e-Letter 180: When "peace" means war
July 26, 2003
It may have taken four decades to realize that
Arafat is nothing but a certified terrorist but clearly the last couple of
years have pointed out that his terror is not only aimed at Israel but at his
own people. With one side of his mouth he speaks of "peace" and with the other
he directs provocation and sabotage against Israel but also against his very
own appointed officials ("Arafat
is said to fund truce foes," Charles A. Radin and Sa'Id Ghazali, Boston
Globe, 7/23/2003): "Defiance of the Abbas government by paramilitary groups
that are loyal to Arafat and are affiliated with his Fatah movement is the
latest in a growing number of signs that the road map initiative is in danger
of breaking down."
Much ink was smeared on newspapers about the
"truce" or the so-called "cease-fire" but the "Hudna" (the regrouping to hit
again) declared by the Palestinians was achieved after much internal debate
and has a specific time limit which means that once that point is reached they
will "have legitimacy" to renew the acts of violence. Clearly, the Palestinian
gymnastics around declaring the "Hudna" demonstrate the weakness of the
Palestinian Authority (PA) and the internal disagreements reflected Arafat's
efforts to undermine Abu Mazen's authority ("The
Domestic Palestinian Dispute Over the Hudna," B. Tchernitzky,, MEMRI,
Inquiry and Analysis - Palestinian Authority, July 25, 2003, No. 144).
However, as Tchernitzky indicates, "the affair, in its entirety, is primarily
another reflection of the years-long inability of the PLO to be the sole
representative of the Palestinian people."
In the meantime, despite the declared "Hudna" the
PA continues with its malicious relentless incitement against Israel. This
week the PA's largest daily, Al Quds, published the cartoon of the
crucifixions of Iraq and "Palestine"and depicted
Jesus being arrested by
Israeli soldiers on PA TV. This, of course, from the same fountain of
truth and justice that
supported Iraq
in 1991 and again in 2003 ("PA Daily Cartoons: 1. US Octopus is
Dismembering Saddam 2. Iraq and "Palestine" are Crucified" Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, July 24,
2003). The PA continues to glorify suicide bombers and added the
first female suicide terrorist
to its pantheon of heroes ("PA TV Glorifies First Woman Suicide Terrorist
- Wafa Idris," Palestinian Media Watch
Bulletin, Itamar Marcus, July 24, 2003).
Despite the appearance of relative calm in the area, media watchdog groups
warn that the talk about peace and stoppage of incitement is premature or
simply misunderstood ("Seven Minutes of Peace Promotion," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch, Media Update,
July 20, 2003) suggesting that a single clip - broadcast once - of a "song
peace" does not change the nature of the messages that serve as the daily
spiritual propaganda diet for Palestinian viewers of all ages: "The
satisfaction expressed at the removal of Shahid glorification clips is
likewise premature, and shows a lack of understanding of the Palestinian
world. The PA is now running summer camps attended by thousands of children
and a dominant theme, as reported in their media, is shahid and suicide bomber
adoration. This is as direct continuation of the PA educational policy for
many years, teaching children to admire terrorist who killed large numbers of
Israelis, by naming schools, sporting events, educational programs and
institutions, after those terrorists."
Moreover, it is also reported that these summer
camps are funded by the United Nations ("UN is Funding Summer Camps Honoring
Terrorists, Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media
Watch Bulletin, July 25, 2003). Yet some are still talking about the
diplomatic moves in the Middle East as the "peace process" and are making more
out of a single Palestinian "peace song" than is warranted by facts and
history ("Why
the Peace Process Moves," Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, July 21, 2003).
Once in a very rare while an Arab writer points out the weaknesses and
deficiencies of Arab societies and Arab leadership that are the causes of much
of the trouble they are so eager to blame others for. In this case it is an
Arab diplomat under the (writing) name of Mustafa who opined that the recent
Palestinian wave of violence is actually a crime against the Palestinians,
that Arab leaders neglected their societies in order to fight Israel, that
Arab Intellectuals must assume responsibility for Arab society, and that the
leadership is obsessed with the past ("An
Arab Diplomat on the Leadership Crisis in the Arab World," MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, July 22, 2003, No. 540).
It is perhaps best viewed as an exception that
points to the rule and indeed at the same time that his writings appear, it is
also evident that the Muslim religious leadership continues to support suicide
bombings in its conferences all over Europe ("Al-Qaradhawi
Speaks In Favor of Suicide Operations at an Islamic Conference in Sweden,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Jihad and Terrorism Studies Project, July 24, 2003,
No. 542). It recommends suicide operations and provides the "reasoning" and
ideological justification for carrying terror (suicide) acts ranging from
vilifying and dehumanizing Israel as a colonial force to suggesting that
"under pressure" the Muslim is permitted to use means that are "otherwise"
prohibited.
So now, a terrorist in a suit is welcomed by the White House as the leader in
whom it "has confidence" and to whom not only financial assistance is pledged
but he is assured the WH will press Israel on the fence which is "snaking" in
the West Bank ("Bush
outlines steps to ease Palestinian poverty," Associated Press, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution: 7/25/03).
The Palestinian "Prime Minister" (who still reports to Arafat) repeated three
things on this visit: Demand, demand, and demand. First, he demanded the
removal of all settlements. This is far more than the road map's stipulation
of freezing settlements built after the Arab violence began in September 2000.
Second, he demanded to blame Israel for every problem in the area (as if the
Palestinians have no responsibility in this matter), and third, he demanded to
release all prisoners, an issue not even mentioned in the roadmap ("Bush
hosts Abbas, pushes Effort," Bob Deans and Margaret Coker, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution: 7/26/03).
At least on the prisoners issue President Bush
stated rather clearly that there is no reason to release prisoners as "Nobody
is going to accept a situation in which they become less secure." But
apparently it is acceptable to question a fence that is being erected to
protect Israelis from additional terror attacks. Therefore, other than the
issue of the prisoners it appears that the three years of violence rewarded
the Palestinians handsomely. One should not be surprised when they turn the
spigot of violence again as it has served them so well in the past. Even the
photos of Sadam's son will not convince them otherwise.
In the discussion about terrorism and the war
against it (as well as the war on Iraq) the media is filled with terms like,
war, peace, truce, and cease fire. The problem is that these terms mean
different things to the parties involved. The Arabs for example, can wage war
and still call it - Jihad - shamelessly a peaceful effort ("The
Meaning of Peace: CAIR vs. Daniel Pipes," Bat Yeor, National Review, July
23, 2003): "In this sense Muslims believe that expansion through war is not
aggression but a fulfillment of the Koranic command to spread Islam as a way
to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word
that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims." Hence Islamic
wars are not wars, but meritorious efforts to liberate the world from
disbelief (jahaliyya) by its submission to Islam. Only submission brings
peace, and it is the non-Muslim's failure to submit that provokes war.
Ironically, this religious approach is mirroring
very well its secular counterpart: communism. In a sense, promoting the
ideology that communism was inherently good and any harm and suffering (such
as killing, the gulag) that took place was "necessary" to get to the "final
stage" when the situation of all will be "good" because of the global victory
achieved with a "classless society." Substitute communism with Jihad and the
two suddenly seem to have much more in common - despite the obvious
differences - than originally meets the eye. The problem with this of course,
is that the cleansed stage is never achieved an din the process of seeking it
millions are murdered.
And at least one battle is fought on the home-front. Arab advocacy groups are
vehemently opposed to the appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of the
U.S. Institute of Peace ("The
Meaning of Peace: CAIR vs. Daniel Pipes," Bat Yeor, National Review, July
23, 2003). As the battle over Pipes is moving into high gear, the State
Department has a new advisory committee that is stacked with strong
anti-Israel personalities ("New
State Dept. Committee Filled With Critics of Israel," IMRA, July 19,
2003). Even one of the token Jews on the committee has demonstrated his
criticism of Israel portraying her as responsible for the Arab terror campaign
against her.
Some voices of reason are heard nonetheless pointing out that the U.S. and
Israel have shared values that make them targets for terrorism. Therefore it
is in the interest of democracies to support a sister democracy when it is
threatened and not to cave in to terror. Israel is correctly described as the
only country in the region that has a majority of Jews; as the only country in
the region that gives people of all faiths and nationalities full religious,
civic, and political freedom; and with two exceptions, it is not recognized by
any other Arab states ("Moral
Clarity and the Middle East: Why we support Israel," William J. Bennett,
National Review, July 22, 2003).
In fact, Bennett goes beyond the cliches of
helping a sister democracy. He takes a rather strong stand in the age when
Israel is expected by friends and foe alike to make as many concessions as
possible and suggests to recognize Israel capital in Jerusalem.
"Indeed, most Americans today would be surprised to learn that, in fact, the
U.S. embassy in Israel is not in Jerusalem. If we, as a nation, want to
maintain our moral clarity in supporting democracy, we should be very clear
that we will not tolerate any other capital for Israel, and we shall not
maintain any other location for our embassy. If the United States would comply
with what both major parties in this democracy have agreed to, that would send
the most morally clear message we could: Israel is our ally, Jerusalem is its
capital, and we will not cave in to the demands of terrorists."
Surely, the Palestinian "Prime Minister" must be
elated that Bennett is not in the White House. It now remains to be seen what
happens next week when the Prime Minister of Israel visits the White House.
He might start by congratulating President Bush for the successful "targeted
assassination" of the Hussein bothers, a policy that subjected Israel tons of
criticism when it exercised it against Hamas terrorists. He might then
continue by suggesting not to exceed the parameters of the roadmap and not
include such issues as prisoners and settlements. And he might end by posing
the cardinal question: Why have the Palestinians done nothing to dismantle the
terror organizations and what is President Bush going to do about that.
It is high time the west stops interpreting terror
the same way its perpetrators do. It is also high time to understand that
there are three options made available to us: convert to Islam, die if we do
not, or fight. Israel and the U.S. seem to have decided to fight but it is
still a very long uphill road.
© 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.
* * *