e

A bomb shell exploded in the political arena in Israel last weekend. News broke out that a group of Israelis and Palestinians reached an agreement to be "officially" signed in Geneva on November 4 (Rabin's assassination day) - and since changed - for a peace accord between Israel and the future Palestinian state. The bomb shell was in the form of a reported "breakthrough" where Palestinians have "given up" their claim for the "right of return," a known euphemism for the destruction of Israel ("New peace draft includes end to Palestinian right of return," Haaretz Service and Agencies, October 12, 2003).

The ink has not even dried up on newspaper reports and a Palestinians participant (a former PA minister) denied that "the right" was given up and initial tones of severe criticism from Israeli officials were heard ("Justice Minister Lapid calls Geneva accord 'failed agreement,'" Mazal Mualem, Haaretz, 13/10/2003). Later in the week and in weekend interviews the Israeli architect of the "Geneva understanding" was discussing a ceiling of 40,000 returning Palestinians and a Palestinian participant was discussing 150,000. The Israeli defended his Palestinian colleague by stating that he was not lying it was just "his interpretation" of the understanding.

Interestingly enough the participating Israelis hailed the agreement (reached over two and a half years of negotiations) as highly democratic and as one that augers well for the future of Israel as a democracy. Yet the same group of individuals have carried out these discussions with the enemy as if the enemy was not carrying out atrocities against Israelis during all this time. Moreover, the Israelis consisted of fringe politicians who were rejected by their own parties and who failed miserably in national elections. These are the same politicians who brought upon Israel the Oslo Accords which resulted in a hollow declaration of peace by Yasser Arafat followed by a menacing violent strategy to destroy Israel by terrorism.

As the week progressed Israeli officials have started to tone down their criticism of the initiative for at least one reason; namely, it had too much public attention and thus has acquired disproportional saliency and unwarranted importance. Both Israeli and US government officials have clung to the roadmap as the way to proceed and dismissed the initiative as a non-starter. Experts continued to criticize the program as illegal and anti-democratic ("Perle rips new plan for peace," Paul Martin, The Washington Times, October 15, 2003). But as politics have it in the area here is yet another twist: the US government extended official invitations to several of the Palestinian participants to travel to the US with Israeli participants likely to follow ("'Geneva Accord' Palestinians called to US for talks," Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 19, 2003). Confused? Then expect even more confusion to follow.

On one hand one might suggest that this initiative reflects Israel's genuine yearning for peace even when under siege. But that is a given that is reaffirmed with every poll and it is contrasted with polls of Palestinians who express in similar proportion the exact opposite: their support of terrorism and their desire to take all of Israel. And that is where the problem lies: The Palestinians have masterfully harnessed this Israeli yearning for peace into a shrewd political game of forging "agreements" that they readily (and at times not so readily) sign but have a proven knack for not keeping a letter of any word in it. Thus they have managed to lit a fierce public debate in Israel clearly hoping to achieve a split in the public spirit that will end up weakening the existing government and tear Israeli society apart. These negotiations are wrong for Israel for two reasons: first, negotiations imply that Israel is incapable of coping with the violence against it. This sends a message of weakness that is further exploited by the Palestinians and their Arab (and other) supporters. Second, these negotiations ignore (at best) or even reward (at worst) terrorism perpetrated against Israel.

It appears as if when two kids are fighting their respective siblings are having lunch some place discussing what would it take to stop the fight and preventing it from resuming (except that Israel is an only child with one distant protective relative) but without consulting the fighting parties themselves. Perhaps a better metaphor is that of the doomsday cult. It claims the world will be destroyed at a given time and when it is not, instead of their belief shaken, it only becomes stronger, hoping that the world will end at their next prediction. Like gambling, it is addictive and irrational. But in the case of Israel it is not merely a passive belief that has no effect on the end of the world or even on the belief in it coming; rather, it helps bring the destruction of Israel closer to reality by playing into the hands of those who tirelessly declare it as their aim.

Often one hears the argument that Israel is a strong country, the strongest military power in the Middle East, and a world power in high-tech. Yet repeatedly Israel is vulnerable to violent attacks by its surrounding countries (and Palestinian terrorists) and by those who 55 years after its establishment still question its right to exist and its very legitimacy. The latest one, under the guise what of what passes for scholarship, is an NYU professor who supports a one state ("bi-ethnic") solution which curiously enough was the PLO's mantra in the 60s and 70s as a euphuism to swallow and then destroy Israel ("'Jewish State' Has Become an Anachronism," Tony Judt, Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2003).

A rejoinder was offered on the same pages ("Only the Naive or the Malicious Would Urge a Binational Israel," Yossi Klein Halevi, Los Angeles Times, October 10, 2003) raising the same points and asking: "...why Jewish nationhood, alone among all forms of nationhood, is so problematic and distasteful. Is Israeli democracy, however flawed, a greater moral blight to humanity than the more perfect autocracies that surround it? Not that a binational state isn't a lovely dream. But if we're already dreaming, then let's imagine a world without states. I would be happy to live in such a world. And that's about as realistic a hope as imagining that Arafat will create a binational democratic state in Palestine."

A more in-depth analysis repudiated the professor's background as well as his attack on Zionism and on "Israel as being an anachronism" (David Frum's Diary, Oct. 14, 2003: the Alternative). Frum argues that while Judt, of European origin and influence, declares himself as being against anti-Semitism his views may be liberal but are genocidal nonetheless: "His intentions are high, his conscience is clear, he hates nobody. His solution, however, is one that would expose millions of Jews – and not just those living in the Middle East – to persecution, expropriation, political oppression, exile, and murder. We cannot describe this outlook as anti-semitism. We need some new term. Here's my nomination: genocidal liberalism."

Indeed, this genocidal liberalism flourishes against a backdrop of an increase in outright hatred of Jews and explicit rhetoric as well as action against Jews ("The New Anti-semitism: WND probe reveals worldwide explosion of Jew-hatred," Whistleblower Magazine, WorldNetDaily.com, October 14, 2003) to the extent that "This is the scariest time for Jews since the Holocaust." Genocidal liberalism simply masks these sentiments and transfigures them from being anti-Jewish to being anti-Israel. Israel is constantly a target for those who want something "better" or "different" even when evidence for such models in the Middle East is hard to come by. One has yet to see an effort to suggest that Japan is an anachronism, or France for that matter.

It turns out that it funded anti-Israel activists in South Africa who turned the UN conference on racism to a stage for vitriolic attacks against Israel ("Anti-Israel activists at Durban were funded by Ford Foundation," Edwin Black, JTA, Oct. 16 , 2003). This is a foundation that disburses about $500 million a year and while it is not easy to completely identify the total amount of funding of anti-Israel activities (some carried out by Jewish groups and some are funded through the US and not through the Foundation's Middle East offices), it is clear that millions of dollars are allocated for anti-Israel activities in the name of promoting Palestinian "human rights" ("How aware is Ford Foundation of way its funds are being used?" Edwin Black, JTA, Oct. 16, 2003).

Problem is that the allocation of funds, the activities done with those funds, and reports about those activities lack transparency and funds are often funneled into NGOs that support terrorism, advocate it or sometimes are directly involved in it ("Transparency a concern as millions go to Mideast," Edwin Black, JTA, Oct. 16, 2003).
Controls of funding are rather lax permitting the kind of activities that stand in contradistinction to the declared objectives of the Ford Foundation and test compliance with US government regulations against supporting terrorism ("Audit of Palestinian group suggests lax funding controls," Edwin Black, JTA, Oct. 16 , 2003). After all, it is hard to believe that Ford would want to support boycotts against American products or condone boycott of Israeli products. It is hard to believe that Ford would support the creation of an incitement website, the publishing of hateful reports, or providing links to groups that the State Department listed as terrorist organizations. Yet this is exactly what the Ford Foundation seems to have been funding.

The onslaught of anti-Israel sentiments is also apparent on mainstream American media. For example, the National Public Radio ("NPR: Anti-Israel All the Time," Andrea Levin, The New York Post, October 10, 2003), or The Atlanta paper which has published, in less than a fortnight, 3 blatantly anti-Israel articles and an editorial and 4 anti-Israel article disguised as supporting "justice and peace" (the Palestinian version) and only one letter in support of Israel. Having an anti-Israel position is not as much the problem. The blatant and obvious patterned bias is. The latest such article is based on an interview with a professor who spent some time in Egypt and fell in love with the Arab culture. That is commendable. What is not is the one-sided portrayal by the professor of the problems in the area viewed only from the perspective of the Arabs ("Stereotypes dim our view of Mideast," Martha Ezzard, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/14/03).

The professor won the prestigious "genius" MacArthur Fellowship but what is so genius about suggesting that "I have a 9-year-old, if I were a Palestinian mother, I would be out of my mind with fear?" This in a society that is obsessed with and glorifies death? Had she stated that being a mother in the Mideast is wrought with fear it would have been more sensible. The professor has no clue. What should an Israeli mother say to this statement, that she and her fears are of no consequence, that she and her child are not under fear, threat, and danger? Or do Jews not count since the paper defined the article (via the published letters) as "balanced" when it was so one-sided? Perhaps the paper defines as "balanced" anything pro-Palestinian.

The height of anti-Semitic rhetoric was evident this past week on the world stage when the Malaysian prime minister addressed the opening session of the Organization of the Islamic Conference ("Arabs should emulate Jews, says Mahathir," The Age, October 16, 2003) lamenting that "Jews rule the world, getting others to fight and die for them, but will not be able to defeat the world's 1.3 billion Muslim." His foreign minister tried to quickly control the damage of this known loose cannon ("Malaysia 'Sorry' for Flap Over Jews," Patrick Mcdowell,
Associated Press, Oct 17, 2003) but the PM stuck to his statement further complaining that when "Muslims are criticized it is acceptable but when Jews are criticized it is called anti-Semitism..." Then the foreign minister promptly lined up with his prime minister defending his remarks ("Malaysia says reaction on Jews remarks misplaced," Reuters, Haaretz, 19/10/2003).

The trouble is not with a statement issued by a racist hater but with the position he occupies and who was he addressing. When Hitler was a painter his impact was limited. It is when he came to power that his genocidal impact was felt. The Malaysian prime minister is powerful and his words were enthusiastically received by the participants, all heads of states, sheikdoms, and emirates of the Islamic countries with massive coverage echoing his words to their respective constituencies. One could only wonder what would the 1.3 billion Muslims do if they would not have the Jews to kick around. And the Europeans, who had an opportunity to condemn this Islamic fanatic racism, abstained from doing so as the French president shamelessly objected to a European Union condemnation statement on this matter and the remaining European leaders bashfully obliged.

And hate is channeled into action. Thus Syria plays a dual role as a terrorism instigator. It appears not only to have supported Iraq in the initial stages of the war but also to have helped stash huge sums of money Saddam bilked from Iraq and probably even his weapons of mass destruction ("Saddam's Syrian Stash: Investigators think they've found some of Hussein's loot. Is the money funding terrorist Attacks," Adam Zagorin, Time, Oct. 11, 2003). And of course it thumbs its nose at US (and Israeli) efforts at curbing terrorist bases from Syrian land but admittedly it also is willingly being defied by the terrorist organizations themselves ("Defiant bombers turn screw on Syria," Hala Jaber, Times, October 12, 2003).

The terror groups did not hurry to claim responsibility as they usually do against Israel. Most denied they were involved. Some suggested it might be "renegade groups" (not "official organizations") and some blamed Israel for doing it using the 9-11 arguments that this bomb was too sophisticated for Arabs to have planned it ("PA blames Israel for Gaza Bombing,"Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, October 16, 2003).
Undoubtedly, the carefully planned Palestinian terror against the US was designed to create additional chaos on which these organizations thrive and perhaps enhance the possibility of sending in an international force ("Road to perdition: The Gaza killings are intended to create chaos," Times, October 16, 2003).

The evidence for it is abundant. The news make it appear as if this was the first attack on the US but Palestinians have committed numerous such attacks before. Moreover, while on one hand denying their involvement and condemning (in English) the killing of Americans as a "loathsome crime," they simultaneously promote (in Arabic) strong anti-American sentiments and killing of Americans ("PA Promotes, Then Condemns Killing of Americans," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, October 15, 2003).

Their web site promotes hate-America and they sided with Iraq during the two Gulf wars celebrating each time Americans are murdered whether it was 9-11 or American soldiers ambushed in Iraq. The hatred spewing from official Palestinian and Arab sources was translated into the crowd stoning the bombed convoy during the rescue attempt and shouting "god is great." While they constantly paint the Middle East and the world green to symbolize their aspiration for Islamic domination, they complain that the US is trying to dominate the Middle East. There is little wonder that the American diplomats were murdered by Palestinians who have been fed on a diet of hate-mongering and calls for violence against Americans.

And the Saudis? Despite their feigning of efforts of fighting terrorism, persistent reports point to their continued support of it ("Saudis funded infiltration of U.S. military," World Tribune.com, October 17, 2003) and the sons of Saudi Arabia join the world jihad efforts in droves along with their brothers from other Muslims countries ("Al Qaida has 18,000 'jihadists' in 100 nations," World Tribune.com, October 16, 2003). Little wonder that the high level of terrorism in the region is closely associated with high marks on corruption ("Mideast most corrupt region in the world," World Tribune.com, October 12, 2003). All this somehow eludes the expert columnist who prefers to portray Saudi Arabia as the next democracy in the Middle East after Iraq ("Courageous Arab Thinkers," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, October 19, 2003).

Another diplomatic bombshell exploded this week with reports that Israel acquired nuclear launching capabilities from the sea ("Israel Adds Fuel to Nuclear Dispute: Officials confirm that the nation can now launch atomic weapons from land, sea and air. The issue complicates efforts to rein in Iran," Douglas Frantz, Los Angels Times, October 12, 2003). Some military analysis suggested that Harpoon missiles are incapable of the needed payload but it appears that Israel has been again thrown into the public discussion regarding its nuclear capability and given the developments in Iran (which is developing nuclear weapons) and Saudi Arabia (which wants to benefit from an umbrella of the Islamic - Pakistani - bomb to protect against Iran) this certainly adds to the high-stakes tensions in the area.

The remaining eyebrow would be lifted in amazement when realizing that a notorious "activist" who supports various terrorist groups and was almost deported by the INS in 1996 ("Arab-American leader wins fight for citizenship," Niraj Warikoo, Detroit Free Press, August 21, 2002) was considered by the FBI for a civic award ("FBI Abomination," Debbie Schlussel, New York Post, September 18, 2003) yet dropped in the last minute following public attention but not before personally meeting with the FBI director and being publicly praised by him ("FBI director firm on activist's rescinded award," David Shepardson and Joel Kurth, The Detroit News, October 17, 2003): "Mr. Hamad has done a terrific job in this community...He has contributed to bridging the gap between the Muslim Americans, the Arab-Americans in Detroit and throughout the country, and for that we commend him." Note that Mr. Hamad was not praised for bridging the gap between some Arab/Muslim groups and all other Americans but apparently for bridged the gap within Arab/Muslims groups.

And from Justice to State: A recent exposes the warm relationships that Saudi Arabia enjoys at the State Department as highly questionable ("Foggy Bottom's Friends: Why is the State Department so cozy with the Saudis?" Joel Mowbray, The Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2003). And if we are still in a bewilderment mode it appears that the system is trying to correct itself after discovering that the way (Muslim) chaplains are selected could be responsible for the number of spies within the chaplaincy ("Pentagon changes way chaplains are selected," Eunice Moscoso, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/15/03).

While vulnerable on several fronts the impression that the US is losing the war on terrorism is a terrible exaggeration of the naive, the mythical-driven, or the politically interested ("Legends of the Fall: More myths about the current war," David Victor Hanson, National Review, October 10, 2003). Yes there are cries that the US is involved in a costly war (is there one free or cheap?) instead of addressing needs at home, there is an anti-war sentiment; there are claims that the US is at this alone, and that the WMDs were not found (transformed into "there are no weapons and he had no weapons"). Yet as Hanson aptly points out, these are not only issues of perspective but perhaps of lacking one: he demonstrates how to compare costs in a reasonable fashion that illustrates it is not excessive, he puts the anti-war sentiments in the context of who makes them, proves the US is not alone, and shows that patience and context will become assets when more information becomes available regarding WMDs. In short, the news is much better than some would dare to admit.

To view previous e-Letters:

"And the wolf cried: the sheep attacked me" (e-Letter #191)

"Saturday (lunch massacre) at Maxim's" (e-Letter #190)

"The "I do not do windows" Approach to Fighting Terrorism" (e-Letter#189)

"Would the French recognize their enemy or become one?" (e-Letter #188)

"A fence built, an expulsion that wasn't, and a 2-year old 9-11" (e-Letter #187)

"Terrorism delenda est! (With Thanks to Senator Cato)" (e-Letter #186)

"Consuming hate - exporting terror" (e-Letter #185)

"Human Weapons: Terrorism Also Numbs the Senses" (e-letter #184)

"The sui-genocide bomber" (e-Letter #183)

"Terrorists Do Not Apologize" (e-Letter #182)

"The Terrorist as a Ventriloquist (No Offense to the Latter)" (e-letter #181)

    "When 'peace' means war" (e-Letter #180)

    "Old news we should pay attention to" (e-Letter #179)

    "The poor bully and the unwilling victim" (e-Letter #178)

"Terror and the rhetoric of peace" (e-Letter #177)

"To catch a terrorist" (e-Letter #176)

"Spilling blood and ink" (e-Letter #175)

"The language Laundromat at work: Troubled ally or troubling "ally" (e-Letter #174)

"The piranha bully: The 'right' to lie and murder" (e-Letter #173)

"Terrorists are being rewarded yet again" (e-Letter #172)

"The road not to be taken (with thanks to Robert Frost)" (e-Letter #171)

"News reports do not necessarily reflect reality" (e-Letter #170)

"Golf Wars" (e-Letter #169)

"1001 Baghdad tales" (e-Letter #168)

"Taxi wars" (e-Letter #167)

"It was calm at first, everyone thought it was part of the act" (e-Letter #162)

"The terrorist as a killer and destroyer" (e-Letter #160)

e-Letters on the web

Additional e-Letters and articles:

"Everyone is a critic"

* * *

* Text of the e-Letter includes hyperlinks to the source articles (where available).

* Your feedback, comments, suggestions, and your referral of additional sources are appreciated. For news sources on the web please provide complete and precise 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.

* * *