e-Letter 181: The terrorist as a
ventriloquist (no offense to the latter)
August 2, 2003
All Saudis may not be alike, but it seems the
House of Saud manages to consistently come up with strong anti-American and
anti-Semitic sentiments that receive prominent airing and tacit support. This
despite the ongoing Saudi declarations about its long-term "friendship with
the U.S. and its desire for "peace" in the Middle East. As ventriloquists
often do in their schizoid shows - as if they are arguing with themselves -
"Who? me? I didn't do it" responds the puppet to the puppeteer. So when one
of their several thousand princes writes - rather eloquently - on American
weakness and arrogance or on cousins (Jews) who will be "cut at the knees" it
raises serious concerns about Saudi attitudes and intentions and it certainly
does not contribute to alleviate the anti-American and ante-Semitic threat
emanating from the Saudis ("The
Anti-American and Antisemitic Writings of Saudi Prince Amr Muhammad Al-Faysal,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/ Arab Antisemitism, July 30, 2003, No.
544).
These same Saudis have not only perpetrated the 9-11 atrocity but also sent
their "Jihad fighters" against the U.S. in Iraq along with their brethren from
other Arab and Muslim countries ("Arab
and Muslim Jihad Fighters in Iraq," Steven Stalinsky, MEMRI, Special
Report - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, July 27, 2003, No. 19).
And the anti-American sentiments are also echoed by other Arab officials in
the area such as the Syrian foreign minister ("Syrian
Foreign Minister Farouq Al-Shar'a on the U.S. Government: "The Most Violent
and Stupid American Administration Ever," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Syria,
July 29, 2003, No. 543). Yet back in the U.S. Muslims Americans seem to be
courted by the up-for-re-election president ("Bush
kicks off Muslim strategy for reelection," World Tribune.COM, Monday, July
28, 2003) as the White House reportedly "regards the Muslim vote as a key
element in the campaign."
And the onslaught continues. In the last three
years of Palestinian violence (purposefully and strategically aimed at Israel)
great attention has been given to physical violence and to incitement that
encourages and condones it. And indeed, despite the "hudna," both the
violence and incitement continue unabated. Just last week the Palestinian
Authority has re-broadcast an old TV clip that features violence ("Violence,
Dead Bodies and Seriously Wounded in PA TV clip," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian
Media Watch, Multi-media Bulletin, July 30, 2003). And the PA continues
encouraging youths to sacrifice themselves in what amounts to absolute child
abuse and the glorification of it (see "Palestinian
Child Abuse: Brain wash and indoctrination in Hate").
During that time violence by Israeli Arab (a 20% minority) was limited to the
beginning of the wave of violence in September-October 2000 and has
significantly subsided after 13 Arabs were shot in Nazareth during a violent
riot that got out of control. Yet, sporadic violent activities have continued
and several Israeli Arabs committed suicide/homicide bombings, assisted in
perpetrating such atrocities, and have been detained for conspiracy and
sedition. Now a new phase is evident in the nationalization of Israeli Arabs
who conduct summer camps for their youths by resorting to the model of the
Palestinian camps which promote incitement and violence
("Police
disperse summer camp for alleged incitement," Uri Ash and Yair Ettinger,
Haaretz, August 01, 2003).
This latest development points out the danger that Israel is facing from
inside as well as the danger of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism which are forces
that are not easily - if at all - changeable. And similar threat are aimed at
the U.S. Indeed, any effort at defending Israel and the U.S. has to take into
account that there are limitations not only on what the west could aspire to
but to what it is willing to do, and what it actually can do. If such
limitations are recognized then efforts should be placed on making it clear to
perpetrators that violent behavior and the incitement leading to it will not
be tolerated ("Accepting
our limitations," Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 1, 2003).
The first four weeks of the so-called "hudna" -
incompletely translated as "cease fire" or "truce" when it is actually
regrouping to hit when convenient - point out that there may be a reduction in
the level of terror activity and the number of casualties. However, this
arrangement - which is internal to the Palestinian terror organizations and is
not an agreement with Israel - does not even hold up to its name. During this
period, terrorists have thrown stones, stabbed, shot, launched mortars and
Kassam missiles, and carried out one suicide bombing, amounting to 167
reported incidents in which several Israelis died and many were injured. In
addition, terrorists trained at sea to improve the precision and range of the
Kassam missiles, had well-placed caches of ammunition (a few discovered),
smuggled arms and ammunition (through Egypt) and had several suicide/homicide
missions that were luckily intercepted in time by Israeli security forces.
Thus, the terrorists continue to commit terror and
hide under the guise of the so-called "hudna" - as if they have agreed to a
"cease fire" - which is not even kept. This leads some to question the level
of tolerance that Israel has shown to the abuses of the declared "hudna" ("Happy
hudna!" Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post, July 30, 2003): "The first
step toward emerging from this crisis is to return to our senses. Israel must
remain firm in demanding zero tolerance of terror. And zero tolerance means
zero attacks. Period. Making excuses for the Palestinian leadership's failure
to quash terror, or minimizing the extent of the violence itself, is merely a
recipe for further bloodshed and carnage. For by doing so we come perilously
close to accustoming ourselves to terrorism and even accepting it as part of
our daily lives."
Indeed, in addition to the current level of terror activities, the security
established in Israel has ample evidence - and expresses public concern - that
the Palestinians are preparing another round of violence that could be even
worse than the current one ("Terrorist
groups rebuilding during 'hudna' - Mofaz," Nina Gilbert, The Jerusalem
Post, Jul. 30, 2003) and it is more than fair to say that it threatens the
"roadmap" and puts Israel even at a greater disadvantage by pushing her to
concede more and more and at the same time ignore the gross transgressions of
the Palestinians ("You
call this a cease-fire?," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, July 31,
2003).
The roadmap does not only call for the complete
cessation of terrorism. Of course, the dismantling of terror organizations
is a prime element in it. Yet, it also calls for the termination of
corruption, the upholding of human rights, and for the ending of incitement.
. The problem is that the Palestinians have not delivered on these counts
either. Therefore, it is premature to offer any trust in the Palestinian
intentions and actions as leading to the actualization of the roadmap ("Too
Early To Trust," Rachel Ehrenfeld, New York Sun, July 31, 2003).
The roadmap has not even dried out from the print
shop and already the Palestinians have imposed two additional components that
are not included in it: First the release of the 7,000-8,000 prisoners they
have in Israeli prisons, and second, to stop building Israel's security
fence. Israel has agreed to release more than 500 terrorists including
members of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad and appears to slow, alter or even stop
the building of the fence in some areas. But not all are buying the
Palestinian argument ("Do
Fence Me In," William Safire, The New York Times, July 31, 2003).
Yet even the usually conservative Wall Street Journal editorialized against
the fence ("Mideast
Peace Progress: Israel can help by taking down its security fence," July
31, 2003). And there is little wonder that for Tom Friedman the only problem
that holds the Middle East from becoming "new" is the issue of Israeli
settlements. Remove them and peace and tranquility will arrive because the
terrorists will have no more reason to commit terror... No doubt this is
Pulitzer Prize logic; yet one is entitled to ask Friedman how would he explain
continued Palestinian terror AFTER Israel withdraws from all the territories;
after all, terror happened before Israel acquired the territories in a war
that was forced on her in 1967 ("A
New 'New Mideast,'" Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, July 30,
2003).
Following the recently acknowledged fiascos at the
BBC and the New York Times, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal argues
that it is time for journalists to remove any claim for objectivity ("The
Press: Time for a New Era? The BBC and New York Times scandals show that
"objectivity" is dead," Robert L. Bartley, The Wall Street Journal, July
28, 2003). This is an advice that should be particularly heeded by
organizations such as the National Public Radio (NPR) that in recent years has
been notorious for presenting itself as "objective" while being overly
one-sided (pro-Palestinian).
So as President Bush continues to press Israel to release (some but not all)
terrorists - under the false assumption that it will improve the "negotiating
climate" in the area - he has at least been reported to object to a State
Department plan to "reform" the terrorist organizations and is not willing to
take them off the terror list ("Bush
rejects State Dept. plan for Hamas," World Tribune.COM, July 28, 2003).
Yet, the main problem with the roadmap is evident
in the lack of "what if." Namely, an exit strategy IF the roadmap fails ("A
fallback plan in the Mideast?" Tom Neumann, Washington Times, July 26,
2008). The roadmap can "succeed" only under the following conditions: The
Palestinians fully abide by it and the Israelis fully abide by it. If the
Palestinians do not completely abide by it (and they are not), this will have
one of two dangerous implications: 1) Israelis will be forced to accept it and
continue to abide by it even against such evidence; 2) Israel will pay the
price of accommodation irrespective of the level of Palestinian
transgressions.
Given the ample evidence that Palestinians have
not dismantled their terror apparatus, they continue with terrorism, they
continue with incitement, they continue with corruption, with child abuse, and
with the usurpation of their own people, this means that the roadmap is dead
upon arrival. There is only one hope in this intolerable situation and it is
a long shot: After the Bush administration will realize the Palestinians have
not changed, the American disappointment will be registered far deeper than
is currently admitted. It is not enough to isolate Arafat; it is imperative
to demand an unequivocal compliance with all elements of the roadmap and the
non-acceptance of new demands the Palestinians tend to heap on the course of
events.
The situation where the Palestinians - like the
Saudis - act as a ventriloquist saying one thing from the mouth of the
puppeteer and another from the mouth of the puppet needs to be put to a
screeching halt. And the same goes for the Saudis. These are among the key
troublemakers in the world who will be appeased by nothing less than
submission or conversion. Since neither one is a real option for Israel or
the U.S. than nothing short of complete vanquishing of terror should be
strived for.
And the battle is not only in the Middle East. It
is now seeping to internal American political spheres. The vociferous
objection of Arab/Muslim advocacy groups to the appointment of Daniel Pipes to
the U.S. Institute of Peace is better understood when examining Pipes'
writings on such groups as misrepresenting Islam and as operating in the U.S.
as a fifth column ("What
Americans think about Islam," Daniel Pipes, The Jerusalem Post, Jul. 30,
2003).
According to Pipes, these groups only help enhance
the negative perceptions Americans increasingly have about Islam. He
demonstrates that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) does not
consider suicide bombing as terrorism, it supports terrorist groups such as
Hamas and it aspires to turn the U.S. into an Islamic country. Yet, it is
formally recognized as the representative of Islamic bodies in the U.S., and
is invited to official functions, provides "sensitivity" training and
frequently interviewed in the media as representing the Islamic views.
So when Pipes argues that "Improving Islam's reputation will require two
steps: that the great institutions of American life reject all contact with
CAIR and like groups, while moderate Muslims build sound organizations, ones
that neither apologize for terrorism nor seek ‘the government of the United
States to be Islamic,'" he earns the wrath of these advocacy groups.
As the battle over the nomination of Daniel Pipes
continues to heat up, there is a serious danger that he may not be appointed.
Should that happen it will amount to more than succumbing to political
correctness and it would be tantamount to radical Muslim advocacy groups
wielding more control over the American political scene than ever before ("Debunking
political correctness," Diana West, The Washington Times, July 31, 2003).
Pipes needs to win this one for the good guys and
for homeland security.
© 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.
* * *