Initiatives
Sources
Mirror Mirror On the Wall: Who is the Wickedest Mayor of Them All?
November 23, 2003
By Robbie Friedmann
While terrorists have
targeted Iraq, Turkey and Israel recently the most important act on the world
stage was President George W. Bush’s visit to London. He was first met with a
statement by London’s excuse for a mayor who defined the President as “the
greatest threat to life on Earth” (“Livingstone
Found Wanting,” The Daily Telegraph, editorial, 19 November 2003).
For this mayor it was not those who threaten and kill millions like
Adolf
Hitler,
Genghis Kahn, Pol Pot,
Joseph Stalin,
Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah
Khomeini or Kim
Jong Il but it is no other than George W. Bush. It is the same mayor who
last May called the President “corrupt” (“Mayor
Condemned for Attack on Bush,” CNN, 9 May 2003). This mayor must be getting
his marching orders directly from the Iranians who last April issued very
similar vile characterizations of Bush (“Iran
Paper: Bush Worse than Hitler, Stalin - Editorial Hammers U.S. for ‘Torturing
and Killing Defenseless Civilians’,” WorldNetDaily.com, 9 April 2003). Just
look again at the
pot calling
the kettle black.
This is like Ted Bundy calling the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court “blood
thirsty.” The mayor of London follows a dark British tradition and could
certainly fit in the shoes of
Lord Haw Haw (who
was born in Brooklyn to an English mother and an Irish-American father and
became a British Nazi propagandist following in the goose-steps of the British
supporters of Nazism). However, the mayor has been condemned by his own party
and his re-election chances are not high. Despite expressions of Nazism in
England, the British were on the right side in World War II and helped defeat
Nazism. The same will happen with the war against terrorism.
President Bush also was met with large and well-organized demonstrations (though
smaller than expected) of fanatics who also see Bush as the “worse menace to the
free world.” The problem of course starts with their definition of freedom,
which is clearly not universal. It is interesting to note who these
demonstrators are, who care more about ousting Bush and Blair than about
fighting terrorism (“The
London Streets: Who are these Anti-Bush People?” Amir Taheri, National
Review, 18 November 2003).
The demonstration was organized by a shadowy group called “Stop the War
Coalition,” part of the Hate-America-International, which has orchestrated a
number of street ‘events’ in support of the Taliban and the Iraqi dictator
Saddam Hussein since 2001. It has “a steering committee” of 33 members. Of
these, 18 come from various hard left groups: Communists, Trotskyites, Maoists
and Castroists. Three others belong to the radical wing of the Labour party.
There are also eight radical Islamists. The remaining four are leftist
ecologists known as “Watermelons” (green outside, red inside). The chairman of
the coalition is one Andrew Murray, a former employee of the Soviet Novosty
Agency and leader in the British Communist party. Cochair is Muhammad Asalm Ijaz
of the London Council of Mosques. Members include John Rees of the Socialist
Workers’ party and Ghayassudin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament. Tanja Salem of
the al-Awdah (The Return) group, an outfit close to Yasser Arafat, is also a
member along with Shahedah Vawda of “Just Peace,” another militant Arab group,
and Wolf Wayne of the “Green Socialist Network.”
Clearly, the coalition “has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its founders.
For the first time ever it has brought together all radical leftist and
anarchist groups. Under its umbrella march such traditional former archenemies
as Stalinists and Trotskyites. But the coalition’s biggest success is the
alliance that it has forged between the extreme Left and militant Islamist
groups.” And so a dozen years after the crumbling of Communism and the Soviet
Empire, Marxism-Leninism and Islamic Fascism are the strangest political
bed-fellows threatening the resurgence of the darkest forces in history.
If anything, the covenant between al-Qaeda and far left groups proves we live in
an age beyond ideology where the objective is nothing but raw power and all
means are legitimate to achieve it. Yet at best, they prove the West may not be
monolithic but by no means does it prove the West has totally lost its sense.
Indeed, a tabloid editorial may have expressed British sentiments far better
than some of the more articulate papers when it was able to point to the real
sources of trouble (“The
REAL Threat to World Peace,” editorial, The London Sun, 21 November
2003): “... we should direct our anger against the terrorists, not the good
guys.”
Another sign of sanity - which came in the wake of the terrorist bombing of
British interests in Istanbul - was heard from the British Foreign Office that
compared terrorism to Nazism (“British
Minister Compares Terrorism to Nazism, Tyranny,” Douglas Davis, The
Jerusalem Post, 21 November 2003). But the statement went even further. For
the first time since president Bush iterated that countries either stand with
the U.S. in its fight against terrorism or are against it - it called on the
Muslim community to make a choice between fighting terrorism or supporting it:
“It is time for the elected and community leaders of British Muslims to make a
choice...It is the British way - based on political dialogue and non-violent
protests - or it is the way of the terrorists against which the whole democratic
world is now uniting...I hope we will see clearer, stronger language that there
is no future for any Muslim cause anywhere in the world that validates, or
implicitly supports, the use of political violence in any way. Democracy has no
place for terrorism and - like Nazism and other forms of tyranny - it must be
defeated by the common will and determination of all who live under rule of law
and in democratic freedom.”
Indeed, the President’s visit to London was successful because it set and
reiterated the parameters of the fight against terrorism and as such was deemed
by some as one of his most significant speeches (“Bush Conquers England:
‘Liberation is still a moral goal’,” editorial, The Wall Street Journal,
21 November 2003).
If anything, the President’s speech (President
Bush Discusses Iraq Policy at Whitehall Palace in London, Remarks by the
President at Whitehall Palace, Royal Banqueting House-Whitehall Palace,
London, England, 19 November 2003) emphasized the belief in open societies and
moral convictions, and argued that the threat (of terrorism) has not passed.
Hence the recognition that this is a long struggle requires the harnessing of
proper means that will bring about the defeat of terrorism and that cannot be
done by one president alone (“Joining
the Fight: One President Can’t Wage War on Terror Alone.” Daniel Henninger,
The Wall Street Journal, November 21, 2003).
Terrorism has to be fought by those who helped produce it, but when it comes to
the Saudis don’t hold your breath. It may appear that the Saudi habit of talking
from both sides of their mouth (officially opposing terrorism yet actively
supporting it) has backfired with the increase of terrorism that is both home
grown and home-aimed. Recent calls by three radical Saudi sheiks to start a
dialogue with terrorists was strongly rebuked by the regime (“A
Debate in the Saudi Press on Dialogue with Saudi al-Qaeda Members,” MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Jihad and Terrorism Studies, 21 November 2003,
No. 614). Yet it seems the Saudis still have plenty of print space to ridicule
the American President (“Saudi
Daily Newspaper Mocks President Bush: ‘May Get Killed for the Heck of It’,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia, 21 November 2003, No. 613), the one who
poses the best promise ever in the international fight against terror.
It seems the Saudis understand how to use the right rhetoric when it is called
for. Perhaps they have learned well from Americans and Israelis who use the same
rhetoric (but also accompany it with consistent action - which is still lacking
with the Saudis): “terrorists do not understand the language of dialogue - they
should be removed like cancer;” “We don’t need dialogue with this ideology - we
need to uproot it by force;” and “No dialogue with murderers - only an iron
fist.” Now if they can act on it, not only when violence is directed against
them, they may actually contribute to the fight against terrorism. But again, do
not hold your breath. Their money is still flowing to fund terror against
others. It is also evident in historical practices of using the holy month of
Ramadan to incite wars and terror attacks against the ‘infidels’. This holds
true for the Palestinians, for Chechnya, for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,
for the Mufti of Lebanon, and of course for al-Qaeda (“Escalation
of Incitement to Violence During the Month of Ramadan,” MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, 20 November 2003, No. 612).
Attempts and claims to distinguish between the political arm of a terror group
and its “military wing” (terror cells) have been made by Palestinians for years.
However, there are fewer and fewer buyers. Recent exposés on financial support
and direct lineage between ideology, command structure and military operations
have pulled the dusty rug from under any such claims (“The
Emperor’s Old Clothes,” Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, 21
November 2003). It is also clear that the distinction between the various terror
groups is often only a matter of convenience not because they truly have
different causes or are lacking coordination (“The
Hamas-Jihad Axis,” Ehud Ya'ari, The Jerusalem Report, 17 November
2003). Thus in the Gaza strip the close proximity of Hamas and Islamic Jihad
threatens a Hizbullah-like situation there.
Add to this the ever-present financial corruption of the Palestinian leadership
which has been recently documented (“A
Short History of PA Corruption,” Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post,
13 November 2003) or the fact that the “new” Palestinian government consists of
Arafat cronies and his prime minister is a mere puppet (“Puppet
on a String,” Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, 20 November
2003) and hopes that are banked on some possible peace deals with the
Palestinians do not really hold much water.
Success for the U.S. in fighting terror will have a lot to do with how quickly
the administration recognizes which whom it is dealing. Until now Arafat has
been demonized as the source of all terrorism in Israel. It is widely believed
that once he is isolated, removed or dies “peace” will come to the region.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As analysis of other regimes (such as
the Taliban) or even fighting terror on the home-front shows, the administration
has a great deal of improvement to do (“With
Friends Like These: Two new books look at American failures against terrorism,”
Adrian Karatnycky, The Wall Street Journal, 20 November 2003).
The international jihad terror campaign has already spread beyond control and
marks daily successes. The terror attacks in Istanbul against Jewish and British
targets were first and foremost aimed against Turkey itself by trying to weaken
and destabilized a strong moderate pro-Western Muslim country and also to prove
operational capability in well planned and well carried out suicidal missions by
local Turkish Islamists (“Al-Qaida
Aiming at Moderate Islam,” Matthew Gutman, The Jerusalem Post, 20
November 2003). It also pointed out that the International Jihad effort has
encompassed global horizons with direct links to Pakistan (“Pakistani
Link in Synagogue Attacks,” Rediff.com, 20 November 2003).
The British reaction is interesting. One editorial scolds Europeans for not
waking up to the danger of international terrorism. Terrorism has been rampant
in Israel for years and yet the British continue to show far more sympathy for
the “plight of the Palestinians” than for the victims of terror. When the
British were hurt they displayed strong moral convictions that were gravely
absent when it came to Israel (“Waking
up to the Age of Terror,” The Daily Telegraph, editorial, 21 November
2003): “Many Europeans have been astonishingly slow to understand the impact of
what happened on September 11. Yesterday’s atrocities are yet another reminder
that the West and its allies, and moderate Muslims throughout the world, are up
against a foe who blasphemously glorify their deaths and the innocent people
they kill as a passport to Paradise. They represent a radically new and
ever-present danger. And the sooner we wake up to it, the better.”
Arab American advocacy groups continuously whine that their “constituency has
been evidencing” a rising level of hatred and violence. They do not refer to
Muslims being killed by Muslims all over the world but to Americans whose policy
they do not see as commensurate enough with their desire for greater Islamic
dominance of the world and the U.S. In the meantime it is Israelis and Jews who
are blown up in Israel, Turkey, Argentina, Tunisia and Paris, and the increase
in antisemitic rhetoric and sinister actions have gone to levels unprecedented
since World War II (see “Explosion
of Global Antisemitism,” ADL).
Ironically, Israelis have become the lightning rod for antisemitic sentiments.
The country is attacked not only by hostile countries or their terrorists but
also by those who complain against defensive measures Israel is taking
militarily or by building a fence (“Why
Condemn Israel for Fighting Back?” Peter Worthington, Toronto Sun, 16
November 2003). It is interesting to note the U.S. State Department has
criticized Israel for demolishing houses of terrorists. Yet now the U.S. is
doing exactly the same thing. It deems it a necessary, effective and legal
measure against insurgency in Iraq (“Destruction
of Iraqi Homes Within ‘Rules of War,’ spokesman Says,” Jeff Wilkinson,
Knight Ridder Newspapers, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 18 November 2003).
Even traditionally unsympathetic British media sources have recognized the
onslaught and effect of modern antisemitism (“Antisemitism:
Our Dulled Nerve,” The Guardian, 18 November 2003): “A new
antisemitism is on the march across the globe. It is no wonder that the Jewish
community in the UK feels unsettled, uncomfortable and fearful. If the random
attacks here have not been as ugly as in Turkey, they have nevertheless included
schools, synagogues and cemeteries. The community is well aware of widespread
violence in France, home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, along with
rising attacks in Belgium and Germany. Then there has been the deliberate
targeting of Jewish civilians in Moroccan and Tunisian attacks, in which, like
Turkey’s car bombs, the al-Qaeda network is believed to have been involved.” An
astute observation indeed. Except that it is (perhaps facetiously) asking the
wrong source for help: “Could not the liberal Left, which in an earlier era
vigilantly sought to protect Jews from prejudice and bigotry, rediscover its old
values?” Presently, it is one of the key sources of support and condoning of
antisemitism.
Hate and violence are on a continuum with a fairly direct link from the former
to the latter. Throughout history persecution of people - particularly and
consistently that of Jews - started with hate, vilification and dehumanization,
and then ended with lethal violence. The Nazis perfected this with a clear-cut
ideology of their “Final
Solution.” The Palestinians, Arab countries and modern day radical Islamists
have adopted this ideology lock stock and barrel and have perfected it to an
international objective. Hence there is little shock in discovering that the
virulent antisemitism spewing from Islamic quarters ends up with actual terror
activities (“Terror
and Antisemitism,” editorial, National Post, 18 November 2003).
In what is undoubtedly one of the most eloquent analyses of antisemitism, former
Soviet dissident and current Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky outlines the
historical backdrops against which religious, secular, political and individual
antisemitism has flourished through various periods. Yet he also points out that
Jews generally elicit some sympathy that evaporates once they gain political
strength (particularly after 1967). But his most striking point is made when he
compares the Jewish Israeli predicament to the American one suggesting that the
two phobias and hatreds - against the Jews and against the U.S. - emanate out of
similar forces(“On
Hating the Jews: The inextricable link between antisemitism and anti-Americanism,”
Natan Sharansky, The Wall Street Journal, 17 November 2003):
“Despite the differences between them anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and
anti-Americanism in Europe are in fact linked, and both bear an uncanny
resemblance to antisemitism. It is, after all, with some reason that the United
States is loathed and feared by despots and fundamentalists of the Islamic world
as well as by many Europeans. Like Israel, but in a much more powerful way,
America embodies a different –nonconforming- idea of the good, and refuses to
abandon its moral clarity about the objective worth of that idea or of the free
habits and institutions to which it has given birth. To the contrary, in
undertaking their war against the evil of terrorism, the American people have
demonstrated their determination not only to fight to preserve the blessings of
liberty for themselves and their posterity, but to carry them to regions of the
world that have proved most resistant to their benign influence.”
It appears that in their campaign against Israel the Arabs are taking advantage
of a multi-prong approach to destroy the very being and symbolism that
Israel stands for. They
coalesce with Left-wing radicals who hate Israel and are willing to forgo any
support for universal human values such as life itself if they can see Israel
and the U.S. decimated in the process. They coalesce with terrorists who do
their job for them when their armies prove incapable of destroying Israel or
resisting America, and they rely on self-serving Israeli politicians who come up
with independent peace initiatives which will actually backfire against Israel
even if never achieved.
Of course it helps their cause when “even-handed” American journalists promote
such initiatives without seeming to fully understanding their implications as in
the case of a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist (“Geneva
Accord is a Sane Proposal in a Mad Conflict,” Trudy Rubin, 19 November 2003)
who is also well known for her constant Israel-bashing [“Israel-Bashing
Op-Eds (Trudy Rubin),” Michael Goldblatt]. Clearly the problem lies not only
with the details of the infinitives but with its framing, its negotiators and
with it becoming eventually an opening gambit rather than a final agreement (“The
Travails of a Rejected Politician,” David Horovitz, The Jerusalem Report,
17 November 2003): “If and when we all meet again at the peace table, the
official Palestinian leadership will be reluctant to settle for less than the
Geneva terms, and may well attempt to obtain more. Beilin, in short, may have
achieved the opposite of his ambition, and rendered the prospects for a mutually
acceptable deal more remote, not more realistic.”
On the diplomatic front the Arabs have incessantly and skillfully used the
United Nations to serve as an unambiguously negative international organ against
Israel (“In
the U.N., Arabs Have the Ultimate Revenge Over Israel,” Barbara Amiel,
The Daily Telegraph, 17 November 2003): “...the Arabs have had a great
revenge. They have taken over the very body that was responsible for [the
establishment of Israel] - the United Nations - with the hope that the
organization that created the injustice may well be the instrument of its
undoing.”
Subversive politicians or radical propagandists certainly exacerbate the
struggle against the evil of terrorism. Yet history points out that in any era
there were those who aided and comforted the enemy, who were more concerned
about the welfare of the enemy than their very own people and who could always
find something wrong with their own people but not a blemish in the “perfect”
enemy. This variation of the “Stockholm
Syndrome” where the supporters of the enemy derive a sense of control over
their future is no doubt risky, dangerous, damaging and frustrating. Yet it
should serve as a sign that moral clarity will need to persevere despite these
challenges and therefore add them to the “difficulty index” already posed by the
enemy and deal with them with the full range of legal, moral, ideological and
other means available to democracies.