Initiatives
Sources
It Was Indeed a Rude Awakening
February 7, 2004
By Robbie Friedmann
Since the 9-11 atrocity and the war in Iraq (including the tense period leading
to it) the Bush administration was very careful to state that this is not a war
against Islam. While there was no lack of voices suggesting it may not be a war
against Islam it is certainly Islam’s war against the West. It is interesting to
note an opinion that does not look at ‘causation’ but rather for an attribution
of blame. A columnist from India suggests there is something inherently wrong
with Islamic societies that results in externalizing and internationalizing
their ‘grievances’ instead of solving them internally (“Fifth
Column: Why It’s Islam vs. Rest of theWorld,” Tavleen Singh, The (Indian)
Sunday Express, 1 February 2004).
Singh criticizes the Islamic presence in the recent economic summit in Davos
that only complained about the West but never looked at their problems
internally: “It was the fault of the West that Islam was being labeled a
terrorist religion, the fault of the West that most Muslim rulers were despots,
the fault of the West that political issues had been allowed to fester, the
fault of the West that Muslim countries had not progressed economically and the
fault of the West that Osama bin Laden had got created.”
Indeed, this propensity to blame everyone except themselves is evident in the
vitriolic official writing by a princess - the daughter of the Saudi king - who
specifically blames the West for “conspiring” against her country (“Saudi
Princess Fahda bint Saud ibn Abd Al-Aziz: Conspiracy Theories and Other Writings,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia, 2 February 2004, No. 653). Using
traditional antisemitic motifs she attacks the U.S. and Jews for “the
Neo-Conservative conspiracy to control the world;” who built “a new
American-Jewish $95 million research center established to attack Saudi Arabia.”
She claims that “outside forces are trying to control Saudi Arabia.” She quotes
her father as saying “The Zionist threat is like cancer: Arabs will not accept
an Israeli state amidst them …the Saudi Army was trained to repulse Israel,” and
“Saudis support the PLO Charter to liberate Palestine.”
It is precisely against this backdrop that the rantings of Tom Friedman are no
longer ‘opinions’ fit to be printed in a respectable newspaper. His recent
article (“A
Rude Awakening,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 5 February
2004) reads like one written for
Der Sturmer
or for/by representatives of current Arab propaganda like the Saudi princess as
they repeat the exact same theme of “Jewish control.” For anyone who has
unfavorable views toward Israel to suggest that George Bush and Yasser Arafat
are (Israeli) “house prisoners” (or even compare the two) is ludicrous but to
say the White House and the VP are controlled by the Jews is purely an
antisemitic canard. If anything, it is Sharon who is influenced by the White
House as otherwise the measures he would and should have taken against terrorism
would have been far more aggressive and timely.
Not only is Friedman offensive to Jews he insults the intelligence of Americans.
Surely the White House is a bit more independent than his portrayal allows.
HonestReporting pointed out
factual errors in Friedman’s writing but perhaps he is preparing his retirement
with a major Egyptian, Syrian or Saudi newspaper or alternatively is being paid
by them already. Trouble is he is writing for the New York Times and too
many people still take him seriously. Either way, clearly, it is Friedman who
needs a ‘rude awakening’. He can start by comparing his article to what the
Saudi princess wrote and ask himself how is it they are identical. Perhaps he
ought to even read/heed his own very words: “Criticizing Israel is not
antisemitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and
international sanction out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East
is antisemitic, and not saying so is dishonest.”
Some Arab writers have better vision than Friedman and are able to see the flaws
of their own societies and even bravely write about them (“Martyrs
and Individuals,” Ahmed H. al-Rahim, The Wall Street Journal, 5
February 2003): “The thread that connects the recurring stampedes in Mecca, the
suicide bombings in Iraq, and the lopsided [prisoner] exchanges between Israel
and Hezbollah is the deficit of respect for the individual in the Arab world.
This erosion has occurred in a political context, where too many governments in
the region deny their citizens basic individual rights in order to maintain a
tight grip on society. When societies trample over the individual, human life is
debased.”
But even if some Arabs offer an accurate insight, the changes are not likely to
come from within Arab and Islamic societies. Indeed, as the noted historian
Bernard Lewis suggests, most Islamic countries have failed miserably at
modernizing their societies, and it requires others to intervene (“A
Historian’s Take on Islam: Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight,” Peter Waldman,
The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2004). Previous world powers were not
interested in changing Arab and Muslim societies; they were interested in
controlling them either for direct subjugation (Turks - who were/are Muslim) or
for economic, strategic, and military purposes (Great Britain, France). Lewis,
however, suggests that the hope for internal change lies with American
intervention which is far more benevolent. Whether a realistic vision, the
“Lewis Doctrine” offers a fresh look at possible developments in the Middle East
that are worthy of examination.
A Harvard scholar asks why do ‘religious’ terrorists kill (“Explaining
the Addiction to Jihad,” Jessica Stern, The Daily Star - Beirut, 5
February 2004). She assumes it is only ‘religious’ terrorists who kill as if
‘secular’ terrorists have not resorted to it, or as if criminal gangs have not
utilized terrorism to further their objectives. On one hand she offers a
realistic assessment that like criminal gangs, they become addicted to their
behavior because it succeeds and it becomes a way of life (inverse pun not
intended): “...over time, terrorism can become a career as much as a passion.
Leaders harness grievances, humiliation and anomie, turning them into weapons.
Jihad becomes addictive. Violence turns activists and mystics into evil men.
Grievances end up as greed for money, political power, status or attention.
For the leaders, perpetuating the movement becomes a central goal. What starts
as moral fervor becomes a sophisticated organization.”
However, Stern attributes too much blame and reason for terrorism on the
washed-up mantras such as envy, U.S. policy, humiliation,
globalization and (the threats of) modernization. Hence, instead
of looking internally and place the blame directly on the terrorists she
indirectly justifies their actions by accepting their grievances at face
value. She starts well by describing the organizational realities of terrorist
groups, misses the point on the reasoning for their action, but then offers a
good yet partial solution: “...the adversaries of terrorist groups need to
respond not just with guns, but also by sowing confusion, conflict and
competition among terrorists and between terrorists and their sponsors and
sympathizers. They should encourage condemnation of extremist interpretations of
religion by peace-loving practitioners.” Had she stopped here her argument would
have had some merit. But she then erroneously adds: “They should change policies
that no longer serve their interests or are inconsistent with their values, even
if these are policies the terrorists demand. In the end, what counts is what we
fight for, not what we oppose. We need to avoid giving into spiritual dread, and
hold fast to the best of our principles and values by emphasizing tolerance,
empathy and courage.” Too politically correct an ending to what was supposed to
have been a scholarly article, and rather off the mark at that.
The acceptance of such theories only exacerbates the situation even further.
There is little doubt Israel is being demonized and not only by the likes of the
too-powerful Tom Friedman. Nations demonize Israel, and groups, organizations,
media outlets, and regrettably self-hating Jews do that too often - not
understanding (or not wanting to see) the fine line between valid criticism and
antisemitism (“The
Demonization of Israel and Antisemitism,” Isi Leibler, israelinsider, 30
January 2004).
An illustration of the growing anti-Israel movement is evident in the workings
of the recently established “World Social Forum” (WSF) which has adopted the
cause of “Palestine” to the extent that in its view Israel is illegitimate and
has no right to exist. In its recent convention in India its approach became
crystal clear (“Networking
to Destroy Israel,” Shimon Samuels, The Jerusalem Post, 2 February
2004): “Regardless of what brought participants to Mumbai, an anti-Israel angle
was promoted: Environmentalists were told, ‘Israel is guilty of toxic
apartheid.’ Health workers were told by the Palestine Medical Relief Association
that they could connect with a new branch of Physicians and Nurses in Solidarity
with Palestine. Teachers, with the backing of Quebec and Vancouver unionists,
could connect with international teachers conferences planned for Bethlehem and
Ramallah. And Indian and Canadian Committees to Support Education in Palestine
were officially launched.” And “as a sidebar to the WSF, the Association of
Muslim Hotels of Bombay declared a ban on American guests. U.S. and Israeli
flags were burned. Stalls distributed anti-Israel posters and ‘Free Palestine’
scarves to hundreds of WSF participants.”
Of course, the current Iranian regime’s very existence seems to depend on not
only demonizing Israel but actively trying to destroy it. Its leader must have
been delighted to read Tom Friedman when he spouted in an interview last week [“Khatami
Terms Tel Aviv as U.S. Capital,” IRIB News (Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting), 1 February 2004] that “Israel is not the friend of the U.S.
because Israel’s Zionist lobby decides a major part of American policy. I have
once said in a speech that I do feel sorry for the American nation because
although its capital is Washington, its real capital is Tel Aviv.”
And it is not only the self-styled WSF which is anti-Israel. The official world
body, the United Nations is truly united on one subject only: how to do more
damage to Israel and how to use her as its punching bag (“The
U.N. and The Jews,” Anne Bayefsky, Commentary, February 2004): “In
every U.N. body, Arab and Muslim states have opposed any effort to give
meaningful definition to the notion of terrorism, largely because of its obvious
implications for the Palestinian ‘uprising’. The U.N. Counter Terrorism
Committee, set up by the Security Council in the wake of 9/11, has yet to
identify publicly a single terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism.
At the U.N., Israelis and Jews are, by definition, oppressors, as are the
nations and organizations that rally to their cause, and there is no reason to
think that this underlying reality will change anytime soon. Perhaps it is time
to stop holding seminars and conferences on whether the U.N. glass is half-full
or half-empty. The contents of the glass have been poisoned.”
If there is any doubts left about how conducive are incitement, preaching and
propaganda to inspire terrorism, just observe the official Arab press. An
Egyptian paper endorses, encourages and legitimizes murder, even if children are
killed in the process (“Egyptian
Government Daily: Suicide Bombings are Legitimate Even if Children Are Killed,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Egypt/Jihad & Terrorism Studies, 6 February 2004, No.
658) and it does so by blaming someone else (the victim) for the action: “Even
if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed - the blame
does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to
this modus operandi.”
Of course, terrorist organizations wholeheartedly pride themselves in carrying
out such actions and the new Muslim Brotherhood leader argues that “martyrdom
operations are a religious obligation” in Palestine and Iraq (“New
Muslim Brotherhood Leader: Resistance in Iraq and Palestine is Legitimate;
America is Satan; Islam Will Invade America and Europe,” MEMRI, Special
Dispatch - Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project, 4 February 2004, No. 655). Yet
once these religious fanatics carry out their criminal acts they deny
responsibility and state there is “no proof that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11
attacks.” Then the leader goes on to threaten the U.S. by describing it as a
“Satan” who will “soon collapse” and that “Islam Will Invade Europe and the
U.S.’ The Muslim Brotherhood leader also welcomes an “understanding with Egypt’s
government,” provided it is made on his terms.
Not many notice but terrorism is not directed at Israeli, Americans and others
(see the
bombing in the Moscow Subway) only. The Palestinians seem to terrorize their
own people as well and turn out to be far greater oppressors than they claim
their enemies are (“When
Palestinians become oppressors,” Robert Fulford, National Post, 2
February 2004): “The mistreatment of Palestinians by Palestinians has seldom
been given more than cursory examination by journalists outside the Middle East,
and for obvious reasons. Israel’s supporters are more inclined to worry about
the random murdering and maiming of Jews, an attempt to shatter the nerves of
Israelis and destroy their state. Those who sympathize with Palestinians don't
want to remind anyone of how badly they treat each other. Palestinians have
somehow become the favorite oppressed people of intellectuals and journalists in
Europe and elsewhere. It's unfashionable to say a word against
them...Palestinians murder other Palestinians in cold blood and no one gets
charged. Gunmen, some political and some apparently not, spread fear among the
population.”
And the Palestinian governing organs (if that is not an oxymoron) is not
anything that those who hope for law and order can bank on (“Saving
the Palestinian Authority,” Danny Rubinstein, Ha’aretz, 2 February
2004). Indeed, observers expect it to collapse in the very near future: “The PA
might not collapse in one fell swoop, but under existing political
circumstances, its future looks ominous.’" Given its terror-supporting track
record it may not be such a big loss.
Even the Americans are starting to recognize the sad realities of Palestinian
terrorism. In a lengthy account that was mostly aimed at dispelling the clouds
of possible intelligence failure regarding Iraq’s WMD, the CIA Director said
earlier in the week (“Transcript
of Tenet address on WMD intelligence”, CNN, 5 February 2004) that the
“burden here on Mr. Arafat and the Palestinians is considerable: They must prove
that they're willing to sit side-by-side with the Israelis and engage in the
constructive security arrangements that we fostered between 1998 and 2001.
Unless we get a commitment to stop terrorism and to seriously talk about not
just the aspiration of the Palestinian people but the security of the Israeli
people in a way where we have two parties firmly committed to a common
objective, we’re not going to get anywhere.”
The Palestinians may not notice it but Israel’s strength lies in its conduct and
reaction to terrorism. Indeed, some observers suggest (“Israel’s
Gift to a Terrorized World,” Yossi Klein Halevi, The Jerusalem Post,
1 February 2004) that “...it is our struggle for balance between security and
morality that is a sign of the vitality of the Israeli soul. In the global war
against terror, Israel is humanity’s laboratory for testing the limits of a
democracy under permanent siege... The value of that experiment is ignored by
Israel’s foreign critics.” “not only a tactical but a moral necessity. If Israel
surrenders - for example, if we negotiate substantive political issues under
terrorist fire - then terrorists everywhere will be encouraged to persist. If
Israeli society can be broken, terrorists will realize, any society can be
broken... But decisively resolving the unbearable tension inherent in our war
against terror, in favor of either an absolutist human rights agenda or an
absolutist security agenda, would destroy the essence of Israel’s soul, which is
the ability to sustain paradox.” Perhaps a balance needs to be maintained but it
also needs to tilt more towards security as after all we owe that much to all
living souls.
Yet the war against the terrorists and their supporters permeates not only the
streets and TV screens but language itself. As a linguistics scholar points out
(“The
Language War,” Lewis Glinert, The Jerusalem Post, 29 January 2004):
“Words are a cognitive mystery. We use them confidently and quite smoothly to
exchange thoughts, yet we are often quite unaware of why we’ve used one word and
not another. And when challenged to define a word we’re using, we generally have
no option but to reach for a dictionary - but only to find that dictionary
definitions rarely capture the nuances of words, their connotations and
associations, the very things that lead us to choose one word over another...One
stealth technique is collocation - i.e., the use of two words in the same breath
so as to effect a semantic contamination. Examples are ‘the plight of the
Palestinians' and ‘illegal settlements.' Another is the use of ...‘devil terms'
and ‘God terms’ - words that act like automatic moral triggers, such as
‘oppression,' ‘occupation’, and ‘uprising’. The Western media have duly done
their best to keep the devil term ‘terrorist' out of their reporting.”
Therefore, mental warning labels should be assigned to writings such as Tom
Friedman's so as to be able to de-construct the flimsy house of cards he builds
and wants us to think he resides in Fort Knox. To a large extent, most of us
cannot actively fight terrorism in the battlefield of bullets and bombs and
hopefully most will not have to. But all of us can become active in the front of
language and thought. Take the terrorist threats seriously, take their
ideologies at face value but do not accept their rationalization and
justifications; do not allow them to control the linguistic agenda. In this
battlefield we can concentrate all of our energies and mental capabilities and
actually win if we only pay enough attention and learn not to dance to the
terrorists’ or columnists’ tunes.