Initiatives
Sources
With Peace Like This Who Needs War?
November 24, 2002
By Robbie Friedmann
The atrocious combination of a death-deifying culture and a strategic war
against Israel continued this week with yet another suicide bombing on a
Jerusalem bus (and many other attacks that were not reported by western media).
Israel keeps using measured means to locate the perpetrators and retaliate
against some buildings suspected of housing bomb factories ("Bomb
kills 11; IDF moves on Bethlehem," Ha'aretz Staff, November 23, 2002). To
the chorus of those "condemning" terrorism a wanna-be member added his
out-of-tune voice: Palestinian "Minister" Abed Rabbo declared earlier in the
week that Israel is responsible for the suicide bombings against it. And Arafat
(who is still kicking and killing) had the audacity to claim that Israel's
excursion in Bet-Lehem is a threat to peace. This is the classical double
victimization: first commit the homicidal crime and then blame-the-victim for
being blown away and for trying to defend itself. This is the kind of perverse
(yet effective) propaganda that requires much more than a root-canal work to
eradicate it.
Statistics compiled by the Israeli military point out that since the Arab
violence has started in late September 2000 and leading up to November 17, 2002,
there were a total of 15,298 terror attacks against Israel. This comes down to
one attack every 68 minutes, every day and every night ("15,000
and counting ..." Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2002).
Israel's weakness in addressing the onslaught against it does not originate in
its lack of power but stems from a combination of having a great deal of power
that cannot be strategically channeled into action because the international
community (including particularly the U.S.) applies the breaks to anything that
might be "perceived" as an "obstacle" to dealing with Iraq and with terrorism
"in general" (namely, in the U.S. or Europe). Indeed, it is a worrisome sign
when the "road-map" offered by the U.S. and the Europeans seems to do nothing
but reward terrorism ("Creating
a Palestinian Arab State Would Reward Terror," Morton A. Klein, Our
Jerusalem, November 22, 2002).
And the "world" continues its ritualistic reward with yet another formal
recognition. Instead of actively and meaningfully condemning and shunning
terrorism and those associated with it, not much more than lip service is paid.
At the same time, the world recognizes representatives of terror, invites them
to address university campuses to commemorate the 9-11 atrocity, and bestows
upon them prizes of "peace" as in the case of Hanan Ashrawi who was also given
$50,000 for being a "peace activist and a champion of human rights" ("The
Olof Palme Prize 2002 to Hanan Ashrawi," The Olof Palme International
Center, 2002-11-21).
Conspicuously, the Swedes are totally oblivious to the fact that Human Rights
pertain to all humans not just Palestinians. Ashrawi has been an advocate for
and an apologist of violence through decades of her "activism" as a Palestinian
"legislator" and an official of the Arab League having and had little to do with
peace or with coexistence. The Palme Center and the current Swedish Foreign
Minister are doing a disservice to humanity and to the cause of peace by this
dubious honor. And Ashrawi? She is laughing all the way to the (west) bank.....
Ashrawi represents a group that is actively engaged in violence and for the
convenience of the occasional propaganda campaign(s) she utters words like
"peace" that are absolutely obsequious and mean nothing other than serving as a
deceptive component in a campaign of disinformation. This campaign takes place
at several levels but the most important one is that of the Arab public which is
being fed an overdose of anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish, and anti-American convoluted
propaganda that became the "objectified reality" for millions of captive
consumers who are not offered other views or the option of choosing between
them. The infamous Egyptian TV series has now reached the stage of the blatant
blood libel against the Jews suggesting "they have a plan to rule all of
humanity" ("The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
"The Jew's racist plan to rule all of humanity," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian
Media Watch Bulletin, November 21, 2002).
Some Arab writers maintain that airing this TV series has little to do with
freedom-of-expression (one notes that it does not exist in the Arab world) and
they debunk Arab arguments that they are Semites too and hence "cannot be
anti-Semitic." However, the majority of the Arab press supports the airing of
the defaming series as a given truth, as a right, and as a good move to bring
the "word" to the viewers ("Arab
Press Debates Antisemitic Egyptian Series: 'Knight Without a Horse' - Part II,"
MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis - Egypt/Arab Antisemitism, November 20, 2002,
No. 113; see MEMRI's synopsis of the series at the end of the article).
The irony of this anti-Semitic claim lies in the fact that never in history did
the Jews actually "rule the world" yet the Muslims have colonized it and ruled
it for a significant period of time. And similarly ironic is the fact that while
they have been engaged in massive warfare against others (and amongst
themselves) they have no problem glorifying and imitating the Nazis, or
alternatively - when convenient - using them as a symbol of evil. The latest
such rhetoric comes from the beacon of Arab corruption and subjugation -
Lebanon. One of its papers is treating President Bush as Hitler ("Heil
Bush, America Uber Alles' - Lebanese Paper Gives President Bush a Nazi Salute,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Syria-Lebanon/U.S. and the Middle East, November
22, 2002, No. 441). In a sense the world should not be surprised since senior
German politicians have made similar statements during their recent election
campaign, and a Canadian Prime Ministerial aide
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/1102/23moron.html was more kind, she
"only" called him a ‘moron.' Yet the PM adamantly refused her resignation.
However, these western political "sorties" should not take away attention from
the turpitude of the crude Arab propaganda. The Jewish Internet Association
compiled some of these "sources" and added a warning that the sites have very
"disturbing content" ("E-Jihad,"
Chuck Chriss, November 20, 2002). It is important to view these sites to
find out what is it (and how) that they portray to their willing consumers. Note
that the technology is sophisticated, the editing is professional, and the
presentation appeals to raw emotions - not necessarily to the viewers'
intellect, or knowledge. They use effective delivery methods that are abrasive
yet trying to elicit sympathy; they pretend to present "facts" (which are
inherently faulty) while clearly aiming at dehumanizing the "enemy" and
legitimize action against it. Examine one such clip (with the problematic title:
"Please help bring justice to a nation massacred, raped and robbed for over 60
years. Its only fault is being in the way of the most powerful special interest
group in the world"
http://www.aai-us.org/main.html) narrated by a child who is well rehearsed,
and fills the listener/viewer with "facts" that are groundless and bias-laden
that clearly send the message of "Arab-good / Jew-bad." No matter how much one
will try to argue against the clip and what it stands for, it is like poison
spreading in the bloodstream. Its extrication may require a blood transfusion or
the patient will die. No doubt that the "propaganda patients" have been
terminally infected except that unlike the snake-bitten victim, the patients do
not die. They just kill others or support the climate of hate and killing.
Perhaps it might be helpful to examine Who are the Palestinians?
http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20021120.html (Yashiko
Sagamori, National Unity Coalition, November 18, 2002, Our Jerusalem,
11/20/2002) in order to develop a better understanding to one of the greatest
international frauds ever concocted. What the Palestinians and Arabs want can be
best described as a child of a very large family who wants to take away the toys
AND the playground of the neighbors' only child. When the police think that this
is a simple feud between two children that could be resolved, it turns out that
the family and other neighbors lay (unsubstantiated) claims to the toys and to
the playground alike and have beaten up the kid. Even when the court later rules
that the claims for the property are unfounded, those decisions are ignored and
not respected. Appeasing the bullies will work only if there is a readiness to
give up. The bully will not change his way with appeasement. Short of that it is
imperative to do exactly the opposite ("A
return to Jacksonian Zionism, "Caroline B. Glick, The Jerusalem Post, Nov.
22, 2002).
The Arabs of Israel seem to be the first to recognize that the current
Arab-instigated violence is counterproductive (at least for them) and for the
first time since September 2000 they are coming out against their own elected
officials who constantly bash Israel and support terror ("Galilee
rally calls for replacing Arab Mks," Khaled Abu Toameh and David Rudge, The
Jerusalem Post, Nov. 18, 2002): "Many Arabs are now blaming their
representatives in the Knesset for increased tension with the state and for
alienating their Jewish neighbors. They believe the actions and statements of
the Arab MKs over the past few years have seriously hampered Arab endeavors to
achieve full equality with Jews."
While this may be a potential positive sign in the annals of the Middle East,
more evidence is needed to determine that this swallow might bring spring with
it. The relentless pan-Arabic propaganda campaign and terrorist actions
(occasionally transfigured into full-scale wars) demonstrate that this is not
simply a "Palestinian problem" and neither is it a matter of peace and
negotiations. If it was, this could have been solved many times from 1947 (if
not earlier) and on as well as at Camp David in 2000. The fact remains that the
Arabs are not ready for an end-of-the-conflict that will recognize and accept
the existence of Israel. What they ARE doing is vociferously propagating the
Nazi-style "final solution" to annihilate Israel ("Brotherhood
of blood," Matthew Gutman, Nov. 21, 2002).
The head of the (Palestinian) Islamic Jihad (Sheikh Assad Tamimi, author of a
1982 booklet "The Obliteration of Israel: A Koranic Imperative" - see
"The Islamic Jihad: the
Imperative of Holy War," A Special Report, Boaz Ganor, ICT) stated in 1990
that "The Jews have to return to the countries from which they came. We shall
not accede to a Jewish state on our land, even if it is only one village." And
shortly before his death, Faysal Al-Husseini gave an interview to an Egyptian
newspaper where he openly admitted that the Oslo peace overture with Israel was
a Trojan Horse aimed to dismantle Israel. Thus past Palestinian "peace
offerings" (not to mention signed agreements) were nothing but a deception
campaign. Interestingly enough, one could point out to Sheikh Tamimi that the
Jews have indeed returned to the country they came from, namely, Israel.
And it is not very likely that their propaganda campaign will be diverted in the
foreseeable future to the kind of media ideals (which - with all its flaws - is
far more promising than the dogmatic and intolerant Arab media) we hold in a
free and open society. The reason is that while their modern media seem to
pretend to be independent they are government-controlled. This is partly due to
the infusion of huge amounts of money and partly because they also reflect the
sentiments of both the government and the people. Jon B. Alterman argues ("Slouching
Toward Ramallah: Why aren't "independent" Arab media undermining extremism?"
The Wall Street Journal, November 21, 2002) that internal criticism of Arab
problems is channeled into charges flying at external sources and perceived
enemies: "...a funny thing happened on the way to the Arab media bazaar. Rather
than contribute to a public debate on the ills of the Arab world, Arab media
have concentrated much more on the ills of the non-Arab world. Rather than help
Arab publics articulate their grievances toward their governments, they have
nurtured Arab grievances against other governments. Arab media have gone a long
way toward building solidarity among Arabs, but, to an extraordinary degree,
that solidarity is treated as an end in itself rather than as a means to achieve
some other goals." When debates are publicly displayed they are fixed from the
outset: "...Arab debates often resemble nothing so much as professional
wrestling, where the outcome is clear before the adversaries even step into the
ring."
It is therefore rather stunning when Israeli and western writers opt to ignore
the writing on the wall and while condemning terror they express sympathy and
understanding to the Palestinian's "just cause" ("Palestinian
bombers maim a just cause," Jay Bookman, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
11/21/02 ). The bombers are only "historically mistaken;" stated as if they have
purchased the wrong product off a supermarket shelf. Bookman holds that: "... as
Jewish settlements multiply and expand in occupied Palestine, hidden from world
notice by Palestinian terror attacks, you have to wonder." Like Tom Friedman he
believes that the problem lies with the settlements - not with terror - and he
refers to the land as "occupied." It is writers like Bookman and Friedman who
demonstrate the success of Arab propaganda against the backdrop of a misguided
western notion of equality and fair-play. Unless the debate in the West shifts
towards recognizing and addressing the substantive issues at hand the current
"opposition" to dealing with terrorism and Iraq will be recognized for what it
is, namely, fruitless political posturing ("On
the Left: Hysteria and Name-Calling," Robert L. Bartley, The Wall Street
Journal, November 18, 2002).
Indeed, the need to recognize and understand the magnitude of the current threat
(well beyond that against Israel) is best outlined by Daniel Pipes ( "Know
Thy Terrorists," The New York Post, November 19, 2002) who states that "A
war cannot be won without identifying the enemy. If the U.S. government intends
to prevail in the current conflict, it must start talking about the war against
militant Islam. This will then make it possible for others - the media,
Hollywood, even academics - to do likewise. At that point, both war efforts will
be on the right footing." It is also well articulated by Stephen Schwartz who
points out the complexity of Islam ("The
Good & the Bad: Stephen Schwartz on Islam and Wahhabism," Kathryn Jean
Lopez, National Review, November 18, 2002): "Proper media coverage of Islam,
meaning the views of serious clerics and intellectuals, seems unlikely to happen
in a media industry where Barbara Walters remains transfixed by Saudi princes
handing out charity and Bill O'Reilly preens himself by referring to Islam as
"the enemy's religion.""
It appears that neither Israel nor the West are yet fully cognizant of the
nature, magnitude, and severity, of the threat coming from the Palestinians and
from militant Islam. But some do realize the need for proactive pre-emptive
action because deterrence alone does not work ("The
Bugs of War: Kill the terrorists before they strike with bioweapons," Pete
du Pont, the Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2002): "...terrorists have no
nation, no people and little at risk when they attack--indeed, they think
paradise awaits them as a reward for their evil acts--, so they cannot be
deterred. Thus destroying terrorist groups and keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of their hands must be our highest priorities." It is important
to add that while terrorists do not have nations, some countries do have and
support terrorists.
Why should Israel endure the continued terrorist attacks is quite beyond any
frame of reference. Why should the U.S. - and the rest of the free world - be
under a similar threat that involves the loss of life and is compounded by the
new threats from the dead-or-alive OBL that Americans can be saved if they
covert to Islam?
War has little to do with killing the enemy. That part has been proven too
effectively - and at times efficiently - throughout history as most, if not all,
nations have methodologies in place to reward their military with bits of
ribbons and metals to make them heroes for effectively killing the enemy. War is
really about experiencing the loss of those who are close to you and suffering
the frustration of not being able to prevent it and/or not being able to effect
any meaningful retribution. It's not much different than losing family members,
because the few people you grow to trust in their abilities, commitment, and
personal allegiance in a combat circumstance, develop a bond that is essentially
every bit as strong as family.
As terrorism so horribly demonstrates, the untimely and violent loss of family
members, friends, and countrymen is impossible to accept as they are being
indiscriminately targeted and killed under the guise of "war," "retaliation," or
acts of "anti-oppression;" or better yet: "peace." The grief, pain, and
emotional scars of those who suffer the loss of family members and friends is
compounded beyond belief to create a sense of helpless and frightening
vulnerability. To even suggest that there is any redeeming basis to justify such
actions is blatantly insane. Yet we evidence such justification not only from
the perpetrators but from pundits and politicians alike who are supposed to know
better. To suggest that those who conduct (or perpetrate) such acts are somehow
deserving of being permitted to continue their actions, or even continue to be
considered part of the human race, is maddeningly beyond comprehension.
The amount of restraint that Israel has shown in the face of 25 months of
relentless atrocious violence is nothing short of dumbfounding. And in a sense
the same could be said about the people in the U.S. who, on 9-11, fell victim to
an unprecedented attack against civilians and are now under the threat of more
of the same.
While not all Arabs/Muslims are "evil," there is enough evidence about
identifiable individuals and groups whereby an appropriate use of force could be
applied to eliminate the problem. Is this reasonable? As horrible as it sounds -
it is: when whole populations who believe that everything that you stand for is
by definition "evil", and that the surest way to Heaven is through the act of
killing you, this does not auger well for a secure and promising future, and it
is not going to go away because we would like it so, or because we have some
(unfounded) belief in the innate good of all mankind.
A lethal combination is at work: First, relatively uneducated Arab/Muslim
populace is being fed lies, perverse propaganda, and disinformation, from
leaders and manipulators whose objectives are fanatical - and calculated to
maintain power through subjugation - and who strengthen their position by
applying religious postulations that not only support terrorist actions against
non-combatants, but preach such actions as a sure and beautiful way to please
their God and find a way into their Heaven. Second, western governments and
certain groups who seem to feel the ostrich approach is the solution and anyone
who suggests a proactive defense that seeks to prevent a problem before it
happens is a "war monger." This combination provides for dangerous times indeed.
At the very least let us not be fooled by the rhetoric of "peace" and "human
rights" as they are not only a misnomer (and rather selectively applied) but
they have actually produced the exact opposite of what they preach and
constitute a risk to our very existence.
Stay tuned.