e-Letter 212: Terrorists murder Arabs too
March 20, 2004
Last night an Israeli jogger was murdered in the
French Hill area of Jerusalem. He was a student at the Hebrew University and
the son of a prominent attorney. His grandfather was also murdered in
Jerusalem in 1975. Both were committed by Palestinian terrorists. In Israel
these are statistics not stories. What makes this a story is that the student
was an Israeli Arab and when the murderers "discovered" this they issued an
"apology" and asked to participate in the funeral. The Arafat even called to
offer his personal "condolences." The father did not blame the Palestinian
Authority - whose business is to authorize murders - because it has "no
control" over the terrorists ("Al-Aqsa
Brigades apologizes for killing Israeli Arab in J'lem," Jonathan Lis,
Haaretz, March 20, 2004).
This one vignette epitomizes how a planned
atrocity combines with a personal tragedy to play a role in the theater of the
absurd. In this theater it is "permissible" for the terrorists to kill
Israeli Jews but not permissible for an Arab father to blame the terrorists
who murdered his son. No one is "responsible." One Israeli Arab member of
parliament already rehashed the Arab mantra that this is because of the
"occupation." Eureka! Now we know why Muslims slaughter Muslims in Algiers,
why they do so in Iraq, in Turkey, in Saudi Arabia, in Morocco and many other
places around the world. It is all because of the Israeli occupation. What a
lunatic method to explain away decadence, vengeance, atrocities, and lack of
accountability by always of blaming someone else. And note, the "apology" is
to the specific family, not to Israel, not to the Mayor of Jerusalem. This is
not merely collateral damage but a "mistake in operation" and thus they count
the victim as another "shahid" or "martyr" even though he was a Christian
(they must have automatically converted him after his death)! The same way
that terrorists picked a 12 year old porter to deliver a bag with explosives
to kill (himself and) Israeli soldiers without his knowledge. True to
longstanding Arab democratic principles the terrorists did not bother to ask
them if they wanted to become willing participants. Their martyrdom is
self-assumed.
Even Arafat's own cabinet demanded of him to rein
in terror and he refused ("Arafat
rejects his cabinet's demand to act against terror," Arnon Regular and
Aluf Benn, Haaretz, March 16, 2004). What better evidence is needed to realize
that the Arafat-headed PA is a terrorists organization? It also employs a
sophisticated propaganda apparatus with paid clerics who vilify and preach
murder ("Last
Week's Friday Sermon on PA Television," MEMRI, Special Dispatch - PA/Arab
Antisemitism, March 19, 2004, No. 683).
The Palestinian (paid) clerics pit their "stand"
as "truth battling falsehood," justify why "Jews had to be destroyed" (by
Muhammad), argue that "the Jews' evil deeds led to their downfall," make the
preposterous claim that "Jews seek to conquer Saudi Arabia," complain that
"Arab states are abandoning the struggle," pledge that "we will fight the
Jewish cancer," and argue that "the Palestinian mother wishes to receive her
son as a corpse, but not butchered." Perhaps even a Ph.D. in psychiatry may
not be sufficient to understand the sheer lunacy of such sick propaganda and
indoctrination.
However blatant such indoctrination is the more sophisticated and subtle
versions of it have already permeated the American school text books ("Textbooks
for Jihad," Lee Kaplan, FrontPageMagazine.com, March 19, 2004):
"...prestigious American textbook publishers such as Prentice-Hall, Simon and
Schuster, TCI and others are educating your child to the "Arab point of view"
and its aspirations of world domination through what the Islamic world calls
Dawa, a means of proselytizing unbelievers to the faith. They are doing this
no matter how much that point of view may be distorted, farfetched or, in some
extreme cases, outright lies....There is nothing wrong with public school
textbooks including sections on Islamic culture."
"To be sure, it's a major part of world history.
But the activities of organizations like CIE and AWAIR seek to glorify
historical Islam while ignoring Islamic historical tenets that even survive
today and are affecting our world. Jihad is virtually ignored in many of the
texts or sweetened to mean a personal internal struggle. Bernard Lewis, one of
the most prominent Middle East scholars, has stated in the past that jihad has
always referred to Muslim conquests in military terms in Islamic culture and
to claim otherwise is a diversion... If the use of false history and
propaganda to promote the goals of our enemies overseas becomes commonplace in
our textbooks here, how long before those goals are achieved in our next
generations? Our schools and children have become targets of militant Islam
and its apologists. Congress did right by insisting on oversight of Title VI
funds in our colleges. It is time now they take an equally hard and long look
at the textbooks being used to indoctrinate our children still in grades K
through 12."
Regrettably they produce naive admirers and blind
followers who abuse the term peace as a commodity the Israelis are not
deserving of and thus they are also playing a role in the theater of absurd by
preaching "peace" but willfully and knowingly supporting terror. A recent
cynical article by an Israeli is illustrative of the low regard the so called
"peace activists" are held ("A
Tribute to Rachel Corrie: Thanks for showing us what ‘peace' really means,"
Ruhama Shattan, The Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2004).
Once in a while the "right" voice is heard from Arab corners. Usually replete
with classical canards against the crusaders (Christians) and Jews it is
surprising to find an unequivocal criticism of the Arab practice to vilify and
blame everyone else. The latest is by a Saudi columnist ("Saudi
Columnist: 'The Creed that Sanctions Blowing Up Worshippers in Mosques ...
Should Be Declared the Public Enemy of Humanity,'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch
- Saudi Arabia/Reform Project, March 17, 2004, No. 681) who states that the
"terrorists in Iraq are more barbarous than Saddam," that "Arabs 'blame others
and shun the facts'" and suggests that "'Shia and Sunni Know perfectly well
who the perpetrators [of the Karbala massacres] are'" yet even he does not
specify who they are but leaves very little for doubt when referring to them
as "Arabs" and being part of the "religious elite." This is a clear reference
to Al-Qaida on one hand and Iran on the other.
There is something common to terrorism and
antisemitism. Not only do they target similar "enemies" and then end up doing
even greater damage to many others in the process as evidenced by the Nazi
atrocities. Terrorism and antisemitism metastasize like cancer. Cutting the
growth (or the "snake's head") is no longer sufficient to eliminate it ("The
cancer of anti-Semitism in Europe," Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe,
3/14/2004):
"What the world should already know but so often forgets is that Jews are the
canary in the coal mine of civilization. Anti-Semitism is like cancer;
unchecked, it can metastasize and sicken the entire body. When civilized
nations fail to rise up against the Jew-haters in their midst, it is often
just a matter of time before the Jew-haters in their midst rise up against
them."
Other metaphors for antisemitism equate it to a mutating virus ("Antisemitism
is a virus and it mutates: To claim Jews cause their own suffering by failing
to denounce Israeli policy is a revival of an old hatred," Stephen Byers,
The Guardian, March 15, 2004). Indeed this is an appropriate metaphor given
that the individualized Jew as an object of hate and vilification - and as a
candidate for extinction - has been replaced by what the Jew has created,
namely, the State of Israel.
As British Member of Parliament Byers writes: "
The reason for the resurgence of an old hatred is simple. Anti-Semites feel
emboldened again. Their prejudice, suppressed out of guilt but lingering on in
the past 50 years, is finding its way back to the mainstream. This cannot be
ignored. Anti-racists everywhere have a responsibility to challenge and expose
antisemitism wherever it occurs."
And a scholar on antisemitism ("Memories
Are Short, Hatred Is Forever," Omer Bartov, Los Angeles Times, March 15,
2004) adds a warning: "We should not wait until it is too late. We must not
repeat the fatal misunderstanding of the 1930s and ignore the lesson that
Hitler taught us: that some people, some regimes, some ideologies, and, yes,
some religious groups, must be taken at their word."
Too many of these sign are blatantly evident. In the U.S. teenagers are
committing "pranks" by stuffing mailboxes of Jews with hate mail and media
mavens and politicians are talking about neo-cons as a euphemism for Jews and
get away with it ("The
Usual Suspects," Ronald S. Lauder, The New York Sun, Mar 16, 2004) partly
because Jews themselves have not yet learned when is it appropriate to cry
wolf and not be bitten by the cry itself. But also partly because it is
tolerated, it is allowed, or it is simply ignored. And then when it emerges
from the gutters to the ‘civilized' surface the result is "amazement" at "not
seeing" the writings earlier even when they have been smeared rather saliently
on the wall (paper).
Commentators aptly labeled it appeasement,
capitulation, and even decadence pointing that it is not only Spain at stake
but the fate of all of Europe ("Spaniards
Capitulating . . . ," Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, March 19,
2004): "So when Zapatero and, more important, Prodi speak of nonmilitary means
to combat terrorism, they don't mean draining the swamp by gradually building
free institutions. They mean buying off the terrorists, distancing themselves
from America and seeking a separate peace. Sure, they will continue to track
down individual al Qaeda terrorists. But that's no favor to anyone. They want
to make sure there's not another Madrid, in case European appeasement is not
quite thorough enough to satisfy the terrorists. But on the larger fight, the
reordering of the Arab world that produced the terrorists, they choose
surrender."
Others ascribe the victory of the terrorist not so
much to their power to instill fear but to the identified weakness point of
their targeted victims who no longer have the wherewithal to oppose them ("Spain's
elections show why radical Islam can win," Spengler, Asia Times, March 16,
2004). This has to do with demographic decline and with long historical
trends that are now catching the Spaniards as an unwilling party to protect
themselves (at least for now).
The British have their own radical Muslim threat from within and some of their
experts offer fairly nebulous remedies for terrorism ("Terror
unlimited: After Madrid we're in shock. But we are more resilient than our
leaders think," Tim Garden, Independent, 14 March 2004). A British scholar
and a former air Marshall wrongly identifies past terrorist activities
suggesting that terrorists transform into legitimate governments once they
obtain their objectives and wrongly focusing on the pain and anger of the
Spaniards demonstrating in the streets following the atrocity yet fully
ignoring the political shift which resulted from their elections. He is also
too politically correct when suggesting that "leaders must resist the
temptation to throw away our individual liberties in the hopeless search for
absolute security. Coping with terrorism is the challenge of the century."
This is the kind "truism" and classical "expert" advice that dooms its
recipients for failure.
But by no means is this sentiment shared by all
Europeans or all Brits. Others in England have a far better read on what needs
to be done with terrorists ("Let
us pray by all means, and then pass the ammunition," Barbara Amiel, The
Daily Telegraph, 15/03/2004). There is a correct analysis of the depth of the
hate and "grievance" displayed by the terrorists. When it goes back to 1492
("losing" Spain) or 80 years ago ("losing" the Ottoman Empire) it means there
is no time period and no appeasement that will soften or satisfy any real or
imagined "grievance." In other words, no matter how many times the Islamists
lose they only see it as an incentive for additional "rightful" demands.
Indeed, "...by their own mad statements, the
Islamists will not be content until all the lands they believe belong to the
Muslim world are free of the infidel and the "humiliation of 80 years ago" is
reversed, meaning the reversal of the end of the Ottoman Empire. Given their
rather bloody interpretation of the command of the Koran to spread the word to
all infidels, unless we pull ourselves together we shall find ourselves spread
all over streets and railway lines. In the fight against Satan, it is
traditional to have a deity onside. Let's pray by all means - and then pass
the ammunition."
What is missing in the Spanish script is the
understanding of what the objective of the terrorists (and their handlers)
are. One commentator does take them at their word ("These
guys want to kill us anyway," Mark Steyn, The Australian, March 15, 2004).
Therefore, "the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush
in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes.
Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war
against a phenomenon, in fact you can – as the Royal Navy did very
successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and
slavery.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But
they'll blow it up anyway."
So perhaps the French should be wise to heed the
latest Islamist threat against the "French people" ("Muslim
group threatens France: Group plans to inflict 'terror into the heart of the
French people,'" CNN, March 17, 2004).
And an exceptionally gutsy British editorial ("The
world at war," Editorial, The Daily Telegraph, 14/03/2004)
understands that this unusual threat that terror poses requires fighting it
with unusual means not with designer kids' gloves we cannot afford. In
reference to the British criticism raised against the holding of detainees in
Guantanamo it states: "No country at war has ever treated captured saboteurs
or spies as ordinary criminals...They need to ask themselves if, in order to
increase the chances of preventing the next episode of mass murder, it is
worth restricting some of the protections which the law extends to those
suspected of involvement in terrorism. It is difficult to believe that the
answer to that question must always be No."
One only needs to look at the differential
perception of events in Europe and in the U.S. to realize that even if the
terrorists mistake U.S. resolve again (to be weak), they will be matched with
an even more fierce response than what is currently taking place ("Al
Qaeda's Wish List," David Brooks, The New York Times, March 16, 2004).
Yet, the point is not whether "in the end" the terrorists will not win. That
should be axiomatic. The point is that they might (and are very likely to) try
to imitate and "re-apply" the Spanish model to influence the American
elections shortly before it takes place.
The negative lesson taught by the recent Spanish
political experience is also an omen of what NOT to do in the Middle East.
Any early western "retreat" from that area ("Like
it or not, the west just can't leave the Middle East: The dreams of al-Qaida
and its allies are destructive - but doomed," Martin Woollacott, The
Guardian, March 19, 2004) will be perceived as a defeat. And the U.S. has
already been to that "movie" in
Beirut when it decided
in 1983 it no longer had "business" there because it became too costly: "As
Spain demonstrates, it may be that in future the western leaders who will have
to deal with the consequences of the Iraq intervention will not be those who
led it. But deal with it they must, as well as take other decisions that may
prove equally hazardous, if the pernicious idea that the west and the Islamic
world have separate futures linked only by hostility is to be defeated."
It is normal to be fearful and concerned about
terrorism, it is normal to plan ahead, it is normal to be resilient, it is
normal to hope for better days to come. Yet if there is anything that boggles
the mind as an unexplainable abnormality is the persistent hijacking of the
"peace narrative" by those who claim they are for peace but will not say word
against terrorism. City streets all over the world should have been filled
with mourning, angry citizens protesting like the millions of Spaniards
immediately following the Madrid bombing. In fact, the Spaniards were the
only ones displaying such massive and strong sentiments against terror. Until
their election results three days later which turned their dignity into
misplaced opportunism. But why is the rest of the world silent? Why could a
million march in London "against the war" (in Iraq) or in numerous cities
around the world but very few go out to the streets to protest the daily
massacres committed by terrorists, the abuse, the decadence, the corruption,
the twisted mindedness, the evil, and the sheer cold bloodedness of murderers
who are so brazen as to declare a Christian Arab as an Islamist "shahid" after
they murdered him? When we will have answers to this question we may also
have the first signs that victory against terrorism is indeed possible. The
answers will likely come and hopefully not at a high cost.
© 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.
*
* *