e-Letter 213: Spiritual leaders and
whiners: It's all part of terrorists job description
March 27, 2004
The ongoing saga of insanity in the Mideast
continues with some of the spectators helping to promote it even further.
Reuters reports that Arafat "does not see" Gibson's film as antisemitic ("Yasser
Arafat Says Gibson Film Not Anti-Semitic," Reuters, Mar 20, 2004). The
film's character is a matter for an entirely different discussion. The point
is the credibility of the one asked to pass judgement on this topic. A hateful
murdered. Asking Arafat to render judgement on this matter - and then report
it - is tantamount to asking Hitler if the "final solution" was antisemitic or
selecting a pedophile to serve on a jury of someone accused of child
molestation. And, by the way, Arafat is known for liking young boys in more
than a fatherly manner ("Outing
Arafat," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, September 22, 2003).
This same leader who asked for million so-called "martyrs" (they have given
the term such a bad name) to give their life for the "march to Jerusalem"
(namely the elimination of Israel) and who said he wants to be one too, is now
fearful for his own life and who is he asking for help? He runs whining to the
CIA with crocodile tears complaining the Israelis want to kill him instead of
thanking them for keeping him alive this long ("US
refuses to guarantee Arafat's well- being: Palestinian leader asks CIA for US
guarantee that he will not suffer the same fate as Yassin, but he was rebuffed."
Amir Rapoport, Maariv, 03-26-2004).
Arafatistan's propaganda machine goes even one
step further blaming Israel as encouraging child-terror for its own purposes
("Palestinian Authority libel: Israel encourages PA child terror for PR
gain," Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook,
Palestinian Media
Watch Bulletin, March 25, 2004) thus twisting facts in a relentless effort
to portray themselves as victims.
Palestinians refer to terror incidents as "work"
with a job description that includes wearing an explosive vest ("Wanted
militant killed in van blast in West Bank camp of Balata," Amos Harel and
Arnon Regular, Haaretz and Agencies, 26/03/2004): "Palestinian sources
confirmed Israel Defense Forces' claims that the explosion was the result of a
work accident, saying that the militant had an explosives belt at the time of
the blast."
News services add their own abuse of language when they report that the
explosive charge blew off "prematurely" ("Israelis
quell attack from sea," Jason Keyser, Associated Press, 03/27/04).
Unwittingly they are taking the point of view of the terrorist. Of course,
from his vantage point it blew up "prematurely" but from the vantage of point
of scores of potential victims it blew up in a very timely fashion.
The biggest news last week was the elimination of Ahmad Yassin the head of the
Hamas terrorist organization. Other than Hamas supporters and Israelis, for
whom he was a notorious murderous figure - and a former prison inmate - the
world new little about him. In what was clearly an intelligence success ("Israel
sees Yassin hit as fruition of Gaza intelligence network,"AFP, Mar 23,
2004) the Israelis were able to find a window of opportunity that sent the
murderous Hamas leader Yassin early one morning on the way to meet 72 virgins.
In an amazing show of support for Yassin and Hamas
(under the guise of objecting to this killing) the Europeans condemned the
elimination of this terrorist. The same British foreign minister who justified
the war in Iraq and the hunt for Bin Laden ("War
'more justified' now insists Straw," BBC, Monday, 26 January, 2004) all
but characterized this elimination as a crime against humanity ("Europe
Condemns Israel for Yassin Killing: Palestinians Threaten Retaliation Against
U.S.," Fred Barbash, Washington Post, March 22, 2004) arguing that Israel
" . . is not entitled to go for this kind of unlawful killing, and we
therefore condemn it. It's unacceptable, it's unjustified, and it's very
unlikely to achieve its objective."
One Israeli editor argued that this is an untenable position that also
reflects a condescending attitude towards the Palestinians by considering them
as less than human beings capable of any responsibility because it does not
demand they stop the killing ("The
Fear Factor: Palestinians want us to forget that they're human," Bret
Stephens, The Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2004): "But if Mr. Straw and his
colleagues do not do so, it is not from an excess of respect for the
Palestinians, but rather its lack. They will, after all, be viewing them
merely as weeds, not as humans capable of acting in their own best interests."
This should have been the last straw (pun
intended) but instead this sycophant position appears to have been made to
appease Arabs as the Brits were afraid that the elimination of the Yassin
might have "marred" the prospects for a successful visit of their Prime
Minister to Ghaddafi's tent in Lybia. Even the Chinese paper raised an
eyebrow as to the nature of the visit which only sends one message to
terrorists: you can blow up an airplane above our land, kill our citizens but
we will deal with you and accept you back to civilization ("Why
Blair shakes hands with Gaddafi?" People's Daily, March 26, 2004).
MEMRI has enumerated the unsurprising reaction
from the Arab/Muslim world ("On the
Killing of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, News Tickers - March 22, 2004). Arafat
hailed him as "fighting
hero sheikh" (while their "representative to the US" argued - from the
West Bank - that he was disabled, blind, and was hardly able to talk...). The
Iranian leader stated that "The blood of Ahmed Yassin will nourish the Islamic
resistance and will further flame Palestinians' anger. His [killing] will
hoist the flag of the Palestinians' oppression... The occupying criminals
should know that their stupid showdown is the greatest witness to their
failure and weakness. The Zionist regime is doomed to annihilation." The
"moderate" Egyptian president expressed "Deep sorrow for the death of Sheikh
Yassin," and "warned of the dire consequences of the completely meaningless
and miscalculated Israeli action." Although, admittedly, all things considered
his statement is far more moderate than the one by the British Foreign
Minister Jack Straw.
From the Saudi king who sent condolences to
Yassin's family, the Yemenite threat to "wipe out the Zionist terror and make
the world safe from it," the Syrian president who said "it is Israel that
practices terror," the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) who
condemned "this violation of international law as an act of state terrorism by
Ariel Sharon's out-of-control government..." and criticizing the US government
for "tacit approval of Israel's actions and will undermine our moral and legal
basis for the war on terrorism," to a Brazilian cartoonist who rehashed the
crucifixion canard against the Jewish people by portraying Yassin as Jesus,
the insult here to Christians (comparing a sadistic terrorist to Jesus) is at
least as great as the insult to Jews ("World Turned Upside-down," Communique,
HonestReporting, 25 March
2004). One gets the impression that the paper will tolerate anything printed
on it. But it could get even worse: In the theater of the absurd don't be
surprised if there will be a concerted effort to force the Church to declare
him a saint or to bribe the Nobel Committee to award the Peace Prize to him
posthumously (this is actually a no-brainer and even likely to succeed).
The "criticism," condemnations, and "concerns," raised with respect to
Yassin's elimination focus on four issues; 1) The Yassin strike will escalate
the violence; 2) Yassin was an impotent old man; 3) Yassin was a 'spiritual
leader' who deserved immunity; and 4) Israel's strike creates a western threat
of Islamic terror. A media watch group debunks these as hollow myths arguing
that it is Yassin who escalated terror; he was a disabled man but certainly
very potent when it came to leading a murderous terror campaign; he was no
more of a spiritual leader than war criminals who convicted and executed in
after WWII; and finally the theat of terror to the West has been there years
before Israel has done anything to Yassin or Hamas ("Sheikh
Yassin's 'Happiest Day:' Media outlets perpetuate four myths about the late
Hamas leader," HonestReporting, Communique, 23 March 2004).
At the same time, the preposterous posturing by Arabs, Islamists, and western
apologists - such as the British Foreign Minister and representatives of the
European Union - by no means remain unchallenged. Numerous editorial and
writers fully justify the Israeli action. One editorial looks at Hamas and
Yassin as criminals who take advantage of the charities they distribute to
perpetrate their murderous agenda and compare Yassin to the Chicago mafia boss
Al Capone ("Gaza's
Capone," Editorial, The Washington Times, March 25, 2004).
Strange as it may seem - and without defending Capone - Yassin and Hamas are
far worse in scope, intent, and the glorification of the culture of death. The
comparison of Yassin to a criminal is far more appropriate than elevating him
to the level of "spiritual leader."
Israelis are used to criticism when taking an
initiative. They were rebuked for the 1981
attack on the
Osirak Iraqi nuclear site or for the security fence to protect against
terrorists, and now for eliminating terrorists the same way the US did in
Yemen recently and have tried in the past against OBL. Some called Yassin
"their" Bin Laden ("Our
bin Laden," Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, Mar. 22, 2004), dismissed
outright the European hypocrisy on this issue, reminded the world the
Europeans were rather brutal in their former colonies, and ask what else is
left for Israelis to do to defend themselves against terrorism ("How
else is Israel meant to deal with terror? A targeted killing," Uri Dromi,
IHT, March 24, 2004).
It is interesting and encouraging to see the Detroit paper endorsing the
Israeli action given that the Detroit area is home for the largest
Arab/Islamic community in the U.S. ("Hamas
Sheik Earned His Violent Death: Ahmed Yassin encouraged and directed suicide
bombings aimed at innocent civilians," Editorial, The Detroit News,
Tuesday, March 23, 2004). A leading Canadian paper sees positive results for
the long run ("To
kill a terrorist," National Post, Editorial, March 23, 2004)
The respected London Times shows no sympathy to
terrorists and uses strong words comparing the terror threat to the Nazi
threat the Brits experienced and the Israeli elimination of Yassin to the
elimination of the
Nazi
leader Heydrich in May of 1942 ("Shed
no tears over the killing of the sheikh of hate," Michael Gove, The London
Times, March 23, 2004): "Some people in the BBC may consider it witty to call
for the elimination of the Jewish people from their homeland. Others might
consider it the charming hallmark of a deeply religious man to recruit, incite
and inspire young men to kill civilians. And clearly it is no bar to success
in Arab journalism to define as "moderate" someone who thought the Jews
started both world wars and continue to run the globe through their
manipulation of the media and the all-powerful Rotary International. I may
therefore risk putting myself out on a limb in the media community saying
this, but I'm afraid I find the ambition to wipe Israel off the map repellent,
the worship of death indefensible and efforts made to halt Hamas's
uncompromising campaign of terror completely understandable."
The official US reaction was complex. The president showed understanding to
Israel's right to defend itself but warned that it needs to consider the
consequences ("U.S.
Says Israel Has Right to Self Defense," Adam Entous, Reuters, Mar 22,
2004). The National Security Advisor was "deeply troubled" and called for calm
("U.S.
'Troubled' by Israeli Attack: White House Working to Ease Damage to Foreign
Policy Efforts," Robin Wright, Washington Post, March 23, 2004). The White
House Spokesman was also understanding but the State Department Spokesman was
very critical.
One by-product of murderous terrorism is also cultural and linguistic
terrorism. Various groups commandeer the language and abuse it to further
their objective and the media plays along (to further its objectives). The UN
and various "peace activist" groups certainly falls into this category ("The
counterfeit human rights industry," Amnon Rubinstein, Haaretz, March 21,
2004). So, as expected, the pretentious "U.N. Commission on Human Rights"
condemned Israel's elimination of Yassin ("U.N.
Rights Panel Condemns Israel's Killing of Hamas Leader," Warren Hoge, The
New York Times, March 25, 2004). The UN Security Council also wanted to
rebuke Israel but a US veto prevented that ("U.S.
vetoes UN resolution censuring Israel for Yassin killing," Shlomo Shamir
and Reuters, Haaretz, 26/03/2004).
In a pointed retort to Arab/Muslim, British,
European, and U.N. charges that eliminating Yassin was against international
law two legal scholars argue that the action was completely legal ("What
Israeli Illegality? The Yassin assassination was perfectly lawful," Lee A.
Casey & David B. Rivkin Jr., National Review, March 25, 2004). They also
aptly argue that: "There is now little doubt that, in the years to come,
transnational guerillas will be one of the most difficult challenges faced by
civilized societies in the West - and in the East, North, and South. Adopting
legal rules designed to profit mid-20th-century national-liberation movements,
and attempting to impose those rules on states that wisely eschewed them, is
in no one's interest - except the terrorists'. Whatever political chits
European leaders may collect today by attacking Israel will very likely be
paid for later in innocent blood. Sheik Yassin's death certainly revealed a
humanitarian crisis - but in the cabinet rooms of Europe, not the streets of
Gaza."
One of the few commentators who consistently shows
a deep understanding as to the complexity of the challenges that terrorism
poses argues ("We
Are Finishing the War: Anatomy of our struggle against the Islamicists,"
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online, March 26, 2004) that "...we are
witnessing a grand struggle between those who create things and those who can
only destroy them, between those who are confident and build civilizations and
those who have failed and turned vicious... We should remember that this war
of barbarism against civilization is global and connected. Poor Mr. Villepin
may ignore that his country's appeasement and profit-making in Iraq were
helpful to Saddam Hussein's state-sponsored terrorism and he may believe that
things are worse in Baghdad now. But he will learn that past French
double-dealing, flamboyant anti-Americanism, and obsequiousness to Iranian
theocrats will win him no reprieve from these purveyors of a new Dark Age. The
extremists will be just as likely to murder French children over banning
headscarves as they would have had three Gallic divisions fought in Iraq."
Fiction writers insist that Islam is not the problem but rather an extreme
version of it - Wahhabism ("Desert
sect sowed seeds of hatred," Frederick Forsyth, The Atlanta Journal
Constitution, 03/19/04). But some scholars argue that it is exactly Islam that
is the problem ("Islam
Plays for Keeps," Rachel Neuwirth, The American Thinker, March 24th,
2004). For example the Islamic expert scholar
Hugh Fitzgerald is
quoted as maintaining that "...when it comes to Infidels, though the teaching
in the schools of hatred for all Infidels is perhaps strongest in Wahhabi
Islam, it is part of orthodox, mainstreams Islam, and should be understood as
such...It was foolish to claim that the current crisis is the result of a
‘handful of extremists'... It is not. The Jihad is rooted in such central
tenets of Islam as the uncompromising hostility between dar al-Islam and dar
al-Harb, and the requirement that the war between the two go on forever, until
the final triumph of the former over the latter. ...These tenets are common to
all of mainstream Islam, and any Muslim denying it is engaging in taqiyya or
kitman, the religiously-sanctioned deception that explains so much of the
lying about the nature of Islam that goes on all about us."
Neuwirth links Islamic hate for the "Little Satan"
(Israel) and the "Big Satan "(the US) but also notes that "...there is also
some hypocrisy here. While America aggressively fights terrorists, she denies
Israel the right to fight her own war against these same savages. This sends a
message to the Arab-Islamic terrorists that America's war on terror is not
completely sincere, nor is her heart totally in it. For if America were truly
committed to "root out terrorists," she would turn the Israel Defense Forces
loose on Yasser Arafat and his so-called Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Al-Aqsa
Brigades, Hizbullah, Tanzim, PFLP, etc. And if Israel were unable or unwilling
to do this, then America would do it for Israel...Israel's enemies are
America's enemies, and Israel's enemies are also enemies of the shrinking
civilized world."
And if to reinforce the point about the inherent
nature of fanaticism in the Islamic world, if not the depravity of it, just
view new rulings of Islamic clerics that delineate and regulate wife-beating
("Muslim
Clerics on the Religious Rulings Regarding Wife-Beating," Steven Stalinsky
& Y. Yehoshua, MEMRI, Special Report - Reform Project, March 22, 2004, No.
27).
The battle against terrorism is not only being fought in the streets of Gaza,
the West Bank, inside Israel, in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. Like movies, it
will be fought anywhere as it is likely to come to a "theater near you." It
needs to be fought in the homeland as well. One of the most reputable Mideast
scholars warns that we are not careful enough in examining who we associate
with and who we give undeserved legitimacy when we do that for groups that
have proven links to terrorists as is the case of the US Institute of Peace
associating with the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and
Democracy ("The U.S.
Institute of Peace Stumbles," Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, March 23, 2004).
The same scholar also exposed foreign hostile
interests in supporting academic endowed chairs in American universities and
specifically the Edward Said Chair at Columbia University ("Columbia
U. Releases Edward Said Chair Donors: Names Arab Government," Campus
Watch.org, March 19, 2004): "Columbia is already known for the
lack of balance in
Middle East studies. The list of donors to the Edward Said chair only confirms
the problem. Particularly worrisome is the presence of the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) among the donors. In brief, at Columbia right now, a political
activist professor, paid in part by an Arab state, currently administers funds
from the U.S. taxpayer, in part for the purpose of ‘outreach' to the public.
Both Columbia alumni and taxpayers should find this shocking."
Some express concern that in this political election season the war on
terrorism falls prey to political interests that only help in aiding the
terrorists ("Comforting
the Enemy," Ralph Peters, The New York Post, March 25, 2004).
And terrorists seem to take full advantage open democracies offer in north
America or in Europe ("As
Europe Hunts for Terrorists, the Hunted Press Advantages," Tim Golden,
Desmond Butler and Don Van Natta Jr., The New York Times, March 22, 2004).
Militant radical Clerics in the heart of European capitals find fertile ground
to sow the seeds of jihad with restless youth, the suspects are elusive,
taking advantage of porous borders and making it very difficult for
investigators to assemble clues. Not a very promising scenario for the
upcoming summer Olympic games in Greece.
Indeed, the problem is not being able to or not
willing to recognize the enemy. In old and modern wars there were flags,
countries, uniform, and objectives that defined the boundaries of war. Terror
as a strategy is something that experts understand, civilians fear, but
politicians (and psychiatrists) do not yet know how to handle ("The
secret war: On the North-West Frontier, soldiers are trying to tighten the
noose around bin Laden's forces. But in Europe and America, there is no clear
enemy to fight - yet every expert knows that a terrorist atrocity is coming,"
Mark Townsend in Tangier, John Hooper in Madrid, Greg Bearup in Peshawar, Paul
Harris in Washington, Peter Beaumont in Baghdad, Antony Barnett, Martin
Bright, Jason Burke and Nick Pelham in London, The Observer, Sunday March 21,
2004).
For terrorists everything is a target-rich
environment. "For an increasing number of young Muslims, resistance to the
western values is now a way of life. Most are not terrorists and those who are
do not accept the term, because they believe they are fighting imperialism by
western infidels." Terrorists operate freely in Europe and between Europe and
various Arab/Muslim countries. The London Police Commissioner revealed a
definite link between Al-Qaida operatives in the UK and those who carried out
the bombings in Madrid (through the extremist Syrian cleric Abu Dahdah, who is
in jail in Spain).
The mastermind of the Madrid attack is considered
to be al-Zarqawi who from Madrid and Istanbul to Karbala and Nairobi, appears
to have become the figurehead behind the bombings. And while the hunt after
him is in full gear experts assume that future bombers, like those who struck
in Madrid, will be in a position to strike again. So in Pakistan they are
hunting for Al-Qaida operatives holed up and probably managed to escape
through some previously unknown tunnels and show their faces (or voices) again
in no time.
Thought that you had enough absurdities this week? Here is one more to
consider: A French lawyer who defended a Nazi war criminal and a known
international terrorist (and lost both cases) has been selected by Sadam
Hussein's "relatives" to defend him in his upcoming trial. How chic ("French
lawyer who defended Klaus Barbie to defend Saddam," Reuters, Haaretz,
March 27, 2004).
Apparently he is not only a follower of the legal profession but
Jacques Verges is
also quite well-known in France as one of the richest lawyers there. That is
of course not a crime but it is worth noticing his notoriety to be associated
with shady characters. He has started his career as a lawyer for
Islamist/communist Algerian terrorists in the late '50s. His brother is a
local communist politician and was charged for murdering his father's
political opponent. He spent 2 years in Cambodia with Pol Pot and Khieu
Sampan, who were his friends from college. He advocated against the existence
of the state of Israel. Again perhaps nothing criminal here but certainly not
much to be proud of either. Unless of course you have the standards and
character of Saddam Hussein. The two fit hand in glove.
Stay tuned.
© 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.
*
* *