Initiatives
Sources
On Morality and Humiliation
December 21, 2003
By Robbie Friedmann
In a recent interview Jimmy Carter stated (“Self-Appointed
Israeli and Palestinian Negotiators Offer a Plan for Middle East Peace,”
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.” Almost three weeks after this atrocious
choice of words he is yet to issue an apology or an unequivocal clarification
for using the term the Nazis employed as their official policy to exterminate
Jews. Carter is risking losing the single political asset he has: morality. If
he will not retract the usage of the term anything he will say in the future
will be placing him squarely in the camp of the dark forces. He has crossed the
red lines and this time it is neither a beer drinking brother nor lust in his
heart that will stain his clean moral image.
Given the continuous rise in antisemitism (“Fears
of Antisemitism Sweep Europe: Leftists, intellectuals blaming Israel for world’s
ills,” Veronique Mistiaen, Jody K. Biehl, Elizabeth Bryant, San Francisco
Chronicle, 14 December 2003) Carter could (better say should) follow the
example of Emile Zola and instead of blaming Israel - or the current U.S.
administration for supposedly having a pro-Israel bias, actually accuse the
intellectuals, politicians and organizations for their manifestations of
antisemitism (see: “J’accuse
....! Emile Zola, Alfred Dreyfus and the Greatest Newspaper Article in History”).
Why is it that Carter - for whom human rights became a moral imperative - is not
vocal against one of this flag’s grossest violations? Why is he tolerant of
horrendous manifestations of hate such as a college film festival that defines
Arab humiliation by the mere existence of Israel and its top aspiration as
killing Jews (“College
Film Festival: Kill the Jews,” Tatiana Menaker, FrontPageMagazine.com, 17
December 2003). A true man of morality - which Carter portrays himself to be -
does not have a choice of battles. He should fight this egregious conduct with
his mind, mouth and pen and he needs to direct it to the right targets.
The results of a recent polling of Americans on Middle East issues indicate that
Arab propaganda has made a dent but has not changed the solid support (with a
wide margin) Americans show for Israel, the objections they have for
antisemitism and for violence. An overwhelming majority believes Israel is
genuinely interested in peace while less than half believe Palestinians are
sincere about peace with Israel (“ADL
Poll Finds Americans Continue To Strongly Support Israel,” Jerusalem,
17 December 2003). Still a fairly large percentage of Americans (43%) see Israel
and a smaller percentage (37%) see the U.S. as the “greatest threat to peace in
the world.” It is encouraging to see that Americans realize North Korea is a
serious threat but unlike the ADL report which downplays the importance of this
findings on Israel and the U.S., such figures should be a source of concern for
Americans and Israelis alike.
It is interesting to note that some of the Israel-bashing at the U.N. has
crossed lines that even Europeans find unacceptable (“EU
Thwarts PLO’s Anti-Israel Move in U.N.,” Shlomo Shamir, Ha’aretz, 19
December 2003), thus a Palestinian brazen attempt to challenge Israel’s
credentials at the U.N. was rejected under the leadership of France (of all
nations!). A cynic would suggest that for the Europeans not to have Israel to
bash any longer was reason enough for them to reject such a move as disruptive
to its own agenda. But why would anyone want to be a cynic when Europeans are
concerned?
According to one CIA report the situation in the Middle East is not going to be
resolved peacefully for at least another 17 years. Even if one assumes the
realities on the ground will develop according to CIA scenarios, it is clear
that the next couple of decades are not perceived to be tranquil by any means (“CIA
Report: No Full Peace Settlement Before 2020,” Amir Oren, Ha’aretz,
17 December 2003).
The policy statement by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last month addressed
the lack of diplomatic progress by threatening to take unilateral steps and
hence corner the Palestinians, or so he thinks. The problem that both Israel and
the U.S. are facing is that the key provision in the Roadmap - the cessation of
terror and the dismantling of terror organizations - is not adhered to by the
Palestinians, who have not moved in that direction at all and do not seem likely
to go there in the foreseeable future (“The
Herzliya Initiative,” Editorial, The Jerusalem Post, 19 December
2003).
The notion of the Roadmap is flawed because it conditions the establishment of a
Palestinian state on the cessation/dismantling of terrorism. However, it has
also sent a message -albeit unintentional - that three years of violence and
terror are rewarded. It is not giving any (even negative) incentive to the
Palestinians to actually cease terror.
That is why events in Iraq are so important for Israel and the future of the
Middle East. The reaction in the Arab press to the capture of Saddam is complex,
artful, and unlike Western thought - it is non-linear . Like oriental poetry and
painting, it is structured with many curvatures. Therefore, even in articles in
favor of Saddam’s demise there are elements of dissatisfaction with his arrest,
with who arrested him and with how he was treated (“The
Arab Media Reaction to Saddam’s Arrest: Part I,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch -
Iraq, 16 December 2003, No. 628).
The Iraqi press in general is perhaps far more accepting of Saddam’s capture
than some comments in Western media or from the Vatican. The wide gamut of
reactions ranges from complete acceptance of his capture (“Wielding
Pens as Swords, Arabs Finish Off Hussein,” Nora Boustany, The Washington
Post, 19 December 2003) to expressions of grief and humiliation,
particularly from Palestinian but also from Egyptian corners (“The
Arab Media Reaction to Saddam’s Arrest: Part II,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch -
Iraq, 17 December 2003, No. 629).
Palestinians mourned his capture and added it to other historical days of
defeat. This is fairly understandable considering he was one of their most vocal
supporters even if he himself did not practice what he preached (“Palestinians
Mark ‘Black Day’ of Saddam Capture,” Mohammed Assadi, Reuters, 14 December
2003). In fact, some have suggested Palestinians should be treated no
differently than Saddam’s regime (“Blackjack!”
Irwin N. Graulich, jewishindy, 16 December 2003).
Perhaps one of the most fascinating (sobering, yet also frustrating) elements in
Saddam’s capture is how his supporters, sympathizers, relatives and those still
fearing him explain away his capture by resorting to various conspiracy theories
or simply twist realities to an extent that is clearly inspired by the fertile
imagination the likes of 1001
Nights. One criminological theory explains that criminals are capable of
committing crime by
neutralizing the
guilt about it. This is done through denial of responsibility, denial of
injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners and the appeal to
higher loyalties.
The Middle East is ripe with examples of explaining away defeat and turning it
to a victory. The most powerful self-delusional public relations campaigns have
been carried out in the Middle East where imagination and wishful thinking
become substitutes to rational and common sense recognition of realities. There
is a huge difference between working hard to achieve a dream as in the saga of
the American pioneers or in
Herzl’s
statement “if
you will it, it is not a dream” - out of which modern Israel was born - and
sitting idle in a dream world denying reality, denying responsibility, being
proud of the injuries inflicted on the enemy, turning ‘defeat’ into ‘victory’
and appealing to higher loyalties such as Pan-Arabism and Allah (“Conspiracy
Theories Surrounding Saddam’s Capture,” Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli, MEMRI, Inquiry
and Analysis - Iraq, 19 December 2003, No. 155).
Doomsday cults have ways of explaining away why the world was not destroyed at a
given moment they predicted. Saddam’s sister was the first to explain away why
her brother was captured: He “could not have surrendered in this fashion unless
he was subjected to anesthetization or nerve gas that paralyzed his
movements...If he were in full command of his mental capacity he would have
resisted to [the] death. He is not one of the people who would surrender in such
a disgraceful manner.” The fact that he was seconds away from a grenade being
hurled into his rathole which would have paralyzed his movements forever,
obviously has eluded his sister.
The fall of the Saddam regime and now the capture of Saddam himself and the
“sadness” that engulfed Palestinians who had to face this development, signify
the coalescence of two losing causes: brutal dictatorship and a society bent on
killing at any cost (“Sadness
at Feeble Display by a Hero to Palestine,” Allan Laing, The Herald,
15 December 2003).
The portrayal of Saddam’s capture and particularly his medical exam as
“humiliating” rests on the premise that humiliation is something negative and
hence should not be practiced by the victor. Yet there is an important function
public shaming serves, and offenders could learn to behave differently if they
want to avoid future humiliation (“Killing
Him Softly,” Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, 19 December
2003). In the meantime it might be wise policy to clarify to the enemy who is
the winner and who is the loser. The enemy and its sympathizers could complain
ad nauseam that it is “humiliated” but that is all the more reason to use
humiliation (“More
Humiliation Please,” Bret Stephens, The Jerusalem Post, 18 December
2003).
After all, this is not torture or public hanging that has been a common practice
in Iraq. This is a medical exam and shaving that is at stake. Those who complain
about taking away Saddam’s virility never did so when he was clean shaven during
decades in power. Indeed it could (and should) be a sign for other dictators
that their time has come (“One
Down, Dozens More to Go: A plan for ridding the world of dictators,” Claudia
Rosett, The Wall Street Journal, 16 December 2003). Given that the
majority of the world’s remaining dictators operate from the Arab-Muslim world,
it is their responsibility to cope with the problems they make for themselves
and the rest of the world. This time the leaders of the free world have proven
they are no longer paper tigers (“A
Tigris Chronicle: The Arab world grapples with Saddam’s captivity,” Fouad
Ajami, The Wall Street Journal, 18 December 2003).
The biggest threat today is perceived to come from Iran, but is by no means
limited to it (“Israeli
Says Iran Top Terrorism Sponsor,” Gavin Rabinowitz, The Associated Press,
The Washington Post, 16 December 2003). The recent “surprising” announcement
by Libya’s Moammar Ghaddafi that he will open the country for inspections of
weapons of mass destruction and is willing to dismantle them has resulted in
cautious yet optimistic and highly positive encouragements from the
administration, numerous other governments around the world and the U.N. (“Libya
to Give Up Arms Programs, Bush Announces,” David E. Sanger and Judith
Miller, The New York Times, 20 December 2003).
Yet more than caution is advised. It should be coupled with a very healthy dose
of skepticism. Given decades of Iraqi deception, Iranian deception and Libyan
intransigence, it is highly recommended to postpone the celebration until after
the Libyan WMDs are indeed dismantled - not a minute earlier. One demand that
many in the Arab world, including Libya as well as the director of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, were
quick to put on the table is that Israel dismantle its own nuclear weapons
(which Israel has never officially admitted as having). This could really be the
end game. It would take years to dismantle countries like Libya from WMDs.
All Arabs as well as the IAEA are cognizant of the fact that Israel poses no
threat to the Arabs (unless its existence is considered a threat - and it is).
Clever Arab tactic. Israel will not fall for it but that does not mean that
pressure will not be applied.
Some offer a non-military approach to cope with terrorism (“Non-military
Approach to Terrorism - The Indian Model,” B. Raman, South Asia Analysis
Group, Paper no. 859, 12 December 2003). This approach has clear - if limited –
advantages. But in the same manner that relying on force only cannot solve
complex diplomatic situations without resorting to diplomacy at some point,
relying on non-military means only may not be sufficient. This is particularly
so in the Middle East where terrorism has become a strategy that could escalate
to war between nations. Even India would - if carefully - resort to military
means should it deem it necessary - as evidenced by the recent volatile war
situation over Kashmir when India and Pakistan threatened each other with the
use of nuclear weapons. Terrorism cannot be taken out of context as if it is
devoid of military implications.
Some positive developments actually come from Saudi Arabia and may auger well
(even if not decisively) for the fight against terrorism. Contrary to the usual
rhetoric emanating out of Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world and
particularly the Palestinians, one Saudi columnist actually views President
George W. Bush as a “liberator of Baghdad” (“Saudi
Columnist: ‘America is a Liberator and not an Occupier... Bush will Go Down in
Arab History as the Liberator of Baghdad’,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi
Arabia/Reform Project, 19 December 2003, No. 631). Another Saudi source actually
chides Saudi support of terrorism and raises concern about a conference in Texas
with supporters of al-Qaeda and Saudi representatives (“Saudi
Diplomats Join bin Laden Supporters in Texas Conference,” Saudi
Independent News, 9 December 2003).
A word on Tom Friedman. If he was not writing on the pages of the New York
Times he would have been an obscure figure at best. Yet he clearly does not
practice what he preaches and a recently reported incident (“The
Jewish Ombudsman: Sippin’ Geneva Juice,” Steven I. Weiss, Jewsweek, 13
December 2003) demonstrated that he can turn violent when he does not like a
question posed to him. So much for his bi-weekly hollow preaching for peace and
understanding.
This week ended with some very positive developments such as the capture of
Saddam, the Libyan declaration and the capture of a key Hamas operative (who has
been detailed 17 times before!). Yet the elevation of the terror level to “High”
this afternoon is but another reminder that the war on terrorism is far from or
over.
Stay tuned.