December 21, 2003
In a recent interview Jimmy Carter stated ("Self-Appointed
Israeli and Palestinian Negotiators Offer a Plan for Middle East Peace,"
New York Times, December 2, 2003) "Had I been elected to a second term, with
the prestige and authority and influence and reputation I had in the region,
we could have moved to a final solution." Almost three weeks after this
atrocious choice of words he is yet to issue an apology or an unequivocal
clarification for using the term the Nazis employed as their official policy
to exterminate Jews. Carter is risking losing the single political asset he
has: morality. If he will not retract the usage of the term anything he will
say in the future will be placing him squarely in the camp of the dark forces.
For someone who claims to be far better than that it is a kiss of moral
death. He has crossed the red lines and this time it is neither a beer
drinking brother nor lust in his heart that will stain his clean moral image.
Given the continuous rise in antisemitism ("Fears
of anti-Semitism sweep Europe: Leftists, intellectuals blaming Israel for
world's ills," Veronique Mistiaen, Jody K. Biehl, Elizabeth Bryant, San
Francisco Chronicle, December 14, 2003) Carter could (better say should)
follow the example of Emile Zola and instead of blaming Israel - or the
current US administration for having a pro-Israel bias, actually accuse the
intellectuals, politicians, and organizations for their manifestations of
antisemitism (see: "J'accuse
....!" Emile Zola, Alfred Dreyfus, and the Greatest Newspaper Article in
History").
Why is it that Carter - for whom of human rights
became a moral imperative - is not vocal against one of this flag's grossest
violations? Why is he tolerant of horrendous
manifestations of hate such as a college film festival that defines Arab
humiliation by the mere existence of Israel and its top aspiration as killing
Jews ("College
Film Festival: Kill the Jews," Tatiana Menaker, FrontPageMagazine.com,
December 17, 2003).
A true man of morality - which Carter portrays himself to be - does not have a
choice of battles. He should fight this egregious conduct with his mind,
mouth, and pen and he needs to direct it to the right targets.
The results of a recent polling of Americans on
Mideast issues indicate that the Arab propaganda has made a dent but has not
changed the solid support (with a wide margin) Americans show for Israel, the
objections they have for antisemitism and for violence and an overwhelming
majority believes Israel is genuinely interested in peace while less than half
believe the Palestinians do ("ADL
Poll Finds Americans Continue To Strongly Support Israel," JERUSALEM,
December 17, 2003). Still a fairly large percentage of Americans (43%) see
Israel and a smaller percentage (37%) see the US as the "greatest threat to
peace in the world." It is encouraging to see that Americans realize that
North Korea is a serious threat but unlike the ADL report which downplays the
importance of this findings on Israel and the US, such figures should be a
source for concern for Americans and for Israelis alike.
It is interesting to note that some of the
Israel-bashing at the U.N. has crossed lines that even Europeans find
unacceptable ("EU
thwarts PLO's anti-Israel move in UN," Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz, 19/12/2003)
and thus a Palestinian brazen attempt to challenge Israel's credentials at the
UN was rejected under the leadership of - all nations - France. A cynic would
of course suggest that for the Europeans not to have Israel to bash any longer
was horrifying enough for them to reject such a move as disruptive to its own
agenda. But why would anyone want to be a cynic when Europeans are concerned?
According to one CIA report the situation in the
Mideast is not going to be resolved peacefully for at least another 17 years.
Even if one assumes the realities on the ground will develop according to the
CIA scenarios, it is clear that the next couple of decades are not perceived
to be tranquil by any means ("CIA
report: No full peace settlement before 2020," Amir Oren, Haaretz,
17/12/2003).
The policy statement by Israeli Prime Minister Sharon last week addressed the
lack of diplomatic progress by threatening to take unilateral steps and hence
corner the Palestinians, or so he thinks. The problem that both Israel and
the U.S. are facing is that the key provision in the roadmap - the cessation
of terror and the dismantling of terror organizations - is not adhered to by
the Palestinians who have not moved in that direction at all and do not seem
to be likely go there in the foreseeable future ("The
Herzliya Initiative," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 19, 2003).
In a sense the mere notion of the roadmap is flawed because while it
conditions the establishment of a Palestinian state on the
cessation/dismantling of terrorism, it has also sent a message -albeit
unintentional - that the 3 years of violence and terror are rewarded and it is
not giving any (even negative) incentive to the Palestinians to actually cease
terror.
That is why what is happening in Iraq is so
important for Israel and the future of the Mideast. The reaction in the Arab
press to the capture of Saddam is complex, artful, and unlike western thought
- it is non-linear . Like oriental (Mideast) poetry and painting, it is
structured with many curvatures. Therefore, even in articles that are in
favor of Saddam's demise there are elements of dissatisfaction with his
arrest, with who arrested him, and with how he was treated ("The
Arab Media Reaction to Saddam's Arrest: Part I," MEMRI, Special Dispatch -
Iraq, December 16, 2003, No. 628).
The Iraqi press in general is perhaps far more
accepting of Saddam's capture than some comments in western media or from the
Vatican. The wide gamut of reactions ranges from complete acceptance of his
capture ("Wielding
Pens as Swords, Arabs Finish Off Hussein," Nora Boustany, The Washington
Post, December 19, 2003; Page A45) to expressions of grief and humiliation
particularly from Palestinian but also from Egyptian corners ("The
Arab Media Reaction to Saddam's Arrest: Part II," MEMRI, Special Dispatch
- Iraq, December 17, 2003, No. 629).
Palestinians mourned his capture and added it to
other historical days of defeat. This is fairly "understandable" considering
he was one of their most vocal supporters even if he himself did not practice
what he preached ("Palestinians
Mark 'Black Day' of Saddam Capture," Mohammed Assadi, Reuters, December
14, 2003). In fact, some have suggested that the Palestinians should be
treated no differently than Saddam's regime ("Blackjack!"
Irwin N. Graulich, jewishindy, December 16, 2003).
Perhaps one of the most fascinating (sobering, yet
also frustrating) elements in Saddam's capture is how his supporters,
sympathizers, relatives, and those still fearing him, explain away his capture
by resorting to various conspiracy theories or simply twist realities to an
extent that is clearly inspired by the fertile imagination the like of
1001 Nights. One
criminological theory explains that criminals are capable of committing crime
by
neutralizing the guilt about it. This is done through denial of
responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the
condemners, and the appeal to higher loyalties.
The Mideast is ripe with examples of explaining
away defeat and turning it to a victory. The most powerful self-delusional PR
campaigns have been carried out in the Mideast where imagination and wishful
thinking become substitutes to rational and common sense recognition of
realities. There is a huge difference between working hard to achieve a dream
as in the saga of the American pioneers or in
Herzl's statement
"if
you will it, it is not a dream" - out of which modern Israel was born -
and sitting idle in a dreamworld denying reality, denying responsibility,
being proud of the injuries inflicted on the enemy, "turning" defeat into
"victory" and appealing to higher loyalties such as Pan-Arabism and Allah ("Conspiracy
Theories Surrounding Saddam's Capture," Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, MEMRI,
Inquiry and Analysis - Iraq, December 19, 2003, No. 155).
Like doomsday cults that explain away why the
world was not destroyed at a given moment they predicted, Saddam's sister was
the first to resort to explaining away why he was captured: He "could not have
surrendered in this fashion unless he was subjected to anesthetization or
nerve gas that has paralyzed his movements...If he were in full command of his
mental capacity he would have resisted to [the] death. He is not one of the
people who would surrender in such a disgraceful manner." The fact that he was
seconds away from a grande being hurled into his rat whole which would have
truly paralyzed his movements forever, obviously has eluded his sister.
The fall of the Saddam regime and now the capture
of Saddam himself and the "sadness" that engulfed Palestinians who had to face
this development signify more than anything the coalescence of two losing
causes: brutal dictatorship and a society bent on killing at any cost ("Sadness
at feeble display by a hero to Palestine," Allan Laing, The Herald,
December 15 2003). One just develops this alarming feeling that the reporter
in this case has crossed the line from reporting to identifying with the
subjects of his report.
The portrayal of Saddam's capture and particularly
his medical exam as "humiliating" rests on the premise that humiliation is
something negative and hence should not be practiced by the victor. Yet, there
is an important role that public shaming plays and actors could behave
accordingly if they want to avoid future humiliation ("Killing
Him Softly, Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, December 19, 2003).
In the mean time it might be wise policy to clarify to the enemy who the
winner is and who is the loser. The enemy and its sympathizers could complain
ad nauseam that it is "humiliated" but that is all the more reason to use
humiliation ("More
Humiliation Please," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 18, 2003).
After all, this is not torture or public hanging
that has been a common practice in Iraq. This is a medical exam and shaving
that is at stake. Those who complain about taking away Saddam virility never
did so when he was clean shaven during decades in power. Indeed it could (and
should) be a sign for other dictators that their time has come ("One
Down, Dozens More to Go: A plan for ridding the world of dictators,"
Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2003). Given that the
majority of the world's remaining dictators come from the Arab-Muslim world it
needs to cope with the problem it has for itself and the problems it poses for
the rest of the world and this time the leaders of the free world have proved
they are no longer a paper tiger ("A
Tigris Chronicle: The Arab world grapples with Saddam's captivity," Fouad
Ajami, The Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2003).
The biggest threat today is perceived to come from Iran but by no means is it
limited to it ("Israeli
Says Iran Top Terrorism Sponsor," Gavin Rabinowitz, The Associated Press,
The Washington Post, December 16, 2003). The recent "surprising" announcement
by Lybia's Ghaddafi that he will open the country for inspections of weapons
of mass destruction and is willing to dismantle them has resulted in cautious
yet optimistic and highly positive encouragements from the administration,
numerous other governments around the world, and the U.N. ("Libya
to Give Up Arms Programs, Bush Announces," David E. Sanger and Judith
Miller, The New York Times, December 20, 2003).
Yet more than caution is advised. It should be
coupled with a very healthy doze of skepticism. Given decades of Iraqi
deception, Iranian deception and Libyan intransigence, it is highly
recommended to postpone the celebration until after the Libyan WMDs are indeed
dismantled - not a minute earlier. One demand that many in the Arab world,
including Lybia as well as the director of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, were quick to put on the table is that
Israel dismantle its own nuclear weapons (never officially admitted as
having). This could really be the end game. It would take years to dismantle
countries like Libya from WMDs and all Arabs as well as the IAEA are cognizant
of the fact that Israel poses no threat to the Arabs (unless its existence is
considered a threat - and it is). Clever Arab tactic. Israel will not fall
for it but that does not mean that pressure will not be applied.
Some offer a non-military approach to cope with terrorism ("Non-military
Approach to Terrorism---The Indian Model ," B. Raman, South Asia Analysis
Group, Paper no. 859, 12-12-2003). This approach has clear - if limited -
advantages but in the same manner that relying only on force cannot solve
complex diplomatic situations without resorting to diplomacy at some point
(before, during, and after a war), relying only on non-military means may not
be sufficient particularly in the Mideast where terrorism has become a
strategy and there is a danger that terror attacks could escalate to war
between nations. Even India would - if carefully - resort to military means
should it deem it necessary - as evidenced by the recent volatile war
situation over Kashmir when India and Pakistan threatened each other with the
use of nuclear weapons. Terrorism cannot be taken out of context as if it is
devoid of military implications.
Some positive developments actually come from
Saudi Arabia reporting sources and may auger well (even if not decisively) for
the fight against terrorism. Contrary to the usual rhetoric emanating out of
Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world and particularly the Palestinians, one
Saudi columnist actually views President Bush as a "liberator of Baghdad" ("Saudi
Columnist: 'America is a Liberator and not an Occupier... Bush will Go Down in
Arab History as the Liberator of Baghdad,'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch -
Saudi Arabia/Reform Project, December 19, 2003, No. 631). Another Saudi
source actually chides the Saudi support of terrorism and raises concern about
a conference in Texas with supporters of Al-Qaida and Saudi representatives ("Saudi
Diplomats Join Bin Laden Supporters in Texas conference," Saudi
Independent News, December 9, 2003).
A word on Tom Friedman. If he was not writing on the pages of the New York
Times he would have been an obscure figure at best. Yet he clearly does not
practice what he preaches and a recently reported incident ("The
Jewish Ombudsman: Sippin' Geneva Juice," Steven I. Weiss, Jewsweek,
December 13, 2003)
demonstrated that he can turn violent when he does not like a question posed
to him. So much for his bi-weekly hollow preaching for peace and
understanding.
This week ended with some very positive
developments such as the capture of Saddam, the Libyan declaration, and the
capture of a key Hamas operative (who has been detailed 17 times before!).
Yet the elevation of the terror level to "High" this afternoon, is but another
reminder that the war on terrorism is far from being won or over.
Stay tuned.
Despite the threat (and because of it), the good
wishes for Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year acquire added
significance.
© 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.
*
* *