e

A few "peace activists" were injured and at least one was accidentally killed recently when acting as "human shields" to protect terrorists. Now it turns out that the close proximity of these peace mongers to the terrorists also provided a convenient tactic to actually carry out terrorist attacks. Two British Muslims entered the Gaza strip under the guise of "peace activists" and then were sent to their deadly mission in Israel ("Bombers posed as peace activists," Jeevan Vasagar, Vikram Dodd and Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, Friday May 2, 2003).

The terrorists in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not the only ones operating and constituting a threat to Israel and to the United States. The recent visit to Secretary of State Powell to the region demonstrated the need to focus on other terrorist groups - whom the Syrians call "freedom fighters" such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon ("Operation Syria: Hezbollah should be on Powell's agenda," Rachel Ehrenfeld, NationalReviewOnline, May 2, 2003).

The reactions in the Arab world to the collapse of Iraq's dictatorial regime range from cautious gratitude to outright overt hostility. Yet, an examination of the very critical position by Arab writers vis-a-vis what could be defined as the collapse not just of the regime but that of the current "Arab system" suffers from the same maladies they are so eagerly critical of. They cannot say a bad word about the Arab situation without putting the blame on Israel. So in a sense their criticism "sounds good" to those who are seeking such Arab voices but at the same time by continually bashing Israel they ingratiate themselves with the same hostile elements they criticize ("Arab Doubts, Inside and Out," Raghida Dergham, The Washington Post, April 27, 2003 and "Time for Arabs to Take The Lead on Freedom," Jamil Khoury, The Washington Post, April 27, 2003).

Even what seems to be an exception to this kind of writing if fraught with traps that may not be very obvious. A Saudi editorial laments the Arab predicament and offers the now expected criticism and self-examination so common to the west ("It's All Israel's Fault!" Arab News, 26 April 2003). Yet it is vague enough about what coexistence with Israel means and does not even mention her by name (so who would they coexist with if not Israel) and at the same time under this cover offers a resell of Crown Prince Abdullah's "Peace Plan" that apparently was a non-starter with anyone other than Tom Friedman

Indeed, Friedman is starting to attract increasingly critical attention and perhaps one should only remain wondering why did it take that long. Perhaps he finally got under the skin of those who believe it is important to challenge his claims ("Good Tom, Bad Tom," Jonathan Tobin, Jewish World Review, May 2, 2003).

To illustrate, his claim that the with the war in Iraq the terrorism bubble has burst elicited a well written critique not only of Friedman but also of the Fourth Estate for being too comfortable with terrorists ("Bursting the Fourth Estate," Alyssa A. Lappen, FrontPageMagazine.com | April 29, 2003): "Despite relentless terrorism, however, reporters continue suck up to its perpetrators and neglect even the most elementary comparisons. They regularly slam Israel for fighting murderers. It's easy, after all. "Israel is a democracy," explained one TV news executive whom I questioned last year on the general failure to report Sudanese slavery and other Arab atrocities. In short, the media rewards terrorists, whose bubble Friedman now admits "has come to threaten open societies and all they value." Yet Friedman concludes, "We are all now in a post-bubble world."
Not quite. Before we arrive, a fourth bubble must burst--the Fourth Estate Bubble. The world will be a hell of a lot safer when it does."

And if there are some positive signs of criticism from inside the Arab world then its warring mind-set expresses itself again by constantly looking for a boogeyman. This time the Jews and Christians are not enough and apparently there are Muslims who feel that some of their brethren are "100 times more dangerous" to them then what they call the infidels ("Al-Qa'ida Affiliated Website: The Shi'a Threat to Sunni Islamists is No Less than the 'Judeo-Christian' Threat," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, May 2, 2003, No. 498).

This perhaps could add one good reason why the U.S. should not insist on maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity ("U.S. is wrong to insist on keeping Iraq intact," Ralph Peters, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, April 25, 2003).

While the enemy from without is hard at work to destroy what the west symbolizes the west itself has a little problem: those within it who speak against it and show deep sympathy to the enemy. They create an added problem to anyone who dares criticize them by suggesting that their very freedom of expression is being attacked and that they are subjects to character assassination and so in a sense they seize the right to be "critical" but are intolerant when criticized ("Anti-Americanism, from within," Ruth Wisse, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 24, 2003). And it is far more than mere expressions of opinion. It resemble far more the evolution of the German National Socialist movement that became the infamous Nazi party, Nazi ideology, and Nazi regime ("Goebbels would have liked this," Randy S. Shapiro, israelinsider, April 29, 2003).

Now, the world is in tizzy about the new Palestinian "Prime Minister." As if regime change is sufficient by "replacing" one person at the top while the cabinet members remain the same and the new Prime Minister still reports to Arafat and is constrained by him and by his cronies. Frankly this "regime change" is tantamount to Herman Goring appointed to replace Hitler yet still reporting to him. Very little deNazification in either case. Indeed, Arafat should not be seen as being out of the game by any means ("The man who never gives up," Barry Rubin, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 28, 2003).

So on one hand Arafat is still salient in the "background" and Abu Mazen may elicit frothing around the mouth of such political operatives as Terje Larsen or be crowned as the "champion of peace" in the minds and headlines of shallow reporters ("Peace gets new champion: Palestinian chief to shun violence," Margaret Coker, Atlanta Journal Constitution, April 29, 2003) but it does little to change the character of the man, the expectations of this position, and the nature of the political realities in the area. Perhaps Abu Mazen should be entitled to wear that crown only if he delivers - not a minute earlier ("Abbas's burden of proof," Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 25, 2003): "Unless the Palestinian Authority under Abbas is actually willing to abide by the commitments taken on by the PLO a decade ago, there is no point in cheering his rise, no reason to negotiate anything with him, and certainly no reason to sigh in relief that Arafat again has done Mubarak's bidding."

Moreover, he did not somehow appear from a muzzled "peace camp" that was vying to expresses the ideology and value of peace. In fact he is reported to have direct organizational links to major terrorists activities ("Arafat's new PM behind Munich Olympics attack?" Steve K. Walz, WorldNetDaily.com, April 29, 2003) and his new "interior minister" who is also in charge policing and security hails from the same background ("Delusions about the Palestinian 'security ace'," Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 30, 2003).

Yet some are willing to identify in his relative weakness some rays of hope that it might bring about the desired changes ("Enter the Weak Man: Abu Mazen's strength is his lack of strength," Bret Stephens, The Wall Street Journal, May 1, 2003). There are just simply too many unsound assumptions with this approach, namely that he is indeed interested in success, that Arafat will allow him to succeed, that he is interested in stability, that he is powerful enough to crack down on terrorists thus entering the Palestinians into nothing short of a "civil war." Odds are stacked too high against success under these circumstances.

It is perhaps best not to hold our breath for too long in the hope that this will bring terrorism to an end; probably the opposite is the case. Now more than ever before it should be obvious that whether under "peace" or "war," terrorism is a strategy that pays off well for the perpetrators and thus far anything short of absolutely vanquishing it provides the incentives and the fuel it needs to continue ("Don't stop fighting terror," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 30, 2003).

The much talked about "roadmap" was indeed unfolded this week ("A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict") and interestingly enough the Palestinians accepted it without reservations. Israel on the other hand has many and highly justified concerns ("Release of the Roadmap," Chuck Chriss, Jewish Internet Association, 4-30-2003).

Remember that these are the street/rooftop dancers whenever a disaster hits the U.S. or Israel and even now they mourn the collapse of Saddam Hussein. As one commentator suggested, they may be missing another opportunity yet again ("The road map and realism," Isi Leibler, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 30, 2003).

However, without a doubt one of the best articles written on the road map provides a much wider historical context and comprehensive perspective of the complex circumstances that are at the root causes of the conflict itself ("Wrong Turn: The "road map" won't lead to peace if it bypasses the causes of war," Abraham D. Sofaer, The Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2003): "The problem is that this road map, like many plans for Middle East peace, expects to bring an end to Palestinian violence against Israel without addressing the reasons why the Palestinians have deliberately and repeatedly chosen that path."

Sofaer outlines the problems that have either facilitated the conflict or have not done enough to attenuate it. Among these are: 1. the "longstanding strategy of Arab states and the Palestine Liberation Organization to keep as many Palestinians as possible living under horrible conditions in refugee camps, close to Israel," and the U.N. support of this reality" 2. "the Palestinian educational system is an abomination; it, too, is largely funded by the U.N.," 3. "our policies have worked to prevent Israel from defending itself against terrorism." 4. "Terrorists have also benefited from unreasonable efforts to restrict Israeli responses to their operations," 5. "Besides criticizing Israel, our government and others also repeatedly accuse it of using excessive force and improper methods," 6. "Our government has also consistently failed to come to grips with the extent and seriousness of Palestinian terror itself," 7. "In addition to subsidizing refugee camps that breed terrorism as well as an educational system that justifies and extols it, and in addition to hobbling Israel's efforts to counter terrorism, we and others continue to be remiss in dealing with state support of terror,"

Sofaer then discusses the issues that thus far remained unresolved due to diplomatic expediency and shortsightedness that according to Sofaer resulted in more harm than good. These are the issues of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem (not done); Right of return (a non-starter to any negotiations), Settlements and borders (asymmetry in dealing with Israel and the Palestinians). Sofaer then emphasizes that "There can be no peace until the Arabs of the region openly accept the existence of Israel as a permanent, sovereign state."
The U.N. (Where Israel is still treated as a pariah state), Normalizing relations with Arab countries was not pushed enough, Israel as ally (Israel was presented to the Arabs more as an inconvenient burden or a charity case than a respected ally), The Jewish question (the Palestinians do not tolerate jews anywhere yet they want their problems solved), "the failure of our government at the highest levels to denounce the genocidal teachings that issue regularly from the press, the mosques and the schools of Arab and Muslim regimes, some of them our longstanding allies, is shameful,"

Finally, Sofaer suggests that "A road map to peace is a fine thing, but if it is based in denial and wishful thinking it will be rightly doomed. The task for diplomats and all other interested parties is to force an end to the murder of Jews and to the effort to destroy the Jewish state; in pursuit of that goal, it is as necessary to delegitimize Palestinian violence once and for all as it is to prevent and repudiate the delegitimization of Israel. When that necessary condition is met in word and deed, all manner of desirable and mutually beneficial outcomes will become negotiable; but not before."

This is not merely criticism of the weaknesses of the suggested roadmap but an offering of too many missing links that deserve attention if this yet another peace plan is not to become yet another failed initiative. Given the existential implications this road map has for Israel, it also has policy implications for the U.S. as if it fails so will the U.S. in its efforts. Unless proper attention is given to the valid points raised by Sofaer the risk is there not only for Israel but for any post-war efforts of the U.S. whether in fighting terrorism or any dictatorial regimes as well as in trying to change the circumstances that are conducive to terrorism. It is high time to do the right thing for a change. The fact that terrorism is now an international network as proven by the two Muslim Brits shows how difficult the road ahead is. The current roadmap will not take us where we need to be.

To view previous e-Letters:

"The road not to be taken (with thanks to Robert Frost)" (e-Letter #171)

"News reports do not necessarily reflect reality" (e-Letter #170)

"Golf Wars" (e-Letter #169)

"1001 Baghdad tales" (e-Letter #168)

"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.

* * *