e-Letter 220: Radical solution to radical extremism
 
May 23, 2004
 
The corrupt criminal murderer who still passes for a world leader - elevated to a Nobel Peace Prize winner -  realizes full well that the world still does not get it. He wants to destroy Israel and the world (and Israel) is letting him get away with it ("Arafat: 'No One in This World Has the Right to Concede the Refugees' Right to Return to Their Homeland; The Palestinian Heroes Will Fight for This Right,'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 717, May 19, 2004). So much for the Geneva Accord which his Israeli counterparts hailed as a major achievement since the Palestinians have "given up their ‘right of return.'"
 
He continues to guide hate sermons from mosques ("PA Politicians Direct Mosque Hate Sermons," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, May 16, 2004) and calling to go to battle; after all what is a million more or less of his people for him ("PA called "Women, Children and Elderly" to Wednesday's Battle, Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, May 20, 2004). And the price he pays for this? After almost four years of terror (not counting the 36 years of terror he initiated beforehand), and thousands of Israeli casualties, and many American ones as well, he and the Palestinians have "lost the sympathy" of some in the Israeli left ("The death of sympathy," Larry Derfner, Jerusalem Post, May. 16, 2004).  Now, he must be really scared. As if sympathy is what he has been after. And from the Israeli left.
 
Last Friday a Muslim cleric in Gaza- paid by Arafat's PA -  took pride in "playing with heads of Israeli soldiers like soccer balls" and threatened to do more of the same by inciting his flock to terrorize Israelis.  This is what an Israeli commander referred to as the deep cultural divide between murderers who glorify death and those defending against it ("Givati commander: The Palestinians have different values than we do: Colonel Eyal Eisenberg tells soldiers experiences under fire and Palestinian hatred," Amir Buhbut, Maariv, 2004-05-18):  "I do not expect understanding from them. Let's put things on the table. I have no expectations from the Palestinians. Their scale of values and mine are different."
 
The President of the United States provided the single leadership voice that supported Israel in its operation in Gaza ("Bush Backs Israel's Defense," Dana Milbank and Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 19, 2004).
But after mounting international criticism the US abstained and thus allowed a quick UN condemnation of Israel; the President - if uncomfortably - rebuked Israel for the operation on the same day the US found itself having to defend the killing of civilians in Iraq ("Bush's Support for Israel Falters," Barry Schweid, Associated Press, Las Vegas SUN, May 20, 2004).
 
The UN was indeed too quick to denounce the Israeli reconstruction operation (namely the demolition of smuggling tunnels and terrorist-infested buildings) in Gaza. It has gotten to a level where the UN - which is yet to condemn anything (like murder) the Palestinians do - is eagerly awaiting any pretense to condemn Israel ("The U.N. Is A Failed Organization," Rachel Neuwirth, 05/14/04). Given the "hope" that many put in the UN to resolve world problems, "It is time to stop the pretense that the U.N. is anything other than a hopelessly corrupt, ever mischievous, ever-conniving, ever anti-democratic, failed organization. It is time to stop looking to it for any honest brokering and to establish an alternative mechanism for dealing with the world's ills, and this time, let it be ‘by invitation only!' The U.N. must be radically overhauled in a way that requires member states to be at least on the road to democracy and all voting rights to be restricted to established, representative democracies. If not, it is time to put the old slogan into effect: get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the U.N. out of the U.S."
 
The unfounded blaming of Israel that its operation in Gaza violates international law is utter nonsense ("What are Israel's legal justifications for house demolitions: Justus Reid Weiner responds to a just-released Amnesty report, critical of Israel's house demolition policies," A|ME exclusive, 5/17/2004). On the contrary, the operation constitutes a legitimate defensive action against a continuous onslaught of terror that has not been stopped by other means ("Israel fights back," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, May 19, 2004).  
 
Surprisingly, the BBC demonstrated that when it wants to it can provide a valuable must-see account as it did in the case of the Israeli operation in Gaza ("In pictures: Searching for Gaza's tunnels") but even that single piece was an exception to the otherwise deriding and accusatory tone of the BBC reporting.  Similarly, National Public Radio continued its shameful biased coverage against Israel by turning to a Guardian correspondent who shared with the listeners his biased opinions using Palestinian opinions as facts without counterbalancing it with Israeli views or with the facts and context from the field  ("NPR Turns to Guardian Reporter for Lessons in Israel Bashing," Ricki Hollander, CAMERA, May 19, 2004). 
 
Regrettably, such bias is not limited to NPR.  Observe the recent comparison that a media watchdog group did on the differential treatment Israel and the US received with regards to very similar activities (Iraq and Gaza) and the picture that emerges is not heartwarming. The Washington Post, LA Times, BBC, Reuters, AFP, all had headlines and first sentences that clearly were balanced vis-a-vis the US bombing of the "wedding party" (which turns out not to have been a wedding at all) in Iraq while they rushed to judge Israel's action in Gaza when even under fire the Israeli soldiers secured humanitarian aid to the residents ("Balanced in Iraq, Tilted in Gaza," Communique, HonestReporting, 20 May 2004). More emphasis was given to "homeless refugees" than to a pregnant mother and her four children that were murdered by the terrorists. Or for that matter the prison fiasco in Iraq.
 
An editorial comment provides a poor excuse as to why the Iraqi prison abuse story and the beheading of Berg are "not equal stories." By suggesting that the prison story is "unfolding" and is an "on-going investigation" and that there is only "so much" that could be written on the beheading, the paper justifies its own (and the general media's) misplaced focus ("Berg murder, prison abuses not equal stories," Mike King, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 05/21/2004 ). Apparently the editorial office never thought that ample material could be provided about the blood-thirst of the perpetrators, the routinization of the culture of violence, and the global aims at attacking anything that is not Muslim (and even the Muslims they do not like). If anything, this approach is indicative of the shallow understanding of what are the real issues and how should the media cope with them. The fact remains that it is easier to vilify our own negative behavior than that of an enemy; perhaps partly because we believe we can make a difference with the former but not with the latter.
 
What too many still erroneously call torture rather than abuse or humiliation, is getting out of proportion ("Atrocities happen in war, but self-flagellation only satiates a deranged individual," Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder, Jewish World Review, May 20, 2004): "Americans should understand that self-flagellation only satiates a deranged individual. They should also take note of Lincoln's observation that the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present." Yes, the abusers have offended our sensibilities but has anyone done an analysis of the value of humiliation in interrogation? Wouldn't humiliation be even preferable to torture? Our over-reaction to the prison fiasco may backfire at our intelligence collection capabilities and thus to the likelihood of us winning this war with minimal cost ("Geneva for Demagogues: The facts about the rules of war and U.S. interrogation in Iraq," Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2004). After all, "This is a war for the future of civilization. If we allow the immoral parts of the Muslim world, Europe and Scandinavia to make up their own rules and criticize the good guys--US, then we endanger everything."  ("The Congressional Abuse Excuse," Irwin Graulich, MichNews.com, May 18, 2004).  
 
While the West is still reeling from the horrifying video of Berg's beheading (when the media allows such moments in between the excessive reporting on the prison fiasco) it is important to note that the beheading was more than an act of cruelty that gives animals and barbarians a bad name they do not deserve.  It constitutes a call for similar acts of slaughter against infidels ("Berg video called how-to-kill demo: Translator-expert sees jihadist message to Muslims worldwide," Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, WorldNetDaily.com, May 17, 2004).

This should be of little surprise when contrasted against centuries of such a tradition ("Chopping Heads," Amir Taheri, New York Post, May 14, 2004): "Cutting heads is frequently practiced against clerics from non-Islamic faiths or even rival Islamic sects. At least four Christian priests and nine Sunni Muslim muftis have been murdered in that way in Iran since 2001." And some do understand the message rather well ("A Bit of Perspective Please: A culture that glories in the death of innocents makes clear whom we are fighting -and why," Mortimer B. Zuckerman, U.S. News and World Report, May 24, 2004): "President Bush's critics seek to use Rumsfeld as a pinata and this scandal as a chance to discredit the entire Iraqi venture. But we must not lose faith. The murder of Nick Berg underscores the stakes. Our enemies will never understand America and its values, but they would surely recognize weakness, if we ever allowed them to see it."
 
With the fervor of antisemitism flourishing all over one can be inclined to think that Jews are the ones beheading western hostages rather than being its victims (Pearl, Berg).  From the birthplace of Hitler to the U.S. Senate, antisemitism raises its ugly head again with impunity.  An Austrian paper has published a cartoon so vile that it prompted the Israel Holocaust Memorial to issue a rare criticism against showing Palestinians as victims of the holocaust and Israeli soldiers as Nazis ("Yad Vashem Protests Austrian Newspaper Caricature," Etgar Lefkovits, The Jerusalem Post, May. 20, 2004). And a democratic US Senator stated that President Bush went to war with Iraq to "protect Israel and appease American Jews" ("Hollings defends statements on Israel," The Associated Press, May 19, 2004).  A statement that frankly should be more offensive to the president than to Jews and even more so to the values the democrats (should) stand for (and for which they are seeking and counting on Jewish vote).
 
These are but two examples in a wave of antisemitism that in the West questions Jews' "dual" loyalty (implying loyalty to Israel first) or uses anonymous sources to spread lies and fabrications from those who have more than an axe to grind by serving as foreign agents ("You Must be Likud! Anti-Jewish rhetoric infects the West," Michael Rubin, National Review, May 19, 2004).  There is little doubt though that antisemitism has gone global and that Israel and the Jewish people are its targets without an end in site short of the anti-Semites achieving their objectives or defeated ("Think Again: Al Qaeda," Jason Burke, Foreign Policy, May/June 2004):  "A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would still leave the ‘Zionist entity' intact, would offer little succor to the wounded pride of any committed militant or to the pride of those in the wider community who support and legitimize extremism and violence."
 
Hollywood escapism is acceptable as long as it is not a substitute for an in-depth understanding of the nature of the threat that modern international terrorism - as part of a global jihad effort - poses. That would be unforgivable.  Fortunately there is some indication that this danger ought to be heeded.  Take for example the threat not only against Israel but against the US that the leader of Hamas has recently issued and which ought to be taken very seriously ("The New Leadership of Hamas: A Profile of Khalid Al-Mish'al," Yehudit Barsky, Director, Division on Middle East and International Terrorism, AJC, May 18, 2004): "If the [Islamic] nation would fight the same way [that Palestinians and Iraqis] are fighting in Rafah, Jenin and Falluja, then, by God, we will defeat both the United States and Israel...The Qassam Brigades swear that their retaliation will be 100 martyrdom attacks in the heart of your homes. We will burn the earth under your feet"
 
Indeed, these are not only the words of a single leader of a single terrorist group.  Rather, it is part of a wider and cancerous effort that has already spread in the home base of western society in Europe, Australia ("Man tried for attempt to blow up Israeli embassy in Canberra," The Associated Press, 17/05/2004), England, and the U.S. ("The radical Islamic terrorist presence in the United States and the ongoing campaign against global terror," Yehudit Barsky, AJC Global Jewish Radio, May 19, 2004). Against this backdrop it is not very surprising to find out the recent FBI warning about possible suicide bombing attacks on U.S. soil ("FBI Issues Homeland Suicide Bomber Warning U.S. law enforcement warned to look for tell-tale signs," Elaine Shannon, Time, May. 20, 2004).
 
Terror is also taking place on Saudi soil but increasingly it turns out that not only its government supports terrorism (as long as it is not directed against it) but that guards who are supposed to be loyal to the Royal House have become part of the terror network ("Saudi royal guards 'aided al-Qa'ida' in Riyadh bombings that left 35 dead," Mark Hollingsworth, Independent, 5/16/04).
 
In this context the call for a radical solution to a radical problem is starting to emerge but with a caveat.  Given the role modern media plays it is increasingly a hindrance whether it is embedded on site (as in Iraq, Viet-Nam) or absent from it (as in Jenin, Gulf War).  This gives a much shorter frame for operations than ever before as military forces no longer have the "luxury" of operating without being under a microscope mostly from those who understand little about context and perspective, let alone terms of reference, as the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza has proven ("Kill Faster!" Ralph Peters, New York Post, May 20, 2004): "...when a situation demands a military response, our forces must bring to bear such focused, hyper-fast power that our enemies are overwhelmed and destroyed before hostile cameras can defeat us."
 
Indeed, conducting wars these days against self-declared enemies is far more difficult than logic would suggest and mostly because of self-imposed difficulties.  Imagine a theater critic who reviews a new play and starts shouting at the actors during the first act rather than wait for the play to end and submit his critique for the following morning's paper.  The unwillingness and lack of preparedness to unite against such an enemy is nothing but astounding. Perhaps it takes a chess champion to point out that the West is playing moral games that amount to shooting itself in the foot (if not higher) by not recognizing the moral distinctions between perpetrator and victim ("Stop the Moral Equivalence: Suicide-bombing and hostage-taking vs. democracy," Garry Kasparov, The Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2004):  "In this fight the enemy does not play by our rules, or by any rules at all. WMD will be in terrorist hands eventually; conventional wisdom recognizes this reality. Concessions and negotiations at best only delay catastrophe. Europe and its people are in this war whether they acknowledge it or not. Those who would appease terrorists must realize that by pretending that this battle does not exist, they will soon have blood on their hands--both real and metaphorical."
 
As the Prime Minister of Singapore articulated, the enemy is more than terror or jihad.  It is also the need to recognize that a defeat in Iraq could make terror and jihad successful.  It is for that reason that the forces which are interested in preserving themselves and defeat terrorism need to unite ("Unite to Fight Terrorism," Goh Chok Tong, Council of Foreign relations Speech, May 6, 2004). The Prime Minister deferred to US leadership in the fight against terrorism but not once did he suggest to unite under the umbrella of the UN.
 
The "silent majority" of Muslims and their various advocacy groups have not yet broken their silence about terrorism, jihad, and their attitude to the West.  The very few individuals who do are too far in between and constitute a rather unpopular and rejected - if not vilified - fringe in the Arab/Muslim world. Yet it is encouraging to find out that such voices exist to begin with ("Blind Faith: Muslims, like Jews and Christians, must own up to problems in their holy book," by Irshad Manji, The Wall Street Journal, May 20, 2004).
 
In fact, the silence of the Muslim majority gives way to the noise the radical element of Islam is emitting not merely without interruption but with fairly loud support from groups not typically associated with Wahabbi causes. Nonetheless these groups gladly jump on the bandwagon of bashing the same America they first sought refuge - or better life - in and now do their very best to destroy ("Muslim Silence... and Muslim Noise," Stephen Schwartz, Tech Central Station, 5/17/2004).

American Arab/Muslim advocacy groups brazenly blame the (American) "culture of hate" as responsible for the Iraqi prison fiasco: "The first thing that has to be said bluntly is that for any Arab group to complain of a ‘culture of hate' allegedly existing in the U.S. represents nerve almost beyond description. Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, flourish in America -- indeed, Arabs live much better in the U.S. than in, for example, France, which now issues oceans of crocodile tears over America's so-called "dirty war" in Iraq....But if there is anyplace in the world known for a "culture of hate" it is the core of the Arab world, from whence such practices as videotaped beheading of utter innocents originate." 
 
As long as such support exists, then condemnation of religious abuses by any entity that is not Muslim will have a very limited effect ("US commission slams Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt for abuses of religious freedom," AFP, May 12, 2004). Criticism and change both have to come from within Islam ("Heresy and History," Angelo M. Codevilla, The American Spectator, 5/14/2004). 
 
But that does not mean the West has the time and the luxury to wait until a reformation movement will take root in Islam - if ever.  It needs to recognize that the enemy is not one organization (al-Qaeda), that this war did not start on 9/11, and that it will not be over until the enemies (plural) are disarmed and dead ("The Enemy is Not Just Al-Qaeda," Robert Spencer, FrontPageMagazine.com, May 20, 2004). In the meantime what the West needs to do is to recognize who the war is against and who the enemy is ("The War that Dare Not Speak Its Name: The battle is against militant Islam, not ‘Terror,'" Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review, May 13, 2004): "That militant Islam is our enemy is a fact. That it is the object of our war is a fact. That we need to empower real moderates is a fact. And we need to talk about these facts. We are not helping the authentic moderates if we avoid having the conversation that so needs to be had if the militants hiding in the weeds we've created are going to be exposed and marginalized. If we fail to be critical, if we fail to provoke that discussion, it will continue to be militants who hold positions of influence and who control indoctrination in communities, madrassas, prisons, and other settings where the young, the vulnerable, and the alienated are searching for direction."
 
Given that the enemy is no longer restricted to a specific geographical area or associated with a specific country of origin or activity it is also important to recognize that today many terrorist acts are committed by second generation immigrants who are based in Europe or even by converts who are less suspect ("Europe's Threat to the West," Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, May 18, 2004). 
 
The writing is already on the wall (newspapers, radio, TV, web). We just need to make sure we are skilled enough to read and act upon it.  We have been there before recently and missed twice.  We have misread the intentions of the Iranian revolutionaries (despite them being sprayed all over American campus walls) which allowed the ascent to power of one of the vilest regimes that poses the greatest threat to world peace - if not existence.  And then when this regime took Americans as hostages for 444 days President Carter used appeasement (and resorted to a failed rescue operation) instead of issuing a stern ultimatum.  Did it ever crossed Jimmy Carter's mind that the human rights abuses of a few (million) in Iran under the Shah were substituted by far worse abuses to many (million and more) all over the world? One can hope we have learned the proper historical lesson from this.  If not we will pay dearly again.
 
© Robbie Friedmann, Ph.D.
 
To view previous e-Letters:
 
     "Thou Shalt Not Kill! . . .?" (e-Letter #219)
 
 
 
 
    "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)
 
 
 
 
    "The greatest threat to world peace" (e-Letter #194)
 
 
    "Have you driven a Ford lately?" (e-Letter #192)
 
 
    "Saturday (lunch massacre) at Maxim's" (e-Letter #190)
 
 

 
 
    "Consuming hate - exporting terror" (e-Letter #185)
 

 
    "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.
 
                                                                      * * *