e-Letter 200: "Caught like a rat"
December 14, 2003
The most significant development - tangibly and
symbolically - in the war against terrorism and international threat to peace
was without a doubt the capture of Saddam Hussein last evening ("Saddam
Hussein Captured in Iraq Hideout," Associated Press, 12/14/03). Tangibly
because one of the top figures of tyranny and ruthlessness and threat to the
international community and his own people since Hitler was physically
captured alive. Symbolically, because of how he was captured. Like a rat (the
words of Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno on Saddam today in Iraq) in a spider's hall
with weapons he did not use and with hundreds of thousands of dollars he
looked more pathetic than his pretentious image all over Iraq during the
decades of his vicious wielding of power.
His demeanor with his interrogators mirrors
someone how is not only pathetic but not very stable. ("Notes
from Saddam in Custody: Saddam is talking, but he isn't cooperative. New
details on his capture and his first Interrogation," Brian
Bennett/Baghdad, Time Exclusive, December 14, 2003). He surrendered without a
fight and without doing harm to himself proving him to be rather narcissistic.
One who sent millions to sacrifice their lives in his name and the name of
Islam and Arab cause yet he did not practice what he preached. Even a Hamas
statement from the Gaza strip today expressed disappointment. That could be
indeed the best news in addition to his capture.
Yet, as important as his capture is by no means
does it signify the end of the war. The terrorists are not resting (yet).
They are not only plotting their next moves but widely communicate them to an
already horrified world ("Arabic
Daily: Al-Qa'ida Prepares Big Operation to Coincide with Eid Al-Adha [Feast of
the Sacrifice] on Feb. 2, 2004 - New Bin Laden Tape will Explain Details,"
MEMRI, Special Alert - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, December 10, 2003, No.
13).
It is worthwhile to view a scholarly article that examines the conceptual
underpinnings of the modern international terror movement and the who's who
among radical Islamic thinkers ("Al-Qaeda's
Intellectual Legacy: New Radical Islamic Thinking Justifying the Genocide of
Infidels," Jonathan D. Halevi, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 508, 1 December
2003). It is killing for the sake of killing: "Al-Qaeda has adopted a broader
interpretation of the religious command concerning the killing of infidels. It
is considered an absolute command that does not depend on political
circumstances, the need or will to take revenge, or a wish to liberate Muslim
lands from infidel rule."
Regrettably while some receive their financial support from dubious sources
such as Saudi Arabia (surprise surprise; see the detailed expos้ "The
Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network,"
David E. Kaplan, U.S. News and World Report, Cover Story 12/15/03) the
Palestinians receive it directly from the international community ("EuroCash:
What does the Palestinian Authority do with European money?" Rachel
Ehrenfeld, National Review, December 10, 2003). While some call for greater
accountability of the billions of dollars that Arafat and his puppet PA have
bilked from the international community to date ("Palestinian
aid audit," Rachel Ehrenfeld, The Washington Times, December 13, 2003)
there are no signs that this is likely to happen.
This is important to note because when poets write about jihad as a soul
cleansing activity (in the pursuit of "inner struggle"), or football teams
adopt it as their name, those who truly matter define jihad unambiguously as
war against the infidels and it is a war that demands killing ("Jehad
means only killing: Azhar," The Indian Express, December 08, 2003).
Indeed, a very alarming sign of the cultural and
organizational impact of the Arab/Muslim violence has penetrated the US and it
does not auger well for the future. The same way that Palestinian streets,
schools, and summer camps are named after terrorists and violence (Jihad,
Shaheed), Muslim youth groups in California have named their football teams
Mujahideen, Intifada, and Soldiers of Allah ("Taking
the Intifada to the Football Field," William Lobdell, The Los Angeles
Times, December 7, 2003). Team members say that ".. it [the name] describes
a righteous fight against oppression, whether it's in the Middle East or in
America." And that is exactly the problem. They have showed how they fight
"oppression" by murdering unsuspecting citizens in Israel and other parts of
the Middle East and now they want to fight "oppression" in the U.S. after
already killing about 3,000 in the infamous September 11 atrocity.
Some recommend a change of name for these teams
but dismiss the seriousness of this affair as youthful mischief and the
concerns raised about these names as nothing more than a tempest in a tea pot
("Drop
the Names -- and the Outrage," Dana Parsons, The Los Angeles Times,
December 12, 2003). Apparently it must be very difficult for some to see the
link between this kind of behavior and its lending legitimacy and inspiration
to terrorism. By the time those who are dismissing it now will give it the
appropriate seriousness, it will be too late and too costly. If a team's name
is "Soldiers of Allah" why would that be so different than the
Hitlerjugend
and his Brown
Shirts (see "Goebbels
and mass mind control;" sadly, too many detractors of the Bush
administration use these terms on the internet to describe him rather than the
real enemy)? By no means should this be dismissed as an innocent youth sports
team or a fashion statement by a shirt designer.
As the menace of international terrorism continues
to grow, its manifestations are not only training camps in Mideast countries,
sleeper networks in Europe, Canada, the Latin American triangle, and the U.S.
Nor is it limited to "innocent" football teams who adopt jihad as their team
logo. Charges from responsible and knowledgeable sources of fifth-column
activities are also very alarming. The latest is a systematic expos้ of the
activities of an American conservative who is reported to have ties to a
terror network that has shown itself to be dangerous, and working on behalf of
the radical Islamic front fund and thus have links to and support the Islamic
terror agenda ("A
Troubling Influence," Frank J Gaffney Jr., FrontPageMagazine.com, December
9, 2003) to an extent that "The growing influence of this operation – and the
larger Islamist enterprise principally funded by Saudia Arabia – has created a
strategic vulnerability for the nation, and a political liability for its
President."
While terrorists have been busy planning (and luckily most being caught before
carrying their plans out), the propagandists have not rested either. A
vicious Syrian antisemitic propaganda TV film series - the usual canard of the
Jews ruling the world and responsible for all its ills - was produced ("Al-Shatat:
The Syrian-Produced Ramadan 2003 TV Special," MEMRI, Dispatch - Syria/Arab
Antisemitism Documentation Project, December 12, 2003, No. 627) and those
responsible denied any antisemitism "because every single person who
participated in the production, editing and broadcasting of the episodes was a
Semite." Arabs are indeed Semites but the term antisemitism evolved to
describe anti-Jewish actions not those directed against Arabs. Segment 20
features the notorious blood libel in which a Christian child is depicted
ritually murdered by Jews and his blood is used to bake Passover matzas (for
text and video see: "Syrian-Produced
Hizbullah TV Ramadan Series' Video Clip of a 'Blood Libel,'" MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Arab Antisemitism Documentation Project/Syria, December 8,
2003, No. 623).
Some Arab/Muslim sources are starting to
understand that the problem is rooted well in their corner. A Somali
journalist has written on the damage that Wahhabism has brought to Somalia ("Somali
Muslim Journalist on the Detrimental Effects of Wahhabism on His Country,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform Project, December 9, 2003, No.
625) and an Ethiopian journalist about the same damage brought to Ethiopia ("Ethiopian
Journalist on the Detrimental Effects of Saudi Arabia's 'Poisonous Wahhabism'
on His Country," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform Project,
December 9, 2003, No. 624).
The European behavior in this regard is also
alarming. While branding all Europeans as anti-Semite would be a mistake,
there are forces that suppress manifestations of antisemitism's dangers in
favor of protecting a false "multiculturalism" ("As
Rome Starts to Smoulder: European illusions of multiculturalism," Andrew
Stuttaford, National Review, December 09, 2003): "combating anti-Semitism, it
seems, is less important than preserving the dangerous illusions of
multiculturalism, and, probably, recognizing the demographics of a Europe
where there are more Muslims to appease than Jews to protect."
Some, understandably, take offense at the constant
toll that antisemitism has brought upon the Jewish people and suggest that it
is the Jews who have been humiliated (and more) throughout history - a fact
that current Arab victimizers tend to invert by presenting themselves as the
victims ("The
Ongoing Humiliation of the Jews," Beth Goodtree, IsraelNationalNews.com,
December 7, 2003). Frankly, we hear very little from millions of airline
passengers who are humiliated daily when trying to take a flight by having to
be searched, take their shoes off, be screened by security personnel and
having their schedule and freedom of movement affected. Yet it is the
Palestinians and the Arab world who are perpetually screaming "humiliation."
Of course, one of the worse shows of antisemitism
takes place on the world's stage at the UN. Last week it withdrew a draft
resolution on (condemning) antisemitism because of strong Arab/Muslim
opposition ("The
U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret: The international body refuses to condemn
anti-Semitism," Anne Bayefsky, The Wall Street Journal, December 8,
2003). It was particularly disheartening - but by no means surprising - to
see that Ireland which shepherded various religious tolerance resolutions was
the one slamming the door against this one as it deemed Arab/Muslim interests
more important than basic principles of human rights.
Others recognize the danger that antisemitism's
claws have not only to Jews ("The
hate that shames us," Julie Burchill, The Guardian, December 6, 2003):
"Make no mistake, the Jews are not hated because of Israel; they are hated for
their very modernity, mobility, lust for life and love of knowledge. Their
most basic toast, ‘L'chaim!' (To Life!), is a red rag to those who fetishise
death because they have failed to take any joy from their life on earth. ‘Not
our Jews! Leave our Jews alone!' yelled the locals who turned out to fight the
Mosleyites in Cable Street. It may be politically incorrect to call this
ancient people ‘ours', but what the hell: they're tough, they can take it. And
they are still our Jews, in that if they are wiped out, in Israel or anywhere
else, we will be wiped out, too, one day, all of the modern world and its
achievements - swept back into the Dark Ages mulch from whence we came. The
cry of Cable Street still rings true. Not our Jews! But, this time, ‘our'
means mankind, and the very future of our species."
This view receives scholarly support that
identifies common elements to both antisemitism and anti-Americanism ("European
Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: Similarities and Differences: An Interview
with Andrei S. Markovits," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 16, 1
January 2004): "Anti-Semitism in Europe goes back a thousand years.
Anti-Americanism emerged more than 200 years ago among European elites.
Current European prejudices are enhanced by the Europeans' perception of how
America and Israel use power. America and Jews are seen by many Europeans as
paragons of a modernity they dislike and distrust: money-driven,
profit-hungry, urban, universalistic, individualistic, mobile, rootless,
inauthentic, and thus hostile to established traditions and values.
Anti-Americanism fulfills a structural role in helping to create a European
identity. Anti-Semitism does not necessarily do this, hence it might abate if
and when peace is reached in the Middle East. Anti-Americanism and
anti-Semitism are the only major icons shared by the European extreme left and
far right, including neo-Nazis."
And look at the shock from the unexpected. The
Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate was marketed by the media as a progressive force
in her country, a "liberal" women who stood up to the tyranny of the
Ayatollahs only to find out that this version did not meet the expectation in
its first international test. To the cheers of America haters she found fault
- in her acceptance speech - with the US but not with the Iranian regime
(only obliquely), not with terror supporters, and not with dictatorships ("In
Speech, Nobel Winner Rebukes the U.S." Craig S. Smith, The New York Times,
December 11, 2003). Clearly, this is not the first mistake the Nobel Peace
Prize Committee has ever made. She joins a long list of others who were not
worthy of the Prize, questioning the very credibility of the Prize itself.
Last week the U.S. administration found itself in an awkward position. It
denied non-supporters of the coalition the opportunity to bid for lucrative
projects of Iraq's reconstruction and at the same time went to the same
countries asking them to forgo Iraq's international debt. In the meantime
U.S. forces in Iraq are reported to benefit from Israel's valuable military
assistance ("Learning
the Art of Occupation from Israel: The U.S. military is reportedly turning to
Israel for tips on how to manage the insurgency in Iraq. Will it work?"
Tony Karon, Time, Dec. 09, 2003) even if the report erroneously compares the
("occupation") situations and concludes that "Washington, may indeed find
itself in a situation uncomfortably familiar to Israelis."
An even longer list of the value that Israel has
for the US is reported by Reuters ("Israel
Quietly Helps U.S. in Iraq, Aides Say," Adam Entous, Reuters, December 11,
2003): "Israel has been contributing intelligence, tactics and technology
mostly in secret to avert an Arab backlash." The assistance includes aerial
surveillance equipment, decoy drones and D-9 armored bulldozers, as well as
sharing new training software designed for Israeli commanders stationed in
Palestinian areas.
Despite Israel's obvious value there are those who
do not spare their pen to make Israel the problem in the area almost as if
Israel is the enemy and the Palestinians are innocent victims ("Breaking
and Entering," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, December 11, 2003;
titled "With Saddam Gone, Pressure Builds on Israel", Atlanta
Journal-Constitution).
Even when often at great cost, Israel has proven
its case in the battlefield far more successfully than in the arena of
public/international relations. The problem is that both before, during, and
after wars are fought, their initiation, duration, and outcome are directly
impacted by Israel's stature in the world. That is precisely why it has never
been able to translate (decisive) military victory after victory to political
gains that might prevent the likelihood of the next war to break out. That is
why it is not surprising to see strong and valid criticism on Israel's poor PR
efforts.
The criticism focuses on Israel's "failing to
speak in a coherent and confident voice" suggesting that this "is an assured
recipe for disaster" ("Foreign
to the cause," Efraim Karsh, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 4, 2003). After all
the problem is not merely with facts but how those facts are placed in a
perspective. One commendable effort in this direction is the attempt to make
a case for Israel. That such an effort is even required attests to Israel's
predicament. A famous attorney argues that it is necessary to show elements
of Israel's case on which there is a wide consensus among Israelis and
outsiders [with the obvious exception f the Arabs] ("The
consensus case," Alan M. Dershowitz, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 4, 2003).
Of course, how to reach such a consensus - and assuming one is reached - how
would it be communicated effectively, remains the challenge for the day.
The repercussions of the so-called the "Geneva
Agreement" continue to reverberate this week. Interestingly enough the
opponents are on both sides. For the Palestinians this is clearly nothing but
a tactic but they also take advantage of the golden opportunity to voice their
objections to things they have actually not agreed to in the first place thus
reaping a double PR advantage. Most Israelis are genuinely concerned about
the implications of the act on future developments. Some see the act as a
reverse salami; namely, taking Israel piece by piece ("Today
Jerusalem, Tomorrow the Rest of Israel?" Bruce S. Ticker,
IsraelNationalNews.com, December 11, 2003) or as a formula for annihilation ("A
Program for Israeli Self-annihilation," Steven Plaut,
IsraelNationalNews.com, December 8, 2003).
Others question the credibility and the motives of those behind the initiative
and they aim their arrows particularly at Israel's Beilin and at Jimmy Carter
suggesting that both are suffering from a sort of a Stockholm Syndrome ("Carter
Attacks the 'Road to Peace,'" Lowell Ponte, FrontPageMagazine.com,
December 12, 2003).
While these certainly make important and relevant points it is not less
interesting to note arguments that focus on the consequences for the
Palestinians for not coming to the negotiating table and the possibility that
they will end up with even less than they have now ("The
price of intransigence," Mortimer B. Zuckerman, U.S. News and World
Report, 12/15/03).
Media presentation of the situation in the Middle
East is not helpful to Israel's case as one media watchdog group has noted ("Security
Fence Distortions: News photos of Israel's security fence distort its physical
properties, and a Boston Globe op-ed misrepresents its placement in the West
Bank." HonestReporting, COMMUNIQUE: 7 December 2003). This is followed by
two important recognitions. First, concessions are counterproductive because
they only reinforce the perception that terrorism pays ("Concessions
don't help," Barry Rubin, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 9, 2003): "This is
neither a colonial problem nor the mere result of an oppressive occupation. It
is an ideological issue on the Arab side, one of how the conflict is defined
and the methods deemed worthy of pursuing it. By continuing to insist that the
problem is that Israel has not offered enough, Israelis do not prove their
goodwill but rather seem to suggest that they are the guilty party. This is
also part of the reason for the world's hostility. These unfamiliar concepts
for the West should be becoming more familiar from having to deal with such
Middle Eastern phenomena as the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin
Laden, and radical Islamism."
"Previous generations supposedly learned such
lessons in dealing with fascism and communism: Not everyone is a pragmatist
eager for conciliation with those who prove their good intentions, willingness
to make concessions, and kind natures. These are hard words to say, but they
are needed to explain why this conflict has gone on for endless decades, bred
so much hate, and cost so many lives."
Indeed. The second observation concisely suggests
that the problems lies with terrorism as the pivotal cause of the modern era's
problems ("It's
the terrorists, stupid," Moshe Arens, Haaretz, December 09, 2003):
"Palestinian terrorists hold the peace process hostage and no meaningful
progress toward peace can be made until their murderous activity is ended. It
doesn't matter if the Palestinian interlocutor is Yasser Arafat, Abu Mazen,
Abu Ala, or Abed Rabo - nothing significant will be achieved as long as Jews
are being killed by Palestinian terrorists in our streets and on our buses.
The idea that negotiations and a readiness by Israel to make extensive
concessions will lead these terrorists to cease their murderous activities is
absurd and has been proved wrong time and again at great cost."
"Terrorism, deliberately directed against civilians, with the intention of
causing mass casualties, has become a worldwide scourge in recent years. If
not controlled, it threatens the very existence of states as we have come to
know them in the past century. "It is the intention of terrorists associated
with Islamic fundamentalism to shake the foundations of the states whose
civilian populations they attack, whether it be in the United States, Turkey,
Israel, or Saudi Arabia - they want to prove that these states have lost their
"monopoly on domestic violence" and cannot protect their citizens. Their
success would call into question the existence of these states as we now know
them, and could plunge the whole world into anarchy."
The fight against terror and tyranny received a tremendous boost with the
capture of Hussein. There are a number of other top leaders who need to be
captured or killed before this war gets to an end. But even more important is
the absolute need to combat the vicious antisemitic and anti-American
propaganda which is the breeding ground for terror activities.
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.
*
* *