Initiatives
Sources
Caught Like a Rat
December 14, 2003
By Robbie Friedmann
The most significant development - tangibly and symbolically - in the war
against terrorism and the international threat to peace was without a doubt the
capture of Saddam Hussein (“Saddam Hussein Captured in Iraq Hideout,” Associated
Press, 14 December 2003). Tangibly because one of the top figures of tyranny and
ruthlessness and threat to the international community and his own people since
Adolf Hitler was physically captured alive. Symbolically, because of how he was
captured: like a rat (the words of Major General Ray Odierno on Saddam in Iraq)
in a spider’s hall, with weapons he did not use and with hundreds of thousands
of dollars. He looked more pathetic than his pretentious image all over Iraq
during the decades of his vicious wielding of power.
His demeanor with his interrogators resembles someone who is not only pathetic
but not very stable. (“Notes
from Saddam in Custody: Saddam is talking, but he isn’t cooperative. New details
on his capture and his first Interrogation,” Brian Bennett/Baghdad, Time
Exclusive, 14 December 2003). He surrendered without a fight and without
doing harm to himself proving him to be rather narcissistic. One who sent
millions to sacrifice their lives in his name and the name of Islam and the Arab
cause did not practice what he preached. Even a Hamas statement from the Gaza
strip expressed disappointment. That could be the best news in addition to his
capture.
Yet as important as his capture is, by no means does it signify an end to the
war. The terrorists are not resting (yet). They are not only plotting their next
moves but widely communicating them to an already horrified world (“Arabic
Daily: al-Qaeda Prepares Big Operation to Coincide with Eid Al-Adha [Feast of
the Sacrifice] on Feb. 2, 2004 - New bin Laden Tape will Explain Details,”
MEMRI, Special Alert - Jihad and Terrorism Studies, 10 December 2003, No. 13).
It is worthwhile to view a scholarly article that examines the conceptual
underpinnings of the modern international terror movement and the ‘who’s who’
among radical Islamic thinkers (“Al-Qaeda’s
Intellectual Legacy: New Radical Islamic Thinking Justifying the Genocide of
Infidels,” Jonathan D. Halevi, Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 508, 1 December
2003). It is killing for the sake of killing: “Al-Qaeda has adopted a broader
interpretation of the religious command concerning the killing of infidels. It
is considered an absolute command that does not depend on political
circumstances, the need or will to take revenge, or a wish to liberate Muslim
lands from infidel rule.”
Regrettably while some receive their financial support from dubious sources such
as Saudi Arabia (surprise surprise; see the detailed exposé “The
Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network,”
David E. Kaplan, U.S. News and World Report, 15 December 2003) the
Palestinians receive it directly from the international community (“EuroCash:
What does the Palestinian Authority do with European money?” Rachel
Ehrenfeld, National Review, 10 December 2003). While some call for
greater accountability of the billions of dollars Arafat and his puppet PA have
bilked from the international community to date (“Palestinian
Aid Audit,” Rachel Ehrenfeld, The Washington Times, 13 December 2003)
there are no signs this is likely to happen.
This is important to note because when poets write about jihad as a soul
cleansing activity (in the pursuit of “inner struggle”), or football teams adopt
it as their name, those who truly matter define jihad unambiguously as war
against the infidels, and it is a war that demands killing (“Jihad
Means Only Killing: Azhar,” The Indian Express, 8 December 2003).
Indeed, a very alarming sign of the cultural and organizational impact of the
Arab/Muslim violence has penetrated the U.S. and it does not auger well for the
future. The same way that Palestinian streets, schools and summer camps are
named after terrorists and violence (Jihad, Shaheed), Muslim youth
groups in California have named their football teams Mujahideen,
Intifada, and Soldiers of Allah (“Taking
the Intifada to the Football Field,” William Lobdell, The Los Angeles
Times, 7 December 2003). Team members say “.. it [the name] describes a
righteous fight against oppression, whether it is in the Middle East or in
America.” And that is exactly the problem. They have showed how they fight
“oppression” by murdering unsuspecting citizens in Israel and other parts of the
Middle East and now they want to fight “oppression” in the U.S. after already
killing about 3,000 in the infamous September 11 atrocity.
Some recommend a change of name for these teams but dismiss the seriousness of
this affair as youthful mischief and the concerns raised about these names as
nothing more than a tempest in a tea pot (“Drop
the Names -- and the Outrage,” Dana Parsons, The Los Angeles Times,
12 December 2003). Apparently it must be very difficult for some to see the link
between this kind of behavior and its lending legitimacy and inspiration to
terrorism. By the time those who are dismissing it now give it the appropriate
seriousness, it will be too late and too costly. If a team’s name is “Soldiers
of Allah” why would that be so different than the
Hitlerjugend
and his Brown
Shirts (see “Goebbels
and Mass Mind Control;”? By no means should this be dismissed as an innocent
youth sports team or a fashion statement by a shirt designer.
As the menace of international terrorism continues to grow, its manifestations
are not only training camps in Middle Eastern countries, sleeper networks in
Europe, Canada, the Latin American triangle or the U.S. Nor is it limited to
“innocent” football teams who adopt jihad as their team logo. Charges from
responsible and knowledgeable sources of fifth-column activities are also very
alarming. The latest is a systematic exposé of the activities of an American
conservative who is reported to have ties to a terror network that has shown
itself to be dangerous and working on behalf of the radical Islamic front fund
and thus has links to and supports the Islamic terror agenda (“A
Troubling Influence,” Frank J Gaffney Jr., FrontPageMagazine.com, 9 December
2003) to an extent that “The growing influence of this operation – and the
larger Islamist enterprise principally funded by Saudia Arabia – has created a
strategic vulnerability for the nation and a political liability for its
President.”
While terrorists have been busy planning (and luckily most being caught before
carrying their plans out), the propagandists have not rested either. A vicious
Syrian antisemitic propaganda TV film series - the usual canard of the Jews
ruling the world and responsible for all its ills - was produced (“Al-Shatat:
The Syrian-Produced Ramadan 2003 TV Special,” MEMRI, Dispatch - Syria/Arab
Antisemitism Documentation Project, 12 December 2003, No. 627) and those
responsible denied any antisemitism “because every single person who
participated in the production, editing and broadcasting of the episodes was a
Semite.” Arabs are indeed Semites but the term ‘antisemitism’ evolved to
describe anti-Jewish actions, not those directed against Arabs. Segment 20
features the notorious blood libel in which a Christian child is depicted
ritually murdered by Jews and his blood is used to bake Passover matzas (for
text and video see: “Syrian-Produced
Hizbullah TV Ramadan Series’ Video Clip of a ‘Blood Libel’,” MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Arab Antisemitism Documentation Project/Syria, 8 December 2003, No.
623).
Some Arab/Muslim sources are starting to understand that the problem is rooted
well in their corner. A Somali journalist has written on the damage Wahhabism
has brought to Somalia (“Somali
Muslim Journalist on the Detrimental Effects of Wahhabism on His Country,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform Project, 9 December 2003, No. 625)
and an Ethiopian journalist about the same damage brought to Ethiopia (“Ethiopian
Journalist on the Detrimental Effects of Saudi Arabia’s ‘Poisonous Wahhabism’ on
His Country,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform Project, 9
December 2003, No. 624).
The European behavior in this regard is also alarming. While branding all
Europeans as antisemitic would be a mistake, there are forces that suppress
manifestations of antisemitism’s dangers in favor of protecting a false
“multiculturalism” (“As
Rome Starts to Smoulder: European illusions of multiculturalism,” Andrew
Stuttaford, National Review, 9 December 2003): “combating antisemitism,
it seems, is less important than preserving the dangerous illusions of
multiculturalism and, probably, recognizing the demographics of a Europe where
there are more Muslims to appease than Jews to protect.”
Some understandably take offense at the constant toll antisemitism has brought
upon the Jewish people and suggest it is the Jews who have been humiliated (and
more) throughout history - a fact current Arab victimizers tend to invert by
presenting themselves as the victims (“The
Ongoing Humiliation of the Jews,” Beth Goodtree). Frankly, we hear very
little from millions of airline passengers who are humiliated daily when trying
to take a flight by having to be searched, take their shoes off, be screened by
security personnel and have their schedule and freedom of movement affected. Yet
it is the Palestinians and the Arab world who are perpetually screaming
“humiliation.”
Of course, one of the worse shows of antisemitism takes place on the world’s
stage at the United Nations. Last week it withdrew a draft resolution on
(condemning) antisemitism because of strong Arab/Muslim opposition (“The
U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret: The international body refuses to condemn
antisemitism,” Anne Bayefsky, The Wall Street Journal, 8 December
2003). It was particularly disheartening - but by no means surprising - to see
that Ireland which shepherded various religious tolerance resolutions was the
one slamming the door against this one as it deemed Arab/Muslim interests more
important than basic principles of human rights.
Some question this age-old scourge’s return to the world stage in a vicious
force, the worst since World War II (“The
Return of Antisemitism, Craig Horowitz, New York Magazine, 15
December 2003) and are trying to find effective ways to cope with it:
“Antisemitism is being spread through those who teach Islam, and it is
metastasizing. It took Christianity 2,000 years to clean up its act and now it
is being taught again through a religious system... Most American Jewish leaders
believe they are up against huge forces around the world and that ultimately
they cannot fight this fight alone. ‘We have to make people understand that
antisemitism is not a uniquely Jewish problem...It is a cancer which if left
unchecked infects and ultimately kills democratic societies... That is the
message we have to get out.’”
Others recognize antisemitism’s claws are dangerous, not only to Jews (“The
Hate that Shames Us,” Julie Burchill, The Guardian, 6 December 2003):
“Make no mistake, the Jews are not hated because of Israel; they are hated for
their very modernity, mobility, lust for life and love of knowledge. Their most
basic toast, ‘L'chaim!’ (To Life!), is a red rag to those who make a fetish out
of death because they have failed to take any joy from their life on earth. ‘Not
our Jews! Leave our Jews alone!’ yelled the locals who turned out to fight the
Mosleyites in Cable Street. It may be politically incorrect to call this ancient
people ‘ours’, but what the hell: they are tough, they can take it. And they are
still our Jews, in that if they are wiped out in Israel or anywhere else,
we will be wiped out too one day, all of the modern world and its achievements -
swept back into the Dark Ages mulch from whence we came. The cry of Cable Street
still rings true. ‘Not our Jews!’ But, this time, ‘our' means mankind, and the
very future of our species.”
This view receives scholarly support that identifies elements common to both
antisemitism and anti-Americanism (“European
Anti-Americanism and Antisemitism: Similarities and Differences: An Interview
with Andrei S. Markovits,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 16, 1
January 2004): “Antisemitism in Europe goes back a thousand years.
Anti-Americanism emerged more than 200 years ago among European elites. Current
European prejudices are enhanced by the Europeans’ perception of how America and
Israel use power. America and Jews are seen by many Europeans as paragons of a
modernity they dislike and distrust: money-driven, profit-hungry, urban,
universalistic, individualistic, mobile, rootless, inauthentic and thus hostile
to established traditions and values. Anti-Americanism fulfills a structural
role in helping to create a European identity. Antisemitism does not necessarily
do this, hence it might abate if and when peace is reached in the Middle East.
Anti-Americanism and antisemitism are the only major icons shared by the
European extreme left and far right, including neo-Nazis.”
And look at the shock from the unexpected. The Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate was
marketed by the media as a progressive force in her country, a “liberal” women
who stood up to the tyranny of the Ayatollahs, only this version did not meet
the expectation in its first international test. To the cheers of America-haters
she found fault - in her acceptance speech - with the U.S. but not with the
Iranian regime (only obliquely), not with terror supporters and not with
dictatorships (“In
Speech, Nobel Winner Rebukes the U.S.” Craig S. Smith, The New York Times,
11 December 2003). Clearly, this is not the first mistake the Nobel Peace Prize
Committee has ever made. She joins a long list of others who were not worthy of
the Prize, questioning the very credibility of the Prize itself.
Last week the U.S. administration found itself in an awkward position. It denied
non-supporters of the coalition the opportunity to bid for lucrative projects of
Iraq’s reconstruction and at the same time went to the same countries asking
them to forgo Iraq’s international debt. In the meantime, U.S. forces in Iraq
are reported to benefit from Israel’s valuable military assistance (“Learning
the Art of Occupation from Israel: The U.S. military is reportedly turning to
Israel for tips on how to manage the insurgency in Iraq. Will it work?” Tony
Karon, Time, 9 December 2003) even if the report erroneously compares the
(“occupation”) situations and concludes that “Washington, may indeed find itself
in a situation uncomfortably familiar to Israelis.”
An even longer list of the value Israel has for the U.S. is reported by Reuters
(“Israel
Quietly Helps U.S. in Iraq, Aides Say,” Adam Entous, Reuters, 11 December
2003): “Israel has been contributing intelligence, tactics and technology mostly
in secret to avert an Arab backlash.” The assistance includes aerial
surveillance equipment, decoy drones and D-9 armored bulldozers, as well as
sharing new training software designed for Israeli commanders stationed in
Palestinian areas.
Despite Israel’s obvious usefulness, there are those who do not spare their pen
to make Israel the problem in the area, almost as if Israel is the enemy and the
Palestinians are innocent victims (“Breaking
and Entering,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 11 December
2003; titled “With Saddam Gone, Pressure Builds on Israel,” Atlanta
Journal-Constitution).
Even when often at great cost, Israel has proven its case in the battlefield far
more successfully than in the arena of public/international relations. The
problem is that before, during and after wars are fought, their initiation,
duration and outcome are directly impacted by Israel’s current stature in the
world. That is precisely why it has never been able to translate (decisive)
military victory after victory into political gains, in order that they might
prevent the likelihood of the next war breaking out. That is why it is not
surprising to see strong and valid criticism on Israel’s poor PR efforts.
The criticism focuses on Israel’s “failing to speak in a coherent and confident
voice” suggesting this “is an assured recipe for disaster” (“Foreign
to the Cause,” Efraim Karsh, The Jerusalem Post, 4 December 2003).
After all, the problem is not merely with facts but how those facts are placed
in a perspective. One commendable effort in this direction is the attempt to
make a case for Israel. That such an effort is even required attests to Israel’s
predicament. A famous attorney argues that it is necessary to show elements of
Israel’s case on which there is a wide consensus among Israelis and outsiders
[with the obvious exception of Arabs] (“The
Consensus Case,” Alan M. Dershowitz, The Jerusalem Post, 4 December
2003). Of course, how to reach such a consensus - assuming one is reached - and
how it would be communicated effectively, remain the challenges for the day.
The repercussions of the so-called “Geneva Agreement” continue to reverberate.
Interestingly enough, opponents are on both sides. For the Palestinians,
opposition is nothing but a tactic. They are also taking advantage of the golden
opportunity to voice their objections to things they never agreed to in the
first place, thus reaping a double PR advantage. Most Israelis are genuinely
concerned about the implications of the Geneva Initiative on future
developments.
Others question the credibility and the motives of those behind the initiative
and they aim their arrows particularly at Israel’s Yossi Beilin and at Jimmy
Carter, suggesting both are suffering from a sort of a ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ (“Carter
Attacks the ‘Road to Peace’,” Lowell Ponte, FrontPageMagazine.com, 12
December 2003). Equally interesting are relevant points that focus on the
consequences for the Palestinians for not coming to the negotiating table. They
might end up with even less than they have now (“The
Price of Intransigence,” Mortimer B. Zuckerman, U.S. News and World
Report, 15 December 2003).
Media presentation of the situation in the Middle East is not helpful to
Israel’s case as one media watchdog group has noted (“Security
Fence Distortions,” HonestReporting, Communique: 7 December 2003). This is
followed by two important recognitions. First, concessions are counterproductive
because they only reinforce the perception that terrorism pays (“Concessions
Don’t Help,” Barry Rubin, The Jerusalem Post, 9 December 2003): “This
is neither a colonial problem nor the mere result of an oppressive occupation.
It is an ideological issue on the Arab side, one of how the conflict is defined
and the methods deemed worthy of pursuing it. By continuing to insist the
problem is that Israel has not offered enough, Israelis do not prove their
goodwill but rather seem to suggest that they are the guilty party. This is also
part of the reason for the world’s hostility. These unfamiliar concepts for the
West should be becoming more familiar from having to deal with such Middle
Eastern phenomena as the Iranian revolution, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and
radical Islam.”
“Previous generations supposedly learned such lessons in dealing with fascism
and communism: Not everyone is a pragmatist eager for conciliation with those
who prove their good intentions, willingness to make concessions and kind
natures. These are hard words to say, but they are needed to explain why this
conflict has gone on for endless decades, bred so much hate and cost so many
lives.”
Indeed. The second observation concisely suggests that the problems lie with
terrorism as the pivotal cause of the modern era’s problems (“It’s
the Terrorists, Stupid,” Moshe Arens, Ha’aretz, 9 December 2003):
“Palestinian terrorists hold the peace process hostage and no meaningful
progress toward peace can be made until their murderous activity is ended. It
does not matter if the Palestinian interlocutor is Yasser Arafat, Abu Mazen, Abu
Ala or Abed Rabo - nothing significant will be achieved as long as Jews are
being killed by Palestinian terrorists in our streets and on our buses. The idea
that negotiations and a readiness by Israel to make extensive concessions will
lead these terrorists to cease their murderous activities is absurd and has been
proved wrong time and again at great cost.”
“Terrorism, deliberately directed against civilians with the intention of
causing mass casualties, has become a worldwide scourge in recent years. If not
controlled, it threatens the very existence of states as we have come to know
them in the past century. It is the intention of terrorists associated with
Islamic fundamentalism to shake the foundations of the states whose civilian
populations they attack, whether it be in the United States, Turkey, Israel or
Saudi Arabia - they want to prove that these states have lost their ‘monopoly on
domestic violence’ and cannot protect their citizens. Their success would call
into question the existence of these states as we now know them and could plunge
the whole world into anarchy.”
The fight against terror and tyranny received a tremendous boost with the
capture of Saddam Hussein. There are a number of other top leaders who need to
be captured or killed before this war gets to an end. But even more important is
the absolute need to combat the vicious antisemitic and anti-American propaganda
which is the breeding ground for terror activities.