Initiatives
Sources
The Bad, the Ugly, and the Good: Danger Source(s) and Potential Action
September 14, 2002
By Robbie Friedmann
The U.S. was occupied this week with a dignified commemoration for the victims
of the 9-11 atrocity. Ironically the New York Lottery picked 9-1-1 as the
winning number. The nation and the world mourned and at the same time braced for
additional developments.
The 1966 spaghetti western "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" should be re-cast
with Hussein representing the bad, anti-Semitism playing the ugly, and Bush
representing the good. Simplistic? Perhaps it is time to break the complexities
of the 9-11 atrocity by recognizing it as marking the beginning of World War III
and also by recognizing who is siding with the Good and who is siding with the
Bad and the Ugly.
For starters, Scott Ritter clearly does not represent the UN inspectors who view
the gravity of Hussein's threat far more realistically than he does. Indeed,
Hussein is not alone his paying for Palestinian terror may pay off for him when
he plans to use Palestinians for his own terror schemes: "One possibility is
that Saddam could use the links he had cultivated with the Palestinian refugee
camps to recruit volunteers willing to be injected with the smallpox virus and
then enter Israel to infect hundreds of Jews before themselves succumbing to the
disease" (i)
Iraq's intentions do not end with Israel and it also calls to fight against
American interests (ii) as an Iraqi editorial screams "for the
formation of suicide [fidaiyoon] squads to launch broad-based sabotage
operations against the United States, its friends, and interests."
By no means is this real danger coming from Iraq alone. Reports now indicate
that Libya is no less of a menace "A nuclear Libya would pose a grave threat
both to the Middle East and to Europe." It would be particularly menacing to
three countries(iii) Israel, for obvious reasons; Egypt, which
regards Libya as its own back yard; and Iran, because of the suspicion that
Libyan nuclear-related activities will produce a bomb, not only for Libya, but
also for Iraq."
Of course, that "rhapsodic" region does not lack for villains. A recent
extensive report on Syrian bio-chemical weapons capabilities estimates that it
now has the potential parity (with Israel) to the extent that it aims to disarm
Israel from its third-party-reported nuclear weapons.(iv) In the meantime, Syria
and Iraq send their proxies - the Palestinians - to do their dirty work. Despite
repeated terrorism, foreign media still fall for Arab propaganda and report it
as fact. For example, Molly Moore creates an impression that it is Israel that
is an obstacle to Palestinian "concessions" to stop their own violence.(v)
"U.S. and European intermediaries have spent weeks struggling to persuade
Palestinian factions to stop suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel. Their
efforts have been stymied by the competing interests of divergent Palestinian
organizations, the Israeli occupation of West Bank cities and Israel's targeted
attacks against Palestinian militant leaders." With reference to the Israeli
bombing that killed "a leader of the military wing of the Islamic Resistance
Movement, or Hamas, and 15 others, many of them women and children" she states
that "At that time, a range of Palestinian organizations, including Hamas, were
prepared to sign the declaration, according to U.S. and European intermediaries
involved in the process."
However, the reputable analyst Ehud Ya'ari argues that "Fatah attempt to bring
Hamas into a temporary partnership -- never had a chance".(vi) Ya'ari
argues that "Incidentally, none of the Hamas leaders is claiming that the
killing of Shehadeh was the reason for the rejection. They raised only
theoretical and ideological grounds for torpedoing the agreement with Fatah."
But not only her understanding is twisted; in addition to her faulty and
illogical theorizing, the facts do not support her reporting either. She
maintained that "No large-scale attacks have been carried out in Israel since
the July 31 bomb detonation at Hebrew University in Jerusalem that killed nine
people, including five Americans." Yet "A Palestinian suicide bomber turned a
bus in northern Israel into a fireball today, killing at least eight people and
wounding 50, 20 of them seriously, according to the Israeli media."(vii).
She must have been on vacation at that time and missed one of so many large
scale attacks or perhaps got the dates confused...
Arafat is still Humpty-Dumptying in his bombed HQ. On one hand he wishes a happy
new year to the Israelis (happiness for him must be measured in bombs) and on
the other encourages continued "martyrdom." But as the Jerusalem Post editorial
staidly indicates "Words are cheap."(viii) "It seems that the only
real cures for the continuing Palestinian infatuation with jihad will be the
IDF's successes in destroying terrorists on the ground, the steadfastness of the
people of Israel, and the upcoming body-blow to Arab radicalism that will be
delivered by the United States in Baghdad. Only after all three factors have
been allowed to take their course will there be a real Palestinian readiness for
peace, a readiness that will be enthusiastically reciprocated by Israel."
Despite it all Israelis continue to yearn for peace but go about it somewhat
more soberly than before. Yossi Klein Halevi writes that "Peace will come only
through mutual introspection and atonement. Many Israelis went far in trying to
understand Palestinian claims and grievances. To resume that necessary process
among Israelis now requires a self-critical moral dialogue among Palestinians."(ix)
However, neither the editorial's endorsement of Israeli peaceful intentions nor
a Palestinian "self-critical dialogue" is likely to take place soon. In the
meantime all indications point to the opposite direction. In last week's
e-Letter reference was made to Inbar's "chilling academic" speculative comments
that while he considers the destruction of Israel "unlikely" he "believes it
would not be the "end of the Jewish people." This because he thinks "Jews would
go into the Diaspora once more -- and persist, as before: We invented survival
without sovereignty. This is our specialty."(x) The sheer fact that
Fulford stated that "Yet Israel's existence remains, as always, in question" is
chilling because of the exact reason that Israel's existence should not be
questionable. For Inbar to assume that Jews have adopted to a Diaspora and may
survive as a people and not even mention the horrendous impact that this will
have is absolutely heretic. Assuming that few Israelis will escape massacre (the
Arabs are very serious when it comes to that business, they execute it without
any hesitation and with deep commitment; after all, they perfected it) for a 14
million-strong people who already lost 6 million in the Holocaust to lose about
half will be devastating. But not only to Jews: to Christians as well.
That is why when Israeli, Jews, or other apologists for Arab intransigence
criticize Israel and debase its moral standing they risk making Inbar's
speculation a reality. That is why Rabbi Sacks was so heavily criticized by his
peers and many others (yes, he was also supported by his peers, but Rabbis today
are not what they used to be). The best response was offered by Isi Leibler,
senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress (xi) who
counter-argued "...that the conflict is not "a cycle of violence" but a
confrontation between good and evil; between a society that seeks peace and a
society suffused with such primeval hatred that it even sanctions child
sacrifice. Our situation vis-a-vis the Palestinians is as black and white as the
fight of the Allies against the Nazis during World War 2. It is as simple as
that....Chief Rabbi, for all your intelligence and originality, your interview
was badly timed, unleashed dark forces, and will be thoroughly exploited by
those who seek to harm or delegitimize the Jewish State."
The moral clarity of Leibler serves as a proper reminder of the anti-Semitic
onslaught that the students of Nazism have so well adopted as their very own
"Since the release of MEMRI's study - and regardless of the information
accumulated about the identities of the perpetrators - officials, journalists,
and religious leaders throughout the Arab and Muslim world have continued to
claim that the perpetrators of the attacks were not Arabs or Muslims.(xii)
The claim that American and or Jewish/Israeli elements carried out the
attacks has become an accepted, albeit false, and common myth in the Arab world,
to the point that U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin
Powell have been accused of masterminding the attacks."
Arab haughtiness is not limited to the Middle East. A few days ago some not so
gentlemanly and not so ladylike Palestinians and their supporters were able to
do more terrorist damage in the West. They were able to shut down a speech by
(former Israeli Prime Minister) Bibi Netanyahu who was invited to speak at
Montreal's Concordia University.(xiii) The most relevant - and
troubling - part of the report is with the pattern it points to: "Were this an
isolated incident, that would end the story. But the riot highlighted recent
years of gross pro-Palestinian agitation that divided the students of misnamed
Concordia and set a majority against the misnamed Concordia Student Union
Council."
And back at "home" the Palestinians continue to vilify not only Israel but also
the U.S. with a booklet that anticipates the destruction of the US by 2004 and
now became a best seller(xiv) and an integral part of the
inflammatory rhetoric that serves as the basis for violent action(xv)
This cancerous rhetoric has engulfed the region. A Saudi sheikh is reported to
have preached for the destruction of Jews on official Saudi TV2 on the morning
of 7 June 2002(xvi) "O God, strengthen Islam and the Muslims,
humiliate infidelity and the infidels, destroy your enemies, the enemies of
religion, and grant safety to this country and to those of Muslims. O God,
protect Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, and elsewhere....O God, the
Jews have transgressed all limits in their tyranny. O God, shake the ground
under their feet, pour torture on them, and destroy all of them."
Therefore, as indicated in previous e-Letters, Israel serves as the frontier
post in the Arab-Muslim onslaught against Christians and the West. Thus the
West's codling to real and potential attackers does not help its own interests
of survival. Or as Mordechai Nisan stated "Despite the West virtually
accommodating both the Arabs' rejection of Israel's right to exist and
Palestinian terrorism which lent barbaric vitality to their position, the
Islamic Koranic linking of Jews and Christians would inevitably be applied in
the interminable Muslim jihad against both Israel and the West. Israel is the
first line of Western defense in the battle for non-Muslim survival and
prosperity in the world. Western collusion would not prevent the Arabs from
cutting a pound of Christian fair flesh many times over, but rather prompt it."
(xvii)
Examine for instance the brazen and open Islamic clerical gathering in London
for the dual purpose of "celebrating" the 9-11 atrocity perpetrated by their
very own and launching a new organization of Islamic militants. (xviii)
Even optimistic analysis that views a silver lining in the current Islamic
radicalism and see it as an opening for modernization does not underestimate its
destructive force: "In the end, it is as important not to overestimate the
strength of Islamism as it is fatal to underestimate it. It has little to offer
Arabs, much less the rest of the Muslim world. Its glorification of violence has
already produced a sharp counter reaction, and--provided it is defeated--its
"successes" may yet help pave the way for long-overdue reform. If so, this would
certainly not be the first time that the cunning of history has produced so
astounding a result." (xix)
Others are increasingly recognizing what the conflict is (at least partially)
all about. Claudia Rosett argues that "We are fighting to defend free and
democratic civilization against messianic tyrants." (xx) And it is
important to offer this view exactly because the aggressors themselves push an
entitlement mentality where their attack is tendered as a "defense" (xxi)
"Saudi Arabia, under pressure from the United States to cooperate in the war
against terrorism, has defined Islamic holy war against Israel as legitimate
self-defense."
The Saudis are not as innocent and sheepish as their PR campaign (full page adds
in this weeks papers from the Crown Prince suggesting that the Saudis are
against terrorism and that they ARE an ally of the US) and they were able to
manipulate opinion makers in at least one case that involves American daughters
kidnapped by their Saudi father (xxii) as reported on the O'Reilly
show with the host getting rather emotional when the outcome of his buying into
the Saudi manipulation was exposed by his guest. As Tom McGurn concluded: "The
Saudis should not get the final word on writing off kidnapped and victimized
Americans. And neither should Bill O'Reilly."
Some are suggesting that the root of the current wave of violence (and the
stronger one it stills portends) is due to "success envy" (xxiii)
"The world may rail against American power, anti-globalization demonstrators may
trash McDonald's restaurants, anti-war protesters may besiege US embassies, al-Qaida
terrorists may try to perpetrate further atrocities against American targets.
Ultimately, though, we are forced to confront the old American adage: It's hard
to argue with success."
Ann Coulter describes the destructiveness of radical Islam that does not offer
an enticement or attractiveness to potential followers (xxiv)"Islam
promises Paradise to those who die in battle for Islam more certainly than it
promises salvation to anyone else."
And some are quick to have declared victory which at this stage of the game is
nothing but wishful thinking and a long way from us (xxv) "It might
be difficult to see the light from where we are now, still deep in a war against
terrorists, with new cells cropping up, new forms of terror multiplying and new
methods to spread venomous doctrines. But at his core, the enemy is deadly ill."
Even if the enemy is deadly ill, killing it (or curing it?) is a rather arduous,
timely, and very costly process. We are not there yet and we need to be careful
of a "sudden recovery."
The anti-interventionists voices around the world as well as those internal to
the US increasingly seem to amount to not much more than hollow voices. One
illustration of it is the reaction in the Atlanta paper to the article last week
by Jimmy Carter.(xxvi) One letter not so politely suggested that the
"Former president should keep quiet" (xxvii) but the second offers
support to Carter and thus demonstrates why Carter is so wrong. According to the
letter-writer (one John Ayoub), Carter offers "moderation" which the writer
equates with saving the US from a "downfall" (or isn't he actually hoping for
it?) and in the same way that Carter blames the victim so parrots the writer:
"Destroying Iraq because it has weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous. For
instance, we know for a fact that Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons,
but there is no talk of invading Israel -- instead, we give them billions of
dollars a year so that they may continue their violent occupation and repression
of the indigenous Palestinian population...Americans need to stand up to these
outrages before U.S. policy leads to the downfall of this great country." No Mr.
Ayoub, the US is not seeking to destroy Iraq and Israel has never been a threat
to anyone unless they were intent on doing her harm. And the U.S. is not close
to a downfall unless you and your ilk work towards it.
And as the "making-the-case" against Iraq debate has intensified the
administration has continuously provided the evidence. It almost appears as if
no matter what the evidence is for those opposed to attacking Iraq even when it
is put under their nose - like Jimmy Carter's - they will deny seeing it or
argue that it is still insufficient (or "immoral"). As a reminder, Charles
Krauthammer suggests to view 9-11 as "an act of war" (xxviii)
One of the better articles yet in supporting the US case is a Jerusalem Post
Editorial (xxix) which aptly debunks the myths that "here is no hard
evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaida and the 9-11 attack," that " Saddam Hussein
currently poses no threat to his immediate neighbors or the larger world," that
"diplomatic attempts to bring Iraq into compliance with UN disarmament
resolutions have yet to be fully explored, much less exhausted," that
"unilateral US action against Iraq will strain, and perhaps crack, the global
alliance against terrorism," that "an assault against Iraq will be a huge strain
on America's budget and may involve large-scale casualties, and that "the
effects of regime change in Iraq are unknowable, and could lead to chaos within
the country and instability throughout the Middle East." The editorial suggests
that if the US "... fails to make war, it must be prepared for the contingencies
that entails as well: the loss of international credibility and a deadly
slowdown in its war against terror. In the wake of September 11, the latter set
of risks seems to us greater by far." Actually the situation is far more
critical than the war on terror or even US diplomatic stature in the world. The
threat is purely existential to body and political systems alike.
Some in Europe are also adopting this supportive attitude. The Sunday
Telegraph's editorial (xxx) states that "A year after the attacks on
New York and the Pentagon, the West can no longer afford such indulgence. Even
as we commemorate the dead this week, we must accept, somberly but with a clear
eye, that the task of preventing another such horror has only just begun." A
similar attitude is expressed by Barbara Amiel (xxxi) "Now we cannot
turn the clock back. We must pull ourselves together - and do what is needed
before it is too late."
And Victor David Hansen makes an astute observation that the parameters of
political and ideological "right" and "left" no longer hold grounds and that is
the precise reasoning for going to war against Iraq - given that diplomacy has
failed "Real concern for the sanctity of life may hinge on employing rather than
rejecting force, inasmuch as our troops are as deadly and protected abroad as
our women, children, aged, and civilians are impotent and vulnerable at home. It
seems to me a more moral gamble to send hundreds of pilots into harm's way than
allow a madman to further his plots to blow up or infect thousands in
high-rises." (xxxii)
"Politics have been turned upside down. In the old days, cynical conservatives
were forced to hold their noses and to practice a sometimes repellent
Realpolitik. In the age of Russian expansionism, they were loathe to champion
democracy when it might usher in a socialist Trojan Horse whose belly harbored
totalitarians disguised as parliamentarians. Thus they were so often at
loggerheads with naive and idealist leftists... No longer. The end of the
specter of a deadly and aggressive Soviet Communism has revived democratic
ideology as a force in diplomacy. Champions of freedom no longer sigh and back
opportunistic rightist thugs who promise open economics, loot their treasuries,
and keep out the Russians. Instead, even reactionaries are now more likely to
push for democratic governments in the Middle East than are dour and skeptical
leftists. The latter, if multiculturalists, often believe that democracy is a
value-neutral Western construct, not necessarily a universal good; if pacifists,
they claim nonintervention, not justice, as their first priority. The Right, not
the Left, now is the greater proponent of global freedom, liberation, and
idealism with obvious domestic ramifications for any Republican president astute
enough to tap that rich vein of popular support."
All this perhaps makes sense if the US is determined to take a new course of
action with new rules of engagement. Martin Peretz argues that there is indeed a
"New Bush Doctrine" (xxxiii) that has reversed the warped view of
"Palestinians first" or the "one-step-at-a-time-Afghanistan" before anything
could or even should be done with Iraq: "I am not one of those who believes
democracy will come soon either to Iraq or to the entity to be called Palestine
(when--and if--the Palestinians finally grasp that they cannot have both a state
and a warrant to kill Israelis)...It is not the pursuit of good government,
however, that has put this country on a collision course with the leadership in
Palestine and Iraq. Our motives are more fundamental than that: The U.S.
government has made a decision that it will not permit either mass terror by
Baghdad or random terror by the many Palestinian militias to set the norms of
how others, in the region and beyond, live or die. This is the critical
principle underlying our Iraqi policy and our Palestinian policy. It is, at
root, a statement about how we define civilization and how we defend it from its
unconventionally armed discontents... The road to Jerusalem more likely leads
through Baghdad than the reverse. Once the Palestinians see that the United
States will no longer tolerate their hero Saddam Hussein, depressed though they
may be, they may also come finally to grasp that Israel is here to stay and that
accommodating to this reality is the one thing that can bring them the generous
peace they require."
This is exactly why Westerns were so popular. We knew who the good guys were and
who the bad guys were. The difference is that now even when we know not everyone
is quick to acknowledge it. In the classic "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" Eli Wallach playing Tuco uttered these immortal words in the following scene:
[Tuco is in a bubble bath. The One Armed Man enters the room.]
One Armed Man: I've been looking for you for 8 months. Whenever I should have
had a gun in my right hand, I thought of you. Now I find you in exactly the
position that suits me. I had lots of time to learn to shoot with my left. [Tuco
kills him with the gun he has hidden in the foam.]
Tuco: When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk. (xxxiv)
The "debate" may rage a little longer but the gun is ready under the foam. One
has to make certain that the Islamists will never be able to say that they found
us in "the position that suits them" and live to do something about it.
(i) "Inspectors certain Iraq will use its deadly weapons," David Wastell, Philip
Sherwell and Julian Coman, Sunday Telegraph, 08/09/2002.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ma
in.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F09%2F08%2Fwirq208.xml
(ii) "Iraq Calls for the Formation of Suicide Squads to Strike American Targets
and Interests," MEMRI, Special Alert - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, September
10, 2002, No. 3.
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SA302
(iii) "Libyan Weapons of Mass Destruction: Qaddafi Redux?" Yiftah Shapir, Jaffee
Center for Strategic Studies, No. 49, September 12, 2002
(iv) "Guile, Gas and Germs: Syria's Ultimate Weapons," Dany Shoham, Middle East
Quarterly, Summer and Fall, 2002.
http://www.meforum.org/article/493
(v) "Fatah Panel's Plan to Halt New Attacks Draws Fire," The Washington Post,
September 11, 2002; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/
wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64374-2002Sep10¬Found=true
(vi) "Another Local Legend," Jerusalem Report, September 9, 2002
(vii) "Bus bombing in northern Israel,"SMH, August 4 2002.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/04/1028157877975.html
(viii) "Words are cheap" (Sep. 10, 2002)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satel
lite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1031579389952
(ix) "Introspection as a Prerequisite for Peace," The New York Times, September
7, 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/opinion/07HALE.html
(x)"A refreshing heretic with no 'vision of peace,'" Robert Fulford, National
Post, August 31, 2002
http://www.nationalpost.com/commen
tary/story.html?id=%7b0E03CDC4-1AEF-4479-B1FE-CEAD8F372A72%7d
(xi) "An open letter to British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks," September 12, 2002http://www.wjc.org.il/
(xii) "The Events of September 11 and the Arab Media: The New Antisemitic Myth,"
Special Report - Arab Antisemitism, September 13, 2002, No. 7
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR00702
(xiii)"The yahoos who shamed Canada," William Johnson, The Globe and Mail,
September 12, 2002.
(xiv) "Booklet predicting end of US is PA best seller," Khaled Abu Toameh, The
Jerusalem Post, Sep. 10, 2002
(xv) see more in PMW on Palestinian hatred of America
http://www.pmw.org.il/terror.html
(xvi) "Saudi Shaykh Abd-al-Bari al-Thubayti calls on God to torture and destroy
all the Jews in sermon broadcast on Saudi Government television," FBIS - Foreign
Broadcast Information Service, reported by MidEast Counter Terrorism
met@ajc.org,
09/09/02
(xvii) 'As it goes with Israel...' The Jerusalem Post, Sep. 9, 2002
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Sate
llite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1031579385912
(xviii) "London to host Islamic 'celebration' of Sept 11," Thair Shaikh, Sunday
Telegraph, 08/09/2002
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m
ain.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/08/nextre08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2002/09/08/ixport.html
&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=270562
(xix) Destructive Creation - Can Any Good Come Of Radical Islam? A modernizing
force? Maybe," Francis Fukuyama and Nadav Samin, Wall Street Journal, September
12, 2002
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002251
(xx) "Friends Indeed: Democrats everywhere support America. America should
reciprocate," The Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2002
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002247
(xxi) "Saudis Term Jihad as Legitimate Self-defense," MidEast News Line, January
11, 2002
http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2002/january/01_15_1.html
(xxii) see story: Ego Factor - "The Blowhard Zone: Did Bill O'Reilly collude
with the Saudis? We report, you decide," William McGurn, September 9, 2002
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002238
(xxiii) "Success breeds envy," Douglas Davis, Sep. 9, 2002
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1031579385418
(xxiv) "My Name Is Adolf," FrontPageMagazine.com September 12, 2002
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3021
(xxv) "The threat of radical Islam is on the wane," Fareed Zakaria,
Sunday Telegraph, 08/09/2002
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion
/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/09/08/do0801.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/09/08/ixnewstop.html
(xxvi) Jimmy Carter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2
/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A38441-2002Sep4¬Found=true
(xxvii) Reader opinions
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/13letters.html
(xxviii) an act of war Washington Post, September 6, 2002
http://www.townhall.com/columnist
s/charleskrauthammer/ck20020906.shtml
(xxix) "Making the case for war," Sep. 9, 2002
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satel
lite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1031288870367
(xxx) "Might can be right," 08/09/2002
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion
/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/09/08/dl0801.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/09/08/ixnewstop.html
(xxxi) "Never mind the dossier, just leaf through 'Iraq for Dummies,'" Jewish
World Review Sept. 10, 2002
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0902/amiel.html
(xxxii) "There is no going back," National Review, September 11, 2002
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp
(xxxiii) "Son Shine," The New Republic, 09.09.02
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020909&s=peretz090902
(xxxiv) The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0060196