e-Letter 195: Per-diem for relatives of a
"humiliated" terrorist
November 9, 2003
The president did not intend for Mideast nations
to fully adopt democracy western style but he encouraged - prodded ever so
slightly - the consideration of change towards democracy ("Bush
Asks Lands in Mideast to Try Democratic Ways," David E. Sanger, The New
York Times, November 7, 2003).
While some juxtapose the speech with the difficult
realities at hand ("Idealism
in The Face Of a Troubled Reality," Robin Wright, The Washington Post,
November 7, 2003) there is a growing realization that the value of the speech
lies in making it and in being rather specific on who the target for
democratization is and that it is not limited to Iraq but rather constitutes
an overarching American strategy for the area.
The value of the speech is in pushing forth
("marketing") the idea of democracy and breaking the myth that it is not
compatible with Islam. Some, of course, argue that it is not ("Stop
insulting Judaism and Christianity, Mr. President," Diana West , Jewish
World Review , Nov. 3, 2003). But, the second important asset the speech has
is in naming not just the usual suspects such as Iran and Syria but also those
perceived as "staunch allies" such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt as countries no
longer exempt from the need for change.
In that sense, it does not matter whether
democracy will ever be achieved in the Arab/Muslim world. What is important
is that lines have been drawn that define friend and foe and thus help
interpret actions according to what they are and who they are intended against
and thus sending a message that support of terror is no longer tolerated ,
even - or particularly - when it is done or condoned by "allies."
Some reforms already taking place in the
Arab/Muslim world are nothing more than cosmetic changes ("Reforms
in the Arab world are purely cosmetic," Muhammad Muslih, Gulf News,
05-11-2003). Examples such as partial municipal elections in Saudi Arabia in
2004 may be perceived by the West as signs of reform but "All these measures
are nothing but outward manifestations of reform granted by leaders who either
feel that they are firmly enough established in power not to be threatened by
them or who want to make a nod of good will to Washington's public statements
about the need for democracy in the Arab world."
This way, the powerful rulers achieve total
submission and there is a long road to be taken prior to attaining any
substantive changes that will bring about good governance and the protection
of individual liberties, regardless of ethnic affiliation or religious
orientation.
Instant experts on anything such as newspaper
columnists too often buy into excuses and charges made by Arabs/Muslims to
explain away or "understand" their actions. The latest is the asinine notion
that "humiliation" is the root of all evil and that the West is at fault for
"humiliating" the Arabs even by its mere achievements if not by any direct
actions ("The
Humiliation Factor," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, November 9,
2003).
If anything, the West has coddled up to the Arabs
for years tolerating their excesses and they were not humiliated enough.
Students are humiliated when they get a bad grade and new police and military
recruits are humiliated in basic training. Yet, the good student will do
better next time and the wide majority of officers and soldiers perform as
professionals after putting their humiliation in context and overcoming it.
They do not use it as excuses for failure.
The West's attempts to win over the hearts and
minds of the enemy and those who are sympathetic to the enemy will not be done
by rhetoric alone ("The
Persuasion Myth," Ralph Peters, The New York Post, November 3, 2003). The
fact is that "...The cultures of the Middle East are so crippled that they
can't even limp along without the psychological crutch of blaming all their
ills on foreign devils. No amount of well-intentioned information disseminated
by the United States will persuade the Arab masses that we're innocent of the
cruelties their own leaders and social systems have inflicted upon them. Men
and women everywhere believe their own kind first...They want revenge for
self-created disasters. They want excuses for the inadequacy of their social,
political and economic regimes. Arab civilization, especially, has backed
itself into a historical corner where it deteriorates by the day. It's
humiliating to them."
What might change the reality on the ground are
results obtained not by being nice and compassionate but by being effective in
instituting change.
If the official Egyptian reaction to a speech y
the US Ambassador there is any indication of what to expect with regard to
President's Bush's speech on democracy, examine the vitriolic statement
interspersed in the Egyptian media. They speak for themselves: "Egypt is not a
U.S. state ruled by the pentagon;" "the arrogant [U.S.] ambassador represents
the imbecile George W. Bush;" "the Egyptian press won't be silenced in cursing
the neo-Nazis in D.C. and Tel Aviv;" "All Egyptian papers support martyrdom
(suicide) operations;" and "the ambassador's criticism is a badge of honor."
It appears that the more support received from the
US the greater the likelihood of developing anti-American sentiments. The
Palestinians who receive financial support from the Americans, and who have no
greater supporter for the establishment of a state than from the US, are at
the same time aiming their poisoned arrows at the US ("Palestinian
Incitement to Kill and Hate Americans," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media
Watch Bulletin, November 5, 2003).
And while busy spewing hate and carrying out
terror one should not be surprised that for those who have no red lines for
murder and hate (other than the blood trail they generate) corruption is no
stranger. The latest discovery is that Arafat is funneling $50,000 monthly to
the Al-Aqsa "Martyr" Brigades "not to support terror but only to provide
per-diem" for these terrorists that he himself send on missions of "martyrdom"
(i.e., murderous suicide-homicide). And to top this he also provides per-diem
to his dear wife and daughter who live in Paris. One would think that he sends
her a couple of thousand dollars for room and board - after all it is too
crowded to live in a refugee camp - but no. He sends her amounts that are
reminiscent of Imelda Marcos. After all, living in Paris has some spending
requirements that will probably be part of the appendix to the Palestinian
constitution when it is written ("Report:
Arafat funnels $100,000 PA aid monthly to wife," Nathan Guttman, Haaretz,
07/11/2003). Or is it simply a way to fight "humiliation" by spending sprees
in Parisian boutiques?
And the Iranians? Evidence of Iranian direct
involvement in terrorism unraveled last week in an Argentinian court testimony
provided by a former Iranian security official ("Iranian
blames Tehran for Jewish community center attack," Haaretz, 05/11/2003).
No one betters recognizes the faults of the Arab/Muslim regimes (Iran is not
an Arab country) and the Arab/Muslim media than Arab writers ("Arab
Liberal Writer: Blames Arab Media for Hatred of the U.S." MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, November 7, 2003, No. 605).
One Arab writer charges that Arab Media fans hatred of the U.S. and it does
not let defenders of the U.S. speak, that the Arab world is awash in
neo-reactionaries. The writer is convinced that Arabs can actually learn from
Israeli democracy, that the U.S. will rebuild Iraq as it restored Japan and
Germany. But he is also convinced that "had the Arabs possessed WMD they would
have destroyed the world."
Indeed, his assessment is borne out daily when
examining the rhetoric and actions of those who harness everything they have
to destroy what they do not. And they do so shamelessly. They demand not to
attack on holidays yet they have a record of doing same to their "enemies" and
indeed in this Muslim holiday of Ramadan they go on with their killing sprees
in Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia ("Oh,
the hypocrisy! Ramadan has frequently been used as a time for war,"
Michael Coren, Sun Media, November 1, 2003).
A similar pattern is revealed vis-a-vis India with
an interesting symmetry of victim-blamer that emerges from an unexpected
corner. The same way that Israel is blamed by Arabs (mainly for existing and
causing all their "troubles") India is blamed by Muslim groups who have grand
designs not only on Kashmir. And in the same way that various western
sympathizers blindly support the Palestinians similar groups side with the
Muslim attackers of India as is the case when dubious moralists criticize the
Indian government ("Selective
Outrage, Suspect Ethics," Ramesh Rao, FrontPageMagazine.com, November 4,
2003).
And in America? Another high profile Arab-American
leader - Al-Amudi - pleaded not-guilty and will be tried in February on
charges of smuggling cash into the US to fund/establish one or more terrorist
organization. ("U.S.
links money laundering, terrorists," Jerry Seper, the Washington Times,
November 3, 2003). He was so high profile that he met with president Clinton
and with George Bush when he campaigned for the presidency.
And the money trail is not limited to the US in
and out flow. In the same manner that more Nazi literature is produced in the
US because it is forbidden in Germany, Europe and particularly England has
become the hub of radical Muslim activity from which hate is manufactured,
terrorists are recruited, and operations are inspired or coordinated ("Spreading
Hate: Jihadists in London, in print," Rachel Ehrenfeld, National Review,
November 04, 2003).
Indeed some argue that money is no longer a
hindrance to terror activity (be it al-Qaeda, Palestinian terrorist groups, or
the jihadists and Ba'athists fighting coalition forces in Iraq) as it is
available in unlimited quantities ("Untangling
the Web: Crossovers among International Terrorist Groups," Matthew Levitt,
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Number 799, October 24, 2003):
"The principal terrorist threat today stems from the web of shadowy
relationships between loosely affiliated groups. The sponsors of such groups
further complicate the web, be they states or substate actors. Indeed, there
is no precise organizational or command structure to the assemblage of groups
that cooperate with al-Qaeda or fall under the organization's umbrella. Given
the multifarious links between international terrorist groups and their
relationships with state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and Syria, the war
on terror will be most effective if it has a strategic focus on the full
matrix of international terrorism rather than a tactical focus on al-Qaeda.
Prosecuting the war on terror, whether on the battlefield or in the courtroom,
demands greater attention to the web of interaction among these various groups
and state sponsors."
This is further reinforced by two of the
terror-sponsoring states that also comprise two thirds of the Axis of Evil;
they pose a danger of using nuclear weapons either directly or by proxy. While
Europeans perceive Israel as a greater threat to peace, the fact remains that
Iran and North Korea are posing a tangible and credible threat that is so
assessed by intelligence services and from open records where they declare
flat out their intentions to use WMD ("The
Terror Ahead," Gabriel Schoenfeld, Commentary, November 2003).
A great deal of support to terror and the hate that fuels it continues to
emanate from Saudi Arabia ("The
Islamic Terrorism Club - From the November 10, 2003 issue: And other
jihad-recruitment websites," Stephen Schwartz, The Weekly Standard, Volume
009, Issue 09, 11/10/200). While the Saudis carefully - if not hermetically -
censure the information their citizens can see (newspapers, TV, and the web),
they feed them with vile images – solemnly promoting the views of Wahhabi
clerics – that Shia Muslims are infidels, that Western culture is dangerous,
and that what the rest of the world calls terrorism is legitimate resistance
and glorifying "martyrdom."
An Australian paper picked up what it calls a European apology for the opinion
poll that ranked Israel as the greatest threat to world peace ("Europe
apologises to Israel for poll," Ed O'Loughlin, The Age, November 5, 2003)
but it looks more as a condemnation of the poll's results than an apology.
The paper quotes Natan Sharansky, Israel's
Minister for Jerusalem and the Jewish Diaspora (former Soviet dissident and
political prisoner) who defined the poll as nothing more than expressing
European anti-Semitic sentiments. Indeed, in a lengthy article Sharansky
enumerates the dangers and scope of anti-Semitism yet also argues that for the
long-term Israel (and Jews) will persevere ("On
Hating the Jews," Natan Sharansky, Commentary, November 2003): "The Jewish
state... is a tiny island in an exceedingly dangerous sea, and its citizens
will need every particle of strength they can muster for the trials ahead. It
is their own people's astounding perseverance, despite centuries of suffering
at the hands of faiths, ideologies, peoples, and individuals who have hated
them and set out to do them in, that inspires one with confidence that the
Jews will once again outlast their enemies."
Indeed his approach mixes realism with optimism. Contrast this with the
lament on the oblivious approach to death of Jews by the world community ("Too
often, deaths of Jews taken too casually," Michael S. Kolker, Seattle Post
Intelligencer, November 7, 2003): While factually correct perhaps the problem
lies not with seeking sympathy to dead Jews but to securing support for the
live ones. The two are of course related as demonstrated respect to Jews who
are alive will be the best guarantor that the world will not limit its
compassion to those who are dead.
The Europeans may perceive Israel to be the "greatest threat" to peace but it
also appears that American intelligence sources erroneously believe they can
appease the Arabs by pressuring Israel on the settlement issue ("American
spy chiefs want more pressure on settlements," Amir Oren, Haaretz,
November 3, 2003) and thus "are expected to significantly reduce negative
feelings toward the U.S. in the region" by delivering Israel to the Arabs.
Interestingly enough the groom desires the bride
but the bride is not very responsive to this flattering courting. The
Palestinians themselves have publicly rejected the American offer to pressure
Israel ("Fatah
scorns US crackdown Bid," Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 2,
2003) not because they oppose the pressuring of Israel but because "no
Palestinian would be able to take measures against Hamas and Islamic Jihad as
long as the ‘occupation' continues." In short, they may welcome any pressure
on Israel but will make political capital out of arguing that they will not
crack down on terrorism as long as Israel "occupies their land." It is
important to mention that a key element of the roadmap calls for the
Palestinians to do exactly that and they have avoided fulfilling what is
undoubtedly a pre-conditions to any potential diplomatic accord.
And as Israel is in a fight for its very existence it has unintentionally and
clumsily revealed some of its secret defensive arsenal to the enemy last week.
Too sophisticated? Israeli hi-tech is now well reputed around the world but it
looks like this advantage is at times a double-edge sword when common security
principles are taken for granted or ignored. Last week a top security missile
test was broadcast "open-circuit" for all enemies to see ("IAI
missile test launch unknowingly broadcast to the World," Margot Dudkevitch
and Arieh O'sullivan, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 6, 2003). One would seriously
doubt that Israel wanted its enemies to know its top security officials, code
names, and test content that badly. Back to the drawing board on security
protocols and training.
The Israeli government has just approved a
decision to release more than 400 Palestinian terrorists in a deal with the
Hizbullah in return for one kidnaped Israeli and three dead - kidnaped and
murdered - Israeli soldiers ("Families
of 3 abducted soldiers: ministers made brave decision," Aluf Benn, Gideon
Alon, Anshel Pfeffer and Yoav Stern, Haaretz, 09/11/2003). It does not mean
the deal will be consumed as the Hizbullah will likely continue to heap
obstacles until the last minute before it blinks. Yet, the highly
controversial decision epitomizes the predicament Israel is in and points more
than anything to the power of terror as no doubt the terrorist organization
will be emboldened by this deal and it already "promised" to kidnap more
Israelis.
So the first strategic arrow was shot by president
Bush last week but a great deal of work is to be done before it is
inextricably hits its target. The hope embedded in the president's speech is
not so much the hope that Arab/Muslim countries will turn to democracy as much
as it secures the future survival and flourishing of current democracies. It
has made one thing clear: it is high time for western democracies not to
negotiate themselves to death.
ฉ 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.
*
* *