e-Letter 194: The greatest threat to world
peace
November 2, 2003
This week a change of guard is taking place in
Malaysia with the retirement of its anti-Semitic and anti-western prime
minister Mahathir Mohamad, who two weeks ago left a dark residue of vitriol
equal to that of pre-WWII era Nazi propaganda and one that equals the same
rhetoric emanating out of Arab/Islamic corners in the 21st Century ("Malaysian
leader calls for Muslim holy war against the Jews," ADL). But for those
who followed his career these statements only reinforce positions he has long
been articulating ("The Mahathir
Affair: a Case Study In Mainstream Islamic Anti-Semitism," Manfred
Gerstenfeld, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No.
506, 2 November 2003).
The Mahathir phenomenon is important because the
9-11 atrocity was blamed on the victims (as if they perpetrated the acts
against themselves) and the latest Iraqi charges that Israel is behind the
suicide bombing in Bagdad, it points out that weaknesses in the Arab/Islamic
world are exploited to find scapegoats to divert attention from any
responsibility. Thus, by Muslims/Arabs presenting this conflict as a clash of
religions (against simultaneous persistent western attempts to pretend it not
so; see "Deadly
denial," Daniel Pipes, Jewish World Review, Oct. 27, 2003), they help
create myths about the Jews and westerners in an attempt to demonize "the
other" and thus cope with their own predicament.
Therefore, "the importance of the Mahathir affair
is that it has exposed in a short time and in a concentrated way the profound
anti-Semitic thought present among major layers of both Muslim elites and
society. There is no shame in publicly using the most vile anti-Semitic
expressions...Mahathir has thus generated a wide-ranging demonstration of
mainstream Islamic anti-Semitism. The Mahathir affair now serves as the core
proof of this anti-Semitism, while the remainder of the abundant anti-Jewish
material from the Islamic world serves as supporting evidence for this
mainstream racism...Mahathir's words ... were applauded and later backed by
many others. These reactions show that the Islamic world - in which hardly
anybody is democratically elected - is dangerous not only for the Jews but for
the rest of humanity as well. Beyond those extremist Muslims who preach
genocide using the Arab expression jihad, the Mahathir affair has demonstrated
how problematic the world of ideas of mainstream Islamic society is for the
West."
In a sense, this modern anti-Semitism is genocidal
in nature and is thus the obvious inheritor of Nazi legacy and it carries it
to global scales unknown before. This is not only the denial of the right of
certain individual Jews to live in peace but it is an obvious attempt to
strike at the collective existence of Jews as a nation by transforming
classical anti-Semitism into anti-Israel strategy that aims at destroying
Israel and thus Jews as a collective entity. Thus the persistent anti-Semitic
efforts from these quarters have finally been recognized for what they are:
The (old/new) writing on the wall ("Graffiti
On History's Walls," Mortimer B. Zuckerman, US News and World Report,
11/3/03).
In Zuckerman's words: "The new anti-Semitism
transcends boundaries, nationalities, politics, and social systems. Israel has
become the object of envy and resentment in much the same way that the
individual Jew was once the object of envy and resentment. Israel, in effect,
is emerging as the collective Jew among nations. After more than half a
century of Holocaust education, hundreds of courses in high schools and
colleges, and thousands of books dedicated to exposing its evils, traditional
anti-Semitism as a domestic issue had all but disappeared in much of the
world. ‘The Jewish problem' was no longer defined by what happened to the Jews
of Germany or France or Poland or Russia. Instead, in Europe and the Muslim
world--even in Asia--traditional anti-Semitism has lately re-emerged as
anti-Zionism, focused on the Jews of Israel, the role of Israel, and, for
some, on Jews in the United States who support Israel."
Like a snake out of his hole ready to bite, what
was not permissible years ago in any discourse about the Middle East or the
Jews (with the exception of the hallucinating extremes) is now becoming
fashionable in many public, private, national, and international circles ("Declarations,"
Martin Peretz The New Republic, 10-24-2003). So, not surprisingly, after
describing the trends, some are trying to find a reasonable explanation for
the emergence of this virulent anti-Semitism. And they are found in the
growing sentiments against "globalism" where Jews are seen as "responsible"
for what is considered the "troubles" of the modern world ("Antiglobalism's
Jewish Problem," Mark Strauss, Foreign Policy, (November/December 2003).
Indeed, this suggests that it is the success of the Jews as a group (and later
as a group that was able to establish a successful thriving state) that has
drawn the envy and wrath of those who were left behind or simply wanted the
Jews not to have anything, to disappear.
That is why even if peace ever comes to the Middle
East (do not hold your breath) the conditions that underlie anti-Semitism (and
in this sense anti-Americanism) are not going to go away. "The very existence
of Israel offends those who view it as a colonialist aberration. Arab
governments remain averse to serious economic and political reforms that would
open their societies and lift their citizens out of poverty. War, terrorism,
and recession may periodically slow the pace of globalization, but the
movement of people and money around the world continues unabated. The
anxieties that accompany global integration—the fear that nations are
surrendering their cultural, political, and economic sovereignty to shadowy
outside forces—will not simply disappear."
This very notion of wanting to "wish the Jews away" helps explain why no
amount of charity and assistance (diplomatic, economic) that is given to poor
or needy groups is going to change their hearts and minds." In fact, the
notion that your success means the failure of the other explains this new
anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments far beyond the organized
demonstrations that creep up around the world and render western assistance
not merely a thanks-less job but one that even backfires - pun fully intended
("‘Those
Jews:' If only Israel and its supporters would disappear," Victor David
Hanson, National Review, October 31, 2003).
Ironically these negative sentiments are not those
that bind Israel and the US together. It is what binds them together that
creates the negative sentiments against them ("Ties
That Really Bind," Mortimer B. Zuckerman, US News and World Report,
11/3/03) and will do so for the foreseeable future. After all, how could one
explain that of all the trouble sources in the world, Europeans (60%) see
Israel as more of a threat to world peace than they see North Korea, Iran or
Afghanistan. The US was seen as wrong in the war on Iraq but was expected to
pay for its reconstruction ("European
poll calls Israel a big threat to world peace," Thomas Fuller,
International Herald Tribune, October 31, 2003), which, of course, raises
legitimate questions as to the value of European participation in any peace
efforts in the Middle East ("European
Commission Poll: Israel Is the Biggest Threat to World Peace. Voice Your
Outrage Directly to European Commission President Romano Prodi," The
Wiesenthal Center, October 30, 2003). Not to mention questioning European
intentions towards the US.
The transformation of classic anti-Jewish sentiments (namely, anti-Semitism)
into a "refined" anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiments is clearly targeted
at eliminating the "undesirable." Israel is seen as either an anachronism ("'Jewish
State' Has Become an Anachronism," Tony Judt, Los Angeles Times, October
10, 2003) and hence has no "right to exist" or as part of a revival of the
notion of one bi-national state that would achieve the same effect of
destroying Israel but without war ("Israel,
Palestine, and the Return of the Bi-national Fantasy: What is Not to be Done,"
Leon Wieseltier, The New Republic, October 24, 2003).
No other state in the history of the world
received so much negative attention prior to its establishment and certainly
not after it was established when its existence has been permanently
challenged, questioned, and threatened ("The
controversy of Israel," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 31,
2003). Historically, when persistent negative attention was targeted at a
state the result was its destruction such as in the case of Cartage.
That must be what guides some in Europe and NATO
who are reported to have plans for Israel that do not include its continuation
as a free standing nation ("Eurocrats
and NATOcrats Plan Israel's Non-Future," DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis,
October 28, 2003). Therefore, this gives additional credence to the notion
that Friedman did not think of the idea of having Israel join NATO on his own
but was fed this by NATO officials ("Expanding
Club NATO," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, October 26, 2003).
And the Europeans seem rather eager to help the
Iranians build their nuclear weapons and assist Syria (economically) with its
terror campaign (although the Europeans would never admit it) the same way the
preferred keeping Saddam Hussein in power to guarantee lucrative contracts
with Iraq despite the horrible abuses of its people. Thus the Europeans become
an active party to the increasing danger to Israel's future existence ("From
Prague to London," Barry Rubin, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2003).
While dangers for Israel are looming from several
quarters it appears that at least one danger has been minimized or at least
postponed. The likelihood of establishing a Palestinian state has become
somewhat more remote what with the continued Palestinian terror campaign and
what with declining American involvement in what appeared only a few months
ago as the best (Euro-American-Russian-UN Quartet) hope for peace in the area
("U.S.
slowly scaling back role in Israel," Karin Laub, Associate Press,
USAToday.com, 10/30/2003). Even if the US apparent disengagement is not
emanating out of Israeli interest (and it clearly is not) one could reasonably
ask why should such efforts be promoted in the first place given Palestinian
anti-US positions, their desire to destroy Israel, and their declarations that
even after they have a state they would want to continue terrorism and
maintain the "right of return" (to a country which is not theirs).
The perpetrators of terrorism are quick to blame
everyone else for "violations of human rights" (they consider terrorism a
human right...) but deep at the end of an article in a Palestinian newspaper
there is an indirect admission that when Israeli soldiers entered a hospital
in search for terrorists they not only had probable cause, they also found an
armed (uninjured/un-hospitalized) terrorist who was hiding in the hospital ("Israeli
invasion of hospitals deplored," The Palestinian Times, 10/29/2003).
Why would the terrorists expect that their potential and actual victims not
try to defend themselves is beyond logic but it is abundantly clear that the
terrorists have grand and declared goals against the US ("The PA's anti-US
message," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media
Watch Bulletin, October 28, 2003). Specifically they state their
opposition to the US in Iraq, a position consistent with their support of
Saddam Hussein prior to the war in 2003 and also in the Gulf War in 1991. They
also state unequivocally their intentions to destroy Israel ("PA Daily:
America must be Fought in Iraq - Israel Must be Destroyed," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, October
27, 2003).
Palestinians depict Israel and the US as parallel and prime enemies of the
Arab world. If anything, it proves the point that the conflict in the Middle
East is not merely between Israel and the Palestinians but it is with the Arab
world. This is certainly not news for Israel but it should be a clear sign for
anyone who believes that the conflict is "settle-able" by being nice to the
Palestinians and granting them their "national aspirations" as if that will
bring an end to the conflict. It will not.
Last week Itamar Marcus of
Palestinian Media Watch appeared in
various media outlets but probably his most important appearance was a US
Senate testimony about how the funding of the PA is used to produce hate
indoctrination, socialization into violence and suicide attacks, the
glorification of death and the obsession with murder (see movie clip
Ask For Death) in
the name of god and Palestine ("PMW Director Itamar Marcus Testifies at US
Senate Hearing - PMW Documentary Screened at the Hearing," October 31, 2003,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin).
The warped views emanating from the Middle East are further exemplified by the
"victim-deserved it" syndrome which the Arabs have perfected into "the victim
did it." Along the lines of blaming Israel and the CIA for the 9-11 atrocity,
now Iraqis blame Israel (against all facts) for the suicide bombings in Bagdad
("Iraqis
See Israel as Culprit in Bombings: They argue that the ensuing chaos would
benefit the Jewish state and say that U.S. forces have a responsibility to
provide security," Alissa J. Rubin, Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2003).
All they had to do is view the web pages of Al-Qaida to find out who is the
real perpetrators and what are their true intentions and designs ("2nd
Issue of 'Voice of Jihad' Al-Qa'ida Online Magazine: Strategy to Avoid Clashes
with Saudi Security Forces, Convert the World's Countries to Islam,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, October 31, 2003, No.
601). Obviously, it is far easier to blame the victim.
The fact that terrorists are a source of trouble
is obvious and not new. But it would have been far more difficult for them to
carry out their acts without being sponsored (financially, physically and
morally) by states whose interests they seem to serve so well. Among the
states not often associated with sponsoring terrorism, despite it dismal
record of hateful rhetoric and behind-the-scenes meddling, is Egypt. A recent
article calls attention to the trouble emanating from that front ("The
Egyptian Underground: Rooting out the terrorists," Jonathan Schanzer,
National Review, October 29, 2003) but the article falls short of pinpointing
Egypt as a culprit.
And this support does not come only from the usual Arab suspects. The
Europeans have embarked on a dangerous brinkmanship of overtly coddling Syria
which is a known supporter of terrorism not only against Israel (see "Syria's
anti-Semitic 'Diaspora' to air each night of Ramadan," JPost.com Staff,
Oct. 29, 2003) but also against the US in Iraq to an extent that European
conduct is more than raising eyebrows in the US ("With
us, or with the terrorists," Editorial, Washington Times, 10-28-2003).
The Europeans would argue (and they do) that this is not appeasement but an
attempt to achieve peaceful solutions to the conflict by utilizing diplomatic
means. Indeed some are suggesting that this is exactly the wrong approach to
take in the fight against terrorism ("Defeat
terrorism," Uri Elitzur, The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 30, 2003).
It is argued that "Terror is a first rate cause of political blindness and of
the phenomenon of hallucinations and illusions. Terror distorts its victims'
judgment, it makes them feel as if they share the guilt, develop dependency on
the aggressor, and have baseless faith that a simple solution to the situation
is hiding around the nearest corner. Every terrorist knows that, and all
terrorism is built on that." Therefore "The idea that a political solution can
appear instead of defeating terrorism is the illusion that keeps the political
horizon infinitely distant...A political solution will come only after terror
is defeated. ."
In addition to Iran which is racing to develop nuclear weapons it appears that
Saudi Arabia is also getting closer to having nuclear capabilities through a
signed deal with Pakistan ("Saudi
Arabia - A New Player on the Nuclear Scene?" Ephraim Asculai, Jaffee
Center for Strategic Studies, No. 90, October 26, 2003) thus increasing the
odds that nuclear capabilities will be in the hands of irresponsible regimes.
Even if one assume that the current House of Saud is responsible (a generous
assumption hard to corroborate against facts that prove the opposite) it is
likely that the current regime will not stay there for long and hence if it
acquires nuclear capabilities it could fall into hands of radicals (as if the
Saudis are moderate).
Mass Media is not science (even if it utilizes
scientific principles in its enterprise) neither is it based on "truth." It's
content and display is characterized by purposeful presentation. That
understanding needs to be made time and again and last week two British
journalists made that exact point by offering severe criticism of the British
media's unfair treatment of Israel ("UK
media blasted over Israel," Lawrence Marzouk, Barnet & Potters Bar Times,
29th October 2003) to the extent that "The media bias against Israel and the
Jewish community is at pre-Second World War levels."
A good example of this bad practice is found in
Friedman's description of terrorists as a murderous band ("It's
No Vietnam," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, October 30, 2003).
There. In our twisted world this constitutes "refreshing news" and perhaps
even "innovation" when compared against those who describe them as "militants"
or "freedom fighters." But to suggest that targeting the Red Cross office in
Bagdad is "hitting a new low" makes one want to believe that the 9-11 atrocity
only happened in movies and not in real life. "All civilizational norms were
tossed aside" not only in targeting the RC Bagdad office but in each and every
terror attack that happened before (and after) the 9-11 atrocity. After all
what is exactly civilized about terrorism targeting defenseless civilians?
After all, the RC compound in Bagdad at least had some defense; the WTC had
none.
So if respected columnists mis-characterize
realities why should we complain about European public opinion? Or for that
matter about Muslim/Arab public opinion? The poll's scientific value is highly
questionable. Pollsters presented a list of 15 countries and asked: "Tell me
if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world." but we
do not know - yet - the full list of the 15 and since Palestine is not yet a
country one could only wonder what spot it might have occupied. Had Israel's
name not been on the list the Europeans may have rated the countries
differently. Nevertheless, Israel is clearly perceived - by Europeans - as a
big threat and the US as a big problem. Considering that North Korea, Iran,
and Afghanistan were ranked lower than Israel as threats to world peace then
something is warped in the European minds to place Israel as posing a higher
threat than those countries. This perception would be equal to - and as
ludicrous as - suggesting that the biggest promise for Nobel laureates in
physics, chemistry, biology, and medicine is more likely to come from Lybia,
Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt than from the US. Notice I did not mention the
Nobel Peace Prize (Arafat is already laughing all the way to the bank).
In short, if this proves anything it is that
having a snapshot of public opinion has very limited value. But it also
points out how dangerous these perceptions are. Let's just hope - and make
sure - that until Europeans come up with better poll results they are not
relied on any position of responsibility in international affairs or
jurisprudence. After all we surely do not want to be with them as they embark
on a journey returning to the
medieval ages (defined as "barbaric, ignorant, and backward ") they had 6
centuries ago (and which they perfected only less than 60 years ago) and in
which the Islamists radicals currently live in. As Zuckerman aptly point out,
the graffiti is already on the wall. We just need to see it and then quickly
clean it up and arrest the culprits so it does not ever happen again.
© 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.
*
* *