e-Letter 211: The train in Spain fell
mainly off the rail (with apologies to "My Fair Lady")
March 13, 2004
The horrendous terror atrocity that murdered about
200 and injured some 1400 on Madrid trains has already become Spain's 9-11,
acquiring its own symbol of 3-11, and is seen by some as a "reminder" that the
war on terrorism has not ended ("Spain's
3/11: A horrifying reminder that the war on terror isn't over," Editorial,
Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2004). As if reminders are needed.
Initial reports from Spain blamed the multiple
blasts on the Basque separatist group ETA and reports suggest that the Spanish
foreign minister instructed all Spanish ambassadors to push this notion no
matter what other evidence comes up (while keeping all investigation avenues
"open"). This is partly because in Spain an act by ETA will be perceived as a
unifying factor while terrorism by Islamist groups may tilt the sentiment
against the Spanish involvement in the war on terror. Given the elections
slated for next week the stakes are indeed very high. Even the U.N. Security
Council rushed to condemn ETA even as it had no proof ETA was involved (see
U.N.
Resolution 1530).
This flurry of speculations only serves the
interest of the terrorists. If they have plausibly denied involvement yet can
go on performing their atrocities without being stopped then having third
parties take responsibility or deflecting it from one group to another only
serves to spread more fog and increase the fear even further. At this point
it could be Al-Qaida, ETA, some splinter group, or - the more horrifying
thought - a closely coordinated operation between all of the above.
That is exactly the reason why capturing one
arch-terrorist will matter little in the long term (but a great deal now).
Hitler could not have done what he did without an infra-structure that
believed in him and supported his policies. Bin Laden could be an independent
operator but when looking at Iran (and North Korea?) one just remains
wondering how long will it (they) benefit from the terror that many signs
indicate is guided, funded, designed, and coordinated by Iran worldwide ("Capturing
Bin Laden isn't enough," Daniel Pipes, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 9, 2004).
Agreeing with Bernard Lewis, a commentator suggests that the terrorists are
becoming desperate and by directing many of their recent actions against
fellow Muslims are losing ("The
Radicals Are Desperate: Islamic radicals are proving that the war against
terror is not a clash between civilizations, but a clash within a civilization,"
Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, March 15, 2004).
Even if the declaration of "victory" over the terrorists is more than a bit
premature, this view at least exposes the fact that the Arabs/Muslims have to
wrestle with their own internal problems and that this unleashed force of
barbarism has a double edge sword that does not spare their own. And indeed
for the "first time in half a century the royal (Saudi) family is more worried
about American support for democratic change in the Middle East than we are of
an oil embargo" ("Do
We Want to Go Back?" Victor David Hanson, National Review, March 05,
2004).
This also fits into the Iranian picture. Fearing
an internal uprising against the regime the Ayatollahs opt to deepen their
involvement in creating mayhem all over the world and lashing out at the
"Zionist and American enemies." But they also have a deep interest in
destabilizing Iraq and that explains rather well why they kill their fellow
Muslims so they can have sectarian fights that will eventually - or so they
hope - defeat the U.S. there (in Iran's back yard) and leave them in control.
Desperation has never meant that there is no blame
to be found. And the terrorists find plenty. It is their way to ignore the
woes of their own society and to shed any responsibility for it by blaming
outsiders. The likes of Osama Bin Laden and the Palestinians have created a
terror industry coupled with sophisticated "blame propaganda" that would have
been hilarious had it not cost people's lives. Like the criminal who kills
his parents and then cries he is an orphan, they use terror and then blame
that the West is responsible for it or that the West has actually done it. And
by West they specifically point to Israel and the U.S. ("PA: Blaming Israel,
US for Arab Terror," Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, March 12, 2004).
An illustration and reminder of Jimmy Carter's failed understanding of
international relations as president and today as a pretentious (but
discredited) "moral beacon" can be found in an article written by his national
security adviser ("The
Wrong Way to Sell Democracy to the Arab World," Zbigniew Brzezinski, The
New York Times, March 8, 2004).
Zbig, who
dismissed Islamism in the late 1990s, argues that Bush is trying to implement
democracy in the Middle East the wrong way. He could have suggested that
democracy there is not possible but that is not his beef. What irritates him
is that Bush is not nice enough to the Arabs, is not "sensitive" enough to
their needs and that he uses "democracy" as a tool to delay the settling of
the Israel-Palestinian conflict (as if it does not really mean Arab-Israeli
conflict). His undeclared motto is be nice to the Arabs and solve the
Palestinian issue" and nirvana will come to the world. This by the way, was
the underlying criticism against going to war in Iraq: that the road to Bagdad
goes trough Jerusalem. Namely, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first.
As Zbig himself likes to say: nonsense.
In fact no other than a Jordanian cabinet member
provides a diplomatic lesson to Zbig by suggesting the exact opposite. Reform
in the Arab world does not have the luxury of waiting until that conflict is
settled perhaps partly because the lack of reform is what is responsible for
it in the first place ("Jordanian
Minister of Planning Awadallah says the Israel-Palestinian conflict is no
excuse for lack of Arab reform," Access|Middle East, 3/8/2004).
And one of the most prominent Middle East scholars proves time and again that
the problem is indeed with the Arabs because they are the ones using terrorism
and they are the ones rejecting any reasonable settlement including a
Palestinian state. Bernard Lewis believes that democracy has to succeed
because the alternative is continued tyranny and terrorism: "There are two
kinds of terrorism, but, mind you, they're not in conflict and are often
unified in their actions. The first kind is always armed with highly
ideological means and is aimed at preserving existing tyrannies. The second,
al-Qaida kind, is aimed at subjugating the entire Western world." ("Avoid
the Algerian precedent," Fiamma Nirenstein, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 11,
2004).
This point is more evident than ever in the
position taken by Israeli Arabs who adamantly refuse to have their villages
become part of a potential Palestinian rule ("Picking
one home over another," Erik N. Nelson, Newsday, March 7, 2004). Despite
their affinity with their Palestinian brethren Israeli Arabs prefer to stay
under Israel's rule. Given that they will not be uprooted and physically
moved under this plan but simply switch from Israeli rule to Palestinian rule
their objection is rather telling of their mistrust of Palestinian rule and
that with all their complaints about Israel they prefer its proven democracy
over the abuses of their fellow Arabs ("Umm
el-Fahm, Palestine," Matti Golan, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 10, 2004). Of
course, it also gives them a bridgehead to undermine Israel from within.
Sensing an ever so slight wind of change in the
Arab/Muslim world a prominent Israeli figure notes that the perception of what
Israel stands for and what Arabs are doing is striking a cord among some Arab
writers who realize the true values that characterize and differentiates these
societies and openly acknowledges them ("Something's
changing in Arab media," Amnon Rubinstein, Haaretz, March 8, 2004): "in
Israel's view, the life of an Israeli, even one of Arab origin, is considered
invaluable. In contrast, an Arab citizen can be thrown in prison for having
surfed on the opposition's Web site ... that shows how much a citizen's life
is worth in the eyes of Arab regimes." Except of course that an Arab/Muslim
life is far cheaper than that. Erroneous imprisonment happens in the most
enlightened democracies but wanton killing does not characterize them. Not as
a philosophy. Not as a practice. Not as state/religion policies (of course
with the exception of the Holocaust). Not so in a community that does not
cherish the life of others as well as that of its very own.
But terrorism does not only mean the killing of innocent civilians and
striking fear in the heart of an unsuspecting population. It is also
arrogantly taking over images and language. In 2001 Muslims clerics demanded
the Pentagon change "infinite justice" - its code name for the war against
terrorism - because it was "offensive" to Muslims. Apparently it was also
offensive to some "sensitive circles" in the US ("Infinite
justice? Recall the Pentagon's new code name for the war against terror --
before it's too late," Scott Rosenberg, Salon.com, 09-20-2001) and abroad
("The
algebra of infinite justice: As the US prepares to wage a new kind of war,
Arundhati Roy challenges the instinct for vengeance," The Guardian,
September 29, 2001).
Ten days after the 9-11 atrocity and Muslim
clerics "worried" more about the language the American president was using -
finding it "offensive" - than worrying about the terrorism that they have
actively or passively were conducive in producing. And commentators in the US
and England were more concerned about being politically correct than about
condemning terrorism. One could only wonder if Churchill submitted British
WWII code words for Hitler's clearance and
Joseph
Goebbels acceptance prior to their use.
And this still continues. Now Arab American
advocacy activists are complaining that the president's TV campaign ads
"profiles" Arabs ("Group
says Bush ad 'profiles' Arabs: Removal of unidentified photo urged," Julia
Malone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 03/13/04). One might want to be
persuaded perhaps that a photo of
Betty
Crocker would have been more appropriate as we all clearly know that
recent terrorists have been "all-American"-looking white females. Oh they do
not stop. Another Arab-American "advocacy" group now wants Webster to change
its definition of antisemitism ("Arab
Group: Change Dictionary Entry on Antisemitism," Ori Nir, Forward, March
4, 2004) and other Arab writers also try to "refine" the differences between
being anti-Israel and anti-Jewish trying to "remind" the world that "Arabs are
Semites too" ("What
is anti-Semitism?" George S. Hishmeh, Jordan Times, Friday, March 5,
2004). With this intense pace they may be candidates for the Nobel Prize in
linguistics. Surely Noam Chomsky will enthusiastically recommend them.
These are by no means naive and well-intended
efforts at correcting language but rather shrewd tactics to control it. The
proof is in the activities they are involved in. While feverishly condemning
"profiling" and the use of "offensive" language these "advocacy" groups embark
on a relentless propaganda war for they feel they have an entitlement that is
immune from any similar criticism. Thus one such group invited a neo-Nazi to
address students apparently in line with the long tradition of Muslim-Nazi
cooperation ("CAIR Promotes a Neo-Nazi's
Talk," Daniel Pipes, March 11, 2004).
At the same time they do not shy away from
intimidating tactics harassing even those who are sympathetic to the
establishment of a Palestinian state simply because they also support Israel
("Bigotry
outside Faneuil Hall," Alan Dershowitz, israelinsider, March 5, 2004)
prompting the famous attorney to state: "The other day, I experienced violent
anti-Semitism for the first time in my adult life. It took place in front of
Faneuil Hall, the birthplace of American independence and liberty."
Antisemitism is difficult to understand. When
most argue that Gibson;'s movie is not antisemitic (except that most Jews do
think it is) a prominent novelist and cultural critic and a former catholic
priest, James Carroll
is baffling in his inconsistency when dealing with Jewish-Christian matters on
one hand and Israeli-Palestinian issues on the other. When it gets to the
latter he somehow loses or purposefully ignores the nexus between Jews and
Israel to an extent that seems to nullify his contribution to the former ("The
James Carroll Paradox," Andrea Levin, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 9, 2004).
That point is proven by a recent op-ed piece in the Guardian (that British
source of "objectivity") where the writer - a former editor - essentially
suggests that Jews are responsible for the surge of antisemitism because of
their own action ("A
grotesque choice: Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a
resurgence of anti-semitism," Max Hastings, The Guardian, March 11,
2004). He of course replaces "Israel" for "Jews" as if the two are somehow
not intertwined and proceeds - unstoppable - to perform double victimization:
admit that Jews are victims of antisemitism and then claim that they are
responsible for their own victimization. Exemplary logic.
The reality of the outcome of such antisemitic
rhetoric (whether malicious or "well-intended") is that words become guides
for action the results of which are evident in the remnants of the
concentration camps as historical witnesses to the genocide that took place in
them ("‘The
Passion' is mute next to Auschwitz's quiet power," Claudia Rosett, The
Wall Street Journal, March 10, 2004).
There is no denial of the surge of modern Islamist
antisemitism (both religious and secular). The problem is with attribution of
cause and effect. The Arab version of antisemitism is independent of what the
Jews do. It is inherent in the mere objections to whatever signified Muslims
losing control over their perceived dominance. The problem is that it has
drawn little attention from those who should have studied it and it is
therefore somewhat encouraging to see a call - even if belated - to recognize
the need to focus on Islamic antisemitism appear in no other than the most
important higher education newspaper ("The
Urgent Need to Study Islamic Anti-Semitism," Neil J. Kressel, Chronicle of
Higher Education, March 11, 2004): "The warning signs surrounding Muslim
Jew-hatred are too ominous to ignore. The dehumanizing rhetoric used to
denounce Jews in the Muslim world is precisely the sort that alarms scholars
who study genocide and mass atrocities. Surely the problem of Muslim
anti-Semitism merits the attention of Western social scientists."
The view from Spain is depressingly sad. This
mega-terror took the life of hundreds of people, injured thousands, and
shocked millions (not only in Spain). Every human being must have felt pain
and many displayed sympathy with the victims. Yet the U.N. has never jumped
the gun (excuse the metaphor) on Palestinian atrocities and thus far no one
came out with statements that Spain should grant independence to the Basques.
But this atrocity was the first in the heart of civilized Europe and it must
have an effect on its citizens who now saw for the first time numerous people
being blown away and it was not in Israel or the U.S. Many European countries
have elevated their alert level and for the first time Greece showed concern
over Olympic security. The reminder we needed - that terrorism is scourge -
was not yet another terrorist act. Rather what is needed is a world united in
fighting it. Fat chance. A diet is urgently needed to equalize the odds.
© 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.
*
* *