e

Prior to the attack on Iraq demands came out from various Arab/Muslim corners that the US and its allies should not attack on the holy days of the Ramadan. Yet the Arabs had no hesitation in attacking Israel in 1973 on the holiest Jewish day of Yom Kippur; last year terrorists attacked during Passover night, and this year a Palestinian terrorist ("militant," "gunman") knocked on the door of an Israeli family celebrating the 5764 Jewish New Year, murdered a 7 months old baby and a 30-year old guest of the family before being shot by guards. The terrorist was released recently from an Israeli prison and the organization he belonged to - Palestinian Islamic Jihad took "responsibility" for the terror attack ("Two Israelis, including baby girl, killed in West Bank attack," JPOST.COM Staff, September 28, 2003).

Last week was still abuzz about the need for Arafat's ousting. On one hand he is declared irrelevant for making peace and on the other he is rightfully blamed for not doing enough to stop terrorism and actually for instigating it himself. ("Arafat must be stopped," Mortimer B. Zuckerman, US New and World Report, 9/29/03). And thus because of the renewed attention to and focus on Arafat he has thrived on being thrown into the limelights again ("Arafat's Bonus Round: Emboldened by Israel's threats, the Palestinian leader is gobbling up power — and vexing the U.S.," Romesh Ratnesar, Time, Sep. 29, 2003): "For now, however, Arafat seems too enthralled with the plaudits he's getting for obstinacy to even contemplate compromise."

Arafat does not simply sit idle on his murderous laurels. As a true leader of a criminal gang he sends his wife to live and shop in Paris boutiques, he is amassing millions to his private pockets or in slash funds under his ultimate control. Evidence to this effect has surfaced from no less a source than the International Monetary Fund report ("Audit: Arafat diverted millions in public money; $900 million moved to special account controlled by leader," Sam F. Ghattas, The Charlotte Observer, Sep. 21, 2003).

Some call for killing Arafat outright ("Why Not Kill Arafat?" Joel Mowbray, Townhall.com, September 18, 2003) while others suggest to expose him to his constituencies as a Muslim deviant who is a homosexual and a pedophile ("Outing Arafat," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, September 22, 2003). Farah assumes that this fact is not known among Arab circles and is asking for volunteers to translate such reports about Arafat to Arabic. However, it is highly likely that these facts are known about him and given the mind set of his followers the publicity about this will only elevate him to higher level as a "victim" or martyr whose character is defamed by infidels.

Farah is referring to a damning report issued by a former ranking Romanian intelligence officer who worked with Arafat under a KGB plot to build him as a national leader ("The KGB's Man," Ion Mihai Pacepa, The Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2003). More than this report is damning to Arafat and to the now defunct former Soviet Union, it is a damning document to the gullibility of Western leaders, among them former presidents Carter and Clinton, for promoting Arafat under a script written by the KGB and played out by Arafat.

Whether exposed, tarnished, or killed, the question of Arafat's removal remains rhetorical ("Should He Go? Violence is all Arafat knows. Without a change in leadership, the Mideast will never see peace." Efraim Karsh, Los Angeles Times, September 21, 2003): "Arafat has failed his people, sacrificing them to a bloody, devastating and unnecessary war. Now Bush has presented an alternative vision. But it cannot be implemented with Arafat in place. Just as the creation of democratic societies in Germany and Japan after World War II necessitated a purge of the existing political elites and re-education of the entire populace, so the Palestinians deserve a profound structural reform that will sweep Arafat and his corrupt Palestinian Authority from power, free West Bankers and Gazans from the stifling PLO grip, eradicate the endemic violence from Palestinian life and teach the virtues of peaceful coexistence with Israel. This is certain to be a difficult and protracted process, one requiring sustained international guidance and support. But if history tells us anything, it is that any other alternative is an assured recipe for disaster."

The most important sentence in Karsh's article is the one about the removal of not only Arafat but his entire corrupt Palestinian Authority regime. But that might not be enough. The support for terrorism and specifically suicide bombing is rampant in Palestinian society. No corrupt regime could have had its way without such support and hence lies the difficult problem of coping with such malignant attitudes that have permeated all Palestinian society to the extent that NGOs and civic groups offer such sound support to terror and death ("PA Society's Universal Support for Suicide Bombers," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, September 24, 2003).

Israel's enemies are plural. It is several Arab states, Iran (which is non-Arab), and numerous terrorist organizations (sponsored by and in the service of rogue states). One of those is the Hezbollah ("Party of God") in Lebanon which openly admits it is using suicide bombing as a strategy to defeat Israel militarily and they believe they are winning ("Hezbollah's Success," David Ignatius, The Washington Post, September 23, 2003): "This stark assessment makes clear that suicide bombings are part of a very deliberate strategy. They aren't driven by poverty, neglect, irrational fanaticism or the other factors Westerners often cite. They are motivated by a belief that killing Israelis will bring military victory." Indeed, they perceive terrorism to be working for them reaping great dividends for fairly little investment against powers they have no chance at beating in "normal" combat ("Why Terrorism Works," Irwin Graulich, American Daily, 09/05/03).

Despite the obvious declaration by Israel's enemies that their wish is to destroy Israel (and beyond that America and the West) it appears that some want to simply ignore it and stay "even -handed" as if that is in accordance with US policy and tradition ("Road map rubble," Arnold Beichman, Washington Times, September 24, 2003). As the rhetoric of the election year escalates some are highly critical of unfounded statements made by some political candidates and stress that "no matter what Israel gives or pledges to give, there will be no peace now or in the foreseeable future because neither Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or, most visibly, Osama bin Laden will permit Israel, a democratic, modern state to exist. In other words, ‘peace negotiations' are not about giving up the Settlements or some other fictitious issue. They are about Israel's existence."

Yet it is increasingly understood that these organizations and countries are not only the enemies of Israel but they pose a tremendous danger to the rest of the world. Syria's stockpiling of bio-chemical weapons, its interest in "peaceful nuclear energy" and the possibility that much of Saddam's WMD are stashed in Syria have elevated this country to a "respected" slot of danger spots ("Syria-ous Problem," Peter Brookes, The New York Post, September 22, 2003). And Saudi Arabia is reported as wanting to acquire Pakistani nuclear weapons to have its own nuclear bomb. Not a heartwarming development.

The top slot though is undoubtedly occupied by Iran whose leaders have openly declared that as soon as they have nuclear weapons they will use them. There is little doubt that Iran is developing nuclear weapons not for its own defense but rather for hostile/aggressive intentions on the part of its clerical leadership. Iran will not cooperate with international bodies and at best it will use deception to dupe these organizations into a false sense of cooperation. The best hope against these Iranians intentions is an internal revolution which will bring about the demise of the clerical leadership along with a responsible government there ("How to stop Iran's radical clerics from adopting the nuclear option," Dr. Assad Homayoun, WORLD TRIBUNE.COM, September 25, 2003). The big question still remains: which will come first, the promising regime change or the Iranian Muslim bomb?

It is perhaps appropriate then to suggest a refined terminology to address the linguistic usage which amounts mostly to having misnomers guide our understanding of current realities. I have tried it earlier by calling suicide bombers "sui-genocidal bombers" or simply "human weapons." Rosett goes a little further to address several other terms ("New Word Order: It's time to revamp the language of diplomacy and war." Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2003) suggesting "... that one requirement for this ( a new world order) is a newword order, a constant effort to better define the world we now live in, to enlist language not to cover up the real dangers, but to help us face and defeat them."

In this context it has been argued that while Israel has a number of options at hand its current policy is optimizing the best reaction in its diplomatic and military arsenal ("Why Israel's policy is far from wrong," Barry Rubin, The Jerusalem Post, Sep. 23, 2003): "Fight the Palestinian-imposed war, trying to minimize threats to Israeli citizens, and capture or punish terrorists. The aim is to show the Palestinians that they cannot win, that terror will not intimidate Israelis into surrendering; inflict costs that will encourage the other side to implement a real cease-fire." And this approach debunks other options such as more and larger military operations (including killing Arafat), a unilateral Israeli withdrawal, or bringing in an international force. While agreeably any strategy is fraught with difficulties and subject to the laws of unintended consequences, the fact remains that what Israel is currently finding itself in is three bloody years at a devastating cost to its people and its economy. Moreover, Israel may have to utilize the military solution (including killing Arafat) the same way that the US is fighting in Iraq or against terror in Afghanistan what with the Iranian nuclear threat or the growing intimidation from terrorist organizations Iran sponsors.

Despite the lack of convincing evidence some renowned experts on the Middle East strongly believe that democracy is possible there and see the lack of it as evidence that it threatens the current regimes and leaders who are doing their very best to oppose it ("Lewis of Arabia: A visit with America's greatest Middle East sage," Tunku Varadarajan, The Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2003).

Yet, international efforts - led by the US - to democratize Iraq and bring it to the fold of civilization are constantly undermined by those who call themselves allies as well as by the UN. While it is too soon to talk about a grassroots campaign to bail out of the UN, various voices are heard as very critical of the UN. In this context a variation of the address President Bush made at the United Nations General Assembly (September 23, 2003) is offered by a writer who thought that the president should have focused on the UN itself ("Bush UN Policy Address On Iraq," Irwin Graulich, MichNews.com, Sep 25, 2003) suggesting it is more of the problem than the solution.

The risks for the US are not only off-shore. Following years of abashed abuse practiced by Mideast Studies departments and faculty, Campus Watch was established to draw attention to this abuse and it now celebrates its first anniversary. Despite vile criticism from those exact same critics who dish out more rhetoric than they can take, Campus watch offers a valuable service to those (students, faculty, administrators, sponsors) who want to know what is being done in these departments under the guise of "scholarship ("Campus Watch," Jonathan Calt Harris, FrontPageMagazine.com | September 23, 2003).

Indeed, the politicization of these academic departments is not merely the result of misguided or naive professors and students. It is more often the result of a carefully orchestrated campaign of funding and endorsing activities that are aimed at voicing the Arab view and agenda. By the same manner in which scholarship is abused in the name of academic freedom to promote an Arab agenda (coupled with an anti-American and anti-Israel stance), religious freedom is being abused in the US (and in the US military) to a level that some see as posing a risk to national security. The spate of arrests last week of clergy, interpreters, and other military personnel, on charges of spying, is understandably seen by some as sings of having a fifth column in the country ("Fifth column II," Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Townhall.com, September 22, 2003 ).

The attrition of the last three years is starting to show its signs in Israeli society as well. Last week a sonic political boom was heard in Israel when 27 pilots announced their refusal to fly missions over Palestinian territories under the guise of not willing to give a hand to collateral damage. As it turns out, only 9 of those pilots are on (active) reserve duty and while they all have flying as a common denominator, this looked more like the organization of a social movement with very clear political aims. Indeed, the pilots went as far as suggesting that as long as Israel is "occupying" the territories it is inviting attacks against her ("Israel's Rebel Fliers Grounded before Takeoff," DEBKAfile Special Analysis, September 25, 2003).

Israel as a democracy has experienced far worse political statements in its history. Indeed, paper, and airwaves have tolerated statements that if made in Arab countries they would have resulted in incarceration and death. That is indeed one of the strengths of Israel as a democracy but it comes with a price. This particular public argument is political in nature. If the pilots would have been acting as members of a political party (and some are) expressing opinions that are then brought to a public debate - it is one thing. But for the pilots to suggest they "do not do windows" has injected the military into a political turmoil that confuses between being a citizen and being a soldier. The initial reaction has been highly negative and at this time the (reserve) pilots have been grounded - one of them has already retracted ("Signatory of pilots' letter says regrets signing petition," Amos Harel and Gideon Alon, Haaretz Correspondents, and Haaretz Service, 09-28-2003) - and it appears they may be dismissed from the air force and even court-martialed.