Initiatives
Sources
Wannsee, Oslo, Geneva
December 7, 2003
By Robbie Friedmann
Lately, more courageous
dissenting voices are being heard from Arab corners. A Saudi Arabian writer
introspectively takes responsibility for being the problem rather than blaming
it on others (“Saudi
Columnist: ‘We Have Bred Monsters ... We Are the Problem and Not America’,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, 30
November 2003, No. 617).
An American-Arab source criticized the antisemitic speech of the Malaysian Prime
Minister (“U.S. Liberal Arabic Website Rebuttal to Mahathir’s Speech,” MEMRI,
Special Dispatch - Reform Project/Arab Antisemitism Project, 2 December 2003,
No. 618) arguing that it “encouraged ignorance among Muslims,” maintaining that
“Muslims’ ‘Jewish Complex’ began with Islam,” and claiming “the Muslims are
responsible for creating a cultural separation fence.”
A Canadian Muslim author called for an Islamic reformation that would purge the
Muslim world of antisemitism (“Muslim
Feminist Manji Wows Crowd in Toronto,” Sheldon Gordon, Forward, 28
November 2003).
In Egypt there was a call to remove Islam as the country’s official religion (“Leading
Egyptian Feminist Dr. Al-Sa’dawi: Islam Should be Removed from the Egyptian
Constitution as the ‘Official Religion’,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch -
Egypt/Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, 5 December 2003, No. 621) and an
Egyptian playwright described the required change in mentality to move from a
state of war to a state of peace (“Leading
Egyptian Liberal Ali Salem on the Struggle of Arab Intellectuals for Freedom,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Egypt/Reform in the Arab and Muslim World, 5 December
2003, No. 622).
While these are promising buds of hope that certainly should be encouraged and
nurtured, the Arab/Muslim narrative continues to be dominated with hate and
fantasy. Therefore, some accurately point out that the liberal movement in the
Arab world today is weaker than its predecessor in Japan, and much weaker than
its predecessor in Germany. Yet the prospects for war and peace in the coming
decades depend, critically as an observer argues on whether it can somehow
achieve a better fate (“Listening
to Arabs,” Joshua Muravchik, Commentary, December 2003).
Indeed, terror international is no longer limited (and actually never was) to
the U.N.-funded refugee camps in the Gaza strip. Institutionalized
indoctrination of hate is now part of political establishments from Saudi Arabia
to Pakistan and beyond (including the U.S.) with a danger of the resurgence of
the Taliban (“Over
the Cuckoo’s Nest,” Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Washington Times, 2
December 2003): “Pakistan’s madrassas (Koranic schools) are still
churning out 750,000 jihadi-prone male teenagers a year with the same hateful
views of America, Israel and India. The fossilized clerics in charge have stood
their ground -- with Wahhabi clergy money still reaching them from Saudi Arabia.
An estimated total of five million young men have passed through the system for
the last 13 years.”
The danger posed to the free world is not only from indoctrination and suicide
bombers but from the ultimate weapons of mass destruction - the A-Bomb. So much
so that four countries that usually do not see eye to eye have joined together
to demand Iran comply with international law in connection with its nuclear
program, namely the threat it poses (“Israel:
Iran is now danger No. 1 U.S., Britain, France and Germany threatened Iran on
Monday with sanctions over its nuclear program,” Nicole Gaouette, The
Christian Science Monitor, 28 November 2003). Yet it is very hard to believe
a country that is willing to drop a bomb and duped international inspectors for
two decades will suddenly behave. These threats by the four countries will prove
to be absolutely ineffective and certainly inefficient unless backed by action.
This can be illustrated from another perspective. The world (and more than a few
Israelis) tend to perceive a lull in terrorist activities. This despite daily
attacks. However, this is not for lack of trying. In the last few weeks Israeli
security services were able to intercept dozens of terrorists attempts and those
attempts continue in earnest (“Mofaz:
Quiet is Illusory, Arafat Still Pulling Strings,” JPost.com Staff, 30
November 2003).
But terror is reflected not only in bombs but also in the hate that leads to
them. Therefore, the sublimation of traditional antisemitism into anti-Israeli
rhetoric only makes its evil force more sinister by relying on its traditional
images: the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and
media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish
symbols or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery. These are themes now used
to describe Israel’s actions. British Labor MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence
of “a Jewish cabal” on British foreign policy-making and an Italian cartoonist
last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem
as an attempt to kill Jesus “again” (“Anti-Zionism
is antisemitism: Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of
Jews,” Emanuele Ottolenghi, The Guardian, 29 November 2003).
A British cartoonist won the political cartoon award for depicting Sharon as a
(Palestinian) child-eating monster modeled after Goya’s “Saturn devouring one of
his sons.” Despite his strenuous objections to his cartoon being antisemitic,
the fact remains that he might as well have published it in
Der
St¯rmer the notorious Nazi organ for hateful articles and
malicious
antisemitic cartoons. As an editorial argues, the test of antisemitism
should not be in admitting to it but in measuring the effect of the action, and
in this case the message is unequivocal (“Cartoon
Jews,” The Jerusalem Post, Editorial, 30 November 2003).
Some (non-Jewish) writers in ultra-liberal papers such as the Guardian
have recognized the anti-Israel (namely antisemitic) trend and decided to leave
it for another paper (“Good,
Bad and Ugly,” Julie Burchill, The Guardian, 29 November 2003).
Others see dangers not only to Jews but to systems of democratic governance
fearing that antisemitism might bring back totalitarianism (“Hatred of Jews
Threatens Rule of Law, Former CIA Head Warns of ‘Totalitarianism’,” Joseph Brean,
National Post, 1 December 2003).
The threat is indeed coming from and is lead by totalitarian countries such as
Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In a library in Egypt, a notoriously antisemitic
propaganda book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is now displayed
near the Torah (the five books of the Old Testament). The Egyptians claim it is
a Jewish manuscript “more important” than the Torah (“Jewish
Holy Books On Display at the Alexandria Library: The Torah & the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Egypt/Arab Antisemitism
Project, 3 December 2003, No. 619). That is like saying a pornographic magazine
is more important than the New Testament.
The media plays an important role in rounding the rough edges of antisemitism if
not legitimizing it altogether. When lists of terror incidents and terror
victims are published by news agencies (on which newspapers and TV/radio rely),
Israel is not on the list. Apparently Israelis are not considered victims of
terror because the media sources see it as a result of a “political struggle”
and not sheer terrorism. The media also engages in classical, politically
correct doublespeak, adopting unfounded claims by Arabs/Muslims. They report
Arab denial of the Jewish Temple as fact and Israeli claims to it as an
allegation (“Media’s
Israel Double-standard,” Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, 24 November 2003).
Yet an important development has put media outlets on notice following the
conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda of three Rwandan
media executives from the Hutu tribe of genocide, incitement to commit genocide
and crimes against humanity (“Rwandans
Applaud Genocide Verdict,” BBC, 4 December, 2003).
The new Chief Prosecutor said “the verdict would serve as a warning for
journalists and editors in other conflicts. The tribunal has established an
international precedent that those who use media to target a racial or ethnic
group for destruction will face justice” and the verdict included a statement
that “The power of the media to create and destroy human values comes with great
responsibility...Those who control the media are accountable for its
consequences” (“Court
Convicts 3 in 1994 Genocide Across Rwanda,” Sharon LaFraniere, New York
Times, 4 December 2003).
Meanwhile self-styled Arab-American advocacy groups continue to support terror
while focusing their efforts on mounting frivolous complaints about violations
of their ‘rights’ thus providing sufficient grounds for some Arab Americans to
question if they really represent their interests and demanding that such groups
distance themselves form extremism (“The
priorities of Muslim-Americans,” Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, 25
November 2003).
It appears freedom of speech is being tested but that is a misleading
perception. It should but is not. In campuses in the U.S. and Canada (add Europe
of course) extremists activists are busy with grand designs on the destruction
of Israel more than on their studies of Medieval French literature (“Campus
Rally for Terror,” Lee Kaplan, FrontPageMagazine.com, 3 December 2003). In
Canada you cannot enter a meeting of Palestinian activists unless you sign a
statement that you support the Palestinian right to fight Israel with any means
“they deem necessary,” which is a euphemism for legitimizing terrorism. And in
Ohio, a workshop on “Deconstructing Zionist Responses On Your Campus” focused on
dismissing “concern over suicide bombings while debating the Israel/Palestine
issue.” But the “debate” focused on radical activists advocating the destruction
of Israel “by any means necessary.”
Tom Friedman (“I have great sympathy for where the Left is coming from”)
correctly criticizes the London anarchists who blame Bush (and Blair) for all
the world’s ills. He is so eager to hear them blame the real culprits “just a
little” that he is willing to equate Bush to bin Laden (“The
Chant Not Heard,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 30 November
2003): “Hey, I would have settled for ‘Bush and Blair equal bin Laden and
Saddam’ - something, anything, that acknowledged that the threats to global
peace today were not just coming from the White House and Downing Street.” This
is the kind of idiotic logic of magnanimity-compromise that demands very little
on one hand and loses far more on the other.
Recently a carnival of prostitution took place in Geneva funded by the
government of Switzerland. Not your regular street harlots, but those who
eagerly have sold their country - Israel - to the enemy and were proud of it.
There were Palestinians there too (“Unofficial
Mideast Peace Initiative Unveiled: Much-criticized plan calls for concessions on
both sides,” Matthew Chance, CNN, 1 December 2003) and the
Israeli-Palestinian ‘negotiators’ were even seen by Secretary of State Colin
Powell at week’s end (“Powell
Effort Aims to Pressure Sharon on Peace Accord,” Glenn Kessler,
Washington Post, 3 December 2003). The Israelis in all likelihood truly
believed they were doing their country a favor and were bringing peace ever
closer. The Palestinians were there because they were smarter. They were the
pimps. The Israeli political rejects were the harlots who justified being in the
oldest profession because they love sex.
The proof was not late in coming. Palestinian officials were quick to states
that the initiative was not done for peace but as a tactic to divide Israelis
(as they did after Oslo admitting it was a trick). Just before the signature the
armed wing of Fatah, al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades, issued a strongly worded
statement condemning the agreement (“Fatah
Official: Initiative Designed to Divide Israelis,” Khaled Abu Toameh and
Lamia Lahoud, The Jerusalem Post, 30 November 2003) as were Palestinian
intellectuals in the U.S. (“Origins
of the Middle East Crisis: Who caused Palestinian Diaspora? Israel needs to
apologize, let them back,” George Bisharat, Special to The Bee Sunday,
Sacramento Bee, 30 November 2003,).
The Palestinian Authority (namely Arafat) has officially “celebrated” the
agreement (no it is not a contradiction - it is a plan to confuse the enemy) but
did so only verbally, not in writing and only after cliff-hanging tensions
keeping everyone wondering whether they would even participate in the ceremony.
However, they were even quicker to reject the only achievement that Israelis
claimed they got from the Palestinians saying they will never give up “their
right to return.” (“PA Celebrates ‘Geneva Agreement’ While Rejecting Their Only
Concession.” Itamar Marcus, Palestinian
Media Watch Bulletin, 2 December 2003). Arafat himself remained tactically
silent (“Why is Arafat Silent?” Danny
Rubinstein, Ha’aretz, 1 December 2003).
Indeed, shortly after the “signature,” the Minister of Foreign Affaires, Dr.
Nebil Shaath, emphasized that Palestinians “will never give up the right to
return to their houses, and will negotiate only about the procedures of
returning…” And the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council stated, “The
right of return is holy and no one can cancel it.” Moreover, after Geneva, the
same PA that “celebrated” the agreement continued with its effort to destroy
Israel (“The Palestinian KEY: The Symbol of PA Rejection of ‘Geneva’ and
Rejection of Israel’s Right to Exist,” Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, 3
December 2003).
The Geneva Agreement was the best show in town in the minds of the producers but
the critics did not take kindly to it. Lambasting it as a foolish repeat of Oslo
(“Peace
Farce,” Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, 2 December 2003; see also “Blame
the Chaos on Sharon,” Isi Leibler, The Jerusalem Post, 2 December
2003) that is equated with the appeasement of Hitler and will have the same
outcome (“Geneva
is a Blueprint for War, not Peace,” Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, 4
December 2003): “For the fervent acclaim the accord has drawn resembles nothing
so much as the jubilation that greeted the Munich Accord of 1938, when Neville
Chamberlain agreed to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in order to placate
Adolf Hitler.”
Others correctly identify the dangers not only to Israel but also to
international diplomacy (“The
Geneva Discord,” Ilana Freedman, MetroWest Daily News, 5 December
2003): “Whatever the argument might be in favor of the Geneva initiative, the
process that it represents threatens the future of international negotiations
and policy-making. America’s support of this maverick initiative will compromise
our own foreign policy and the lasting impact of this new benchmark will be felt
not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.”
Of course there were prominent figures who clearly identified the many flaws of
the agreement and exposed it for the fraud it constitutes. It is particularly
important to note when such criticism is coming from figures such as former
Prime Minister Ehud Barak who gave the Palestinians unprecedented concessions
only to be “reciprocated” with terrorism. Or a Left-leaning scholar-civil
servant such as Professor Avineri who enumerated key elements in this accord
which render it nothing but damaged-goods (“The
Lies of Geneva,” Shlomo Avineri, IMRA, 4 December 2003).
One of the most pathetic yet disconcerting scenes from Geneva was a speech
delivered by former President Jimmy Carter, setting the tone for the
Palestinians who immediately seized the opportunity of having the world stage to
attack Israel. Clearly a contradictory outcome to what promised to be a peaceful
gathering. Carter is responsible for equating settlements with terrorism, for
demanding excessive concessions from Israel and for complaining that President
George W. Bush is biased towards Israel. All this is well beyond what a
“peaceful” and even-handed speech warranted. But his worse performance was in an
interview he gave following the Geneva signing in which he is quoted as saying
(“Self-Appointed
Israeli and Palestinian Negotiators Offer a Plan for Middle East Peace,”
Elaine Sciolino, The New York Times, 2 December 2003): “Had I been
elected to a second term, with the prestige and authority and influence and
reputation I had in the region, we could have moved to a final solution”
A final solution? Carter - one of the worst presidents in U.S. history - may not
be historically inclined enough to know the meaning of this term. That is giving
him the benefit of the doubt. However, if he chose his words carefully this is
even worse. One does not have to be Jewish to be deeply offended by his lack of
sensitivity. Suffice it to visit
Yad-Vashem and see the 20 January 1942
Wannsee Protocol (pronounced: Vahn-zeh) that became the Nazi-documented
master plan for the annihilation of the Jews using the notorious term “The Final
Solution.” Mort
Kondracke stated on FOX that Carter is plainly anti-Israel. As I once wrote
concerning him, being a fool or a knave, makes no difference in his case. If he
has any decency left he ought to apologize profusely. Otherwise he should be
categorized as a supporter of genocide in which case he should return the Nobel
Peace Prize (clearly not the only mistake made by the Prize Committee).
From Wannsee to Oslo and from Oslo to Geneva it appears the world is not
learning. One could only remain wondering how the Bush administration would have
reacted to a group of democrats - say under the leadership of Al Gore - going to
Iraq now and “negotiating” an “alternative” plan with Saddam Hussein and/or
Osama bin Laden. In fact, this is as close as Carter has come when he went to
Cuba - luckily with far less disastrous consequences.
Perhaps the best counter argument to Carter and his ilk is that with their
action and rhetoric they are weakening and destroying the very few democracies
that offer a beacon of hope for a world desperately needing proofs of success
and best practices of democracy. Indeed, even the Bush administration needs to
step carefully in this field to make certain it does not undo with one hand what
it is trying to build with the other (“Is
Bush Selling Out? Washington should stand behind democracies in Israel and
Taiwan,” Claudia Rosett, The Wall Street Journal, 3 December 2003):
“...in those places where democracy, in the face of terrible threats and against
huge odds, has established itself--in Israel’s democratic outpost in the Middle
East, in Taiwan’s democratic flowering in the Chinese world--it is crucial that
we yield no ground. A policy of appeasing current tyrants, the better to
concentrate on Iraq to the exclusion of all else, may offer some in Washington
an illusion of calm. But to nudge Israel yet again in the direction of the
peace-at-any-price crowd, to even hint at offering up Taiwan’s security in the
absurd hope of placating China’s politburo, is to embrace standards so frail
that the result can only be to embolden our enemies and erode the very progress
we are at such pains to achieve in Iraq.”
To the credit of the desperately-seeking-peace crowd it could be said that peace
is indeed a lofty goal worth pursuing. It is a noble value that says much about
who we are as human beings. That is actually encouraging. But the problem lies
in assuming that everyone buys into the same values and that if we are
interested in peace so is everyone else. However, wishful thinking is a bad
substitute for careful policy. That is exactly why the jubilation over
Chamberlain’s “achievement” in Munich was so short-lived and so erroneous to
begin with. There is nothing more appropriate to the current circumstances than
the old saying: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Good
intentions are simply not good enough. It is high time to adopt a sober
business-like approach where peace should not be pursued at any cost and
certainly should not lead to war or serve as a deceiving mechanism that masks
hostile intentions.