e

According to reports from Kuwait ("A Kuwaiti Daily Reveals an Iraqi Contingency Plan in Case Saddam is Killed" - translated by MEMRI ) - the Iraqi regime had plans in case Saddam falls. The 11 point plan seems to be carried out to the letter with looting, bombing of oil and electricity lines, the UN headquarters, and now a major Shiite center ("Police: Iraq bombing may be linked to al-Qaida; death toll over 100," The Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post Aug. 30, 2003) resulting in over 125 dead and hundreds injured. They also succeeded in the planned elimination of a key Shiite figure who was targeted several times recently.

This will not win the battle against the US waged by the pro-Saddam and other elements (Al-Qaida) in Iraq but it will certainly further add to the chaos and disrupt US efforts at bringing order and foster development in the area. If reports that two of the four detained suspects are Saudis are correct it indicates that the Saudi regime has a lot to be concerned about if they did not directly send them there; although in all likelihood they did. After all, the Saudis are natural suspects in this ploy because of the simple reason that stability in Iraq is against Saudi interests. Add to this the likelihood that Saddam was successful in smuggling (with Syrian collaboration) his WMD to Lebanon ("Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley," WORLD TRIBUNE.COM, August 25, 2003) and the Middle East looks even more of a pit of snakes than it ever did.

And this battle is not waged only by vowed enemies of the US but also by some of its declared allies. Last week MEMRI publicized the translated text of an Egyptian columnist who charged (in an official government daily) that the US forces are cannibals who devour the flesh of Iraqis ("Columnist in Leading Egyptian Government Daily: U.S. Forces in Iraq Strip the Flesh from Their Victims' Corpses," Special Dispatch - Egypt/Iraq, August 28, 2003, No. 559).

The translation reached the news media and created quite a stir. One TV host was clearly disturbed by the story and expressed his astonishment that a country which is the recipient of so much annual aid from the US condones this kind of anti-American sentiments ("Who Are the Egyptians Calling Cannibals?" John Gibson FoxNews, August 28, 2003).

Then an Egyptian-American Georgetown University professor interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor was asked to explain this vile anti-American canard. He first denied that this was an official Egyptian newspaper and then went on to attack Daniel Pipes as a "bigot against Muslims" (which of course, now explains why the Americans "devour the flesh of Iraqis"...). The professor provided a clear illustration that wearing a bow-tie and holding a professorship in a prestigious American university is used as a license to distort truth and reality with impunity not to debase such a blood libel against the US.

Of course this obscure professor must have had his inspiration for hate from other lovers of truth like professor Edward Said whose pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli ranting has become such an icon at Columbia University that a chair in his name will be held by another "objective professor" of similar persuasion there ("Offer of Said Chair To Khalidi Draws Fire: Rashid Khalidi's political views have dominated the appointment debate," Amba Datta, Spectator Senior, November 14, 2002).

Now Prof. Said is "alarmed" by comments made by the House Majority Leader who opposes not only the roadmap but also the establishment of a Palestinian state ("The Imperial Bluster of Tom Delay: Dreams and Delusions," Edward Said, 08/20/03) and he suggests that we need to enter a debate about a more precise definition of the terms we use in our language. Hiding in this otherwise plausible - if not laudable - suggestion is that once we define terrorism ("from a multiple points of view") it will suddenly cease to be terrorism if it is carried out by Palestinians and if Israelis are the victims.

Of course, these Arab apologists can freely attack America and American institutions, be vehemently anti-Israel, but they will be the first to disallow criticism of Arab practices expressed in or against Arab countries. After all, their voices are not heard against Arab/Muslim exclusionary customs and lack of tolerance directed at non-Muslims. Yet the asymmetry of the current conflict is well illustrated by the very freedom of religion accorded in the West and the lack of tolerance (and outright hostility) to anything non-Muslim in many Arab/Muslim countries ("City Limits: A mosque in Rome? Sure. A non-Muslim in Mecca? No." Jonathan V. Last, The Wall Street Journal, August 29, 2003).

The Western weakness is manifest in the masochistic tendency to attribute equality to victim and perpetrator. Note a typical quote from an editorial: "restarting the depressingly familiar cycle in which violence begets only more violence, and cruelty begets still more cruelty." ("The cost to salvage peace in Mideast likely too steep," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 8/26/03).

This approach assumes that we are bringing terrorism upon ourselves because we make the terrorists mad at us and if they are mad at us it is "understandable" if they kill. After all, they must have a "legitimate " grievance. The paper completely ignores that these are career terrorists the same way that someone is a serial murderer or a career criminal. While referring to Israelis and Palestinians as "those two parties" the editorial assigns equal responsibility for the "cycle of violence" as if eliminating a terrorist or murdering babies on a bus is somehow on an equal footing. The paper views the cruelty inflicted by the terrorists as equal to the "cruelty" inflicted on the terrorists. What is cruel about eliminating a terrorist? Has this paper gone mad? No, this attitude has prevailed for ages.

After all, killing Israelis must be fulfilling a charitable function for some in Europe if they are not repulsed enough by these murderous acts. They must be waiting for explosions at the UN - which they were quick to repudiate - or on their own soil - before they will consent to doing so. Or they must not see any chances for business in the Arab world. Of course, if the EU does not care about terrorism against Israel it certainly is not moved by the vile anti-Semitic rhetoric emanating form Hamas leaders ("Hamas Leader Rantisi: The False Holocaust - The Greatest of Lies Funded by the Zionists," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Palestinian/Arab Antisemitism, August 27, 2003, No. 558).

If they would have cared they might have a problem embracing Abu Mazen who has a Ph.D. in holocaust denial (and whose premiership now both the US and Israel are disparately trying to salvage). Hamas views the holocaust as "false" and as a "great lie," it claims that the "Nazis received over $100 million from the Zionists" (probably in an attempt to annihilate themselves?), and that "comparing Zionism and Nazism insults the Nazis."

Perhaps it takes (yet another) bus blown up by Palestinian terrorists - who so admire the Nazis -for a respected Israeli military correspondent to question ("Another way of looking at the road map," Ze'ev Schiff, Ha'aretz, August 25, 2003) problems associated with the implementation of the "roadmap." He concludes that three amendments must be made to the roadmap: 1) No transition from one stage of the ‘map' to the next without Israel's agreement - and not the agreement of the Quartet alone; 2) whatever hasn't been implemented in one stage is not to be transferred for implementation in the next stage; and 3) a Palestinian state will be established after the basic problems have been solved.

Problem is that "amendments" 1 and 2 are already implied in the roadmap but they are simply not enforced. First, there is no sense in creating a Palestinian state and then "allowing" Palestinians to "return" to Israel. Second, it should be obvious that if conditions of stage one are not met there is no use in moving to stage two. Third, the roadmap "assumes" that "basic problems" will be solved. Hence the weakness of the roadmap and hence the weakness of the suggested amendments. What is needed is 1) the declaration of the end of conflict; 2) the removal of the demand for the "right of return" as a pre-condition for any negotiations, and 3) absolute end of indoctrinated incitement. Only then and only after a lengthy period of tested proof that these conditions have been met would there be room for negotiations on the future of those who call themselves Palestinian Arabs. This stage should demand that Arab countries, who are responsible for creating and maintaining the refuge problem, have a major role and responsibility for solving it.

This week the voices of rarity were heard again. First, a Lebanese paper came out against the Hizbullah ("Party of God") describing the situation in Lebanon is a "jungle," the Hizbullah as a "state within a state" and blaming the organization for giving Israel an excuse for attacking Lebanon ("Lebanese Daily Decries Hizbullah Activity Against Israel," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Lebanon/Reform in the Arab & Muslim World, August 25, 2003, No. 557).

Then, a London-based Arabic paper attacked the Palestinian leadership ("Editor of London's Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Daily: Arafat and Abu Mazen Must Go!" MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Palestinian Authority, August 29, 2003, No. 56). What is common to these two pieces is not a manifested fascination with and love for Israel but rather a realization that the cause of problems and troubles the Arabs are encountering is internal to themselves and inherent in their own actions - or lack of. It virtually suggest that if they do not cause problems, Israel will neither. That is some departure from the official Arab party line including that espoused by Arab-American advocacy groups and academics.

It is far too early to suggest that such articles will generate a turnaround of attitudes and approaches in the Arab world but they at least represent some voices of reason in the wilderness of terror and extremism. This is an important development because the perspective of the victims is demonstrating a diminished tolerance to playing that role for too long a time. In what should have been one of Tom Friedman's best columns (had he written it) a "memo" was written as a warning to the Palestinians ("Final Notice Before the Termination of Our Relationship," Vanderleun, August 22, 2003) which expresses rather well the sentiments of many in Israel. And indeed in a column in the same vein, there are increasing calls for a clear cut victory over an enemy that must be defined ("Victory is the only option," Caroline B. Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 22, 2003).

Looks like the BBC (the British Biased Corporation), a behemoth that lives off the British taxpayers money and seems to be accountable to itself alone but not to the government or to its constituency is at it again. It attacks the British Government and is increasingly seen as having its long-term unprofessional and unethical bias applied to smear Israel. The uneven-handed manner in which its reporters interview Israeli and Palestinian officials is evident in the questioning and the assumptions that were made following Israeli targeting of Hamas terrorists ("A case of Israel-bashing on the BBC," Dan Kennedy, Boston Phoenix, August 28, 2003). The Israeli officials had to battle the underlying assumption that Israel is responsible for terrorism against its own people while the Palestinian official got away unchallenged.

In the fight against terrorism one of the key obstacles if not just the enemy but how we fight it. Namely are we adhering to values and standards that define who we are as a society of law. The mere expression of concern about the preservation of civil liberties during times of external threat should be commended and encouraged. However, by making civil rights an absolute value that takes no heed of the real threat of terrorism our own safety may be severely jeopardized. As Robert Bork has noted ("Civil Liberties After 9/11: Alarmism puts Americans' safety at risk," The Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2003), the problem does not lie with expressions of genuine concern but with those which are exaggerated or groundless. Dealing in depth with a host of issues such as profiling, tracking of visitors, persecution of suspected terrorists, treatment of captured terrorists and the Terrorism Information Awareness Program, Bork argues that "opponents of the Bush administration's efforts to protect American security have resorted to often shameless misrepresentation and outright scaremongering does not mean those efforts are invulnerable to criticism. They are indeed vulnerable--for not going far enough." Indeed, our security efforts at airports, for example, are still focused on examining luggage but not people.

Furthermore, Bork argues that "As it happens, ‘phantoms of lost liberty' is a perfectly apt description for much of the commentary that has been offered on the administration's initiatives. It is demonstrably true, moreover, that people who recklessly exaggerate the threat to our liberties in the fight against terrorism do give ammunition, moral and otherwise, to our enemies." At the every least they weaken our resolve and ability to provide the necessary safety measures for our protection. This does not mean we need to resort to a communist East-German type regime to obtain security but it also does not mean that in the name of chasing phantoms where they are none we allow ourselves to be shot and not only in the foot.

The problem is further exacerbated by an asymmetric war, the weakness of the enemy becomes his strength simply because it is both incomprehensible and scaring. Our military strength is becoming a weakness because too few in the West are willing to use it effectively. When there is a democracy that is trying to survive against such deadly odds the West itself looks at it as a misbehaving child ("The West's urge to surrender is palpable," Mark Steyn, The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 26, 2003): "At the moment, there's only one hyperpower (the US), one great power (the UK) and one regional power (Australia) that are serious about the threat of Islamist terrorism. There's also Israel, of course, but Israel's disinclination to have its bus passengers blown to smithereens is seen (even by the three staunch musketeers of the Anglosphere) as evidence of its ‘obstinacy' and unwillingness to get the ‘peace process' back ‘on track.'"

So after a speedy war the US is now encountering in Iraq a sort of a war of attrition which does not "sell well" at home. Those pretending to be allies of the US like Saudi Arabia and Egypt directly and indirectly support or tolerate acts of terror and vile anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda. Surely the Arabs who killed Arabs and the Muslims who killed Muslims will find the rhetoric to explain it away. They will blame it on someone (except themselves) like the Americans and the Israelis. It is high time to consider the hateful rhetoric and pay attention to the actions perpetrated and fight terrorism - on all fronts - absolutely relentlessly. Otherwise those who consume hate will continue to export terror.