e-Letter 193: Rulers of the
world means candidates for extinction
October 26, 2003
Terror against Israel continues unabated with
Israelis attacked on a daily basis. One analysis sees Arafat as the main
obstacle for any peace in the Middle East together with the Syrians as
botching any attempt by Americans to establish democracy in Iraq ("Undermining
the War on Terrorism: The Role of Yasser Arafat and the Syrian Regime,"
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, Jerusalem Issue Brief, Institute for Contemporary
Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 7 19 October 2003). This is a fairly accurate view of
current realities but it does not take into account the wider picture of what
might happen if Arafat is "taken out" of the equation (not necessarily by
force), or the Syrians will be given the riot act by the Americans and
Israelis as Turkey did a few years ago. Indeed terrorism (enacted in the
interest of states supporting it) has wider implications than attacks against
Israel.
The terror attack against American personnel who
came to interview potential Palestinian candidates for Fulbright scholarships
killed those who came to help Palestinians. But a larger question looms in the
background that has to do with who are the recipients of Fulbright
scholarships and awards. Regrettably, some are themselves connected with and
supporters of terrorism ("Fulbright's
Terrorist Tie," Daniel Pipes & Asaf Romirowsky, New York Post, October 20,
2003).
As expected, the US has made some harsh statements
(harsher than usual but not the same as directed against the Taliban) about
this recent planned murder of Americans but the fact remains that many other
Americans who were as coldly murdered by Palestinians in previous years - in
Israel and elsewhere - did not receive such attention. Clearly the US is
still looking at the Palestinian Authority as a government of a potential
state rather than a collection of organized killers ("Palestinian
terrorism, American blood," Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, 10/19/2003).
It appears though that the threat of terror is currently even more ominous
than the impact it had on the 3 Americans murdered in Gaza or the 3,000
murdered in 9-11. In the last few years there is increasing talk about the
dangers of weapons of mass destruction and the fact that countries like
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are negotiating nuclear pacts, Iran is developing
nuclear weapons and Lybia might acquire nuclear weapons increases the
likelihood that nuclear capabilities may fall into terrorist groups like Al
Qaida and be put to actual use not only as a threat. The reality of a nuclear
device blowing up to achieve political goals was reinforced by Iranian
statements that while denying having or working on nuclear capability ("we
only use it for peaceful energy sources") they also declared that as soon as
they will have nuclear weapons they will use them against Israel ("The
Terror Ahead: A nuclear attack? Be very afraid," Gabriel Schoenfeld, The
Wall Street Journal, October 21, 2003).
Last week NYTimes' Friedman advanced the promise
of Saudi Arabia as the next great democracy. One letter the paper did not
print appeared (as a blog) highly criticizing Friedman for ignoring the vile
antisemitism displayed by the Malaysian prime minister while praising a
yet-to-be-proved unborn democracy ("Evian
II and Times apologists," Oct. 19, 2003).
A report on the status of Arab development was
released this week in Jordan ("Building
a Knowledge Society") offering observations on a dour reality of education
and human rights but also quick to criticize the West for restricting Arab
travel following the 9-11 atrocities ("A
Grim Arab Survey of Rights and Education," The Associated Press, The New
York Times, October 21, 2003). Friedman would undoubtedly suggest that this
report proves his point that the Arab world needs to change. Perhaps so. But
it proves more than anything else how difficult a task it is to undertake.
Now Friedman comes up with yet another "original," "easy," and quick solution:
let Iraq, Egypt, and Israel join NATO ("Expanding
Club NATO," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, October 26, 2003).
This sounds like something he would certainly sip coffee over in Brussels.
Iraq has a long way to go before this idea could be considered and in this
case timing is important. Egypt has to get off the bandwagon of hostility
towards the US and Israel before it should be considered. And Israel? Friedman
recommends it joins to provide balance to Egypt's joining thank you very
much. And what about the hostile European attitudes toward Israel? What about
Arab rejections of the West? Apparently these do not count in his comfortable
equation for a new world order. Every time Friedman sips coffee another
global idea balloon floats and then the air gets quickly out of it. One dare
not think what happens if he drinks beer. Now, of course, this could be a
trial balloon floated not by him but by officials in NATO (not unlike the
Saudi "peace plan"). Oh no, how could it, since - as Friedman writes - they do
not work on weekends.
The false peace initiative concocted by unelected
and failed Israeli political figures and Palestinian Arafat puppets received
the expected backing from Egypt which is rightly seen is an attempt to lull
Israel into a false peace as a stage in achieving its destruction ("Egypt
backs false peace to facilitate Israel's destruction,"Jerusalem Newswire
Editorial Staff, October 19, 2003). In Israel criticism against the
initiative continued to mount and perhaps the most eloquent articulation was
the comparison of the Beilin/Geneva Initiative to the Logan actions which
prompted the passage of the 1799 Logan Act ("Yossi
Beilin in the state of Nature," Bret Stephens, Oct. 26, 2003).
Moreover, this comparison is appropriate because
it draws attention to the nature of democracy and describes the conditions
under which private citizens action could lead to anarchy or a revolution.
Anarchy paralyzes the possibility to govern while the conditions for a
revolution are clearly not warranted under the Israeli scenario for
"alternative peace."
It was interesting to note some of the apologists
(even in Israel) who brushed away the most vile antisemitic statements by a
world leader - this time by the Malaysian prime minister - since the Nazi era.
Of course most were shocked ("Malaysian
Malaise," Irwin N. Graulich, MichNews.Com, Oct 24, 2003), some tried to be
cynical about it "admitting," tongue-in-cheek, that people like Napoleon "were
Jewish" ("Ruling
the World: It's high time to fess up and tell the world the truth: We Jews do
run the world!" Jeffrey Dunetz, Aish.Com) and others tried to explain it
away as "necessary rhetoric he "had to use" to maintain his stature in the
Muslim world. This juvenile attitude that dismisses rhetoric as if it does
not encourage action is part of the pre-set notions that plague western
leaders when considering such extreme conduct. In fact his expressions
reflected rather well deep-seated sentiments in the Arab and Muslim world as
echoed by another official Egyptian tirade against Jews ("Egyptian
Government Weekly: Treason and Deception are in the Blood of the Jews," MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Egypt/ Arab Antisemitism Documentation Project, October 23,
2003, No. 594).
For rational people such rhetoric seems as verging on the insane. One can get
caught in the argument that Mahathir is insane but whether he is or not is
irrelevant and frankly not very helpful. Saying that Hitler, Ghadafi, Arafat,
Bin-Ladin, or Il-Song are insane may make us feel a bit better ("they are not
ok but we are") but will do little to change their policies which they carry
out in a rather very sane fashion as part of a very calculated strategy.
Therefore the danger in Mahathir's comments is seen in enabling this "Muslim
Strategy" or "Muslim Agenda" to move on unabated ("Malaysian
road map," Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 24, 2003).
Moreover, it provides additional proof that even
if this war is not a religious one, the Muslims do their very best to
capitalize on religious sentiments to further their political goals. As Glick
suggests: "... it is important that Israel be honest with itself and its ally,
the US, about the intentions of its enemies. We may not have ever believed we
would need to take a delusional bigot like Mahathir seriously. But he seems to
be an able spokesman for hundreds of millions of like-minded people. We must
respect these Islamic bigots enough to take their threats at face value. We
must look at their intentions and soberly assess their actions and their
capabilities. When Mahathir defined us as the enemy, he did us a favor. He
told us where he and the Islamic world stand, and where they intend to go.
Forewarned, as they say, is forearmed."
And the fact remains that the majority of the
world conflicts today are perpetrated by Islamic countries and groups and that
among all the terrorist groups all but two hail from radical Muslim ideologies
and even the two exceptions portray signs of religious radicalism ("Radical
Islam and Suicide Bombers," Michael Radu, Foreign Policy Research
Institute, October 21, 2003).
Indeed, terror is comprised not only of suicide
bombings. It is also enslavement, torture and oppression. Just examine the
history of a Sudanese boy who was able to ran away from that il-fated period
in his life when he was a slave to Muslims and the 1400 years of Muslim
slavery of millions (which is also responsible for slavery in the US) is
suddenly put in an eye-opening context ("Jihad
Slavery: An Ugly Living Legacy," Alyssa A. Lappen, FrontPageMagazine.com,
October 17, 2003).
In short, what leaders of the Arab and Muslim
world do and say and the support they receive in the west is not only
frightfully reminiscent of the sounds and visions of the 1930s and the young
and vocal brownshirts; it is indicative of things to come. In previous
e-Letters, I discussed the danger that this new radicalism poses and suggested
that it is more menacing than Nazism and Communism combined. In the 1930s
Jewish intellectuals and organizations also did not take that seriously enough
nor soon enough. A good deal of the "peace activism" rhetoric of today is
actually pro-Palestinian terrorist tactics, repeated Hamas propaganda, heavily
laced with virulent anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. This increasing
evidence is there for us to see. The questions remains: Can we?
Clearly some can not. While not (yet) a candidate
for the Nobel Prize for Peace, Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian trumpet of
invective continues with her globetrotting robotic speeches that apparently
have given her grounds to win the Sydney Peace Prize ("Sydney's
peace prize hijacked: The selection of long-time PLO advocate and Arafat ally
Hanan Ashrawi for the Sydney Peace Prize makes a mockery of the award,"
Piers Akerman, The Daily Telegraph, October 23, 2003). At least some have
noticed it and the Lord Mayor has shunned it but the city council and the
premier have endorsed it and accepted the academic recommendation that ignored
Ashrawi's record.
This blindness in the face of known facts is what has historically underscored
misinterpretations of facts that then led to disasters such as pearl harbor,
the Yom Kippur War, the Oslo Accord and now the Geneva Initiative ("Why
the media botches it," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, 0/17/03). Yet,
it is not only the problem of the media. By the same token that some
academics on a prize committee, as well as city officials, prefer to ignore
the known record of a terror apologist for the false charm she exudes,
intelligence agencies and elected officials, leaders of countries, were
captives of their own pre-set notions of how things should develop rather than
how they have actually been developing. This with disastrous results.
MSNBC's
American
Voices pitted Itamar Marcus of
Palestinian Media Watch against two rival groups of democrats and
republicans (October 26, 2003). One member fiercely maintained that "surely,
this hate that the kids are growing up on is available on both sides and is
not limited to the Palestinians." She just could not imagine that there is no
"equality" between the two sides and was very comfortable blaming both sides
for the current conflict. And hence lies the problem. Blame is NOT equally
shared. Hate is not equal and aims at destroying the "other" is the monopoly
of Palestinians only. In fact, in a
survey last
week 80% of the Palestinians surveyed maintained they will still have the
right of return and 59% encouraged additional terrorism against Israel even
AFTER they have an independent Palestinian state.
Wouldn't a rational approach conclude that if the
logic behind establishing a Palestinian state is the hope for cessation of
violence, come the Palestinians and prove that the opposite is the case. They
will only increase it because what they want is not independence or freedom or
an end to the conflict. What they want more than anything is the destruction
of Israel. Then why encourage any process that leads to the establishment of
a Palestinian state?
Far from being the rulers of the world Jews are
actually candidates for extinction. And so is Israel, the US, and the rest of
the West should it wish to recognize it. So, the facts are available - and the
writing is on the wall - seeing them for what they are is the challenge. At
least we can never say that the enemy is not sincere in revealing its true
intentions.
© 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 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.
*
* *