Initiatives
Sources
The Hague, Terror, a Movie: What is Real?
February 29, 2004
By Robbie Friedmann
Another week in the Middle East found Israel not defending itself in the
International Court of Justice at The Hague, yet suffering additional terror
attacks. A bus was bombed (“Palestinian
Suicide Bomber Kills 8 Others on Jerusalem Bus,” James Bennet, The New
York Times, 22 February 2004) and its victims too quickly became yet another
statistic. The week also showed numerous shooting and missile attacks on Israeli
villages and passengers; a shooting (inside Israel’s borders) claimed the lives
of a young married couple who were on their way to a party leaving behind a 2.5
year old orphan. Little wonder Channel 2 TV in Israel reported, somewhat
gleefully, that marine experts predicted The Hague will be under the waters of
the Atlantic Ocean in 15 years. In fact, the secular anchor ended the report by
stating that “there is god.” Who said TV only brings facts to the viewers?
To those thinking the declared Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip
augers well for Israel’s security, all they have to do is read what Palestinian
leaders are saying about it (“Dahlan:
Gaza Pullout Victory’ for Intifada,” Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem
Post, 21 February 2004). The Hizbullah terrorist organization prided itself
for kicking Israel out of South Lebanon, and this is what inspired the
Palestinians for the current 3.5-years’ strategic wave of violence against
innocent Israeli citizens. Now, already, they present the Gaza withdrawal as a
victory for the Palestinians. No doubt it is, and hence it promises little for
anyone who is expecting a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Encouraged by
this achievement, the Palestinians will aim at additional Israeli withdrawals.
They view all of Israel, not only disputed territories, as their target.
And by no means do the Palestinians limit their appetite to Israel alone. Their
rhetoric is global, seeing themselves as victims of a world ‘conspiracy’ and
despite Euro-American support for their “national aspirations,” they continue
unabated with their hatred and violence against the West (“Relentless PA Hate
Incitement against the U.S. and the West,” Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, 27
February 2004).
U.S. President George W. Bush, who promised to establish a Palestinian state by
2005 (provided they adhere to the Roadmap), is depicted not merely as a leader
of the “enemy United States,” but also as “the enemy of all civilization . . .
the Fuhrer of the globalization era . . . a greater danger than Hitler, leading
the world to destruction.” “The new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the
Stone Age, while Hitler only left tens of millions of dead.”
Instead of cooperating with the Americans to find the murderers of the three
Americans in Gaza (likely murdered by Palestinian “militants” closely associated
with Arafat) they claim the U.S. pressure to find murderers of Americans is
“extortion” and threaten “The Palestinians will shake the earth under the feet
of the blood and oil sucking neo- imperialists - the American European Russian
alliance.” Examine the rhetoric coming from those who feel entitled to kill and
feel ‘offended’ when that ‘right’ is questioned. The same mentality displayed by
the Palestinians is also evident in their mentors, the Iranians. Following
findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency of evidence of nuclear grade
elements, the Iranians lashed out at the IAEA in ‘classical’ propaganda style
that again included virulent references to Jews and Americans (“Iranian
Government Daily: The U.S. & ‘Zionists’ have Bribed the IAEA to Fabricate Lies
About Iran’s Nuclear Progress,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iran, 25 February
2004, No. 667).
American endeavors to bring the spirit of democracy to the Middle East are
noble, but it might be easier to convince a lion to become a vegetarian.
Frankly, it is not surprising to see who are those who most vehemently oppose
the American efforts. The two “strongest allies” in the Arab world are Egypt and
Saudi Arabia (“Riyadh
and Cairo Give Thumbs-Down to Washington’s Middle East Reform Plan,” AFP, 25
February 2004). Not exactly exemplar democracies, one represents a repressive
theocratic kingdom, the other presents itself as a ‘Republic’ but is truly a
dictatorship. Little wonder they see democracy as a threat to what they
represent. And why would they not? Even a lion has to be forced to be
vegetarian.
Tom Friedman found a roundabout way to condemn terrorism. Via a superficial look
at young Indians who have found employment with American companies outsourcing
various customer service functions, he contrasts that with Arabs/Muslims who are
“so lost” they “can find dignity only through suicide and ‘martyrdom’.” Nice to
see him elevating the value of life and good business practices but he still has
no understanding of what motivates suicide bombers (“30
Little Turtles,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 29 February
2004). Being “lost” is not their driving force. And even if Friedman will ‘show
them the way’ they will reject it because they do not see themselves as ‘lost’.
On the contrary, they think everyone who is not a Muslim is lost.
The increase of antisemitism, evidenced particularly (and in accelerated
fashion) in the last three to four years in the Middle East and Europe has
exposed what George Will aptly calls the politics of elimination. The difference
is, the elimination propagated by extreme Right-wingers for decades is now in
vogue for the Left, who adopted the pet cause of the “victimized” Palestinians
(“The
Left’s Antisemitic Chic,” George F. Will, The Washington Post, 25
February 2004).
These politics and avid anarchists have carried that flag for years.
Unfortunately, among their leaders are ‘intellectuals’ like Noam Chomsky who
recently received the attention of an expose worth reviewing (“The
Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky,” Keith Windschuttle, NewCriterion.com, FrontPage
Magazine, 2 May 2003): “Chomsky has declared himself a libertarian and anarchist
but has defended some of the most authoritarian and murderous regimes in human
history. His political philosophy is purportedly based on empowering the
oppressed and toiling masses but he has contempt for ordinary people whom he
regards as ignorant dupes of the privileged and the powerful. He has defined the
responsibility of the intellectual as the pursuit of truth and the exposure of
lies, but has supported the regimes he admires by suppressing truth and
perpetrating falsehoods. He has endorsed universal moral principles but has only
applied them to Western liberal democracies, while continuing to rationalize the
crimes of his own political favorites. He is a mandarin who denounces mandarins.
When caught making culpably irresponsible misjudgments, as he was over Cambodia
and Sudan, he never admitted he was wrong.”
Last week this e-Letter reported on the radicalization of a mosque in Chicago as
evidence of how radicals are gradually taking over the Islamic narrative in the
U.S. There is now a report that radicals are still trying to take over but
without the same measure of success (“Islam
in Conflict in Cleveland,” Stephen Schwartz, Tech Central Station, 24
February 2004). Indeed some measure of hope emanates out of the story of the
Cleveland mosque where members of the community - still fearful and intimidated
by the radicals - are taking proactive steps to resist their influence and
counteract it.
This is an important point because it demonstrates the need but also likelihood
- not very high - that a desired change might come from within the Islamic
community in the U.S. Indeed, if there is any hope the fanatic narrative of the
radicals will ever give way to a different - moderate - rhetoric that hope lies
in the process identified in Cleveland (“The
Courage of Muslim Moderates,” Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, 22
February 2004): “Ultimately, only Muslims can decide whether Islam’s future lies
with the militants or with the moderates. But those of us who are not Muslim can
help the cause of reform and moderation by promoting and encouraging the
moderates, and by repudiating the extremists they are brave enough to
challenge.”
In a week consumed by a movie interpretation about the last 12 hours in the life
of Jesus, the realities of current Arab/Muslim antisemitism and anti-Americanism
are far more threatening than any potential antisemitic sentiments that such a
movie may engender. After all, thus far the coverage of Michael Jackson’s
tribulations (the trials may come later) has occupied more media time than the
Gibson movie and he will in all likelihood have grossed far more money than
Gibson’s movie will. But as serious a topic as Gibson’s movie is, it is high
time the world focuses on the real threats that are visible and identifiable,
not with those that are only perceived. The discussion about Gibson’s movie will
subside fairly soon. The Islamist threat - that mixes religion and death - is
still there wide open for us to recognize.