e-Letter 197: Mirror mirror on the wall:
who is the wickedest mayor of them all?
November 23, 2003
While terrorists have roamed targeted Iraq,
Turkey, and Israel this past week the most important act on the world stage
was President's Bush's visit to London. He was first met with a statements by
London's excuse for a mayor who defined the President as "the greatest threat
to life on Earth" ("Livingstone
found wanting," The Daily Telegraph, Editorial, 19/11/2003).
For this mayor it was not those who threaten, preached for, and killed
millions like
Adolf Hitler,
Genghis Kahn, Pol
Pot, Joseph
Stalin,
Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah
Khomeini, or Kim
Jong Il but it is no other than Bush.
It is the same mayor who last May called the President "corrupt" ("Mayor
condemned for attack on Bush," CNN, May 9, 2003). This mayor must be
getting his marching orders directly from the Iranians who last April issued
very similar vile characterizations of Bush ("Iran
paper: Bush worse than Hitler, Stalin - Editorial hammers U.S. for 'torturing
and killing defenseless civilians,'" WorldNetDaily.com, April 9, 2003).
Just look again at the
pot calling
the kettle black.
This is like Ted Bundy calling the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court "blood thirsty." The mayor of London follows a dark
British tradition and could certainly fit in the shoes of
Lord Haw Haw (who
was born in Brooklyn to an English mother and an Irish-American father and
became a British Nazi propagandist following in the goose-steps of the British
supporters of Nazism). However, the mayor has been condemned by his own party
and his re-elections chances are not high. Despite expressions of Nazism in
England, the British were on the right side in WWII and helped defeat Nazism.
The same will happen with the war against terrorism.
President Bush also was also met with large and
well organized demonstrations (though smaller than expected) of fanatics who
see Bush - like London's mayor - as the "worse menace to the free world." The
problem of course starts with their definition of freedom which is clearly not
universal. It is interesting to note who are these demonstrators who care
more about ousting Bush abn Blair than about fighting terrorism ("The
London Streets: Who are these anti-Bush people?" Amir Taheri, National
Review, November 18, 2003).
"The demonstration is organized by a shadowy group
called "Stop the War Coalition," part of the Hate-America-International, which
has orchestrated a number of street "events" in support of the Taliban and the
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein since 2001." It has "a steering committee of 33
members. Of these, 18 come from various hard left groups: Communists,
Trotskyites, Maoists, and Castrists. Three others belong to the radical wing
of the Labour party. There are also eight radical Islamists. The remaining
four are leftist ecologists known as "Watermelons" (Green outside, red
inside)... The chairman of the coalition is one Andrew Murray, a former
employee of the Soviet Novosty Agency and leader in the British Communist
party. Cochair is Muhammad Asalm Ijaz of the London Council of Mosques.
Members include John Rees of the Socialist Workers' party and Ghayassudin
Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament. Tanja Salem of the Al-awdah (The Return)
group, an outfit close to Yasser Arafat, is also a member along with Shahedah
Vawda of "Just Peace," another militant Arab group, and Wolf Wayne of the
"Green Socialist Network."
Clearly, the coalition "has succeeded beyond the
wildest dreams of its founders. For the first time ever it has brought
together all radical leftist and anarchist groups. Under its umbrella march
such traditional former archenemies as Stalinists and Trotskyites. But the
coalition's biggest success is the alliance that it has forged between the
extreme Left and militant Islamist groups." And so a dozen years after the
crumbling of Communism and the Soviet Empire, Marxism-Leninism and Islamic
Fascism are the strangest political bed-fellows threatening the resurgence of
the darkest forces in history.
If anything, the covenant between Al-Qaida and far
left groups proves that we live in an age beyond ideology where the objective
is nothing but raw power and all means are legitimate to achieve it. Yet, at
best, they prove that the West may not be monolithic but by no means does it
prove the West has totally lost its sense. Indeed, a tabloid editorial may
have expressed British sentiments far better than some of the more articulate
papers when it was able to point to the real sources of trouble ("The
REAL threat to world peace," Editorial, The London Sun, November 21,
2003): "... we should direct our anger against the terrorists, not the good
guys."
Another sign of sanity - even if long overdue and
even when it came only in the wake of the terrorist bombing of British
interest in Istanbul - was heard from no less than the stuffy British Foreign
office that compared terrorism to Nazism ("British
Minister compares terrorism to Nazism, tyranny," Douglas Davis, The
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 21, 2003). But the statement went even further and for
the first time - since president Bush iterated that countries either stand
with the US in its fight against terrorism or are against it - it called on
the Muslim community to make a choice between fighting terrorism or supporting
it "It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to
make a choice...It is the British way - based on political dialogue and
non-violent protests - or it is the way of the terrorists against which the
whole democratic world is now uniting...I hope we will see clearer, stronger
language that there is no future for any Muslim cause anywhere in the world
that validates, or implicitly supports, the use of political violence in any
way. Democracy has no place for terrorism and - like Nazism and other forms of
tyranny - it must be defeated by the common will and determination of all who
live under rule of law and in democratic freedom."
Indeed, the President's visit to London was
successful because it set and reiterated the parameters of the fight against
terrorism and as such was deemed by some as one of his most significant
speeches ("Bush
Conquers England: 'Liberation is still a moral goal.'" Editorial, The Wall
Street Journal, November 21, 2003).
If anything, the President's speech (President
Bush Discusses Iraq Policy at Whitehall Palace in London, Remarks by the
President at Whitehall Palace, Royal Banqueting House-Whitehall Palace,
London, England, November 19, 2003) emphasized the belief in open societies
and moral convictions, argued that the notion that the threat (of terrorism)
has passed is false. Hence the recognition that this is a long struggle
requires the harnessing of proper means that will bring about the defeat of
terrorism and that cannot be done by one president alone ("Joining
the Fight: One president can't wage war on terror alone." Daniel Henninger,
The Wall Street Journal, November 21, 2003).
Terrorism has to be fought by those who help
produce it but when it comes to the Saudis don';t hold your breath. It may
appear that the Saudi habit of talking from both sides of their mouth
("opposing" terrorism on one hand and supporting it on the other) has
backfired with the increase of terrorism that is both home grown and
home-aimed. Recent calls by three radical Saudi sheiks to start a dialogue
with terrorists was strongly rebuked by the regime ("A
Debate in the Saudi Press on Dialogue with Saudi Al-Qa'ida Members,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Jihad and Terrorism Studies, November
21, 2003, No. 614). Yet it seems the Saudis still have plenty of print space
to ridicule the American president ("Saudi
Daily Newspaper Mocks President Bush: 'May Get Killed for the Heck of It,'" MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia, November 21, 2003, No. 613), the one who
poses the best promise ever in the international fight against terror.
And it seems the Saudis understand how to use the
right rhetoric when it is called for. Perhaps they have learned well from
Americans and Israelis who use the same rhetoric (but also accompany it with
consistent action - which is still lacking with the Saudis): 'terrorists do
not understand the language of dialogue - they should be removed like cancer;'
'We don't need dialogue with this ideology - we need to uproot it by force;'
and 'No dialogue with murderers - only an iron fist.' Now if they can only
act on it not only when it is directed against them they may actually
contribute to the fight against terrorism. But again, do not hold your breath.
Their money is still flowing to fund terror against others. It is also
evident in historical practices of using the holy month of Ramadan to incite
wars and terror attacks against the "infidels." This holds true for the
Palestinians, for Chechnya, for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, for the Mufti
of Lebanon, and of course, for Al-Qa'ida ("Escalation
of Incitement to Violence During the Month of Ramadan," MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, November 20, 2003, No. 612).
Attempts and claims to distinguish between the
political arm of a terror group and its "military wing" (terror cells) have
been made by Palestinians for years. However, there are fewer and fewer
buyers. Recent exposés on financial support and direct lineage between
ideology, command structure, and military operations, have pulled the dusty
rug from under any such claims ("The
emperor's old clothes," Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 21,
2003). And it is also clear that the distinction between the various terror
groups is often only a matter of convenience not because they truly have
different causes or they lacking coordination ("The
Hamas-Jihad Axis," Ehud Ya'ari, The Jerusalem Report, November 17, 2003).
Thus in the Gaza strip the close proximity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad
threatens a Hizbullah-like situation there.
Add to this the ever-present corruption of the Palestinian leadership that has
been recently documented as to its financial shenanigans ("A
short history of PA corruption," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, Nov.
13, 2003)
or the fact that the "new" Palestinian government is not only corrupt but
consists of Arafat cronies and that his prime minister is but a puppet ("Puppet
on a string," Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 20, 2003)
and therefore, the new hopes that are banked on some possible peace deals with
the Palestinians do not really hold much water.
The implications for the US in fighting terror will have a lot to do with how
quickly the administration will realize who is it dealing with. Until now
Arafat has been demonized as if he is the source of all trouble and once he is
isolated, removed (by non-violent means) or dies (of natural causes) "peace"
will come to the region. Nothing could be further from the truth and as
analysis of other regimes (such as the Taliban) or even fighting terror on the
home-front (with better scrutiny of foreign visitors) shows, the
administration has a great deal of improvement to do ("With
Friends Like These: Two new books look at American failures against terrorism,"
Adrian Karatnycky, The Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2003).
The International Jihad terror campaign has
already spread beyond control and marks daily successes. The terror attacks
in Istanbul against Jewish and British targets were first and foremost aimed
against Turkey itself by trying to weaken and destabilized a strong moderate
pro-western Muslim country and also to prove operational capability in a well
planned and well carried out suicidal missions by local Turkish Islamists ("Al-Qaida
aiming at moderate Islam," Matthew Gutman, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 20,
2003). It also pointed out that the International Jihad effort has
encompassed global horizons with direct links to Pakistan ("Pakistani
link in synagogue attacks," Rediff.com, November 20, 2003).
The British reaction is interesting as one
editorial scolds the Europeans for not waking up to the danger of
international terrorism; yet when terrorism has been rampant in Israel for
more than three years the British showed far more sympathy to the "plight of
the Palestinians" (and will probably still continue to show it) than to the
plight of the victims of terror - as if there is any moral equivalence between
a "plight" and the justification of using terror. Now when the British were
hurt they do display some strong moral convictions that were gravely absent
when it came to Israel ("Waking
up to the Age of Terror," The daily Telegraph, Editorial, 21/11/2003):
"Many Europeans have been astonishingly slow to understand the impact of what
happened on September 11. Yesterday's atrocities are yet another reminder that
the West and its allies, and moderate Muslims throughout the world, are up
against a foe, who, blasphemously, given that God is the creator of life,
glorify their deaths and the innocent people they kill as a passport to
Paradise. They represent a radically new and ever-present danger. And the
sooner we wake up to it, the better."
Arab American advocacy groups continuously whine that their "constituency has
been evidencing" a rising level of hatred and violence. They, of course, do
not refer to Muslims being killed by Muslims all over the world but to
Americans whose policy they do not see as commensurate enough with their
desire for greater Islamic dominance of the world and the US. In the meantime
it is Israelis and Jews who are blown up in Israel, Turkey, Argentina,
Tunisia, and Paris, and the increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric and sinister
actions have gone to levels unprecedented since WWII (see "Explosion
of Global Antisemitism," ADL).
Ironically, Israelis now became the lightning rod
for antisemitic sentiments and the country is often attacked not only by
hostile countries or terrorists sent or supported by them but also by those
who complain against any defensive measure Israel is taking either militarily
or by building a fence ("Why
condemn Israel for fighting back?" Peter Worthington -- Toronto Sun,
November 16, 2003). It is interesting to note that Israel has been
criticized even by the US State Department for demolishing houses of
terrorists yet now the US is doing exactly that and actually finds it a
necessary, effective, as well as legal measure against insurgency in Iraq ("Destruction
of Iraqi homes within 'rules of war,' spokesman Says," Jeff Wilkinson,
Knight Ridder Newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 18, 2003).
Even traditionally unsympathetic British media sources have recognized the
onslaught and effect of modern anti-Semitism ("Anti-semitism:
Our dulled nerve," The Guardian, November 18, 2003): "A new anti-semitism
is on the march across the globe. It is no wonder that the Jewish community in
the UK feels unsettled, uncomfortable and fearful. If the random attacks here
have not been as ugly as in Turkey, they have nevertheless included schools,
synagogues and cemeteries. The community is well aware of widespread violence
in France, home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, along with rising
attacks in Belgium and Germany. Then there has been the deliberate targeting
of Jewish civilians in Moroccan and Tunisian attacks, in which, like Turkey's
car bombs, the al-Qaida network is believed to have been involved." An astute
observation indeed. Except that it is (perhaps facetiously) asking the wrong
source for help: "Could not the liberal left, which in an earlier era
vigilantly sought to protect Jews from prejudice and bigotry, rediscover its
old values?" After all, it is exactly one of the key sources of support and
condoning of anti-Semitism.
Examine for example the rampant institutional anti-Semitism when it comes to
issuing a report on the topic by the EU which shelved it because it points to
Islamic sources in Europe (surprise surprise) as the source of the increasing
wave of anti-Semitic hostile actions ("EU
racism watchdog shelves anti-Semitism report," Reuters, Haaretz,
22/11/2003). At least in the US the Ford Foundation was embarrassed publicly
enough to admitting its funding of anti-Israel groups ("Ford
announces new funding guidelines as it admits to aiding anti-Israel groups,"
Edwin Black, JTA, November 18, 2003) and promising to change its funding
guidelines.
Hate and violence are on a continuum with a fairly
direct link from the former to the latter. Throughout history persecution of
people - particularly and consistently that of Jews - started with hate,
vilification, and dehumanization, and then ended with lethal violence. The
Nazis have perfected this with a clear cut ideology of their "Final
Solution." The Palestinians, Arab countries, and modern day radical
Islamists (as well as "secular operatives") have adopted this ideology lock
stock and barrel and have perfected it to an international objective. Hence
there is little shock to find out that the virulent anti-Semitism spewing from
Islamic terror and terror sponsor quarters ends up with actual terror
activities ("Terror
and anti-Semitism," Editorial, National Post, November 18, 2003).
In what is undoubtedly one of the most eloquent analysis of antisemitism,
former Soviet dissident and current Israeli Minister, Natan Sharansky points
out the historical backdrops against which religious, secular, political and
individual antisemitism has flourished through various periods yet he also
shows that in the same manner in which Jews were persecuted as convenient
scapegoats they elicited some sympathy that has evaporated once they gained
political strength particularly after 1967. But his most striking point is
made when he compares the Jewish Israeli predicament to the American one
suggesting that the two phobias and hatreds - against the Jews and against the
US - emanate out of similar forces("On
Hating the Jews: The inextricable link between anti-Semitism and
anti-Americanism," Natan Sharansky, The Wall Street Journal, November 17,
2003):
"Despite the differences between them, however, anti-Americanism in the
Islamic world and anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked, and both bear
an uncanny resemblance to anti-Semitism. It is, after all, with some reason
that the United States is loathed and feared by the despots and
fundamentalists of the Islamic world as well as by many Europeans. Like
Israel, but in a much more powerful way, America embodies a different--a
nonconforming--idea of the good, and refuses to abandon its moral clarity
about the objective worth of that idea or of the free habits and institutions
to which it has given birth. To the contrary, in undertaking their war against
the evil of terrorism, the American people have demonstrated their
determination not only to fight to preserve the blessings of liberty for
themselves and their posterity, but to carry them to regions of the world that
have proved most resistant to their benign influence."
It appears that in their campaign against Israel the Arabs are taking
advantage of a multi-prong approach to destroy the very being and symbolism
that Israel stands for.
They coalesce with left wing radicals who hate Israel and are willing to forgo
any support for universal human values such as life itself if they can see
Israel and the US decimated in the process. They coalesce with terrorists who
do their job for them when their armies proved incapable of destroying Israel
or resisting America, and they rely on self-serving Israeli politicians who
come up with independent peace initiatives which will actually backfire
against Israel even if never achieved.
Of course it helps their cause when "even-handed"
American journalists promote such initiatives without seeming to fully
understanding its implications as in the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer
columnist ("Geneva
Accord is a sane proposal in a mad conflict," Trudy Rubin, November 19,
2003) who is also well known for her constant Israel-bashing ["Israel-Bashing
Op-Eds (Trudy Rubin)," Michael Goldblatt]. Clearly the problem lies not
only with the details of the infinitives but with its framing, its negotiators
and with it becoming eventually an opening gambit rather than a final
agreement ("The
Travails of a Rejected Politician," David Horovitz, The Jerusalem Report,
November 17, 2003): "If and when we all meet again at the peace table, the
official Palestinian leadership will be reluctant to settle for less than the
Geneva terms, and may well attempt to obtain more. Beilin, in short, may have
achieved the opposite of his ambition, and rendered the prospects for a
mutually acceptable deal more remote, not more realistic."
And on the diplomatic front the Arabs have
incessantly and skillfully used the United Nations to serve as Unambiguously
Negative international organ against Israel ("In
the UN, Arabs have the ultimate revenge over Israel," Barbara Amiel, The
Daily Telegraph, 17/11/2003): "...the Arabs have had a great revenge. They
have taken over the very body that was responsible for this (the establishment
of Israel, RF) - the United Nations - with the hope that the organisation that
created the injustice may well be the instrument of its undoing."
Subversive politicians or radical propagandists
certainly exacerbate the struggle against the evil of terrorism. Yet history
points out that in any era there were those who aided and comforted the enemy,
who were more concerned about the welfare of the enemy than their very own
people and who could always find something wrong with their own people but not
a blemish in the "perfect" enemy. This variation of the "Stockholm
Syndrome" where the supporters of the enemy derive a sense of control over
their future is no doubt risky, dangerous, damaging, and frustrating. Yet it
should serve as a sign that moral clarity will need to persevere despite these
challenges and therefore add them to the "difficulty index" already posed by
the enemy and deal with them with the full range of legal, moral, ideological
and other means available to democracies.
Alarmist advocates of privacy and civil rights
panic every time law enforcement agencies are trying to do their job of
defending the country by harking back to abusive ears in law enforcement
rather than by providing helpful guidance that might prevent abuse but will
also provide security ("F.B.I.
Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies," Eric Lichtblau, New York Times, November 23,
2003). Such positions and efforts may slow us down or weaken our positions on
fighting terrorism but will not deter the resolve and capability to fighting
evil and win. It just may make this battle more costly than it need be.
© 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.
*
* *