e-Letter 206: It was indeed a rude
awakening
February 7, 2004
Since the 9-11 atrocity and the war in Iraq
(including the tense period leading to it) the Bush administration was very
careful to state that this is not a war against Islam. While there was no lack
of voices suggesting that it may not be war against Islam it is certainly
Islam's war against the West. It is interesting to note an opinion that does
not look at "causation" but rather for an attribution of blame. A columnist
from India suggests that it is something inherently wrong with Islamic
societies that results in externalizing and internationalizing their
"grievances" instead of solving them internally ("Fifth
Column: Why It's Islam vs Rest of the World," Tavleen Singh, The (Indian)
Sunday Express, February 1, 2004).
Singh criticizes the Islamic presence in the
recent economic summit in Davos that only complained about the West but did
never not look internally: "It was the fault of the West that Islam was being
labelled a terrorist religion, the fault of the West that most Muslim rulers
were despots, the fault of the West that political issues had been allowed to
fester, the fault of the West that Muslim countries had not progressed
economically and the fault of the West that Osama bin Laden had got created."
Indeed, this propensity to blame everyone except
themselves is evident in the vitriolic official writing by a princess - the
daughter of the Saudi king - who specifically blames the West for "conspiring"
against her country ("Saudi
Princess Fahda bint Saud ibn Abd Al-Aziz: Conspiracy Theories and Other
Writings," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia, February 2, 2004, No.
653). Using traditional antisemitic motifs she attacks the US and Jews for
"the Neo-Conservative conspiracy to control the world;" who built "a new
American-Jewish $95 million research center established to attack Saudi
Arabia." She claims that "outside forces are trying to control Saudi Arabia,"
and quotes her father as saying that "the Zionist threat is like cancer," that
"Arabs will not accept an Israeli state amidst them" that "the Saudi Army was
trained to repulse Israel," and that the "Saudis support PLO Charter to
liberate Palestine."
It is precisely against this backdrop that the
ranting of Tom Friedman are no longer "opinions" that are fit to be printed in
a respectable newspaper. His recent article ("A
Rude Awakening," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, February 5, 2004)
reads like one written for
Der Sturmer
or for/by representatives of current Arab propaganda like the Saudi princess
as they repeat the exact same theme of "Jewish control." For anyone who has
unfavorable views to Israel to suggest that Bush and Arafat are (Israeli)
"house prisoners" (or even compare the two) is ludicrous but to say that the
White House and the VP are controlled by the Jews is purely an antisemitic
canard. If anything, it is Sharon who is influenced by the White House as
otherwise the measures he would and should have taken against terrorism would
have been far more aggressive and timely.
More than Friedman is offensive to Jews he insults
the intelligence of Americans as surely the White House is a bit more
independent than his portrayal allows.
HonestReporting pointed out
factual errors in Friedman's writing but perhaps he is preparing his
retirement with a major Egyptian, Syrian or Saudi newspaper or alternatively
is being paid by them already. Trouble is he is writing for the NYTimes and
too many people still take him seriously. Either way, clearly, it is Friedman
who needs a "rude awakening." He can start by comparing his article to what
the Saudi princess wrote and ask himself how is it they are so identical.
Perhaps he ought to even read/heed his own very words: "Criticizing Israel is
not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for
opprobrium and international sanction out of proportion to any other party in
the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."
Some Arab writers have better vision than Friedman
and are able to see the flaws of their own societies and even bravely write
about them ("Martyrs
and Individuals," Ahmed H. Al-rahim, The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 5,
2003): "The thread that connects the recurring stampedes in Mecca, the suicide
bombings in Iraq, and the lopsided exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah is
the deficit of respect for the individual in the Arab world. This erosion has
occurred in a political context, where too many governments in the region deny
their citizens basic individual rights in order to maintain a tight grip on
society. When societies trample over the individual, human life is debased."
But even if some Arabs offer an accurate insight,
the changes are not likely to come from within Arab and Islamic societies.
Indeed, as the noted historian Bernard Lewis suggests, most Islamic countries
have failed miserably at modernizing their societies, and it requires others
to intervene ("A
Historian's Take on Islam: Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight," Peter Waldman,
The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2004). Previous world powers were not
interested in changing Arab and Muslim societies; they were interested in
controlling them either for direct subjugation (Turks - who were/are Muslim)
or for economic, strategic, and military purposes (Great Britain, France).
Lewis, however, suggests that the hope for internal change lies with American
intervention which is far more benevolent. Whether a realistic vision, the
"Lewis Doctrine" offers a fresh look at possible developments in the Middle
East that are worthy of examination.
A Harvard scholar asks why do "religious"
terrorists kill ("Explaining
the addiction to jihad," Jessica Stern, The Daily Star - Beirut, February
5, 2004). She assumes that it is only "religious" terrorists who kill as if
"secular" terrorists have not resorted to it or as if criminal gangs have not
utilized terrorism to further their objectives. On one hand she offers a
realistic assessment that like criminal gangs, they become addicted to their
behavior because it succeeds and it becomes a way of life (inverse pun not
intended): "...over time, terrorism can become a career as much as a passion.
Leaders harness grievances, humiliation and anomie, turning them into weapons.
Jihad becomes addictive. Violence turns activists and mystics into evil men.
Grievances end up as greed for money, political power, status or attention.
For the leaders, perpetuating the movement becomes a central goal. What starts
as moral fervor becomes a sophisticated organization."
However, Stern attributes too much blame and
reason for terrorism on the washed-up mantras such as "envy," "US policy,
"humiliation," "globalization," and (the threats of) "modernization." Hence,
instead of looking internally and place the blame directly on the terrorists
she indirectly justifies their actions by accepting their "grievances" at face
value. She starts well by describing the organizational realities of
terrorist groups, misses the point on the reasoning for their action, but then
offers a good yet partial solution: "...the adversaries of terrorist groups
need to respond not just with guns, but also by sowing confusion, conflict and
competition among terrorists and between terrorists and their sponsors and
sympathizers. They should encourage condemnation of extremist interpretations
of religion by peace-loving practitioners." Had she stopped here her argument
would have had some merit. But she then erroneously adds: "They should change
policies that no longer serve their interests or are inconsistent with their
values, even if these are policies the terrorists demand. In the end, what
counts is what we fight for, not what we oppose. We need to avoid giving into
spiritual dread, and hold fast to the best of our principles and values by
emphasizing tolerance, empathy and courage." Too politically correct an
ending to what was supposed to have been a scholarly article, and rather off
the mark at that.
The acceptance of such theories only exacerbates the situation even further.
There is little doubt that Israel is being demonized and not only by the likes
of the well too-powerful Tom Friedman. Nations demonize Israel, and groups,
organizations, media outlets, and regrettably self-hating Jews do that too
often - not understanding (or not wanting to see) the fine line between valid
criticism and antisemitism ("The
demonization of Israel and Anti-Semitism," Isi Leibler, israelinsider,
January 30, 2004).
An illustration of the growing anti-Israel
movement is evident in the workings of the recently established "World Social
Forum" (WSF) which has adopted the cause of "Palestine" to the extent that in
its view Israel is illegitimate and has no right to exist. In its recent
convention in India its approach became crystal clear ("Networking
to destroy Israel," Shimon Samuels, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 2, 2004):
"Regardless of what brought participants to Mumbai, an anti-Israel angle was
promoted: Environmentalists were told, ‘Israel is guilty of toxic apartheid.'
Health workers were told by the Palestine Medical Relief Association that they
could connect with a new branch of Physicians and Nurses in Solidarity with
Palestine. Teachers, with the backing of Quebec and Vancouver unionists, could
connect with international teachers conferences planned for Bethlehem and
Ramallah. And Indian and Canadian Committees to Support Education in Palestine
were officially launched." And "As a sidebar to the WSF, the Association of
Muslim Hotels of Bombay declared a ban on American guests. US and Israeli
flags were burned. Stalls distributed anti-Israel posters and ‘Free Palestine'
scarves to hundreds of WSF participants."
Of course, the current Iranian regime's very
existence seem to depend on not only demonizing Israel but actively trying to
destroy it. Its leader must have been delighted to read Tom Friedman when he
spouted in an interview last week ["Khatami
terms Tel Aviv as US capital," IRIB News (Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting), Feb 1, 2004] that "Israel is not the friend of the US because
Israel's Zionist lobby decides a major part of American policy. I have once
said in a speech that I do feel sorry for the American nation because although
its capital is Washington, its real capital is Tel Aviv."
And it is not only the self-styled WSF which is anti-Israel. The official
world body, the United Nations is truly united on one subject only: how to do
more damage to Israel and how to use her as its punching bag ("The
UN and The Jews," Anne Bayefsky, Commentary, February 2004): "In every UN
body, Arab and Muslim states have opposed any effort to give meaningful
definition to the notion of terrorism, largely because of its obvious
implications for the Palestinian ‘uprising.' The UN Counter Terrorism
Committee, set up by the Security Council in the wake of 9/11, has yet to
identify publicly a single terrorist organization or state sponsor of
terrorism. At the UN, Israelis and Jews are, by definition, oppressors, as are
the nations and organizations that rally to their cause, and there is no
reason to think that this underlying reality will change anytime soon. Perhaps
it is time to stop holding seminars and conferences on whether the UN glass is
half-full or half-empty. The contents of the glass have been poisoned."
If there is any doubt left about how conducive are
incitement, preaching, and propaganda to inspiring terrorism, just observe the
official Arab press. An Egyptian paper endorses, encourages, and legitimizes
murder even if children are killed in the process ("Egyptian
Government Daily: Suicide Bombings are Legitimate Even if Children Are Killed," MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Egypt/Jihad & Terrorism Studies, February 6, 2004, No. 658)
and it does so by blaming someone else (the victim) for the action: "Even if
during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed - the blame
does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to
this modus operandi."
Of course, terrorist organizations wholeheartedly
pride themselves for carrying out such actions and the new Muslim Brotherhood
leader argues that "martyrdom operations are a religious obligation" in
Palestine and Iraq ("New
Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Resistance in Iraq and Palestine is Legitimate;
America is Satan; Islam Will Invade America and Europe," MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project, February 4, 2004, No. 655). Yet
once these religious fanatics carry out their criminal acts they deny
responsibility and state that there is "no proof that Al-Qa'ida carried out
the 9/11 attacks." Then the leader goes on to threaten the US by describing it
as a "Satan" who will "soon collapse" and that "Islam Will Invade Europe and
the US." The Muslim Brotherhood leader also welcomes an "understanding with
Egypt's government," provided it is made on his terms.
Not many notice but terrorism is not directed at
Israeli, Americans and others (see the
bombing in the Moscow Subway) only. The Palestinians seem to terrorize
their own people as well and turn out to be far greater oppressors than they
claim their enemies are ("When
Palestinians become oppressors," Robert Fulford, National Post, February
02, 2004): "The mistreatment of Palestinians by Palestinians has seldom been
given more than cursory examination by journalists outside the Middle East,
and for obvious reasons. Israel's supporters are more inclined to worry about
the random murdering and maiming of Jews, an attempt to shatter the nerves of
Israelis and destroy their state. Those who sympathize with Palestinians don't
want to remind anyone of how badly they treat each other. Palestinians have
somehow become the favourite oppressed people of intellectuals and journalists
in Europe and elsewhere. It's unfashionable to say a word against
them...Palestinians murder other Palestinians in cold blood and no one gets
charged. Gunmen, some political and some apparently not, spread fear among the
population."
And the Palestinian governing organs (if that is
not an oxymoron) is not anything that those who hope for law and order can
bank on ("Saving the
Palestinian Authority," Danny Rubinstein, Haaretz, 02-02-2004). Indeed,
observers expect it to collapse in the very near future: "The PA might not
collapse in one fell swoop, but under existing political circumstances, its
future looks ominous." Given its terror-supporting track record it may not be
such a big loss.
Even the Americans are starting to recognize the
sad realities of Palestinian terrorism. In a lengthy account that was mostly
aimed at dispelling the clouds of possible intelligence failure regarding
Iraq's WMD, the CIA Director said earlier in the week (Transcript
of Tenet address on WMD intelligence, CNN, February 5, 2004)
that the "The burden here on Mr. Arafat and the Palestinians is considerable:
They must prove that they're willing to sit side-by-side with the Israelis and
engage in the constructive security arrangements that we fostered between 1998
and 2001. Unless we get a commitment to stop terrorism and to seriously talk
about not just the aspiration of the Palestinian people but the security of
the Israeli people in a way where we have two parties firmly committed to a
common objective, we're not going to get anywhere."
The Palestinians may not notice it but Israel's strength lies in its conduct
and reaction to terrorism. Indeed, some observers suggest ("Israel's
gift to a terrorized World," Yossi Klein Halevi, The Jerusalem Post, Feb.
1, 2004) that "...it is our struggle for balance between security and morality
that is a sign of the vitality of the Israeli soul. In the global war against
terror, Israel is humanity's laboratory for testing the limits of a democracy
under permanent siege... The value of that experiment is ignored by Israel's
foreign critics." "not only a tactical but a moral necessity. If Israel
surrenders - for example, if we negotiate substantive political issues under
terrorist fire - then terrorists everywhere will be encouraged to persist. If
Israeli society can be broken, terrorists will realize, then any society can
be broken... But decisively resolving the unbearable tension inherent in our
war against terror, in favor of either an absolutist human rights agenda or an
absolutist security agenda, would destroy the essence of Israel's soul, which
is the ability to sustain paradox." Perhaps a balance needs to be maintained
but it also needs to tilt more towards security as after all we owe that much
to all living souls.
Yet, the war against the terrorists and their supporters permeates not only
the streets and TV screens but language itself. As a linguistics scholar
points out ( "The
language war," Lewis Glinert, The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 29, 2004): "Words
are a cognitive mystery. We use them confidently and quite smoothly to
exchange thoughts, yet we are often quite unaware of why we've used one word
and not another. And when challenged to define a word we're using, we
generally have no option but to reach for a dictionary - but only to find that
dictionary definitions rarely capture the nuances of words, their connotations
and associations, the very things that lead us to choose one word over
another...One stealth technique is collocation - i.e., the use of two words in
the same breath so as to effect a semantic contamination. Examples are ‘the
plight of the Palestinians' and ‘illegal settlements.' Another is the use of
...‘devil terms' and ‘God terms' - words that act like automatic moral
triggers, such as ‘oppression,' ‘occupation,' and ‘uprising.' The Western
media have duly done their best to keep the devil term ‘terrorist' out of
their reporting."
Therefore, mental warning labels should be
assigned to writings such as Tom Friedman's so as to be able to de-construct
the flimsy house of cards he builds and wants us to think he resides in Fort
Knox. To a large extent, most of us cannot actively fight terrorism in the
battlefield of bullets and bombs and hopefully most will not have to. But all
of us can become active in the front of language and thought. Take the
terrorist threats seriously, take their ideologies at face value but do not
accept their rationalization and justifications; do not allow them to control
the linguistic agenda. In this battlefield we can concentrate all of our
energies and mental capabilities and actually win if we only pay enough
attention and learn not to dance to the terrorists or columnists tunes.
© 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.
*
* *