Initiatives
Sources
Peace at All Costs or a War of No Choice
December 14, 2002
By Robbie Friedmann
In this 2002 wintery holiday season the temperatures are getting colder, the
season is getting hotter, and the days are not so holy. Neither is the language
used to describe them or what is taking place in this very season. The U.N.
inspection in Iraq constitutes but a sad joke, a farce, a ritual that the West
is undergoing to try to convince itself - yet one more time - that it really
needs to convince itself that there is a serious problem with a vicious dictator
who lies, cheats, and kills and intends to do more of it. And by the same token
the world continues to behave as if it is sailing on a ship of fools.
Like Emperor Nero who was rumored in 64 AD to have ordered the torching of Rome
and stood on the summit of the Palatine playing his lyre, President Jimmy Carter
Jr. was serenaded by musicians and cheered by audiences, at the Nobel Prize
award ceremony, yet his record is known - not rumored. Regrettably, the Nobel
Peace Prize has become more of a political statement of the Committee than a
recognition of the winner ("In a situation currently marked by threats of the
use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as
possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on
international law, respect for human rights, and economic development"
http://www.nobel.no/eng_peace_2002.html). After all, Carter could have been
awarded the prize in 1978 together with Israeli Prime Minister Begin and
Egyptian President Sadat. True to his colors, Carter acquiesced to vanity more
than to respecting national interests and a sitting president [George W. Bush]
choosing the occasion to elevate the U.N. to levels it does not deserve and
cannot uphold while urging against war on Iraq ("Carter
Urges U.S. to Respect U.N. on Iraq," Alister Doyle, Reuters, Dec 9,2002).
This is interesting from at least one perspective: Carter has yet to be heard
condemning the war instigated by terrorists or the threat coming from Iraq and
other sources of danger (which he adamantly refuses to recognize). Carter is so
committed to pursuing peace that he blames Israel as the problem that causes
terrorism: ""One of the key factors that...arouses intense feelings of animosity
in the world is the festering problem in the Holy Land, the Israeli occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza and the inability of Israel to live in peace with its
neighbors....I think this is the single most disturbing element in animosities
and misunderstandings and hatred and even violence in the world,...I think that
is an exacerbating factor in dividing people, not only in the West Bank, Gaza
and Israel, but also throughout the world." Indisputably Israel is unable to
live in peace with its neighbors but it is because of the neighbors' doing not
because of Israel.
And Carter puts his personal conviction (along with the misguided advice that
may be coming his way) to work by arguing that the US policy (namely, the Bush
Administration) in the Middle East is too much in favor of Israel and he
volunteers to go to the Middle East to mediate peace again ("Carter
offers to go to Mideast: He accuses Bush of pro-Israel bias," Karl Ritter,
Associated Press, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/13/02). With this public
promotion of his own very bias against Israel he makes two cardinal mistakes:
first, he is ungrateful to Israel without which he would have never succeeded at
bringing "peace" between Israel and Egypt. After all, Israel is the one that
delivered the tangible goods and thus made it possible; Egypt has given up
nothing. Second, his "blaming the victim" attitude should have been accompanied
by an equalizer: How about the Jews having 22 countries and about 300 million
people to somehow get up to par with the Arabs peace mongers so as for Carter
[to be able] to mediate between two more equal parties?
His intentions are perhaps noble but his award is not. It takes far greater
integrity for any real caliber leader to stand up to the Nobel Committee and
refuse its tainted award. Carter missed a very rare opportunity to do exactly
that. He would have exposed hypocrisy, appeasement, and politics for what they
are. Now he is just part of that unsavory process. If he goes to the Middle East
again, Atlanta can offer him its now popular vehicle that would fit him rather
well: The
Segway Human Transporter. It will take for him a very
long time to arrive (and Air Force One is not available) but most important, it
signifies that he is the only rider on this trip. He offers no room for the
Israelis and it does not have enough space to deliver for the Palestinians what
they want - the State of Israel.
Perhaps Carter should have read Hanson's article depicting the U.S. acting as
its detractors do, in order to understand how ludicrous is it to pretend that
there is some moral equivalence between perpetrator and victim ("America
Upside Down: Imagine a world in which we were more like them," Victor David
Hanson, National Review, December 6, 2002). It is one thing to aspire for peace
and it is altogether another to recognize imperfections with one side but ignore
them with the other (and it has much more than imperfections). In the theater of
absurd of the current "politics of peace" it appears that Carter is an admiring
fan of the Thomas Friedman club of international relations. Friedman of course
is an arm-chair - sometimes flying - journalist who is willing to commit NATO
troops to ensure peace in the Middle East ("Go
Slow-Mo, NATO,” The New York Times, December 11, 2002).
Like Carter, Friedman apparently maintains that Israel is the problem (the
"settlements" again; maybe Friedman should be reading Joseph Farah for a change?
"The
'settlements' issue," WorldNetDaily.com, December 12, 2002). Neither
Friedman nor Carter can see that the ‘settlements" were not an issue prior to
1967, yet decades of Arab opposition, terror, and war preceded what now is seen
as an "obstacle to peace."
So Friedman must be thinking of NATO as another (incompetent) U.N. outpost. NATO
troops in the Middle East are going to be subject to the same terror that Israel
is experiencing and those troops will be mired there for years. With this
mind-set is it any surprise that there is a call for "Friedman for president?" ("Bravo,
Friedman," Joan King, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/11/02). I can
already envision "President Friedman" accepting the Nobel Peace Prize - on
behalf of the New York Times? - for "tranquility" because the Arabs have rested
for a few years after they succeeded in destroying Israel and are giving the
world a brief respite before they move against it. Even for a very flicker of a
daymare this is something that should never recur, nor ever become a reality.
Hopefully there are enough people who can identify a virus on a cruise ship and
try to prevent more fools from sailing on it before it gets cleaned. A
Washington Times editorial has crisply identified the danger that Middle East
terrorism is posing for the world when a leading terrorist clearly states his
threat to widen the scope of terror: "I encourage Palestinians to take suicide
bombings worldwide. Don't be shy about it." ("Hezbollah's
new threat," December 10, 2002). The editorial proposes to take the threat
for what it stands: "Given Hezbollah's history of anti-American violence and
ties with al Qaeda, Sheikh Nasrallah's threats must be taken very seriously
indeed." This is joined by additional calls to see the war on terrorism as one
single effort even when targets seem to be "unrelated" ("A
Single War," Max Boot, New York Post, December 2, 2002): "If we are ever to
defeat them, we must see them as they see themselves. If we do, we'll realize
that the Israeli conflict is not a "distraction" from the war on terrorism - it
is the war on terrorism." After all, anyone who has any doubts about this could
ask themselves if Israel is eliminated today, would it stop terrorism? The
answer is obvious for those who are willing to recognize it. Or, is there
another self-evident reason for the establishment of a "Palestinian state" other
than the destruction of Israel? ("Palestine,
again," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, December 10, 2002).
Consistently, the die-hard attempts (pun very intended) to appease the
Palestinians - and doing so on the account of Israel - is backfiring (pun also
intended) not only against Israel but against the rest of the world ("Sheep,
wolves, and reality," Editorial, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, U.S. New & World
Report, 12/16/02). As Zuckerman states: "Long before 1948, 1967, Israeli
settlements, and suicide bombers, there were murderous attacks in the Holy Land
against the Jews who lived there. Palestinians wanted them out. Period. Once
Israel was a reality, the Palestinian goal was to destroy the Jewish state first
by war, then by terrorism, then by deceptions like that at Oslo, which–it is now
clear–the Palestinians had no intention of honoring." Therefore the continued
futile push to accommodate the murderous designs of the Palestinians (and those
whose interests they serve, such as the Saudis - see
"Osama Bin
Laden Vs. the Jews," Emanuel A. Winston, Arutz Sheva, December 09, 2002)
will fail. Yet it will deceive everyone in the process and reward those who
resort to terrorism: "American policy in the Middle East has been to try to
formulate a workable "road map" that could serve as an outline for a dialogue
between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The policy will not succeed–or
deserve to succeed–unless it recognizes the brutal realities behind the code
words and the determination to wage a campaign of terrorism against the only
democratic state in the Middle East."
And indeed, the genocidal character of terrorism, and the propaganda promoting
and supporting it, leaves very little room for interpreting its objectives in
any other way. Palestinians, who a few years ago were talking about a "secular
democratic state" (the one state solution that did NOT include Israel), are
"suddenly" resorting to theological language in persecuting their campaign not
only against Israel but against the Jews as is evident on official Palestinian
TV ("Afflicting Jews is Muslim destiny - Palestinian Television Religious
Sermon," Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin,
http://www.pmw.org.il/ Dec. 11, 2002).
And the relentless genocidal campaign is still proceeding with a full swing.
Despite some single voices in the wilderness, such as the marginal Egyptian
Organization for Human Rights and one Saudi columnist who calls for a need for
re-education ("Saudi
Columnist: "Our Youths Must be Re-educated... Violence Must be Discarded,"
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform in the Arab and Muslim World,
December 11, 2002, No. 448), the widespread sentiment in the Arab world is one
that clearly condones anti-Semitism and genocidal [attitudes] towards Jews and
Israel even if sheepishly trying to argue that there is no such thing as
anti-Semitism because the whole world is actually Semite ("Arab Press Debates
Antisemitic Egyptian Series
"Knight Without
a Horse" - Part III," MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis - Iraq/Egypt/Arab
Antisemitism, December 10, 2002, No. 114).
Interestingly enough, the PR campaign that is infecting us with Saudi posturing
of "peaceful intentions" was able to influence a San Francisco co-op that
decided to boycott Israeli products (but of course not Saudi oil; wouldn't it be
fascinating to see this country boycotting Saudi oil?) yet claimed it had
nothing to do with anti-Semitism ("Food
fight in tofu-land," Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday,
December 5, 2002). The ship of fools must have docked in their port for a while.
But the short-term effect on some SF misguided idealists is not picking
sufficient grass (eh, roots) momentum to convince most Americans that we need
nothing else to buy from the Saudis than oil, and they have nothing else to
export to us than genocidal murderers. Their professional slick "foreign
advisor" only manages to achieve an all time low public perception not only
among conservative opinion makers (
"Sultan of Spin: The dishonesty of Saudi PR flack Adel al-Jubeir," David
Tell, Weekly Standard, 12/16/2002) but also among circles traditionally highly
sympathetic to Arab causes such as Time magazine (
"Person of the Week: Adel al-Jubeir The Saudi spin doctor spent this week
looking to turn the tide of American skepticism. But he faces tough odds,"
Tony Karon, Dec. 05, 2002).
But even more importantly, those who have influence within administration
circles are repeatedly making the argument (unheard of prior to the 9-11
atrocity) that the Saudis are not exactly our friends ("Saudi
Arabia: No Friend of Ours," Ken Adelman, Fox News, December 11, 2002): "The
Saudis have long funded groups promoting terrorism -- to the tune of $3 billion
to $4 billion yearly -- but as an export item, and not for home use. This grand
deal has worked just dandy. Once the whispers of diplomats and dealings among
officials determined everything. A few men, with all the power, dealt with
another few men from another country. Each small group controlled the knowledge,
weapons and big decisions of its people. That world's gone. The most critical
knowledge has spread beyond the corridors of government. Destructive weaponry
obviously is no longer the monopoly of governments, as we've been reminded
recently in Mombasa and Bali. Big decisions in most of the world are made by
rough consensus -- often molded by great leaders, for sure -- but nonetheless
sticking only if widely accepted. What counts nowadays is what happens beyond
government-to-government dealings. That's where the bulk of power has gone. The
Saudis may be with us officially, but they're sure not with us where it counts
nowadays."
Some very important attention to the international threat of terrorism and the
preparations for war was diverted during these past few days in the U.S. due to
some other shooting. This time the firing shots were made by incoming (what a
pun!) Senate Majority Leader for 108th Congress, Trent Lott. He not only shot
himself in the foot but shot the nation in its back by not thinking prior to
making statements during what otherwise would have been a forgotten event in the
Guinness World records: The 100 birthday celebration of another senator storm,
eh, Strom (Thurmond). Yet Lott found himself in the unpleasant situation of
realizing that the difference between a wise and a fool is that the latter does
not know how to get out of a situation the former does not get into.
This brings us back a full circle to the peace mongers. These weeks many are
impatient with the progress in the fight against terrorism (Osama has not been
caught yet - is the mantra of those who measure success against terrorism by his
vital signs) and object to the war against Iraq (as if the US is incapable of
fighting more than one war at a time) as Hollywood goes to Bagdad to find out
why we should not go to war against Saddam. Others are claiming that North Korea
is worse than Iraq (didn't Bush place them in the same club?), and so is Iran
(member as well). And Al Qaeda is now indeed all over the place. In the same way
that a ticketed driver complains to the officer that many others are speeding
and it is not an acceptable excuse, the war detractors are not only suggesting
that better "proof" is needed before an attack on Iraq, but they imply -
unwittingly but correctly - that Iraq is not the only problem out there. And
they are right. Now if they can see it themselves, stop flip-flopping and offer
some spirited support instead it might do all us some good.
For some reason, the appeasers of today seem worse than in years past. Rome was
built better and stronger (until it fell) after it was burned in 64 AD. Carter
may be known for being a decent engineer (better than a president and a peace
maker). Let's hope that his engineering services will not be needed to re-build
what might be destroyed - in Israel or anywhere else. Like with Senator Lott,
thinking prior to talking might do many of the peace proponents some good. It is
high time to move away from empty slogans and understand the dangers that are
directed against us and do something about it, not only before it will be too
late but before it will be even more costly than necessary.