e-Letter 219: Thou Shalt Not Kill! . . .?
May 16, 2004
A recruit for a suicide bombing mission had timely
second thoughts on the way to meet his 72 virgins and apparently preferred to
have his chances with them on earth ("West
Bank Teen Halts Suicide Bombing Role," Mohammed Daraghmeh, The Washington
Post, The Associated Press, May 10, 2004). But one or even a few such cases do
not stop the flow of the many who are ready to give up their lives for Arafat,
a corrupt criminal who has a well-oiled terror machine ("The
Teflon Terrorists," Rachel Ehrenfeld, FrontPageMagazine.com, May 11, 2004)
and who continually inflames violence in the area ("Arafat
calls on Palestinians to 'terrorize your enemy,'" Arnon Regular, Haaretz,
May 15, 2004).
Arafat, playing out his status as Nobel Peace
Prize winner and the great humanitarian he is ("Mofaz:
Palestinians smuggled body parts in UNWRA ambulances," Maariv service, May
15, 2004) succeeded in his May 15 speech (commemorating the Palestinian "Day
of Catastrophe" they brought upon themselves) to destroy in one sentence the "Geneva
Accord" that his Israeli protagonists were so proud of: Arafat insisted
that the Palestinian refugees have a "right" to terrorize Israel and also "the
right to return to Palestine," namely, to destroy Israel (This way Arafat
has finally emptied all air from the Geneva Accord that was based in large
part on selling Israelis the idea that Palestinians have given up the "right
of return").
This is an important point because the world still
tends to view the Arab-Israeli conflict as distinct from its own war on
terrorism. The U.S. benefits from Israel's experience in fighting terrorism
yet it still sees Israel's efforts not as part of the "global" war on terror.
Yet the beheading of Pearl, Berg, or the parading of a head of an Israeli
soldier in the streets of Gaza come from the same mind-set that has the exact
same goals and destiny for ALL westerners ("The
two-conflict delusion," Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, May. 13, 2004).
There is only one overall war against terrorism
(and the forces behind it) and that war involves many battles on many fronts:
"Does anyone really believe that all the head-severing crowd wants is to live
in peace with Israel? To claim the conflicts are separate is to imply that
they do, and to grant the terrorists the high moral ground. Someday, the West
will win and the jihadi camp will lose its stranglehold over the Palestinians
and other parts of the Muslim world. At that time, the Arab-Israeli conflict
will be solvable, just as the Cold War evaporated with the collapse of the
Soviet Union. Until then, playing into the enemy's two-conflict game is not a
sign of hope but a delusion that drives away the hope it seeks to keep alive."
Following the knee-jerk reaction to the Iraqi
prison fiasco there is a danger of "over-correction" of the prison system
there that could hurt intelligence gathering efforts. Yet, more level-headed
commentary has been seen last week. Admittedly, the prison pictures are
shocking and so are the abuses that took place; but from all we know this was
not torture. It was humiliation and for those who cannot afford being
humiliated but can afford to die while murdering others this may have been a
far more humane method than torture. In that sense the apology of President
Bush (and then Secretary Rumsfeld) was inappropriate and only weakens the U.S.
stand as a powerful nation as after all we offended our own values not Arab
ones ("Torturous
apology," Mark Steyn, The Jerusalem Post, May. 11, 2004).
Indeed, the apology to an Arab ruler by the president of the United States is
seen as a mistake and so was the relegation of Iraq's future to a UN
representative who is in no small measure the epitome of the problems of the
Arab world ("The
Curse of Pan-Arabia," Fouad Ajami, The Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2004).
As the "dean" of Mideast scholars suggests, the very notion of the U.S.
turning to the U.N. renders it weak in the eyes of the players in the Middle
East (" Iraq, India, Palestine: Turning to the UN Only Confirms the Arabs'
Perception that the US is Weak," Bernard Lewis, Wall Street Journal, May 12,
2004).
Not surprisingly, and regrettably, some western media have even outpaced Arab
sources in already placing the blame for the Iraqi prison scandal on... Israel
("Blaming
Israel for Abu Ghraib? CBC lends credence to a bizarre claim of Israeli
culpability for Iraqi prisoner abuses." Honest Reporting, Communique, 10
May 2004). Yet blatant antisemitism is too much for even some French
journalists who too happily criticize Israel suggesting it is the cause of
modern Arab antisemitism not realizing that such a position underscores if not
legitimizes the very antisemitism they tend to criticize ("Anti-semitism
in the Arab world," Dominique Vidal, Le Monde Diplomatique, May 2004). At
least they are capable enough in identifying its danger - if not for the Jews
then for the Arabs - by stating that "anti-semitic propaganda is retrogressive
for the Arab world and will do it untold harm."
Some suggest that the Arabs have no leg to stand
on when they criticize the U.S. for mishandling prisoners ("Iraqi
Abuse?" Don Feder, FrontPageMagazine.com, May 4, 2004). Such suggestions
are forgetful that Arab propaganda is smart, vicious, gross, and knows what
strings to pull in order to intimidate and weaken the West. Having no leg to
stand on has never bothered them. But truly the important issue in the Iraqi
prison is that humiliation is not torture and to wit, an experienced writer
illustrates this by outlining real historical examples of torture ("U.S.
atrocities in Iraq," Walter E. Williams, Townhall.com, May 12, 2004).
Indeed, in an illustration of what torture is, the Iraqi prison fiasco was
contrasted with the torture of several foreign nationals by the Saudis who
forced them to "admit" they committed terrorism on Saudi soil. Apparently it
was easier to deflect blame to others than admit they have a home-grown
problem ("Saudi
Justice?" CBS 60 Minutes, May 9, 2004). The Saudis of course denied it and
their ambassador to London said they "do not torture people." Of course, it is
well known that they are all too busily involved in humanitarian activities
that are purely intended to improve the human condition and do not have time
or inclination to torture anyone. And given Arafat's winning of the Nobel it
is probably only a matter of time before the Saudi national executioner will
join him as a winner.
It is doubtful the 60 Minutes segment on Saudi
torture was effective in putting the Iraqi prison story in perspective. But
the public murder of Berg did ("Turning
Shame Into Outrage," Charles Paul Freund, Los Angeles Times, May 13,
2004): "Shameless brutality of this degree has the power to transform the
shame of Zarqawi's enemies. Zarqawi has reminded his enemies that, unlike him,
they are at least capable of shame. Zarqawi's righteous snuff movie is an act
of lunacy, a gift to his enemies, and, one hopes, an unwitting suicide note."
Berg had the misfortune of joining a long list of
terror victims. Daniel
Pearl, who was murdered in a similar fashion, and
Leon Klinghoffer
who was shot and pushed into the sea. Or thousands of others who were stabbed,
blown-up, shot, or had their office building collapse on them as a result of
using civilian jetliners as missiles by the same kind of terrorists..
Some reacted with understandable abhorrence ("Nick
Berg's Murder," Editorial, New York Post, May 12, 2004). Others tried to
find out what this murder means for the West, suggesting that it does not
understand the true nature of the Islamist threat ("The
Beheading of an Innocent," Walid Phares, FrontPageMagazine, May 12, 2004).
It also appears that some perceive that it actually resulted in "stiffening
American resolve and inflaming American outrage" yet they also suggest that we
fight this war "to save Islam" seeing Al Qaida as an aberration not something
that emanated out of Islam or is supported by it ("What
Nick Berg's Murder Tells," Andrew Sullivan, FrontPageMagazine, May 12,
2004). One only needed to watch representatives of American Muslim advocacy
groups squirming in their seats unable to condemn Berg's heinous murder or
suggesting it is "atypical" of Islam ("Still
Waiting..." Neil Cavuto, FOX News, May 12, 2004).
Others used the murder to put the prison fiasco in
perspective ("A
reminder of the enemy's true nature: A crime that puts the prison abuse into
perspective," Joe Scarborough, Jewish World Review, May 13, 2004).
Or that "We are at war with a vicious enemy, and propaganda in wartime is a
weapon whose consequences can be deadly," suggesting that the prison pictures
and the way western media handled them helped provide the excuse for the
murder - a rather doubtful argument ("The
images we see -- and those we don't," Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, May
13, 2004).
In a Machiavellian way, Arab news sources lament
Berg's murder as damaging to the Arab cause but not because murder is bad but
rather because it "erased" the impact of the prison fiasco. Yet an Arab
editorial is not shy of criticizing Arab leaders and at least calling on them
to take proper action as a direct lesson from the Berg murder ["Berg's
death augurs ill for Arab societies," Editorial, The Daily Star (Beirut),
May 13, 2004]: "... the region's kings, princes and presidents need to learn
a valuable lesson from this abhorrent incident: that fractured societies
produce real-life theaters of shame like the Berg murder in a systemic manner,
and that similar fractures are infecting their own societies. If the Berg
beheading does not catapult the region's leaders from the world of lethargy to
the world of vigorous action to establish law and order in their own societies
- and beginning with themselves - then they will be considerably weakened.
They need to prove that their vision extends beyond their own vested interests
to their people and societies. What more is needed to galvanize Arab leaders
into action? Today, a man named Berg was put to the sword; tomorrow, it could
be the Arab nation torn asunder by the same savagery. A reassessment of the
concept of "leadership" is urgently required, and the Arab summit scheduled
for May 22-23 would be an excellent place to begin."
Just do not hold hopes too high for that Arab
summit to produce any tangible results.
There is this story about the primitive fellow who wonders tired and thirsty
in the desert. He finds a railroad track which is certainly easier to walk on
it than on the sand. He then hears a whistle but never seeing a train before -
and this one being hidden behind a small hill - by the time he realized what
was coming at him it was too late. His leg got stuck in the track and the
train cut it off. Years later his wife bought a new kettle and placed it on
the stove to boil water for tea. When the water boiled the kettle whistled. He
then quickly got up from his chair, ran to the stove, dropped the kettle to
the floor, beat it up with his cane, and stomped all over it with his wooden
leg to a pulp. To his bewildered wife he said: "It is important to kill these
bastards when they are small."
Indeed, much of the trouble today could have been
avoided had the writing on the wall been heeded in the mid ‘70s and an
ultimatum issued to the "revolutionary" Islamists in Teheran to release the
American hostages with a clear "or else" ("The
Wages of Appeasement: How Jimmy Carter and academic multiculturalists helped
bring us Sept. 11.," Victor Davis Hanson, The Wall Street Journal, May 10,
2004). The attitude of appeasement has not been totally defeated even after
9-11 but the U.S. will "neither appease nor ignore such killers but in fact
finish the terrible war that they started."
Yet, there are still forces everywhere in the West
who do not understand that terrorists do not need a reason to be "provoked."
Our mere existence is enough for them. These forces also arrogantly believe
that one is enough to tango and they rush to blame America for everything that
is wrong with the world ("Blaming
America first," Linda Chavez, Jewish World Review, May 13, 2004).
One of the leading voices of appeasement - even if a supporter of the war in
Iraq - argues that the U.S. "made a mess" in Iraq. And after correctly
identifying that the problem lies with the Arabs ("Cursed
by Oil," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, May 9, 2004) he then
offers his tireless mantra that the U.S. is responsible for it and that the
Israeli settlements are an "obstacle" to progress in the area ("Dancing
Alone,"Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, May 13, 2004).
He pays lip service to acknowledge that Israel is a democracy and Iraq is not
but then goes as far as equating the Israeli settlers with the Extremists
Shiites in Iraq ("Tyranny
of the Minorities," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, May 16, 2004).
One remains bewildered what is it that he does not understand about democracy
and when was the last time that the settlers have sent suicide bombers against
Arab populations anywhere. Perhaps, if he gets his own news from NPR it may
explain why he sees victim as perpetrator ("The
Kids Deserved to be Killed?" Tamar
Sternthal, CAMERA.org,
May 14, 2004).
Constructive criticism is usually helpful but what we see today is
evidence of a political agenda that is supportive of terrorism. The world
does not stand up in rage and anger against those who terrorize people in
Bali, Istanbul, Jerba, Jerusalem, Madrid, or New York. By criticizing the
victims' (offensive and defensive) measures against terrorism these
not-so-innocent groups are aiding and abetting terrorism. After all, just
imagine a million people marching in Paris, London, and Washington against the
radical Islamists who preach hate and support terrorism. Wouldn't that be a
powerful message? The moral support that terrorists receive today from inside
western sources is equivalent to if not greater than the impact collaborators
with Nazis had ("Proposal
for universal demonstrators," Yaakov Achimeir, Maariv, 2004-05-09).
Some - even in Europe - do understand the gravity of the challenges the West
is facing ("Why
the West is fighting – and why it must win," London Daily Telegraph,
13/05/2004). Others add a dimension of urgency ("Stop
navel gazing," Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, May. 14, 2004): "In
behaving as though the Palestinian branch of the global jihad is engaging in a
war over a few kilometers in Gaza, Judea and Samaria rather than playing a
central role in the global jihad against non-Muslims, we are making it harder
for our allies, first and foremost the Americans, to see the true nature of
the war they too are fighting. If it is only Israeli settlers who are
preventing peace by living in mobile homes in Judea and Samaria then perhaps
it is only America in its ‘arrogance' that is preventing the jihadis from
coming to a meeting of the minds with the West. As the jihad spreads
throughout the world, we must stop finally with our self-destructive
self-absorption. The butchers in Zeitoun who kicked the remains of our
soldiers like footballs on Tuesday, like the butchers in Baghdad, Karachi,
Riyadh and beyond who kill with barbaric ecstasy and primordial hatred do so
not because of anything we have done. They do so because they are barbarians.
And if we do not wish to be destroyed, we must do everything to destroy them
and nothing to give them hope for victory against us."
Indeed some see it correctly as a fight for
survival and therefore arguing that nothing short of an absolute victory is
acceptable ("It's
a Fight for Survival -- Pull Out All Stops," Bruce Herschensohn, Los
Angeles Times, May 12, 2004): "The only subject worthy of our national
attention and the only pursuit that should be acceptable is total victory — no
matter if others are offended or even destroyed."
Interestingly enough, even in Israel which has
shown tremendous restraint over the last 3.5 years of unrelenting terror
against its population there are voices calling for far more drastic measures
than have been used to date suggesting to inflict serious damage on the enemy
("Time
for a change in Tactics," Margot Dudkevitch, The Jerusalem Post, May. 11,
2004): "Maybe it's time to act like other armies and do what we have to do –
and force the other side to pay the price. Maybe that is the only way to wipe
terrorism off the map." And not only journalists in Israel but also
strategists there are suggesting it as they assess the threats ("Strategists
call for Israeli strikes against expanding WMD threat," World Tribune.com,
May 14, 2004).
Even a Nobel Peace winner is joining the crowd
(probably to the chagrin of the Prize Selection Committee) arguing that war is
necessary to save people when the threat against them is more evil than war
itself ("Sometimes,
a War Saves People: We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would
do evil," Jose Ramos-horta, The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004): "It
is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being
politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from
Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq
risk doing."
Christian clergy who dared to speak against
terrorism have been attacked (so far only verbally) not only by the terrorists
and their supporters from within but also by their supporters from without. A
case in point is the former Archbishop of Canterbury ("Carey
under fire again over 'Muslim martyrs' speech," London Daily Telegraph,
13/05/2004).
In a sense, it really does not matter of this is a religious war or not ("Islam
has lost its Way," Shmuley Boteach, The Jerusalem Post, May. 12, 2004).
The fact remains that extremists have hijacked the narrative of Muslims and it
became not only dominant but unchallenged. While there are protests in the
West against the war - and in Israel against government policy - one is yet to
see protests in the Arab/Muslim world (and for that matter in the free world
as well) against terrorism . The problem is, of course, that devout or not,
using God's name in vain is still powerfully heard around the world and
"battle" cries as well as heinous murders carried out by terrorists are
preceded and followed by invoking their god's name ("Devil's
work done in the name of God: THE chant of Allahu Akbar – God is Great – is
heard in every mosque around the globe," Piers Akerman, The Daily
Telegraph, Australia, May 13, 2004).
Indeed, even if Al Qaida has been damaged it has
spread its cancerous influence to such an extent that there is little doubt
now that a worldwide "jihad" is surging in any and all corners of the world ("Global
Jihad," Corine Hegland, National Journal, May 7, 2004). "...bin Laden has
taken that ‘transnational emotion that binds all Muslims' and effectively
harnessed it to his political agenda. He has, at the moment, no credible
competition. Moderate Islam is on the retreat, and Western democracy has
little traction among the corrupt and repressive governments of Islamic
countries."
Murdering civilians or desecrating the graves of the dead constitute a pattern
to an extent which even Western media are using the terms of reference of the
terrorists. Thus "vandalizing" (not desecrating) graves now constitutes a
(legitimate) act of protest ("Gaza
Commonwealth graves vandalised in protest," Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, 10
May 2004).
This abomination has reached unprecedented proportions. Some of its aspects
are making the practices of the Soviet regime pale in comparison. There they
made "un-history." When they wanted to eliminate a leader from collective
memory they expunged the relevant pages from newspapers and history books.
The Arab/Muslim obsession goes much further by inventing a new history - that
never was - and through that process denying the claims that Judaism and
Christianity have in thousands of years of well-documented history that -
ironically - Islam is actually based on ("Sec.-Gen.
of the Iranian Committee for Supporting the Intifada: 'The Palestinian People
Lived on This Land Before Jacob and the Children of Israel'; 'The Palestinian
Problem is the Problem of All Muslims,'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 712,
May 13, 2004).
And they do not limit this re-writing of history
and the preaching of hate to their own countries ( "Plain,
misguided, Hatred," Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 07 May 04). They take full
advantage of western freedoms to export it to their intended targets/victims
("Kingdom
Comes to North America: Top Saudi cleric to visit Canada," Steven
Stalinsky, National Review, May 13, 2004). Yet, thus far, it appears to have
only caught the attention of media watch groups and several bloggers but no
government action has bene taken ("Hate
comes to Canada," Daimnation, May 13, 2004; and "RoP
Head to Visit Canada," Little Green Footballs, 5/13/2004).
Whether this is a clash of civilizations, a
culture war, or a war of religions is less important than in realizing that
this is a WAR. It is a war where the enemy does not need any provocation or
cause to attack us. In this sense it is the continuation of the Nazi ideology
of annihilating those who do not fit in their system of supremacy. In the
same way that their murderous genocidal campaign resulted in unprecedented
atrocities, the terrorists are devoutly emulating the Nazi intent and tactics
as part of a larger strategy for global jihad.
The sixth commandment is sometimes wrongly
translated into "thou
shalt not kill." But in the Hebrew original and in the early Greek
translations the term is "though
shalt not murder." One can wonder how this semantic confusion has come
about yet there is one issue that remains clear throughout history. There are
conditions under which killing is permitted, condone, and sometimes even
encouraged as an imperative. For example self-defense as when one's life is
clearly in danger.
Murder is not
condoned under any civil society. That is why we will win this battle
against those who give Barbarians a bad name. They have no future and we
cannot allow them to rob us of ours.
The fight for our survival means that the enemy's
life is worth less than ours. It also means that U.S. diplomacy needs to be
demanding and assertive not groveling and apologetic. A report today quotes
Powell as saying "‘Our heads are bowed' over the outrages at Abu Ghraib
prison," to a group of Arab heads of state and business leaders meeting in
Jordan. "You will see in the weeks to come that we are a nation of justice . .
. that America is still the best chance for peace in the world." The report
goes on to state - assessing as news - that "Powell's attendance at the World
Economic Forum was part of a diplomatic campaign to buoy America's tarnished
reputation over U.S. soldiers' abuse of prisoners in Iraq and the
administration's silence over Israeli violence in the Palestinian territories"
("Arabs
give cool reception to penitent Powell," Margaret Coker, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 05/15/04).
If the US has made a choice on who is a terrorist
and who is not, who is a terrorist-supporter and who is not, then that moral
choice needs to hold and not dissolve at the sight of "grievances" and
excuses. Blaming Israel for violence in the territories is like blaming the
U.S. for being violent against Ossama Bin Laden, or a police officer for
legally arresting - by using force - a criminal. It his high time to use all
necessary measures in self-defense of our future.
© 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.
*
* *