and that one is yet to unravel. Stay tuned.

To view previous e-Letters:

"Taxi wars (e-Letter #167)

"It was calm at first, everyone thought it was part of the act" (e-Letter #162)

"The terrorist as a killer and destroyer" (e-Letter #160)

e-Letters on the web

Additional e-Letters and articles:

"Everyone is a critic"

* * *

* 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.

* * *