Initiatives
Sources
Israel Arranged Itself So it Has Not Been Put in the Sea
February 14, 2004
By Robbie Friedmann
Recently the New York Times succeeded in alarming many who are rightfully
concerned with antisemitism by referring to Jews in the same manner that former
and current vile antisemites have when they charge that Jews control the world.
Its columnist argued Jews control the White House (“A
Rude Awakening,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 5 February
2004).
The reaction this time was rather pointed. From letters to the editor to
newspaper articles it became evident that Friedman has crossed the lines of
civilized and intellectual discourse. A media watchdog group criticized Friedman
- by quoting Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers - for using words
that are “antisemitic in their effect if not their intent” and called on the
editors to apologize or write an editor’s note (“Tom
Friedman Hits New Low,” Lee Green, CAMERA, 9 February 2004).
Friedman’s “correction” only worsened the situation. First he ignored the fact
that Israel released hundreds of terrorists as a gesture to the first
Palestinian prime minister. Now he acknowledges the gesture but dismisses it as
insignificant. But not a word about his antisemitic language (“Arabs,
It’s Your Move,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 12 February
2004; titled in the Atlanta paper: “Arab Leaders Need to Redirect Sharon
Bulldozer”). Instead, he resurrects the Saudi ‘peace plan’ and suggests it is up
to the Arabs to make the next (positive?) move. One becomes bewildered: is he
writing in the name of a president who is under “house arrest?” If so, then this
must be a Jewish/Israeli plan that surely the Arabs will not accept. If he is no
longer under “house arrest” what changed in less than a week? Where did all this
“Jewish power” go?
His ‘intellectual’ contortions no longer withstand scrutiny and
CAMERA has made it clear the paper needs to
take a position even if the writer will not (“Tom
Friedman Makes Grudging Correction: CAMERA and Others Call for Editor’s Note,”
Lee Green, CAMERA, 13 February 2004). CAMERA also correctly points out the
deficiencies in Friedman’s position with regard to returning all territories
(not required by U.N. Resolution 242) for normalization. Where all territories
were returned (to Egypt) normalization is non-existent. He also ignores
Palestinian non-compliance with accords as well as their terrorist
indoctrination and glorification of murder.
One of the more interesting reactions to Friedman came from former New York
Mayor Ed Koch who utters what most Jews prefer not to confront or mention.
Namely, that Jews can be antisemites (“Yes,
Jews Do Engage in Antisemitic Behavior,” Edward I. Koch, Jewish World
Review, 12 February 2004). Indeed, the same way Arabs argue they cannot be
antisemitic because they are themselves Semites does not hold (the term
antisemitism was coined to refer to acts against Jews), the fact that someone is
Jewish should not provide any absolution for engaging in such activity. On the
contrary.
A recent revelation by none other than a Saudi source about the Saudi government
bribing local and foreign journalists is an eye-opener (“Saudi
Payments for Foreign Journalists,” Special Dispatch - Saudi Arabia/Reform
Project, 13 February 2004, No. 662). While the source implies it is Arab
journalists who are bribed (and silenced or ‘guided’) the likelihood that Saudis
bribe, threaten or have relations with non-Arab journalists is not far-fetched.
The mere fact of granting an exclusive audience with the king could taint any
objective reporter’s account and perhaps the servants of these masters may
actually epitomize the concept of the “butler did it” when writing about the
Middle East. Even Friedman himself acknowledged in the past that Arab threats
were rather intimidating and affected what he wrote about the area.
Not all voices coming out from Middle East sources are by necessity
anti-American. Some actually do offer support for the American action in Iraq (“Former
Dean of Islamic Law at University of Qatar: ‘America Has Changed the World for
the Better’,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Reform Project, 10 February 2004,
No. 660): “Let us imagine the world if America had listened to the French and
German logic saying: Give the murderers of the Serbs and the Arabs a chance for
a diplomatic solution. Would Bosnia, Kuwait and Iraq be liberated [today]...?”
The former dean of Islamic Law at Qatar’s university goes even further and
argues that tyrants will be removed only by force, that the U.S. should continue
with its democratization efforts and that to fight terrorism “...America needs
to encourage the countries to reexamine their educational systems in full - not
only the curriculum - and must give financial and professional aid in developing
the educational system...”
Yet at home the criticism of the U.S.-lead invasion to Iraq has grown in this
election year to shrills of “where are the WMDs?” But the question should have
been the outcome not the cause or the declared reason for the war. The problem
with democratic civilization is that it can protect itself at a high cost.
Namely, it will not use preemptive strikes with very few exception (Israel in
1967); so unless not only threatened, but actually acted-upon, the West did not
do anything until the 9-11 atrocity (despite the blatant evidence of a threat as
experienced in the first attempt to topple the towers in 1993). Therefore, the
removal of the Iraqi tyrant is justified in itself and perhaps what was
erroneous about this war is the language used to justify it, not the initiative
itself (“Bad
Intelligence, So What?” Matti Golan, Ha’aretz, 11 February 2004). In
short, doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
So against such criticism the former Islamic dean sounds good, doesn’t he?
Perhaps a little too good to be true? Indeed he is. He is acknowledging only
terrorism against Arabs and the U.S., but not against Israel, and after offering
convincing in-depth remedies for Arab problems he slips again into the
traditional Arab canards as if Israel is their only problem: “Our third demand
of America is connected to the Palestinian problem and to improving the image of
America, since the [Arab] media focuses on the negative aspects of America and
does not mention its positive face. The media help vilify the image of America
and increase hatred for it, but it is not acting in a vacuum. America’s bias in
favor of Israel provides fertile ground for blackening the image of America in
the Arab and Muslim public awareness ... and as the emir of Qatar said... We
call on America to view our problems with greater balance, justice and honesty.
This is what will improve its image in the Arab and Islamic world....” If the
gracious dean would just explain to the world what he means by “greater balance,
justice and honesty” and how such balance will not result in the destruction of
Israel.
The problem of such ‘scholars’ is by no means limited to the Arab-Muslim world
or even to the West that has been penetrated by activists and sympathizers. It
is also evident in what passes at times for Israeli scholarship on the topic. A
push to establish Israeli studies in American universities as a response to the
bastardization of Middle East scholarship - which is often tainted with Arab
funds and pro-Arab (anti-Israeli) sympathizers - has backfired at Berkeley (“How
Not to Promote Israel Studies,” Martin Kramer, Weblog, 12 February 2004).
There an Israeli who was appointed to fill the first such chair turned out to be
vehemently anti-Israel. Often when debates are carried out in universities there
is a seeming balance between Israelis and Palestinians except that often the
Israelis brought to supposedly represent Israel do a 180 degree turn when they
turn out to represent the Palestinians. It is no surprise to those who know
their agenda, yet it serves to ‘legitimize’ anti-Israel positions by the hosts
and adversaries suggesting that “even Israelis” state anti-Israel positions.
The reason for this is evident in the asymmetry between Israelis and
Palestinians (“Unequal
Mideast Equation,” John Moscowitz, The Globe and Mail, 12 February
2004): “... a troubling asymmetry exists that suggests why Israeli society is
significantly prepared for peace while Palestinian society is not. That is,
Israel’s far Left has accepted the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative over
that of the Israeli narrative. This is a small group, although influential (i.e.
Yossi Beilin); it includes the artistic, media and intellectual elite who enjoy
significant say in public opinion. Israel’s moderate Left accepts the equal
legitimacy of the Palestinian and Israeli narratives. The moderate Right can be
said to accept the right of Palestinian statehood (although it probably believes
the Israelis have something more of a right). On the far Right, a small minority
insists that only Israel enjoys national legitimacy.” The Palestinians, of
course, utterly reject all Israeli narratives and will not accept even minimized
versions of it. For them it is convert or die.
Not surprisingly then, Israeli talk about unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza
strip has met with skeptical reaction even from the chief of Israeli military
intelligence. The problem with unilateral withdrawal is twofold: 1) it gives
(some of) the Palestinians what they want anyway and without any return and 2)
it sends a message that Israel is weak. The same way Hizbullah kicked Israel out
of Lebanon (or so it perceived the Israeli withdrawal) the Palestinians in Gaza
will see Israeli withdrawal not as a final settlement but as a bridgehead for
continued demands on Israel (“The
Gaza Pullout,” Cal Thomas, Townhall.com, 12 February 2004 ): “...A
Palestinian state without proof that Palestinian intentions have changed would
assure an unprecedented base for terrorism that currently does not exist.”
As Daniel Pipes argues, the issue is more than settlements (“It’s
Not About Settlements,” Daniel Pipes, The Jerusalem Post, 10 February
2004). Indeed, as long as there is no declaration of an end to the conflict the
Palestinians use the settlement issue not as an end in itself but as a step
towards their next hostile takeover objective. Therefore, unilateral withdrawal
or not, the West must support Israel because it is in the best interest of the
West to do so (“Why
the West Should Care About Israel’s Survival,” Dallas Brodie, The
Vancouver Sun, 12 February 2004): “...no question that Israel sits on the
front line against despotism, Islamic fundamentalism and terror in the Middle
East. As such, it plays a crucial role in the ongoing war against
terror...Essentially...the West must pick a side. Either we believe in democracy
and human rights or we do not. It is as simple as that....support Israel because
it stands as a tiny island in an exceedingly dangerous sea of totalitarianism
with all the challenges of waging war as a democracy.”
This is a point that needs to be well understood. As long as the Palestinians’
(and those they represent and by whom they are supported) approach to the
conflict is grounded in fantasy (like Hitler’s march to the Rhineland) no amount
of compromise and giving will satisfy their insatiable appetite for land that is
not theirs and for murder they are proud of (“Murderous
Fantasies: Suicide bombers come from a neighborhood of make-believe,” Bret
Stephens, The Wall Street Journal, 11 February 2004). From this
perspective “suicide murder [is] not necessarily an act of despair at all but
something approaching the opposite: a supreme demonstration of contempt for
everything Westerners hold dear, not least life itself. And they are not the
poor-man’s F-16 but a robust expression of confidence that the Palestinians are
infinitely more ruthless than Israelis in what amounts to a zero-sum game?”
Moreover, “They are unlike the more common types of enemy known to man, who vie
for land, prestige or plunder as ends in themselves. The fantasists, by
contrast, have only a loose connection to the world as it really is. They may
conquer land in the fulfillment of their fantasy, but the land is uninteresting
to them except for the role it plays on the stage of their imaginations. Yet
paradoxically, says Mr. Harris, it is the very absence of a ‘sense of the
realistic’ that makes the fantasists so dangerous, because they are willing to
take fantastic risks. So it was with Hitler’s march into Rhineland in 1936, a
foolish gamble by rational standards that succeeded because the French high
command was unwilling to prick the F¯hrer’s fantasy of invincibility--thereby,
of course, driving the fantasy to catastrophic proportions.”
The proof that Israel stands in the forefront of the battle against Islamist
tyranny and that any solution to the Middle East conflict that is “balanced” or
favors the Arabs will not bring an end to the conflict is found in the words of
a former Pakistani intelligence chief who argues (“If
India Does Not Give Us Our Land We Will Go to War,” Rediff.com, 13 February
2004) he is “an Islamist. Islam is the final destiny of mankind. Islam is
moderate, Islam is progressive. Islam is everything that man needs. It is not
necessary to become a Muslim but it is necessary to adopt the principles of
Islam. Naseem Azavi and Iqbal’s writings have influenced my thinking... India
will give its land when it will be divided into many pieces. India will have to
be break (sic). If India does not give us our land we will go to war and divide
India.” It does not appear that land this Islamist wants is only in Kashmir but
in the rest of India.
This demonstrates how little the current conflict has to do “only with Israel.”
Some leaders have clearly understood Israel’s right to defend itself and the
obligation to support her in this effort. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
was asked recently by a Palestinian general about the ‘risk’ Israel is posing
with her nuclear weapons with the underling assumption that Israel is the
problem (“Secretary
Rumsfeld Availability at the Munich Conference on Security Policy,” 7
February 2004). His answer is rather telling: “You know the answer before I give
it, I’m sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like you find it;
and Israel is a small state with a small population. It’s a democracy and it
exists in a neighborhood that in many -- over a period of time has opined from
time to time that they’d prefer it not be there and they’d like it to be put in
the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get put in the sea,
and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged itself so it hasn't
been put in the sea.”
Palestinian terrorism may be embodied and symbolized by Yasser Arafat but by no
means is he the only terror leader. The Palestinians are essentially ruthlessly
‘managed’ as a criminal gang that clouds its daily thievery, thuggery, robbery,
murder, mayhem and terror with a facade of ideology that uses religion when it
is convenient or rejects it when it is not (“Palestinian
Mafia: Heavily armed criminal gangs are turning West Bank and Gaza Strip into
lawless shooting galleries ‘There is a mafia in Nablus’,” Mitch Potter,
Toronto Star, 8 February 2004)
It is therefore interesting to watch the French government taking two bold
steps: after legislating against religious apparel/symbols in public schools
(which was decried by Muslims but not by Jews or Christians who will be also
affected by the law), the French launched an investigation into the transfer of
millions of dollars from Arafat to his wife who lives luxuriously in Paris (“France
Launches Inquiry Into Money Transfers of Arafat’s Wife,” The Associated
Press, 11 February 2004) while his own organization seems to be crumbling (“Why
Was Euro 1M a Month Sent to Arafat’s Wife? France launches inquiry into suspect
bank transfers as Israelis say EU money went to help suicide bombers,” Jon
Henley, The Guardian, 12 February 2004).
It is safe to say the patience the U.S. has shown the Palestinians is reaching
its end. First, the U.S. ambassador to Israel - who in the past was often too
quick to criticize Israel - has publicly condemned the Palestinian fiasco in
connection with the probe of the murders of the Americans in the Gaza strip (“Kurtzer
Faults PA Probe of Gaza Attack,” Jenny Hazan, The Jerusalem Post, 10
February 2004). And his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has placed the
blame squarely on Yasser Arafat (“Powell
Blames Arafat for Impasse in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts,” David
Gollust, Voice of America, 12 February 2004) which begs the question what will
he say when the violence continues after Arafat is gone.
Yet in the meantime, the Palestinians continue to receive funding from the
Europeans and Americans and often these ‘charity funds’ are used to support
terror (“Palestinian
Refugee Camps: Will U.S. Dollars Fuel a Future War with Israel?” John Waage,
CBN News, 11 February 2004).
If anything, the Palestinians have increased their vitriolic attacks against
Israel with horrendous vilifications (“PA: Israel is ‘Satan’s Offspring,’
Founded on Racism, Protocols,” Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, 12
February 2004). And their brethren? Look at what they do in England. A new
hip-hop style rap video - titled “The Dirty Infidel” - glorifies terror and
takes pride in it - jihad-style - in an attempt to use a popular Western music
style to recruit more supporters among young Muslims and other potential
sympathizers (“Islamic
Rappers’ Message of Terror,” Antony Barnett, The Observer, 8 February
2004).
Just examine some of the words:
“Peace to Hamas and the Hizbullah
OBL [bin-Laden] pulled me like a shiny star
Like the way we destroyed them two towers ha-ha
The minister Tony Blair, there my dirty Kuffar
The one Mr. Bush, there my dirty Kuffar...
Throw them on the fire”
Therefore, if a recent report about sympathetic behavior towards terrorist acts
is true (“Celebrating
9/11 at the FBI,” Paul Sperry, FrontPageMagazine.com, 11 February 2004) the
FBI needs to be worried not only about terrorists coming from abroad or those in
sleeper cells already in the U.S., but also about some of its own employees and
perhaps the quality of the work they are doing for the FBI as well as the
possibility of actively sabotaging the very work they are supposed to be doing.
Can the translation and analysis of those celebrating the toppling of the towers
be trusted?
To paraphrase Rumsfeld’s words, Israel is not the only target that has to
arrange for itself not be put in the sea. The onslaught against the West is in
full swing and every week brings with it new horrifying developments about the
advent of the jihad against it. Terror in Iraq and many parts of the world,
youth football groups in California adopting names with jihad messages, and now
rap-for-jihad is out in the market. The French do not speak German today because
the U.S. and allied forces saved her from this foe. Now it is the West itself
(and those who wish to identify with it) that is under a threat of converting or
dying. Not very enticing options and the sea is not even one of them.