e-Letter 187: A fence built, an expulsion
that wasn't, and a 2-year old 9-11
September 17, 2003
After sipping coffee with the rulers of Saudi
Arabia and the influential clergy in Iraq, Tom Friedman decided it is time to
smell the coffee in Israel as well. He is absolutely correct in suggesting
that suicide bombing is a danger not only to Israel but also to the US.
However, his diagnosis of the settlements as the "problem" is erroneous - and
unwarranted - particularly when it appears that it gives grounds to terrorism
as having a just cause ("Breaking
Death's Grip," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, September 11,
2003). Friedman surely knows that giving up the settlements will not stop the
appetite for terrorism.
Then he drove to see the security fence Israel is trying to build. While his
concerns for the future if Israel are commendable, his arguments are again
untenable. Building a fence is not determining final boundaries and will not
create an Arab majority that he so fears. Far stronger and longer fences have
been torn down (i.e, the Berlin Wall) but what is so disconcerting about his
writing is that he does not seem to offer an alternative to protecting Israeli
lives which are constantly threatened by waves of human weapons ("One
Wall, One Man, One Vote," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times,
September 14, 2003). Yet others actually do see the fence as a helpful
defense against these murderers ("The
missed opportunity," Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, September
12, 2003 ).
Palestinian murder and hate is not directed at Israel only from the "occupied
territories" but increasingly Arab summer camps and Arab schools within Israel
teach to hate Israel and love Palestine ("Teaching
Israeli Arabs to love Palestine," Itamar Marcus, The Jerusalem Post, Sep.
11, 2003).
This is important for one reason, namely, that when the Palestinians will see
fit they will turn a fifth of the Israeli population against the country they
are citizens of.
By the same token, Americans and other westerners
ought to pay closer attention to the hate spewing from Palestinian quarters as
for years now it has not been directed at Israel alone. The more aid the US
is giving the Palestinians and the more support it offers to the notion of a
Palestinian state the US is being "rewarded" by institutionalized hate
expressed in articles, cartoons, and official religious sermons ("Palestinian
Authority Hatred of USA Continues," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin,
September 11, 2003).
And such threats are not coming only from Palestinians. The Syrians are
working over time producing calls glorifying the culture of death and making
it conducive to commit further acts of terror against Israel and other targets
("Syrian
Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Glorifies Martyrs and Martyrdom," MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Syria/Jihad and Terrorism Studies, September 10, 2003, No.
570).
This is important because the future conflicts and
future wars can already be traced to the undercurrent of hate now directed at
Israel from within and against the US from those who receive aid and political
support from Uncle Sam ("The
War Didn't Begin on 9/11," Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, September 11,
2003). It is just not clear that the west may be able to stomach the
magnitude of the threats to come ("Are
You a 'September 10 American'?" Lawrence F. Kaplan, The Wall Street
Journal, September 11, 2003).
So two years have passed by since the most atrocious terrorist attack in
history. Yet the same world that does not question the legitimacy of pursuing
terrorists, and those who support them, actively advocates
a double standard when
terrorism hits "someone else." The European foreign ministers "struggled" to
finally declare Hamas a terrorist organization but virtually everyone from the
US, Europe, the UN and of course the chorus of traditional Arab supporters
vehemently objects to handling one of the world's arch-terrorists - Yassir
Arafat.
True to their colors, Arab leaders from Israel,
including members of parliament, made their customary pilgrimage to Arafat's
"besieged" headquarters offering very vocal support including expressing great
pleasure at Syria's deceleration of support to Arafat (not often heard from
Syrian corners). Even Israeli Jewish support was offered by Uri Avneri, a
narcissist former member of parliament, to protect Arafat with his "own
body." Even within the security establishment in Israel there is
understanding of the cost and befits of a potential expulsion/killing of
Arafat with many suggesting that it could do more harm than good. One of
course could ask what is so good about the current situation where human
weapons blow themselves up to kill as many civilians as possible.
Yet a striking editorial in the Jerusalem Post has
compared the current situation to the 1967 blockade on Israel which resulted
in Israel's decision to defend itself (in what is now known as the victorious
Six Day War) and to the Iraqi nuclear threat that resulted in Israel bombing
the French-built Iraqi nuclear facility. The Post's editorial unabashedly
calls for killing Arafat who is identified as a major obstacle for security
and safety not only peace in the area ("Enough,"
Editorial: The Jerusalem Post, Sep. 10, 2003).
And it is more than getting rid of Arafat that is on the table. As one
commentator suggests, the lessons of the last decade is not to negotiate with
terrorists ("Israel
Should Never Again Negotiate Peace With Terrorists: The havoc that followed
the famous 1993 handshake bears a bitter lesson," Yossi Klein Halevi, The
Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2003).
Indeed what used to be Israel's policy in the ‘50s
and ‘60s gave way to false hopes that have backfired (pun intended). The US
does not desire to negotiate with terrorists as long as they are perceived as
anti-American terrorists. Such a status is acquire only after directly causing
harm to America on its own soil as in the case of the 9-11 atrocity. Indeed
the many smaller scale atrocities against the US such as kidnaping and killing
American diplomats, hijacking and bombing planes, killing American citizens by
pushing them to the sea were not perceived as anti-American "enough" to
warrant the "uncompromising" approach (at least as of yet).
Assuming that a wild beast who lives on eating his
pray will somehow turn into a docile vegetarian has no factual or historical
support. Not understanding this is the best recipe for the beat's next dinner
(cook, waiter, and owner, included).
© 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.
* * *