e-Letter 216: Sorry Jack, it IS lawful, justified, and productive
 
April 18, 2004
 
Important news items raced each other last week faster than race cars in a NASCAR event. By the end of the week the elimination of Hamas' terrorist leader Ranitisi and the European ranting about it replaced the news from Iraq, Sharon's visit to the US, the US backing of his disengagement plan, president's Bush important press conference, and the Osama "truce" offer.  With April 19 marking Holocaust Memorial  Day this year, it is worth connecting some dots among all these.
 
The Osama purportedly offered  "peace" to Europeans but pledged to continue to terrorize the US. Most western media outlets correctly translated the offer as "truce" or "cease-fire" rather than peace and indeed the original Arabic term used implies a temporary arrangement, an arbitration.  This offer sounded far more as an ultimatum than a good-will gesture. It is shocking that the Europeans flatly and quickly rejected it ("Osama Bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty with Europe, Says Al-Qa'ida 'Will Persist in Fighting' the U.S.,"  MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project, April 15, 2004, No. 695).
 
In his press conference last week (President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference, Press Conference of the President, The East Room, 8:31 P.M. EDT, 4-13-2004) President Bush had all the appropriate components of defining terrorism as an international affliction and no longer distinguishing between terrorism directed against Israelis and all other terrorism connecting the dots with Iraq and standing steadfast on his policy there: "The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young reporter for being a Jew."
 
Sharon's visit the following day resulted in the strongest support that any Israeli Prime Minister received from the White House. Defined as a shift in policy and no less than a "shocker" ("Bush concedes West Bank to Israel in policy shocker," Barry Schweid, Associated Press, 04/14/04). What was pleasing to many (not all) Israelis was received as doomsday by Palestinians ("Palestinians see plan as disastrous," Margaret Coker, Craig Nelson, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 04/18/04).
 
The biggest achievement was the virtual nullification of the Palestinian so-called "right of return" but on most other issues the declarations fairly clearly suggest they be solved at the negotiating table - assuming the Palestinians are ever able to drag themselves there. That clearly means that the declarations the president has made should be perceived to be an opening gambit to the negotiations ("Double-edged Bush," Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, April 15, 2004). Another achievement was the removal of any ambiguity about Israel's territorial predicament as Bush has made it clear that the 1967 borders are not sacred relying on the significantly missing "the" in UN Resolution 242 in reference to "territories" ("Old realities," George Will, TownHall.com, April 18, 2004).
 
Sharon was not the only visitor to the US.  He was sandwiched between the ruler of Egypt and the King of Jordan. But the fairly positive press he received in the US was not shared by his Egyptian counterpart. In fact a scathing editorial criticized him ("Our Man in Cairo," Editorial, The Washington Post, April 12, 2004) as "the largest obstacle to President Bush's democracy initiative in the greater Middle East." Not exactly a title fitting one who calls himself a great ally and friend of the US.
 
He is not - as of yet - defined as an enemy and neither are some of those from within who are earnestly involved in an "uprising" against the US. An American academic ("A Berkeley Prof's "Intifada" Against America," Jonathan Calt Harris, FrontPageMagazine.com, April 15, 2004) who is a native Palestinian with a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from U.C. Berkeley, and currently a lecturer in Near Eastern Studies and Ethnic Studies Departments there has literally incited to "...support the resistance (in Iraq); we've got to say that we support attacks against the occupying forces."
 
Not surprisingly then a well respected journalist has finally dared legitimize the term "fifth column" in reference to the enemy within ("Islamist fifth columns," Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Washington Times, April 8, 2004).
And he is not only talking about Europe and the increasingly growing (demographically, culturally, and politically) Islamist presence there. He also makes unequivocal reference to the presence of a fifth column in the US in the shape of activists (such as Abdurahman Alamoudi, an American citizen who was the prime mover behind the American Muslim Council) and organizations (such as The Council on American-Islamic Relations).  Some have even gainfully "acquired" the title of "Islamism's Poster Boy" (Alyssa A. Lappen,
FrontPageMagazine.com, April 15, 2004) although it is no longer clear whether they operate from inside of the U.S. any longer.
 
Others occupy prominent clerical positions in the US. A Detroit cleric was brazen enough to write - and a paper gullible enough to print - an article praising sheikh Yassin as nothing less than a saint ("Peace still possible despite sheik's killing," Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi / Special to The Detroit News, April 10, 2004) and at the same time fully "understanding" and supporting terrorism. He laced his article in terms of "peace" and "justice" ignoring and twisting facts on the ground purposefully misleading the novice reader about what he means by peace and justice.
 
Mainstream papers in the US have become channels of propaganda for Arab writers who skillfully twist facts and spare no efforts to make the perpetrators look like victims ("Toll of young victims grows: Palestinian children's deaths at Israel's hands draw little attention," Khalid Amayreh, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 04/15/2004). Another article in the Atlanta paper shows far more sympathy for Palestinians than warranted by the journalists' role of factual report and has deteriorated into opinion providing ("Palestinians see plan as disastrous," Margaret Coker, Craig Nelson, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, 04/18/04).
 
The lack of willingness to connect between various types of terrorism and to see terrorism against one (Israel) as terrorism against all is not the only reason the West has failed to understand and contain terrorism.  A fairly lengthy history of appeasement has ended with President Bush ("The Fruits of Appeasement," Victor Davis Hanson, City Journal, Spring 2004): who "impervious to such self-deception, has, in a mere two and a half years, reversed the perilous course of a quarter-century. Since September 11, he has removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, begun to challenge the Middle East through support for consensual government, isolated Yasser Arafat, pressured the Europeans on everything from anti-Semitism to their largesse to Hamas, removed American troops from Saudi Arabia, shut down fascistic Islamic "charities," scattered al-Qaida, turned Pakistan from a de facto foe to a scrutinized neutral, rounded up terrorists in the United States, pressured Libya, Iran, and Pakistan to come clean on clandestine nuclear cheating, so far avoided another September 11—and promises that he is not nearly done yet."
 
Indeed, the result of the appeasement is that friends and allies "cannibalize" each other while the enemy watches and benefits. This form of "cannibalism" also applies to internal debates during times of war ("Western Cannibalism: Eating each other while our enemies smile," Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, April 08, 2004): "...resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause." Indeed, the irony of the political fiasco of the 9-11 Commission is aptly captured by one commentator ("Thank You For Choosing United, Mr. Bin Laden," Anne Coulter, Worldnetdaily.com, April 14, 2004): "Bin Laden is still determined to attack inside the United States! Could they (commission members) please tell us when and where the next attack will be?"
 
Along these lines it is encouraging to see projections for the Middle East that are understanding of the real issues that shape developments in that region and the rest of the world by not falling into the trap of political correctness ("Possibilities for Mideast Peace," George P. Shultz, The Washington Post, April 14, 2004).
 
But this does not mean that the fronts for old mantra - that have long proven themselves as hollow - have disappeared.  Prominent among them is Tom Friedman who continues to see settlements as a red flag ("Kicking Over the Chessboard," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, April 18, 2004) and Israel as the "problem"("The anti-Israel saga of Tom Friedman et al." Irwin N. Graulich, israelinsider, April 14, 2004)

Yet, despite all proof to the opposite Friedman deeply believe that now is a good chance for the Palestinian to "prove" themselves: "Palestinians will have a chance to reposition themselves in the eyes of Israelis. They will have a chance to build a decent ministate of their own in Gaza that will prove to Israelis they can live in peace next to Israel. It will be hard and they will need help. Gaza is dirt poor. But if the Palestinians show they can build a decent state, it will do more to persuade Israelis to give up more of the West Bank, or swap land there for parts of Israel, than any Bush statements or Hamas terror. This is the best chance Palestinians have ever had to run their own house without the Israelis around. I wish them well, because if they do well, everything will be on the table." This, as if anyone has prevented them from doing so before.  The problem with this approach is that it does not take into account what will happen if the Palestinians will turn the Gaza strip into a terror state - a far more likely realistic scenario.
  
While able to inflict great damage to their enemy it is encouraging to note that historically Arabs tend to lose the wars they wage.  Probably because of the very similar reason they tend to fight them in the first place. A military analysis of their campaigns focuses on the reasons for these losses ("Why Do Arabs Lose Wars?" Norvell De Atkine, Middle East Quarterly, December 1999 • Volume VI: Number 4).  
 
The analysis focuses not only on economic, ideological and technical reasons but also on culture and on societal attributes arguing that "...until Arab politics begin to change at fundamental levels, Arab armies, whatever the courage or proficiency of individual officers and men, are unlikely to acquire the range of qualities which modern fighting forces require for success on the battlefield. For these qualities depend on inculcating respect, trust, and openness among the members of the armed forces at all levels, and this is the marching music of modern warfare that Arab armies, no matter how much they emulate the corresponding steps, do not want to hear." An important point for their potential adversaries to note. Comforting in its outcome but at what a heavy price.
 
Given how the Arabs fight wars the threat may not lie in winning conventional wars against them (Iraq is illustrative of this point). This is not said to dismiss the cost of such wars in human lives and in property.  This is more to point out that the danger lies in the intentions, style, methods, consistence, persistence, deceit, and any lack of shame associated with it. In short, an ethos that increasingly proves to be disastrous ("The ethos of Islam,"  Mordechai Nisan, Jerusalem Post, Apr. 12, 2004).

Often the people of the region get credit for being passive (when not violent) by blaming the leaders. The leaders of course blame the "street" for needing to rule with an iron fist.  One observer suggests that both are true ("The Mirror of Fallujah: No more passes and excuses for the Middle East," Victor Davis Hanson, April 4, 2004): "If we are to try to bring some good to the Middle East, then we must first have the intellectual courage to confess that for the most part the pathologies embedded there are not merely the work of corrupt leaders but often the very people who put them in place and allowed them to continue their ruin."
 
The seriousness and severity of their malice is omnipresent.  Last week the Jordanians were able to prevent a major chemical terror attack by Al Qaida against Jordanian and American interests.  And the Palestinians were also prevented from using biological agents in a terror attack ("Terrorists attempted bio-warfare attack: Tanzim plan to detonate AIDS-tainted charge foiled. Hezbollah aided and funded plot. Additional Passover attacks thwarted as well." Amir Rapaport, Maariv, 2004-04-13).
 
Hearing the support that an Iraqi terrorist leader has for Hamas and Hezbollah one observer suggests ("Familiar Scene: Feeding continues, so terror continues." Rachel Ehrenfeld, National Review, April 14, 2004)
that the world failed to contain terrorism while it still could: "The historical and persisting failure of the U.S. and the West to denounce the Palestinian terrorists' atrocities, and to put an end to their activities, was clearly perceived as a weakness by the Islamists. This weakness is now being exploited by al Qaeda and other Muslim fundamentalists, who have taken up arms against the U.S. and Coalition forces." Indeed, the support and identification of the Iraqi terrorist with his Palestinian and Lebanese counterparts emanates out of the perception that these organizations are the closest to winning their jihad in the Islamist world ("Sadr and Sharon," Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 8, 2004).
 
Indeed, frenzy feeds frenzy as the Palestinians were showing full support to Saddam Hussein by burning Israeli and US flags to commemorate the first anniversary of Bagdad's fall ("Palestinians urge holy war against Us," Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 9, 2004). Just before the Hamas terrorist leader was eliminated ("Israel kills Hamas leader Rantisi," Maariv News Service, 04-17-2004) he was able still to send the following message to the "Iraqi people:" "...the Palestinian people are with you, you are fighting the American terrorism as we fight the Zionist terrorism. I'm certain that you would win your battle against the Americans and you would of course defeat American terrorism. You are there on the front line because you are fighting the enemies of God and Islam, the murderers Bush and Sharon." After statements like this one remains befuddled as to why would anyone insist on offering the Palestinians a state of their own.
 
While the American administration was careful not to condemn Israel for eliminating Rantisi and clearly expressed the sentiment that Israel has the right to defend herself, the UN, and the Europeans were quick to condemn the elimination as quick as they were to reject Bin laden's "truce" offer.  The British Foreign Secretary true to his colors condemned the act as "unlawful, unjustified and counter-productive" ("Israel Kills Top Hamas Leader in Missile Strike," Reuters, April 17, 2004) and the EU foreign policy chief has added that "Israel has a right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, but actions of this type are not only unlawful, they are not conducive to lowering tension.'' One remains wondering how do terrorist atrocities contribute to lowering tensions because those are not usually condemned by the high-minded Europeans thus one must conclude that they are tolerated as long as they are not targeting Europe and England.  Good old Jack Straw is simply wrong. Rantisi's elimination is lawful, it is justified and it is productive. Letting him live this long was not.
 
The Americans increasingly understand who the terrorists are.  Little wonder. After all,  his elimination was helpful to the US in the same way that Israeli anti-terror tactics are increasingly found to be helpful to the US in its war in Iraq ("U.S. using Israeli tactics to subdue Iraq uprising," World Tribune.com, April 16, 2004). One can remain wondering if the Brits will be ever able or willing to connect the dots without having to experience Islamic terrorism at their doorstep.  Given Blair's humiliating visit to Lybia and the shameful declarations by his Foreign Minister, it perhaps matters not to the Brits even if they will be hit again as they were in Lockerbie.
 
The Brits who were quick to send Blair to shake Ghaddafi's and welcome him back to civilization are back to their old tricks and now are thumbing their nose at the US by meddling in the affairs of the Gaza strip. Specifically they are training Palestinian "security" forces except that they have conveniently ignored the top slots these forces occupy are on the US terror list ("Gaza – the British are Coming: British involvement in Gaza," Shmuel Bar, AME exclusive - 4/11/2004). 
 
Astute observers have warned that virulent antisemitism ends up historically causing  great damage to their instigators not only to their intended victims.  Indeed, current antisemitism in Europe is strongly based on a combined Euro-Arab anti-Israel sentiment as well as anti-Israel policy but it also has anti-Christian, anti-European, and eventually anti-western ramifications ("Eurabia and Euro-Arab Antisemitism," Bat Ye'or, FrontPageMagazine.com, April 5, 2004). Others identify fundamental demographic and cultural changes in Europe with unforseen long-term consequences that portend danger not only to Europe but to the rest of the free world ("The Way We Live Now: Eurabia?" NIALL FERGUSON, The New York Times, April 4, 2004).
 
For the last few decades Islamist violence has mainly met a church that preferred to look the other way if for the simple reason of wishing to protect Christian interests of a decreasing Christian population in places holy to Christianity.  However, in the last year profoundly critical voices are heard from the church. In October 2003 The Vatican denounced with unusual harshness the oppression of Christians in Muslim countries ("The Church and Islam: ‘La Civiltà Cattolica' Breaks the Ceasefire," Sandro Magister). 
 
And more recently the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, criticized Islam itself as "authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving ("An Archbishop Tells the Truth About Islam," Val MacQueen, FrontPageMagazine.com, April 6, 2004). This resulted in denunciation from the expected British Islamic quarters although at least one self-styled Islamist leader later suggested that terrorism should not be tolerated and should be reported to police to which the leading Islamist radical cleric said that doing so means "apostasy in Islam."
 
The Archbishop was joined later by the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Cardinal O'Connor ("Cardinal criticises Muslim leaders," The Western Mail, Apr 12 2004) but the Archbishop might have given up such support - had he been asked  - as the Cardinal indirectly justified terrorism by suggesting it is rooted in "inequities" - a claim often used as an excuse by terrorists.  Nevertheless, the mere agreement with the Archbishop is significant enough to show that Christian leaders in England decided it is time to air their grievances in public and no longer remain silent.
 
Support for the charges by the Church clerics is found in no better source than an Arab liberal writer who argues that leading Muslim ideologues' display positive attitudes towards the use of violence ("Arab Liberal: Most Islamic Ideologues, Organization Leaders Advocate Violence," MEMRI,  Special Dispatch - Reform Project, April 16, 2004, No. 696).
 
Tomorrow Israel and the Jewish people commemorate the Holocaust in an annual anniversary that now spans 59 years since the most horrendous experience in human history. An insane system that used a rationally sane scientific approach to exterminate human beings simply for who they were. And not only 6 million Jews. Five million "others" Poles, Afro-Europeans, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, disabled, homosexuals, and of course, Jews who converted to Christianity. A total of 11 million people who became victims to perpetrators who thought they were "superior" to them and measured their "superiority" by the "inferiority" of the "subhuman" they so expertly vilified.
 
The importance of Holocaust Memorial Day lies in remembering so as never to forget the atrocity that was committed by evil and learning the lesson so it will never happen again.  The challenge the Islamists of the OBL kind (including their peers in Iran, Hamas, Hezbullah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Tanzim, Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few, and many sister organizations as well as those who support them) are posing to us is no less sinister than the holocaust. If we are not watchful and vigilant we will allow an even worse holocaust (if one can imagine that) upon us.  Just consider the history so that it is not allowed to repeat itself.  As Sharon said this evening commemorating the Holocaust: "We won't let murderers hurt our people...Our face is toward peace, but the defending sword will not be returned to its sheath."
 
© Robbie Friedmann, Ph.D.
 
To view previous e-Letters:
 
     "It is terrorism stupid" (e-Letter #215)
 
     "Tolerating terror - testing our limits" (e-Letter #214)
 
 
     "Terrorists Murder Arabs Too" (e-Letter #212)
 
 
     "Omission" (e-Letter #210)
 
     "The Hague, terror, a movie: What is real?" (e-Letter #209)  
 
     "Jihad has discovered Australia" (e-Letter #208)
 
 
     "It was indeed a rude awakening" (e-Letter #206)
 
     "Murderers and proud of it" (e-Letter #205)
 
 
 
     "Virgins (still) on his mind" (e-Letter #202)
 
     "On Morality and Humiliation" (e-Letter #201)
 
     "Caught like a rat" (e-Letter #200)
 
     "Wannsee, Oslo, Geneva" (e-Letter #199)
 
     "Do not show a fool a job half-done" (e-Letter #198)
 
 
     "Butt out Jimmy! Help around the house Tom!" (e-Letter #196)
 
 
     "The greatest threat to world peace" (e-Letter #194)
 
 
     "Have you driven a Ford lately?" (e-Letter #192)
 
     "And the wolf cried: the sheep attacked me" (e-Letter #191)
 
     "Saturday (lunch massacre) at Maxim's" (e-Letter #190)
 
 
     "Would the French recognize their enemy or become one?" (e-Letter #188)

 
     "A fence built, an expulsion that wasn't, and a 2-year old 9-11" (e-Letter #187)
 
     "Terrorism delenda est! (With Thanks to Senator Cato)" (e-Letter #186)
 
 
     "Consuming hate - exporting terror" (e-Letter #185)
 
     "Human Weapons: Terrorism Also Numbs the Senses" (e-letter #184)

 
     "The sui-genocide bomber" (e-Letter #183)
 
     "Terrorists Do Not Apologize" (e-Letter #182)
 
 
     "When 'peace' means war" (e-Letter #180)
 
     "Old news we should pay attention to" (e-Letter #179) 
 
     "The poor bully and the unwilling victim" (e-Letter #178) 
 
     "Terror and the rhetoric of peace" (e-Letter #177)
 
     "To catch a terrorist" (e-Letter #176)
 
     "Spilling blood and ink" (e-Letter #175)
 
 
 
 
 
 
     "Golf Wars" (e-Letter #169)
 
     "1001 Baghdad tales" (e-Letter #168)
 
     "Taxi wars"  (e-Letter #167) 
 
 
 
 
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.
 
                                                                      * * *