e-Letter 182: Terrorists do not apologize
One of the most interesting developments in the
Muslim world is a statement by the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini denouncing
the current Iranian regime as the "world's worst dictatorship" along with a
call to separate religion from the state ("Ayatollah
Khomeini's Grandson: 'Iran Needs Democracy and Separation of Religion and
State;' 'The Iranian Regime Is the World's Worst Dictatorship'" MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Iran/Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, August 6, 2003,
No. 548).
He then also defined the current regime and those succeeding his grandfather
as "exploiting his [Ayatollah Khomeini's] name, the name of Islam, and the
religious regime in order to continue their tyrannical rule." One might be
made to believe that there was no Islamic takeover of Iran, no takeover of the
U.S. embassy, no terror acts carried out under his grandfather, and that his
grandfather was a pleasant and charitable leader. Nevertheless, his move does
not auger well for the current Iranian regime and might enhance its downfall.
The battle over terrorism is but a single campaign
(even if it has a multitude of facets and locations). It is paralleled by
another - as serious - campaign launched by Islamic religious militants -
beginning with the very Khomeini whose grandson sees as a great leader - who
are trying their very best to proselytize the rest of the world or control it
by force and terror. So as terror reigns in the Middle East even the terms of
reference are Muslim. We are forced to talk about the "hudna" or the Muslim
version of a cease fire which means "regrouping to hit when convenient."
Then bombs continue to go off not only in Israel
but also in Chechenya, Moscow, India, the Philippines, and Indonesia together
with a massive proselytization campaign that is defined by its leaders as
"integral to triumph in fourth-generation warfare." This campaign - known as
Dawa - is not aimed merely at conversion but it does so by denial of any right
of choice. Hence the danger emanates from "spiritual efforts" which guides
physical terrorism. The danger to the West lies in the increasingly effective
efforts of Dawa that filter into school textbooks and educational systems ("The
Dawning of Dawa," Alyssa A. Lappen, FrontPageMagazine.com | July 15,
2003).
It is primarily spearheaded by spreading anti-Semitic canards. The latest one
is from a notorious Saudi professor who has now concocted yet another libel
that Jews have grand designs on Iraq ("King
Faysal University Professor: 'Jews Consider Iraq Part of Greater Israel'"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Arab Antisemitism/Saudi Arabia August 5, 2003, No.
547). The more outrageous the lie the stronger its impact. It claims - among
other atrocious charges - a "Fatwa" (a Muslim religious ruling) "issued by
rabbis," and the presence of "Israeli soldiers in Iraq." Of course, it helps
little to suggest that Rabbis in Israel do not issue joint "fatwas" and that
there are no Israeli soldiers in Iraq. But the point is not truth but
demonizing and hence such claims as "Suspicious Zionist Moves on Iraqi Soil',"
and "Awaken... Before We Discover That Dirty Hands Have Already Strangled Us."
At the same time the Muslim religious establishment does not declare any cease
fire on whining and it continuously laments the Western "double standards
towards Arabs/Muslims" despite the ample evidence that the West has fought for
Arab causes and it is fairly united in its desire, intent, and action to
assist the Palestinians achieve their political aims, of establishing a state
- not necessarily their aim of destroying Israel - far more than the Arabs
themselves have ever done for their "brethren"("Western
political energy," Mark A. Heller, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 1, 2003).
It is now a forgone conclusion in most circles,
except perhaps in the State Department, the European Union, and the UN, that
the roadmap was a non-starter ("Road map to nowhere,"Jeff Jacoby,
Boston Globe, Aug 3, 2003;
San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 5, 2003). The Palestinians have not kept one
element of the principles it espouses. Yet the real winner of the wave of
violence and terror is clearly the terrorist group Hamas which is now
considered not only a player but one which calls the shots. Pun is fully
intended as it is up to Hamas to decide when it will cease the cease-fire
which has actually never been implemented to begin with ("The
1002nd Arabian Nights tale," Sarah Honig, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 4,
2003).
And while the Palestinians are "declaring" a
"cease-fire" other elements are opening the terror spigot again as the
Hizbullah has been shelling Israel's northern border this past week causing
damage and casualties ("Ceasefire?
Hizbullah steps up shelling of northern Israel," World Tribune.com, August
4, 2003). It appears - emphasis on appears - that the Israelis have learned
their lessons from previously tolerating Palestinian transgressions of
agreements and that now Israel insists on full compliance with the spirit and
the letter of agreements ("Sharon's
history lesson," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 3, 2003).
In fact some are suggesting that Israel's (and America's) patience has ran out
and that the next Palestinian transgression will be met with proper response
("Sharon
Is Ready to Pound Palestinians the Way Bush Whipped Saddam," Zev Chafets,
- Jewishworldreview.com - August 5, 2003). That of course, remains to be seen
as it is a sure bet that transgressions will take place but it less sure of a
bet to predict Israeli reaction.
Examine the good-will gesture that Israel made by
releasing Palestinian terrorists housed in Israeli prisons. This was a step
not required by the roadmap and instead of Palestinians welcoming it they
lambasted Israel for not releasing all prisoners (i.e., terrorists). It
appears that no matter what Israel will do (other than committing collective
suicide) the Arabs will never be pleased ("Israel's
prisoner release fails to win PR battle," Ellis Shuman, israelinsider,
August 7, 2003).
Regrettably, the Atlanta paper carried a front
page story with a very positive headline ("334
Palestinian prisoners freed to joyful return," Craig Nelson, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, August 7, 2003) and a photo of a released terrorist
hugging his daughter as if this was a homecoming celebration. Indeed, two
days later the paper carried a very similar front page coverage of
article/photo and this time it was on the return of U.S. soldiers ("Charlie
Company comes home," Ron Martz, The Atlanta Journal - Constitution, August
9, 2003).
One has to work very hard to avoid the inevitable comparison of the sense of
patriotism shown towards returning US soldiers and the reverence with which
the terrorists have been depicted. The reporters may have done their job well
but the editors should go back to study journalism in a better school.
The Palestinians are masters of the non-deal.
They reach an "agreement" and then violate it. Then they deny they violate it.
Then they add several impositions on the deal that were not originally part of
it. This is exactly what happened with the Palestinian self-declared
"cease-fire" which is anything but. As the terror campaign continues they
have added two demands: release their terrorists from Israeli prisons (as if
this is an entitlement) and stop building the Israeli security fence ("Stuck
on a Barrier That's Not on the Road Map," Charles Krauthammer, The
Washington Post, August 8, 2003).
In addition, they jump at anything else that
Israel does if criticism serves their political agenda. The Israeli
parliament has passed a (temporary) law (to be reviewed and ratified on an
annual basis) to prevent giving automatic citizenship to Palestinians who
marry Israeli Arabs. Israel has done it for two reasons: first, to curb the
relatively free movement so as to prevent Palestinians from committing terror;
second, to prevent Palestinians from using such marriages (fictitious or
otherwise) from adding volumes to the number of Israeli Arabs. Civil rights
groups in Israel, Europe, and elsewhere (and of course Palestinian members of
the Israeli parliament) have raised hell over this imposition, yet there is no
example anywhere in the world where a country gives an automatic citizenship
to anyone marrying its citizens ("The
right of citizenship," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 7, 2003).
This is the same kind of moral failure practiced by those who tried so hard to
keep Saddam in Power ("A
Moral Failure: Why did so many on the left march to save Saddam Hussein?"
Norman Geras, The Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2003.
Interestingly enough, the three entities that gave the U.S. the hardest times
prior to the war in Iraq, the European Union, Russia and the U.N. are also
members with the U.S. in the "quartet" that endorses the roadmap. Of these
the U.N. is the body with its most blatant anti-Israeli policies and the most
shameless pro-Palestinian support. Its "fact-finding" spending sprees, its
declarations, it conferences and their agenda leave no room for any other
conclusion ("The
UN is still a stage for anti-Israel incitement," Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz,
August 07, 2003).
In a fascinating development, the Palestinian
prime minister's planned visit to Kuwait was canceled because he (i.e.,
Arafat) refused a Kuwaiti demand the Palestinians apologize for (and condemn)
their backing of Iraq during its 1990 invasion of Kuwait which sparked the
1991 Gulf War ("Abbas
Skips Trip to Kuwait," the Associated Press, The New York Times, August 9,
2003). While the Kuwaitis are not exactly a role model when it comes to civil
rights and freedom they are clearly serving as a model when it comes to
dignity. Their own. No apology, no visit. And the Palestinians could not
make themselves to come up with one. Perhaps they should demand that the
Kuwaitis apologize for kicking them out right after the Gulf War and maybe
demand a "right of return"? Surely Israel should demand an apology from the
Palestinians - who cheered when Iraqi SCUD missiles rained on Israel and then
boisterously killed Israelis - and so should the US for the American citizens
killed by Palestinian terror in the last three or four decades.
At least some elected officials in the U.S. are seeing that the fight Israel
is fighting is one and the very same the U.S. is fighting ('Israel's
fight is our fight' Tom DeLay, The Jerusalem Post, August 3, 2003): "The
US has fought evil before, in many forms, and, with the help of allies like
Israel, we are committed to defeating global terrorism now. Once this battle
is won we will put all our resources toward winning the peace, too. But while
this battle still rages, it is the position of the people of the US, as
expressed by their representatives in Congress, that Israel's fight is our
fight."
And a similar sentiment was expressed by a writer who recently visited Israel
("Israel
Without Apology,"
Sol Stern, City Journal | August 7, 2003): "That Friday afternoon...was more
important in understanding what will secure a decent future for the Middle
East than any State Department– or U.N.-crafted "roadmap." It showed the
resiliency of a brave democracy that has endured lethal assault from the same
people who want America and Americans to die—not because of our faults, but
because of our democratic virtues. That's why Israel now deserves the support,
without apology or equivocation, of the U.S. government and of every fellow
democrat in the world."
Perhaps expecting terrorists to apologize is out of touch with reality. After
all, why should there be expectations of civilized behavior from those who
violate the most basic premises of society by taking the lives of others and
then glorify these acts as an entitlement that leads to heaven?
Rosa
Luxemburg has written about the fine line between the art of the possible
and opportunism and it is important to be forewarned that political greed and
opportunism of the moment may prove that not all is possible. Catering to the
whims of murderers and terrorists for the convenience of the moment will end
up as an opportunistic measure for which the victim may be paying an even
higher price in the future.
International diplomacy should heed President
Bush's uncompromising statement in his June 24 speech and in many occasions
after the September 11 atrocity and fight terrorism unconditionally and
unwaveringly. That is the true challenge that both Sharon and Bush now face.
Ignoring this or responding half-heartedly, or distinguishing between terror
aimed at the U.S. and that aimed at Israel, the Philippines, Indonesia, India,
or Russia will only backfire. Oh, yes, pun intended. And for heeding that
policy there is no need to apologize.
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.
* * *