e-Letter 221: The festival of fools
May 30, 2004
Last week two awards were handed out at the Cannes film
festival. One - for a fiction that was defined as a documentary - to Michael
Moore for bashing President Bush and the other to an Israeli director - for a
film on the life of a prostitute but probably more so - for what she said at
the award ceremony. In both cases the artistic value is more than questionable
but there is no mistake as to the message the winners and those who awarded
the prize wanted to make: "America and Israel bad - Palestinians good." Moore
"dedicated" the prize "to all those in the world who suffer from our
actions"and Yedaya stated that "I come from Israel and we are responsible for
the slavery of 3 million Palestinians" ("Festival
de Cannes," AFP, May 23, 2004).
Moore would have probably accused Churchill for causing suffering to the
Germans, and Yedaya would have suggested that the
Jews who
revolted in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazis impeded the progress of an
enlightened regime.
A former Clinton argues that President Bush is "effectively
running a Gulag" and that Iraq for the U.S. is what Stalingrad was to Nazi
Germany ("Just
like Stalingrad," Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, May. 28, 2004).
These comparisons are not only unfounded and unwarranted but they require a
fairly long stretch of the imagination. Such propositions are making an effort
at hoodwinking us into accepting realities that do not exist ("Middle
East madness," Barry Rubin, Jerusalem Post, May. 24, 2004): "Whatever
mistakes they make, the US and Israel are democratic countries trying to cope
with extraordinarily difficult situations using far more restraint and
conscience than anyone else would have in these circumstances. As in World War
II and the Cold War, their adversaries are far worse, nefarious forces who
employ the most misleading propaganda to portray them as evil. Those in the
West who buy these lies are fools." Perhaps the dedication of the WWII
Memorial ("Memorial
Dedicated Amid Tears, Joy," LA Times, May 30, 2004)
in Washington DC serves as an excellent reminder of what the proportions of
evil really are.
And indeed the "world community" quickly acts to condemn
Israel for defending itself ("A Double Standard on Gaza, Editorial, Wall
Street Journal, May 24, 2004) despite the fact that "Contrary to popular
opinion, international law is on Israel's side. Art. 53 of the fourth Geneva
Convention indeed prohibits the destruction of private property by an
occupying power. But Israel's critics as well as the U.N. resolution fail to
quote the text in its entirety. Such actions are illegal, 'except where such
destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.'
Preventing terrorists from firing at Israelis from these houses and putting an
end to the smuggling of explosives and rockets appear to us to be 'absolutely
necessary' operations... It is the use of civilian structures by Palestinian
terrorists for military attacks which violates international law. Those really
concerned for Palestinian welfare should speak these truths instead of
criticizing Israel for trying to defend itself."
But such a positive editorial does not mean that everyone
can be easily dismissed as a useful idiot. Examine the highly damaging
positions taken by the European community as expressed by one of its
parliamentarians ("What
Europe wants," Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, May. 28, 2004): "French
EU parliamentarian Paul Marie Couteax made a stunning statement. After
condemning Israel's actions to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism as
the ‘theocratic excesses of this religious state,' Couteax declared that
Europe should supply the Arab world with nuclear weapons. In his words, ‘I
have no hesitation in saying that we must consider giving the Arab side a
large enough force, including a large enough nuclear force, to persuade Israel
that it cannot simply do whatever it wants. That is the policy my country
[France] pursued in the 1970s when it gave Iraq a nuclear force.'"
...According to Glick, "as it stands, the current policy of sweeping European
hostility under the rug of diplo-speak cocktail parties and press conferences
is detracting from Israel's national security interests. The government's
policy of denial is legitimizing hateful voices and blocking voices of reason
to be heard above the din of anti-Zionist propaganda. At the same time,
Israeli tolerance for European hostility strengthens the forces of appeasement
in the US and weakens those allies who understand the strategic necessity of
supporting Israel."
Add to this comments made last week by retired General
Anthony Zinni raising serious charges against the Bush administration for
nothing less than "dereliction of duty" adding "that the time has come for
heads to roll" for failing in Iraq due to poor strategic thinking ("Gen.
Zinni: 'They've Screwed Up,'" 60 Minutes, CBS, May 21, 2004). He is not
the only general who criticized the administration and perhaps one could
legitimately consider the fact that his remarks have not left any of the
impact that the previous expose of 60 Minutes on the Iraqi prison abuse had.
One would think that if Zinni is correct there would have
been a groundswell of many more top ranking (retired) military personnel
lining up behind him. The fact remains that his accusations were made and
have dissipated. He maintains that the neo-conservatives "are political
ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq...who saw the invasion of
Iraq as a way to stabilize American interests in the region and strengthen the
position of Israel." He also laments that he was accused of being antisemitic
but his complaint seems less than genuine when the debate around the
neo-conservatives in Washington had clear ethnic overtones. One wonders how
he could have been effective as a diplomatic envoy to the Middle East with
this kind of attitude. It is one thing to argue the merit of a strategy and
quite another to blame the administration for wanting to "strengthen the
position of Israel." His points would have been perhaps more convincing if the
blame was for wanting to "strengthen the position of Iran...." otherwise it
almost appears as if he is portraying Israel as the enemy of the U.S.
For too many it is extremely difficult to understand the
current warfare as a being a non-negotiable conflict. It is not even
negotiable in terms of traditional war where one side (a government) submits
and there is a clear winner and loser as the outcome of WWII so clearly
indicated. In Middle East wars Arabs have always "won" even when they lost as
in 1967 and later in 1973. Now the "war on terrorism" is a far more nebulous
enterprise because the enemy is far less clearly defined and the ties to
governments are not as easily identifiable. But if anything, the difference
is also indicative of a huge cultural divide, of very different mind-sets at
play and the usage of very different terms of reference. Yet, the West still
somehow expects the terrorists to be "like us" and every time they push the
envelop further with more atrocious attacks or the beheading of a captive - in
absolute violation of all laws and norms - we allow ourselves to be shocked
anew as if we did not know who we are dealing with.
We expect Arab/Muslim to apologize and take responsibility
but they do not nurture a culture of doing so. In fact they see apology as a
sign of weakness ("Don't
Expect Arab Apologies," Nonie Darwish, The Jewish Week, 05/28/2004) which
proves again why apologizing for the Iraqi prison abuse was the wrong thing to
do even if the abuse should not be condoned (assuming that humiliation is an
unacceptable method of interrogation). It also proves why expressions of
regrets (short of an apology are also out of place in that environment ("Stop
saying sorry! Israel has done nothing wrong," Efraim Inbar, Jerusalem
Post, May. 30, 2004).
The military operation in Gaza has kindled a fire of
criticism from "human rights" advocacy groups which focused on the demolition
of houses as constituting "war crimes". These advocacy groups have applied
the Geneva Convention rather selectively and found the easy traditional route
of blaming Israel for it, not taking into consideration the context and even
the international law itself ("Selective
Use of International Law: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Other
Ngo's on Israel's Rafiah Operation," NGO Monitor, 27 May 2004). By
vilifying Israel these so-called human rights groups deny Israel the right to
life and its right to defend it. In other words, Amnesty International
emphasizes amnesty to the real criminals - the Palestinian terrorists - and
Human Rights Watch considers only some humans to have rights but not when they
are Israelis.
The NGOs may focus on the wrong object to blame but the
West is trying to apply pressure for reform where it is truly much needed.
These mounting pressure for Arab/Muslim reform may yield the desired rhetoric
but it ought to be carefully examined for "exit strategy" which eventually
renders the promises of and commitment to reform useless to the extent that
even some Arabs have criticized recent such "efforts" as hollow ("International
Islamic Conference: Genuine Call for Tolerance or Reiteration of Hollow
Slogans?" MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Reform Project, May 25, 2004, No.
721).
For example, the International Islamic Conference which met
in Cairo in April issued resolutions and recommendations that were "clichés
that recur year after year," it ignored violence preached by Muslim
forefathers, did not criticize violence against non-Muslims (as was so
blatantly evident in the latest
attack in Saud Arabia only against foreigners), and conference calls for a
religious council are ignored by their respective governments. And the
governments? Last week they met for the Arab Summit in Tunis and resolved to
"reform" but the level of commitment is yet to put to a real test ("Doubts
cast over Arab leaders' resolution to reform," Brian Whitaker and
agencies, The Guardian, May 24, 2004).
As was reported from the summit, "While Arab leaders are
happy to support reform in general, yesterday's declaration masked ongoing
disagreements about specifics. Its real effect, according to one Arab
diplomat, is to let individual countries carry out reforms, or not, at their
own pace." And the Libyan dictator whom Tony Blair so quickly adopted back
into civilization once more showed his true colors when he proclaimed: "What's
the significance of this Arab gathering? How can this summit convene while
there are two Arab presidents in jail?" making a reference to Yasser Arafat
and Saddam Hussein. If that is his complaint it shows how disconnected he is
from reality and perhaps he ought to be with them (although Arafat is under
"house-arrest" not jail).
Even the Palestinians have issued calls for the "halting of violence" but it
needs to be seen as part of a strategy that turns violence on and off
according to their interest. What they mean by peace is not what Switzerland
or Canada mean by peace ("New
Palestinian Publication Calls for a Halt to Violence," MEMRI, Special
Dispatch No. 722, May 26, 2004): "The answer to the challenge that has been
forced upon us, that is, to be bound to the road map and at the same time to
resist an arrogant government whose goal is to murder and expropriate
Palestinian lands, lies in a fundamental change in the violent nature of the
resistance, such that it will bear a nonviolent character." So after 3.5 years
(or actually 40) now there is talk (only talk) about turning the violence
spigot off.
What better proof that violence served them (the terror
warlords) so well. And they are so obsessed with violence against Israelis
that they do not hesitate to kill ("sacrifice") their own people in the
process ("Palestinian
Moloch," P. David Hornik, FrontPageMagazine.com, May 27, 2004) and despite
their repeated claims that they do it out of "oppression" all evidence point
to something else and not only in Israel but also in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and
elsewhere where suicide bombing has been used ("Does
oppression cause suicide Bombing?" Alan M. Dershowitz, The Jerusalem Post,
May. 20, 2004): "Suicide bombing is a tactic that is selected by privileged,
educated, and wealthy elitists because it has proven successful." Of course,
if they opt to carry out suicide bombing then what is a little deception for
them such as using ambulances (real or fake) to smuggle arms and terrorists ("Police
seize two fake Palestinian ambulances: Israel has been accusing Palestinians
of using vehicles to move wanted terrorists and arms between Palestinian areas,"
Uri Glickman, Maariv, 2004-05-28).
This is why there are no signs that this talk about
stopping the violence percolates into practical policy. Hamas continues to arm
itself, to commit terror acts, and it is aided and abetted by Egypt. Perhaps
Egypt is not playing an active a role as Iran is playing but nonetheless the
Egyptians are directly to blame for not halting Palestinian terror ("Hamas
Developed Gaza Terrorist Infrastructure With Egyptian Help," Julie Stahl,
CNSNews.com, May 25, 2004). After all, Iran is not sending its chief
intelligence to meet with Palestinians and Israelis; it just gives directives
and support to terror. Egypt should be expected to do more to curb terrorism
and it is not. So if it is not doing enough then a reasonable conclusion is
that this is "not because it cannot" but "because it does not want to" and
therefore Egypt should be considered a state-sponsor of terrorism. But thus
far the real danger is coming from Iran.
If we believe that bombing people on a bus (restaurant,
mall, or hotel) - murdering scores and injuring dozens - is horrendous, and
the attack on the World Trade Center - that murdered thousands - was
monstrous, we are correct. But not having enough time to fully comprehend the
evil and degeneracy that precipitated these vile acts it is important to
realize that even worse horrors and atrocities are awaiting us from the same
sources. The Iranians are now openly threatening that "We, the Muslim
countries, must create a storm front against the U.S. and Israel. The
half-million member organization that was created in Beirut [i.e., Hizbullah]
is not sufficient. Many young Muslims are willing to carry out martyrdom
operations against the American Crusaders." ("Iran's
Revolutionary Guards Official Threatens Suicide Operations: 'Our Missiles Are
Ready to Strike at Anglo-Saxon Culture... There Are 29 Sensitive Sites in the
U.S. and the West...'" MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iran/Jihad & Terrorism,
Studies Project, May 28, 2004, No. 723).
Given that Iran stands behind a significant amount of the
global terrorism that has been taking place for the last few decades in
Argentina, North Africa, Europe, Israel, and recently in Iraq it is becoming
evident how dangerously Iran - via Syria and Hezbullah and numerous other
terror organizations - is persistently attempting to become the dominant power
in the Middle East ("Tehran's
Tentacles of Terror," Aaron Mannes, New York Post, May 25, 2004). So when
Iranian threats of attacking the U.S. and Israel are made along with an
operational declaration of number of missiles and potential "sensitive"
targets and when Iranian efforts at developing a nuclear capability are in
full swing, that danger needs to be taken far more seriously than leaving it
in the hand of the International Atomic Energy Agency or the European
community ("Iran,
terrorists and nukes," Washington Times, Editorial, May 26, 2004).
For purposes of plausible deniability the Iranians might
first proliferate nuclear capabilities by using their affiliated terrorist
groups and then later (if given a chance) will use it themselves. One can
already envision that if Israel and the US preemptively strike at Iran a
public debate will rise about whether Iran "really" had WMDs or "really"
intended to use them. One can hope that if an attack on Iran will take place
a symbolic date such as October 4 be selected to allow for the establishment
of a Ten-Four Commission... Having
such a commission is a small price to pay for a beneficial preemptive strike.
The alternative is to wait until they strike at us. After all, they already
said they will and no one should be able to get away with such threats and see
the light of day.
Some of these threats are coming from within jihadi circles in the U.S. Isn't
free speech wonderful? Of course it is. But under the guise of free speech
hate, vilification, and incitement to violence and terror have raised their
ugly head and perhaps not so surprisingly university campuses provide a
convenient backdrop for such activity that remains un-countered ("Berkeley
Intifada," Anneli Rufus, FrontPageMagazine.com, May 24, 2004).
As a demonstrator at Berkeley shouted in reference to Israelis being blown up
by a bomb on a bus: "They should have been killed! They should have been
killed because it wasn't their land! They should have been killed and it
should have been more." The climate on campus is fraught with hate,
intolerance and arrogant agendas from students, activists and faculty members
alike and not just against Israel and Jews but against America as well: "We
must be in power...when it's all over, the only one standing is gonna be us."
And the crowd responding in unision: "Allahu akbar." And then: "We ain't gonna
lose. We must implement Islam as a totality in which Allah controls every
place -- the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress."
Some express deep enough concern over inside calls for war
against the U.S. that they rightly characterize this action as the
perpetrators call it: "a jihad against America." And then ways are offered to
cope with this peril. The remedy is certainly not politically correct and may
not pass the media muster but with the likelihood of additional atrocities
perpetrated against America on its own soil, with "responsibility claims" by
those who freely chose to live here and then undermine the country, and seeing
cheers whenever Americans (and other non Muslims) are purposefully hurt, these
suggestions will also likely become more palatable ("How
to Defeat Jihad in America," Lawrence Auster, FrontPageMagazine.com, May
26, 2004): 1. End all mass immigration of Moslems into the United States,
whether from Moslem countries or elsewhere. 2. Deport all Moslem illegal
aliens. 3. Deport all legal resident aliens with ties or loyalties to radical
Islam. 4. Remove the citizenship of and deport all naturalized and
native-born citizens who are supporters of jihad. 5. Publicly renounce and
abjure multiculturalism as a societal philosophy.
Sadly many "helpers" (knaves and fools alike) position
themselves in the front line of these agitators proposing that the terrorists
are the victims and the victims are the aggressors. Some of them are Jews who
want to prove they can hate their brethren better than the enemy can (or at
least as much). They are also in the front lines of provocateurs who preach
divestiture from Israel. Some inside Israel also believe they have the luxury
of consoling the enemy perhaps believing that it might endear them when the
sword will wave in the direction of their throats ("Objectively
Pro-terrorist," Sarah Honig, The Jerusalem Post, May. 20, 2004).
Some might be well intended but do not have sufficient
understanding of the depth of the villainy that terrorism is all about and
suggest it has to do with nihilism ("The
Search for P.M.D.'s," Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, May 23,
2004). Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the terrorist
in Iraq do not declare their purpose and do not "claim responsibility" does
not mean they do not know what they are doing. Wanting America to fail is not
nihilism - it is a clear political objective that serves Iran best.
Whether we wish to recognize it or not we are under a
threat more vile and atrocious than anything we have known in history (yes it
includes WWII). Our civilization is at an existential risk. Some are
starting to understand it but they are severely criticized by those who either
do not understand it yet, do not want to understand it, or are simply trying
to wish the problem away. The sooner we (those who understand they are
targets) unite, the quicker victory will come and at a far cheaper cost in
life and property. Help is not going to come from film festivals in Cannes;
there the insane are running the asylum.
© 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.
*
* *