e-Letter 173: The piranha bully: The
"right" to lie and murder
May 11, 2003
Prior to and even after the military operation in
Iraq charges were made in the U.S., Europe, and the Arab world that it was
"perpetrated to take over the oil fields." Yet, the same voices did not blame
Russia, France and Germany for not wanting to go to war for the same reason.
Therefore it is helpful to view the realities of the oil market not in
domination terms but rather in terms of market forces. A recent study ("Oil:
Who's over a Barrel?" Eliyahu Kanovsky, Middle East Quarterly, Spring
2003) suggests that supply or control of oil has been replaced by another
pivotal factor, that of revenue: "Burgeoning populations, flat revenues, and
massive deficits have undermined the social contract that has guaranteed
domestic stability in the oil era. Nothing on the horizon will change the
negative equation. The real oil crisis is not one of supply but of revenue,
and it is the security of the producers themselves that has been eroded. This
is bound to increase their dependence on the United States, as the guarantor
of their continued survival." In fact, the study argues that terrorism is far
more dangerous than the (low) potential of an oil shortage. This, in turn, has
important implications for U.S. policy as it is now free from the threat of
oil as a weapon of mass extortion.
The "shocker" this week was the news that France helped wanted senior Iraqi
officials flee the country ("France
helped Iraqis escape," Bill Gertz, The Washington Times, May 6, 2003) thus
holding on to its earned reputation of blatantly acting against U.S.
interests. First reported by Debka File that Saddam might be in Syria ("Is
Saddam in Syria?"
DEBKAfile War Diary - Day 15, April 3, 2003) and that France was instrumental
in helping smuggle Iraqi officials from Iraq via Syria to France and other
European countries, it now reports that based on intelligence files found in
Iraq, the U.S. is actively seeking to expose the ties that Chirac and his
family had with Saddam and his regime. There is also sufficient information
about the head of the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna, Dr.
Mohammed ElBaradai, to demand his removal ("Washington
Targets Chirac and ElBaradai," DEBKA-Net-Weekly, May 7, 2003).
Despite Politicians' buzz implying that the U.S.
can focus on one issue at a time, the current administration is proving that
it can handle several conflicts at the same time and that the operation in
Iraq and the war on terrorism are not mutually exclusive ("Is
Graham Crackers?--II: The battle of Iraq pays dividends in the war on terror,"
Brendan Miniter, The Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2003).
There is a growing element of Arab critics who are dissatisfied with the
performance of Arab media and are increasingly willing to place the blame
where it belongs instead of Arab tradition of pointing to anyone but
themselves. This may be infrequent and not thorough enough but each of these
occasions is more likely to bring about additional - much needed - criticism.
A religious scholar in Qatar, Sheikh Al-Ansari chastised Arab media for being
deceptive, for aligning itself with the Saddam regime, arguing that the Arab
satellite stations were wrong in describing the allies as savages (with the
noted exception of Kuwait), and criticizing Arabs for developing the paranoid
mind-set that others are conspiring against them ("An
Arab Intellectual in Qatar: 'Arab Media's Conduct During the War is Indicative
of a Deeper Malaise'," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Reform in the Arab and
Muslim World, May 9, 2003, No. 503).
Even from inside religious circles in Iraq voices of relative moderation are
heard seeking to somehow "survive" the current American operation in Iraq and
see it (as do the Americans) as temporary. A Friday sermon in a Baghdad
mosque is fairly conciliatory although between the lines one can read
accommodation on one hand together with a condescension that is derived from a
sentiment of superiority on the other ("Friday
Sermon in Falouja, Iraq," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iraq, May 6, 2003, No.
500).
And in other parts of the Arab world similar
voices are heard ("A
Tunisian Intellectual on The Arab Obsession with Vengeance," MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, May 4, 2003, No. 499)
suggesting that the missiles falling on Baghdad prove that the world is moving
forward while the Arab world is regressing in the opposite direction. Yet the
attack is perceived as having the potential to force the Arab world to open up
to democracy and the author blames "the tribal Arab culture of vengeance" that
"transmuted their defeats into a fixated, vengeful mentality" and on "the
neurotic tenacity of an 'all or nothing' policy and its consequences."
However, unlike the critical outlook offered from
the Persian Gulf, Tunis, or even the fairly conciliatory position from the
Baghdad clergy, the American Arab community is banking on American politically
correct sentiments to bash anyone who dares criticize unacceptable behavior
when displayed by Arabs and Muslims. In this case their opposition is to the
appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of the United States Institute of
Peace. But as an editorial suggests ('Daniel
Pipes, peacenik,' The Jerusalem Post, May. 7, 2003): "Approval of the
Pipes nomination would signal that America takes militant Islam at its word
and will maintain relentless war against this breeding ground of terror. The
presence of Pipes on the USIP board would also bolster moderate Muslims in
America who have seen their faith hijacked by terrorists."
This appointment is important given the many voices that are still vehemently
anti American and anti Israel. These voices come from "diplomatic circles as
well as being supported by various advocacy groups. The latest such venom
comes at a time when diplomatic pressures are put on again on both Israel and
the Palestinians to reach some accommodation. Yet the Palestinians continue
with their terror campaign and their emissaries spew hatred and incitement to
violence as if they are not the subject of intense international efforts to
reform ("Palestinian
Diplomat in Morocco on the War in Iraq, Zionism, and Israel," MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Palestinian Authority, May 7, 2003, No. 501).
They continue with the big lie technique ('Israeli
agents looted Baghdad's museums and banks'
lay imaginary and groundless claims ('we must liberate occupied Iraq,
Palestine, and Moroccan cities under Spanish rule'), continue to falsify
history ('the establishment of the state of Israel is unjustified' ; 'Zionism
was not founded by Jews, but by western colonialists'), and view the American
president as if he - not Saddam or Hitler - is the tyrant ('Bush's fate will
be no different from the fate of the tyrants who preceded him'). One could
only remain stupefied as to the audacity and arrogance of terrorists who when
having the best chance at establishing a state are trying to cut the hand that
is working so hard at building it for them. This could be understood only
against the backdrop of extreme unwavering demands that include the
entitlement to murder, theft, having claims to property which is not yours,
and at the same time expect the annihilation and destruction of the opponent
who is perceived to be the intended victim. Precisely the "all or nothing"
attitude so openly criticized by the Tunisian intellectual.
As Secretary Powell is visiting the Middle East,
the Palestinians are readying themselves for yet another general strike and
the assessment is that for psychological or organizational reasons the terror
of homicidal bombings will continue ("Suicide
bombing is here to stay, professor predicts in new paper," Richard Allen
Greene, JTA, May 8, 2003). If Powell needs any proof of how difficult his
mission is all he needs to do is watch another recently produced and broadcast
Palestinian video clip ("Director
of Palestinian Children's Aid Association: We teach our children to reach
Shahada," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch, Multi-media Bulletin,
May 6, 2003).
As Israel has sat tight for the second time in a decade while the U.S. was
actively engaged in military operations against Iraq it has been relegated
again to a "friend" that has to be tolerated but not necessarily be proud of.
Sort of the teenager who brings a not-very-attractive date to the party but
who is "very nice" as if that is going to make an impression ("A
matter of honor," Steven Zak, Jewish World Review, May 1, 2003). Yet, in
international affairs, being "very nice" should matter much more than being
"attractive." After all, Israel has actively aided the U.S. strategically,
intelligence wise, and with essential training providing tangible value as an
ally.
The fact remains that the U.S. saw it fit to
resolve the Iraqi problem before it decided to take on the Arab-Israeli
conflict (yet again). The fact also remains that the pundits and diplomats
who predicted that if the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be resolved prior to
Iraq, that situation will pose a tremendous danger to the west ("Let's
be positive about 'destabilization'," Mark Steyn, The Jerusalem Post, May.
7, 2003).
It is nothing short of fascinating to contrast two
opinions on the future of the Middle East and Israel. One by a New York Times
popular - sharp-tongued - award-winning columnist who tends to confuse victim
with perpetrator, equate terror with victimization and jump on any opportunity
to bash Israel under the guise that he cares about her future ("Fathers
and Sons," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, May 11, 2003).
Friedman writes that "This is a critical moment. For the first time, the
Palestinians have produced a prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas; a finance
minister, Salam Fayyad; and a security chief, Muhammad Dahlan, who understand
how badly the Palestinian Authority lacked proper institutions and how
disastrous for the Palestinian people was the Arafat strategy of suicide
terrorism and double talk with Israel." Audiences do not applaud the actors
and director prior to the completion of the play and these "leaders" have yet
to produce something other than the fact that they were associated with terror
for decades. And Friedman seems to care more about the miscalculation and the
damage to the Palestinians by their own choice of terrorism than showing any
sense of understanding to those victimized by it on the Israeli side as well
as a sense of complete rejection of terror.
The other, an editor of a U.S.-published Pakistani
newspaper seems to understand the dynamics of the conflict far better ("Moderate
Muslims and the road map," Tashbih Sayyed, The Jerusalem Post, May. 7,
2003) and he absolutely opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state on
grounds that it is a sure formula for the destruction of Israel and that "By
helping establish a Palestinian state the US is undoing all its successes in
the war on terror since September 11, 2001." Indeed, it seems that when it
concerns Israel, the U.S. strays away from its own policy against terrorism it
has undertook since 9-11 and the war against Iraq as if somehow Israel has to
tolerate terrorism against it having its hands tied behind its back fighting
this vicious menace.
Friedman may be an influential pundit but he is no
longer credible. His opinions may be derived out of threat and intimidation
by terrorists on one hand or by Saudi money on the other. Of course, if his
opinions are completely independent perhaps he ought to have his next lunch
with Sayyed so as to be helped in gaining a far deeper sense of understanding
of the complexity of the problem there and the potential solutions and to stop
mouthing off groundless and preposterous mantras that are short guaranteeing
Israel's safety, U.S. interests, and a sense of justice.
Sayyed is joined by many others who see problems
not with the idea of wanting peace in the Middle East but in a "roadmap" that
misses the reasons for why peace is not there to begin with. Even for those
who wish to move forward with the "roadmap" there is an understanding that not
much has changed with the appointment of "leaders" who are only
semi-independent while Arafat is breathing down their necks from his pictures
hanging on Palestinian walls and from his position as "president." As long as
he is around he will do all he can to sabotage the American/quarter initiative
("The
Roadblock on the Road Map," Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, May
9, 2003). Frankly, even without him a great deal of evidence needs to be
visible to prove any tangible change.
Indeed, as soon as the joint press conference
between the new Palestinian Prime Minister and the American Secretary of State
has started, the latter made reference to the importance to adhere to the
principles enunciated in President Bush's June 24, 2002 speech ("President
Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership," The Rose Garden).
In that speech President Bush called "on the Palestinian people to elect new
leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a
practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty... And when the
Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security
arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support
the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its
sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement
in the Middle East." And the Palestinian Prime Minister? Immediately responds
by placing a "demand" to release Arafat from his travel restrictions because
it is "unacceptable" for the Palestinians. Clearly if anything has changed in
the Middle East is the decorum and words but not the substance.
Much hope this new Prime Minister offers only to
those who ignore their own words and the lessons of history. The same day that
this meeting took place the political fanfare was marred by the sad reality of
yet additional terror attacks on Israelis killing one. Indeed some question
the apparent contradiction between the principles espoused in the June 24
speech and the forcing of the roadmap which deviates from that policy ("An
incredulous about-face," Ron Dermer, The Jerusalem Post, May. 9, 2003):
"More importantly, a genuine peace process would be able to reap the benefits
of the tailwind caused by the forces of freedom that are beginning to blow
through the region. Instead, by veering from President Bush's June 24 vision,
a tragic Oslo peace process is now returning as a farcical road map. Sadly,
more time will be wasted and more lives will be lost before we set out on a
genuine road toward peace." Hence the calls for sticking to the June 24
speech rather than to the roadmap ("June
24 in retrospect," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, May. 8, 2003).
One uncorroborated report actually claims that the
roadmap has been taken off the table and that other "more real" agenda items
have replaced it - such as a possible deal with Iran, Syria and Lebanon ("Middle
East Road Map – A Useful Cover Story: Road map is lost on his way to Middle
East," DEBKAfile Exclusive Report, May 10, 2003): "the regional context
of his trip swelled in importance, its focus switching from the
Israel-Palestinian conflict over to US relations with Iran, Syria and Lebanon
– a higher priority in the post-Iraq war period. This switch generated the
Bush administration's decision, as leaked in Washington Saturday, to put aside
the road map for now and press instead for Israeli and Palestinian steps to
ease the tensions between them. The leak, released when Powell was airborne,
followed President George W. Bush proposal to establish a Middle East free
trade area within a decade."
It is mortifying to see a bully hiring a lawyer to defend his actions. But
that is what Hamas has done when it hired Stanley Cohen to represent it ("Stanley
Cohen: Terrorist Mouthpiece," Michael Tremoglie, FrontPageMagazine.com |
December 17, 2002). Appearing today on Fox News he defended the right of
Hamas to raise money in the U.S. for its "charitable activities" and for those
unfamiliar with Hamas' declarations of and penchant for terror activities they
would immediately rush - based on Cohen's position - to nominate Hamas for a
Nobel Peace Prize, recommend it join the U.N. as a champion of human rights
and perhaps even get reparations for not killing as many Israelis as it could
have.
And indeed, the that the Palestinian bully is busy
cheating, stealing, lying, pretending, inciting, killing, and unashamedly
manipulating public opinion including the outrageous suggestion that their
victim is the "actual bully." Not much has changed since Bob Dylan has wrote
his poem about Israel in 1983 except that more people died ("Neighborhood
Bully," Bob Dylan, From album Infidels - 1983):
"The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood"
The real piranha bully is now ready to pull out
its latest trick: appearing to accept the roadmap yet without complying with
its basic policy stipulations. It will then wait for the first opportune
moment to victimize again. The same way that Oslo was a Trojan Horse - in the
words of no other than the late
Palestinian leader Faisal Husseini (who stated rather unequivocally
shortly before his death in May 2001, in an interview with an Egyptian
newspaper: "We must distinguish the strategies and long-term goals from the
political-phased goals which we are compelled to accept due to international
pressures...the ultimate goal is the liberation of all historic Palestine.
Oslo had to be viewed as a Trojan horse") - this roadmap has the serious risk
of reintroducing this horse. The June 24 policy offers the Palestinians a
state they do have not earned but at least it also offers clear stipulations
that terror is no longer acceptable. If the current talks will prove that
President Bush has a better chance of succeeding with terrorists where his
predecessors failed remains to be seen. He has certainly taken up a challenge
with not many odds in his favor. The question still remains whether his good
intentions for peace will not result in sacrificing Israel in the process.
It is imperative to view the fight against terror
on the basis of a universalistic principle that does not distinguish between
various perpetrators (Al-Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad) and various intended
victims (Israel, the U.S., the West). Any attempt to cloud such distinctions
will end up backfiring and eroding the principle that countries use to justify
their fight against terrorism. Therefore, terrorism should not be rewarded
under any circumstance or terrorism has won. No opportunity should ever be
given to any bully to have a free hand or they have won too.
ฉ 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.
* * *