e-Letter 190: Saturday (lunch massacre) at
Maxim's
October 5, 2003
In Paris at
Maxim's you
can get fine French gastronomy products including champagne, wines, sweets,
foie gras, caviar, frozen and fresh foods, and cigars. The ambience is classy
and elegant and extremely expensive (you can also find this restaurant in New
York, Mexico, Monte-Carlo and China). In Haifa, Israel, at Maxim's (not part
of the french chain) you can get fine Middle Eastern products including,
humus, tehina, salads, grilled lamb, beef, turkey, fries, excellent beer and
great deserts. The ambience is popular, folksy and very affordable and there
is a great view of the Mediterranean which is only feet away. The patrons of
the one in Haifa met their atrocious faith brought about by a lunatic female
bomber who wanted to have a choice of her future husband from among those who
committed suicide before her and avenge the death that her terrorists
relatives have met. In the process she took the lives of at least 19 people
and injured more than 50 ("Suicide
bombing at Haifa restaurant," JPOST.COM Staff, Oct. 4, 2003).
In this latest massacre that Palestinians
perpetrated against Israelis they have annihilated three entire families and
murdered several Arabs as well. Israel has thus far reacted by bombing a
house in the Gaza strip where Arafat stays when he visits (not since he was
placed under virtual house arrest in Ramallah) and bombed a terrorist training
camp in Syria which the Arabs where quick to denounce because it was a
"refugee camp." Not surprisingly the Egyptians quickly denounced the attack -
"against their sister country" - and visiting German Chancellor there added
his condemnation of the attack as "unacceptable." Yes, yesterday many European
foreign ministers have issued the perfunctory "disgust" about the terrorist
attack at Maxim's but condemning Israel today renders their disgust less than
genuine.
The terror attack at Maxim's continues to draw
attention to the future of Arafat. Will he be killed, expelled, isolated
(further), put in jail, or tried as a war/common criminal? It is sensible to
assume that something will (or better say should) be done about Arafat.
However, because of his symbolic stature in the Arab world this kind of public
debate detracts attention from the fact that with (some) end to Arafat there
will not necessarily be an end to terrorism. Just observe the zeal with which
Arab foreign ministers defended Palestinian terrorism at the 58th annual UN
General Assembly ("Arab
FMs at UN defend Palestinian terrorists," Melissa Radler, The Jerusalem
Post, Sep. 30, 2003).
The importance of Arafat as a perpetrator,
instigator, and fomenter of terrorism is no longer the "best hidden secret" of
the Palestinians. This is well illustrated by his personal glorification of
former Egyptian president Nasser ("Arafat
On the 33rd Anniversary of the Death of Egyptian President Abd Al-Nasser: 'The
Warrior-President... is With Us in Self-Sacrifice in Battle'" MEMRI,
Special Dispatch Series - October 2, 2003, No. 581),
or by his sponsorship of a soccer tournament where the competing teams have
adopted names of known terrorists to glorify, immortalize them and thus
sanctify suicide bombings("Arafat and 13 PA Leaders Sponsor Soccer Tournament
Honoring Terrorists," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, September 30, 2003).
Yet, the rhetoric and actions of the Palestinian
authority illustrate that after Arafat's disappearance we can expect more of
the same. Examine how instead of issuing rhetoric indicative of yearning for
genuine peace, the PA is gloatingly and obsessively celebrating the entry into
the 4th year of violence ("The Palestinian Authority Celebrates the Start of
the Fourth Year of War," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, October 2, 2003).
At the same time other official Egyptian sources,
the clergy, continue to issue the traditional inflammatory rhetoric
justifying, legitimizing, sanctifying, and glorifying jihad and suicide
bombings as well as calling on Muslims in the US armed services not to fight
their Muslim brothers ("The
New Egyptian Mufti - Dr. Sheikh 'Ali Gum'a: Opinions About Jihad, Supporting
Suicide Bombings, and Forbidding Muslims in the U.S. Military From Fighting
Other Muslims," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Egypt/Jihad and Terrorism
Studies, October 1, 2003, No. 580).
Perhaps the Egyptians are preparing an exit
strategy in case the concept of International Jihad fails but the fact remains
that the Arab/Muslim masses are far more susceptible to hateful preaching than
to philosophical and historical arguments about the significance of
Jerusalem. Thus far the clerics are winning. In Pakistan, schools
indoctrinate students for world jihad ("The
'university of holy war,'" Haroon Rashid, BBC News, October 2, 2003). In
India, a key Muslim leader (of the very large Muslim minority there) supports
the 9-11 atrocity, Bin Laden, and opposes the US ("Imam
Bukhari backs 9/11 attacks," S. Balakrishnan, Times of India, October 4,
2003).
The Saudis continue to spread their fundamentalist
Wahhabi Islamism in the US - and elsewhere - ("Spreading
Saudi Fundamentalism in U.S.: Network of Wahhabi Mosques, Schools, Web Sites
Probed by FBI," Susan Schmidt, Washington Post, October 2, 2003) with some
of its agents literally penetrating well into the armed forces ("Terrorism:
Islamic Clerics at Guantanamo," Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff and Andrew
Murr, Newsweek, Oct. 6, 2003) while some in the US administration seem to
continue to be politically correct about it taking their time recognizing the
seriousness of the situation ("Pentagon
Jihadis," Daniel Pipes, Jewish World Review, Sept. 29, 2003).
And in the meantime the operatives who seek to
establish a new Muslim caliphate - the new Reich of a 1000 years - are
marching on with their terror strategy but perhaps with one difference: they
seem to have adopted a phased-approach to conquering the US and the west
rather than dueling directly with the US as Al-Qaida seemed to be doing a
couple of years ago ("Al-Qaida's
new strategy," Amir Taheri, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 2, 2003). But there
is a word of caution to those thinking the US is now safe: "Al-Zawahiri's new
strategy does not mean that there will be no terror attacks inside the US or
in Western Europe. The global Islamist movement consists of numerous groups
with independent sources of finance and strategies. They were never totally
controlled by al-Qaida and are less so today if only because al-Zawahiri and
his gang are forced to spend the bulk of their energies avoiding capture."
While the US is not shy of expressing its
displeasure from any criticism of its foreign policy - particularly with
respect to its fight against terrorism - it repeatedly chastises Israel for
taking offensive measures against terrorism (such as incursion to Palestinian
towns to pursue terrorists) or defensive measures (such as building a
protective fence). The latest salvo of the State Department is the threat
that it will deduct the cost of the fence from the loan guarantees to Israel
("U.S.
eyes Israeli aid penalties," Nicholas Kralev, The Washington Times,
October 1, 2003).
While it may be only one limited move in a complex
political chess game that signals to the Arabs US displeasure with Israel but
not necessarily disapproval of building the fence itself (which is after all a
step Israel can/should make as a sovereign nation) the message that is sent to
Israel and to others who fight terrorism (such as India) is that the US is in
the first class of fighting terrorism but Israel and others are flying coach.
Eventually this would hurt the US itself in that the synergy of fighting
terrorism will not develop to its full potential given brakes the US applies
on its most natural allies.
It is more than disturbing that some high level US
officials chose the meeting of Arab representatives - U.S.-Arab Economic Forum
in Detroit - to criticize Israel on the settlements to curry commercial favors
with them ("Senior
U.S. diplomats press Israel on settlements," Zvi Zrahiya, Haaretz,
September 30, 2003). It is rather telling that "Powell's 35-minute speech
was interrupted by applause just twice, in a city with one of the largest Arab
and Islamic populations outside the Middle East. One was when Powell
reinforced the call for an end to Israeli settlement activity and the other
when he urged an end to the opening of ‘unauthorized outposts' by Israel."
Given that Powell spoke against terrorism and that was not followed by even
polite applause is also very telling and disturbing.
This point is well illustrated by the pundit-on-paid-duty at the New York
Times who is willing to call France
Our Enemy (for
"offenses" far less serious that what the Palestinians do daily to Israel -
after all the French export to the US Evian
and Perrier and do not
send suicide bombers over here) but expects Israel to give up territory and
dismantle settlements because obviously in his mind that is what is causing
terrorism ("Passions
and Interests," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, October 2, 2003).
The Atlanta paper went as far as re-titling his column to "Next move toward
Middle East peace is up to Israelis" but published one letter to the editor
that called the columnists to task for suggesting that "Arafat poses no
strategic threat to Israel" ("Evidence
is clear; Arafat a threat"). Perhaps Friedman was blinded by drinking too
much Evian and Perrier.
And his editors may have been drinking from the
same sources given their position on the settlements - unless Friedman wrote
it himself ("The
Cost of Israeli Settlements," Editorial, The New York Times, October 3,
2003).
Secretary of State Powell has at least paid lip service to the need to curb
terror against Israel but the NYTimes wants Israel to unilaterally take steps
"towards peace" and apparently none of these steps include defensive measures
or a call on the perpetrators of terror to stop it. Have they rehired their
ill-reputed scandalous writers or do they still have a few more skeletons
hiding under their desks? Or is the NYTimes preparing to write a lengthy
obituary column about Israel?
A far less expected source of support for the fence came out of England with a
positive editorial ("Ring-fencing
security: A barrier causing division within Israel," The Times, October
02, 2003) that missed only on one point: the Palestinians do not have a
country but the editorial referred to them as if they do ("The new Prime
Minister must take the initiative against terrorism if he is not to see his
country irrevocably split").
And back at the NYTimes some voices of reason are
still abound. Another commentator actually describes the circumstances of the
fence in far more practical and realistic terms than the lofty false
ideologies that guide Friedman and his editorial colleagues ("The
Arafat Barrier," William Safire, The New York Times, October 1, 2003):
"Israelis are bracing for another attack by Arafat's commanding faction. In
its aftermath, Israel's decision to extend the fence to defensible positions
will be made." Indeed that wave of attacks was seen at Maxim and Israel has
some 30 "hot alerts" of (still) live suicide bombers ticking out there.
Israel is not only terrorized by homicidal maniacs. The media in Europe and
Canada is fiercely biased against Israel with pro-Israel stances being rare
exceptions ("Media
bias and the Middle East," Leonard Asper, National Post, October 1, 2003).
In the US a longstanding anti-Israel bias is exposed again by a media watchdog
group ("On
the Oslo anniversary, NPR as usual," Andrea Levin, The Jerusalem Post,
Oct. 1, 2003):
"National Public Radio can't seem to help itself - whatever the Middle East
subject, whatever the day, anti-Israel bias percolates. The week marking
Oslo's 10th anniversary was typical. There were no reviews of the failed peace
effort hailed so enthusiastically for years by the network, no look at Yasser
Arafat's central role in the violence that shadows the lives of millions of
Israelis and Palestinians." And this media is often anti-American
as well to the extent that one talented writer names them "Our
Media Jihadis" (Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, October 4, 2003).
Approximately 30 Israelis went to Arafat's
headquarters in Ramallah to offer themselves as human shields to protect him
from any potential harm ("Israeli
'human shields' arrive in Ramallah to guard Arafat," JPOST.COM Staff, Oct.
5, 2003). Perhaps when we will see 30 Palestinians volunteering to serve as
human shield in Israel we will have a sense that the culture of death has been
added some semblance of civilization but until that happens the actions of
such fringe groups is more than questionable for its wisdom, intent, and
efficacy.
While not as blatant as the useful idiots who
threaten to serve as human shields, the "pilot's letter" in Israel last week
has certainly thrown Israel into a turbulence precisely because it came from
unexpected quarters. Some have suggested that the real debate is whether this
act/letter makes Israel stronger (or weaker). But most of the commentary
focused around the letter itself. A scathing editorial ("Hijackers
in the cockpit," The Jerusalem Post, Sep. 29, 2003) referred to the pilots
as aristocrats who abuse democracy by mixing politics together with military
operations. Others point out that the long tradition of introspection ought
to place a hold on self-bashing ("The
moral paradox," Barbara Sofer, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 1, 2003): "The
line between self-criticism and Israel-bashing is a narrow one, and in times
of national danger we have to be scrupulous in not erring on the bashing side
and abetting the enemy. Indeed, there are dangers in being Isaiah wannabes."
And a legal opinion clearly points out why the
pilots are wrong (not in their opinion but in the format they selected to
express it). Accepting that their motives and intentions may be innocent (and
not all accept that assumption) the end result was mixing politics with
military operations ("A
clearly political refusal to serve," Ze'ev Segal, Haaretz, September 30,
2003): "The political views of the signatories are clearly evident in the
letter, notwithstanding the fact that all IAF personnel fully understand that
these grounds are irrelevant to the execution of their missions. The
signatories' sweeping objections to any attack on civil population centers,
even though this is certainly not being done to harm civilians but is directed
at military targets that happen to be situated in population centers,
constitutes the difference between their refusal to fly missions and what
would be legitimate objections to carrying out a blatantly unlawful order."
Now the public in Israel is starting to comment on
air force operations ("not enough," "too easy," "this they will do but what is
really needed they will not") and it is hard to convince anyone that much good
is coming out of public discussion of air force operations. The opposite is
the case. With the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War coming up another
myth has penetrated Israeli public discussion. Namely, that as the Egyptians
"had to have a victory" in order to arrive at peace with Israel (a proposition
now debunked by miliary analysts) the Palestinians also need a victory in
order to agree to peace with Israel ("Losing
for Peace," Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 2, 2003). This
ridiculous conception suggests that Israel has to give this victory to the
Palestinians in order to make peace with them. No one dreams of awarding an
Olympic competitor a gold medal for losing to another competitor on purpose.
Achievement is rewarded, chivalry may only garner sympathy for sportsmanship.
Yet Israel is clearly expected to win for sportsmanship and lose the medal (of
existence).
One ray of hope in the terrible predicament that
Israel finds itself was offered this past week from an "unusual suspect."
India, which for years has distanced itself from Israel by being part of the "non-aligned
block" is starting to emerge from it by pursuing its own national
interests in an ever-changing world and now is increasingly seeing the value
of cooperating with Israel for two main reasons. First, both are seen as
victims of Arab/Muslim terrorism and second, India sees the direct value that
Israeli technology brings to the table in terms of strategic advantage ("The
long shadow of Israel," Vinay Shankar, The Asianage, 10/2/2003).
Therefore, the wasted efforts on diplomatic-speak
such as the roadmap (for "peace"), fence ("objection to building it"),
settlements ("too costly"), or even the term "peace" ("Israel has to pay for
it but not the Palestinians") are only making the fight against terrorism more
difficult not only for Israel but eventually for the US as well. Pandering to
hostile Arabs in the Detroit economic summit may have resulted in a few
contracts/investments but has also demonstrated that the US is willing to give
in on its principles of fighting terrorism as well as illustrated that
fighting terrorism is not a welcomed concept when Arabs are concerned. Indeed
this is a far larger challenge looming over the horizons than catching Saddam
Hussein, Bin Laden, and Arafat combined and it proves that even if they will
be caught terrorism will be far from defeated. Only an unconditional,
unwavering, and comprehensive pursuit of terrorism on all fronts and with all
allies will be successful.
© 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.