e-Letter 207: "Israel arranged itself so
it hasn't been put in the sea"
February 14, 2004
Last week the New York Times succeeded in alarming many who are rightfully
concerned with anti-Semitism by referring to Jews in the same manner that
former and current vile anti-Semites have when they charge that Jews control
the world. Its columnist argued Jews control the White House ("A
Rude Awakening," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, February 5,
2004).
The reaction this time was rather pointed. From letters to the editor to
newspaper articles and internet blogging it became evident that Friedman has
crossed the lines of civilized and intellectual discourse. A media watchdog
group criticized Friedman - by quoting Harvard President Summers - for using
words that are "anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent" and called
on the editors to apologize or write an editor's note ("Tom
Friedman Hits New Low," Lee Green, CAMERA, February 9, 2004).
Friedman's "correction" only worsened the situation. First he ignored the fact
that Israel released hundreds of terrorists as a gesture to the first
Palestinian prime minister. Now he acknowledges the gesture but dismisses it
as insignificant. But not a word about his antisemitic language ("Arabs,
It's Your Move," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, February 12,
2004; titled in the Atlanta paper: "Arab Leaders need to redirect Sharon
Bulldozer"). Instead, he resurrects the Saudi "peace plan" and suggests that
it is up to the Arabs to make the next (positive?) move. One becomes
bewildered: is he writing in the name of a president who is under "house
arrest?" If so then this must be a Jewish/Israeli plan that surely the Arabs
will not accept. If he is no longer under "house arrest" what changed in less
than a week? Where did all this "Jewish power" go?
His "intellectual" contortions no longer stand
scrutiny and CAMERA has
made it clear the paper needs to take a position even if the writer will not
("Tom
Friedman Makes Grudging Correction: CAMERA and Others Call for Editor's Note,"
Lee Green, CAMERA, February 13, 2004). CAMERA also correctly points out the
deficiencies in Friedman's position with regard to returning all territories
(not required by UN Resolution 242) for normalization. Where all territories
were returned (to Egypt) normalization is non-existent. He also ignores
Palestinian non-compliance with accords as well as their terrorist
indoctrination and glorification of murder.
One of the more interesting reactions to Friedman
came from former New Mayor Koch who utters what most Jews prefer not to
confront or mention. Namely, that Jews can be anti-Semites ("Yes,
Jews do engage in anti-Semitic behavior," Edward I. Koch, Jewish World
Review, Feb. 12, 2003). Indeed, the same way that Arabs argue that they
"cannot be" antisemitic because they are themselves Semites does not hold (the
term antisemitism was coined to refer to acts against Jews) the fact that
someone is Jewish should not provide any absolution for engaging in such
activity. On the contrary.
A recent revelation by non-other than a Saudi
source about the Saudi government bribing local and foreign journalists is an
eye-opener ("Saudi
Payments for Foreign Journalists," Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform
Project, February 13, 2004, No. 662). While the source implies that it is Arab
journalists who are bribed (and silenced or "guided") the likelihood that the
Saudis bribe or threaten or have relations with non-Arab journalists is not
far-fetched. The mere fact of granting an exclusive audience with the king
could taint any objective reporter's account and perhaps the servants of these
masters may actually epitomize the concept of the "butler did it" when writing
about the Mideast. Even Friedman himself acknowledged in the past that Arab
threats were rather intimidating and affected what he wrote about the area.
Not all voices coming out from Mideast sources are
be necessity anti-American. Some actually do offer support for the American
action in Iraq ("Former
Dean of Islamic Law at University of Qatar: ‘America Has Changed the World for
the Better,'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Reform Project, February 10, 2004,
No. 660): "Let us imagine the world if America had listened to the French and
German logic saying: Give the murderers of the Serbs and the Arabs a chance
for a diplomatic solution. Would Bosnia, Kuwait, and Iraq be liberated
[today]...? The former dean of Islamic Law at Qatar's university goes even
further and argues that tyrants will be removed only by force, that the US
should continue with its democratization efforts, and that to fight terrorism
"...America needs to encourage the countries to reexamine their educational
systems in full - not only the curriculum - and must give financial and
professional aid in developing the educational system..."
Yet at home the criticism of the US-lead invasion
to Iraq has grown in this election year to shrills of "where are the WMDs?"
But the question should have been the outcome not the cause or the declared
reason for the war. The problem with democratic civilization is that it can
protect itself at a high cost. Namely, it will not use preemptive strikes with
very few exception (Israel in 1967); so unless not only threatened, but
actually acted-upon, the West did not do anything until the 9-11 atrocity
(despite the blatant evidence of a threat as experienced in the first attempt
to topple the towers in 1993). Therefore, the removal of the Iraqi tyrant is
justified in itself and perhaps what was erroneous about this war is the
language used to justify it not the initiative itself ("Bad
intelligence, so what?" Matti Golan, Haaretz, Feb. 11, 2004). In short,
doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
So against such criticism the former Islamic dean
sounds good? Doesn't he? Perhaps a little too good to be true? Indeed he is.
He is acknowledging only terrorism against Arabs and the US but not against
Israel and after offering convincing in-depth remedies for Arab problems he
slips again into the traditional Arab canards as if Israel is their only
problem: "Our third demand of America is connected to the Palestinian problem
and to improving the image of America, since the [Arab] media focuses on the
negative aspects of America and does not mention its positive face. The media
help vilify the image of America and increase hatred for it, but it is not
acting in a vacuum. America's bias in favor of Israel provides fertile ground
for blackening the image of America in the Arab and Muslim public awareness
... and as the emir of Qatar said... We call on America to view our problems
with greater balance, justice, and honesty. This is what will improve its
image in the Arab and Islamic world..." If the gracious dean would just
explain to the world what he means by "greater balance, justice and honesty"
and how will such balance not result in the destruction of Israel.
The problem of such "scholars" is by no means limited to the Arab-Muslim world
or even to the West that has been penetrated by activists and sympathizers.
It is also evident in what passes at times for Israeli scholarship on the
topic. A push to establish Israeli studies in American universities as a
response to the bastardization of Mideast scholarship - which is often tainted
with Arab funds and pro-Arab (anti-Israeli) sympathizers - has backfired at
Berkeley ("How
Not to Promote Israel Studies," Martin Kramer, Weblog, February 12, 2004).
There an Israeli who was appointed to fill the first such chair turned out to
be vehemently anti-Israel. Often when debates are carried out in universities
there is a seeming balance between Israelis and Palestinians except that also
often the Israelis brought to supposedly represent Israel do a 180 when they
turn out to represent the Palestinians. It is no surprise to those who know
their agenda yet it serves to "legitimize" anti-Israel positions by the hosts
and adversaries suggesting that "even Israelis" state anti-Israel positions.
The reason for this is evident in the asymmetry
between Israelis and Palestinians ("Unequal
Mideast equation," John Moscowitz, The Globe and Mail, Feb. 12, 2004):
"... a troubling asymmetry exists that suggests why Israeli society is
significantly prepared for peace while Palestinian society is not. That is,
Israel's far left has accepted the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative
over that of the Israeli narrative. This is a small group, although
influential (i.e. Yossi Beilin); it includes the artistic, media and
intellectual elite who enjoy significant say in public opinion. Israel's
moderate left accepts the equal legitimacy of the Palestinian and Israeli
narratives. The moderate right can be said to accept the right of Palestinian
statehood (although it probably believes that the Israelis have something more
of a right). On the far right, a small minority insists that only Israel
enjoys national legitimacy." The Palestinians, of course, utterly reject all
Israeli narratives and will not accept even minimized versions of it. For them
it is: convert or die.
Not surprisingly then, the Israeli talk about
unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip have met with skeptical reaction
even from the chief of Israeli military intelligence. The problem with the
unilateral withdrawal is twofold: 1) it gives (some of) the Palestinians what
they want anyway and without any return, 2) it sends a message that Israel is
weak. The same way the Hizbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon (or so it
perceived the Israeli withdrawal) the Palestinians in Gaza will see Israeli
withdrawal not as a final settlement but as a bridgehead for continued demands
on Israel ("The
Gaza pullout," Cal Thomas, Townhall.com, February 12, 2004 ): "...A
Palestinian state without proof that Palestinian intentions have changed would
assure an unprecedented base for terrorism that currently does not exist."
As Daniel Pipes argues, the issue is more than
settlements ("It's
not about settlements," Daniel Pipes, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 10, 2004).
Indeed, as long as there is no declaration of an end-to-the-conflict the
Palestinians use the settlement issue not as an end in itself but as a step
towards their next hostile take-over objective. Therefore, unilateral
withdrawal or not, the West must support Israel because it is in the best
interest of the West to do so ("Why
the West should care about Israel's survival," Dallas Brodie, The
Vancouver Sun, February 12, 2004): "...no question that Israel sits on the
front line against despotism, Islamic fundamentalism and terror in the Middle
East. As such, it plays a crucial role in the ongoing war against
terror...Essentially...the West must pick a side. Either we believe in
democracy and human rights or we do not. It's as simple as that....support
Israel because it stands as a tiny island in an exceedingly dangerous sea of
totalitarianism with all the challenges of waging war as a democracy."
This is a point that needs to be well understood. As long as the Palestinians
(and those they represent and by whom they are supported) approach to the
conflict is grounded in a fantasy (like Hitler march to the Rhineland) no
amount of compromise and giving will satisfy their insatiable appetite for
land that is not theirs and for murder they are proud of ("Murderous
Fantasies: Suicide bombers come from a neighborhood of make-believe," Bret
Stephens, The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2004). From this perspective
"suicide murders are not necessarily an act of despair at all but something
approaching the opposite: a supreme demonstration of contempt for everything
Westerners hold dear, not least life itself? And they are not the poor-man's
F-16 but a robust expression of confidence that the Palestinians are
infinitely more ruthless than Israelis in what amounts to a zero-sum game?"
Moreover, "They are unlike the more common types
of enemy known to man, who vie for land, prestige or plunder as ends in
themselves. The fantasists, by contrast, have only a loose connection to the
world as it really is. They may conquer land in the fulfillment of their
fantasy, but the land is uninteresting to them except for the role it plays on
the stage of their imaginations. Yet paradoxically, says Mr. Harris, it is the
very absence of a "sense of the realistic" that makes the fantasists so
dangerous, because they are willing to take fantastic risks. So it was with
Hitler's march into Rhineland in 1936, a foolish gamble by rational standards
that succeeded because the French high command was unwilling to prick the
Führer's fantasy of invincibility--thereby, of course, driving the fantasy to
catastrophic proportions."
The proof that Israel stands in the forefront of
the battle against Islamist tyranny and that any solution to the Mideast
conflict that is "balanced"or namely, favors the Arabs will not bring an end
to the conflict is found in the words of a former Pakistani intelligence chief
who argues ("If India
does not give us our land we will go to war," Rediff.com, February 13,
2004) he is "an Islamist. Islam is the final destiny of mankind. Islam is
moderate, Islam is progressive. Islam is everything that man needs. It is not
necessary to become a Muslim but it is necessary to adopt the principles of
Islam. Naseem Azavi and Iqbal's writings have influenced my thinking... India
will give its land when it will be divided into many pieces. India will have
to be break (sic.). If India does not give us our land we will go to war and
divide India." It does not appear that land this Islamist wants is only in
Kashmir but in the rest of India.
This demonstrates how little the current conflict has to do "only with
Israel." Some leaders have clearly understood Israel's right to defend itself
and the obligation to support her in this effort. Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld was asked recently by a Palestinian general about the "risk" that
Israel is posing with her nuclear weapons with the underling assumption that
Israel is the problem ("Secretary
Rumsfeld Availability at the Munich Conference on Security Policy,"
February 7, 2004). His answer is rather telling: "You know the answer before
I give it, I'm sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like you
find it; and Israel is a small state with a small population. It's a democracy
and it exists in a neighborhood that in many -- over a period of time has
opined from time to time that they'd prefer it not be there and they'd like it
to be put in the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get
put in the sea, and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged
itself so it hasn't been put in the sea."
It is safe to say that the patience the U.S. has
shown the Palestinians is reaching its end. First, the U.S. ambassador to
Israel - who in the past was often too quick to criticize Israel - has
publicly condemned the Palestinian fiasco in connection with the probe of the
murderers of the Americans in the Gaza strip ("Kurtzer
faults PA probe of Gaza attack," Jenny Hazan, The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 10,
2004). And his boss, Secretary of State Powell, has placed the blame squarely
on Yasir Arafat ("Powell
Blames Arafat for Impasse in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts," David
Gollust, Voice of America, 12 Feb 2004) which begs the question what will he
say when the violence continues after Arafat is gone.
If anything, the Palestinians have increased their
vitriolic attacks against Israel with horrendous vilifications ("PA: Israel is
‘Satan's offspring,' founded on racism, Protocols," Itamar Marcus and Barbara
Crook, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin,
February 12, 2004). And their brethren? Look at what they do in England. A
new hip-hop style rap video - titled "the dirty infidel" - glorifies terror
and takes pride in it - jihad-style - in an attempt to use a popular western
music style to recruit more supporters among young Muslims and other potential
sympathizers ("Islamic
rappers' message of terror," Antony Barnett, The Observer, February 8,
2004).
Just examine some of the words:
"Peace to Hamas and the Hizbollah
OBL [bin-Laden] pulled me like a shiny star
Like the way we destroyed them two towers ha-ha
The minister Tony Blair, there my dirty Kuffar
The one Mr Bush, there my dirty Kuffar...
Throw them on the fire"
Therefore, if a recent report about sympathetic behavior towards terrorist
acts is true ("Celebrating
9/11 at the FBI," Paul Sperry, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 11,
2004) the FBI needs to be worried not only about terrorists coming from abroad
or those in sleeper cells already in the US, but also about some of its own
employees and perhaps the quality of the work they are doing for the FBI as
well as the possibility of actively sabotaging the very work they are supposed
to be doing. Can the translation and analysis of those celebrating the
toppling of the towers be trusted?
To paraphrase Rumsfeld's words, Israel is not the only target that has to
arrange for itself not be put in the sea. The onslaught against the West is
in full swing and every week brings with it new horrifying developments about
the advent of the jihad against it. Terror in Iraq and many parts of the
world, youth football groups in California adopting names with jihad messages,
and now rap-for-jihad is out in the market. The French do not speak German
today because the U.S. and allied forces saved her from itself. Now it is the
West itself (and those who wish to identify with it) that is under a threat of
converting or dying. Not very enticing options and the sea is not even one of
them.
© 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.
*
* *