Initiatives
Sources
The Train in Spain Fell Mainly off the
Rail (with apologies to “My Fair Lady”)
March 13, 2004
By Robbie Friedmann
The horrendous terror atrocity that murdered about 200 and injured some 1600 on
Madrid trains has already become Spain’s 9-11, acquiring its own symbol of 3-11,
and is seen by some as a ‘reminder’ that the war on terrorism has not ended (“Spain’s
3/11: A horrifying reminder that the war on terror is not over,” Editorial,
Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2004). As if reminders are needed.
Initial reports from Spain blamed the multiple blasts on the Basque separatist
group ETA and reports suggest that the Spanish foreign minister instructed all
Spanish ambassadors to push this notion no matter what other evidence comes up
(while keeping all investigation avenues “open”). This is partly because in
Spain an act by ETA will be perceived as a unifying factor, while terrorism by
Islamist groups may tilt the sentiment against the Spanish involvement in the
war on terror. Given the elections slated for next week, the stakes are indeed
very high. Even the U.N. Security Council rushed to condemn ETA even as it
had no proof ETA was involved (see
U.N. Resolution
1530).
Nevertheless, initial non-Spanish reports suspected al-Qaeda involvement and
shortly thereafter ETA denied any responsibility and al-Qaeda indeed quickly
declared it (“Al-Qaeda
Took Responsibility for Thursday’s Madrid Bombings: 190 people killed, 1,400
injured in Madrid train bombings. Stolen car with detonators and tapes in Arabic
found near Madrid,” Ma’ariv Online, 11 March 2004), and respected
Israeli analysts tended to accept it at face value.
And thus a slew of speculations has started in earnest and is unlikely to be
abated until further credible information comes out. One respected watch group
is dubious of the declaration (and the act) being the product of al-Qaeda (“The
Alleged al-Qaeda Statement of Responsibility for the Madrid Bombings:
Translation and Commentary,” Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, Inquiry & Analysis - Jihad
& Terrorism Studies, 12 March 2004, No. 166).
Yet European intelligence sources are reported as insisting it was an al-Qaeda
operation (“European
Intelligence: al-Qaeda Sleepers Planned Attack,” Special to World
Tribune.com, 12 March 2004), and U.S. sources seem to also buy into the al-Qaeda
angle but at least they caution it is too early to know for certain (“Bombing
Clues Point To Islamist Terrorists: But Officials Say It’s Too Soon to Know,”
Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, 12 March 2004).
This flurry of speculations only serves the interest of the terrorists. If they
have plausibly denied involvement yet can go on performing their atrocities
without being stopped, then having third parties take responsibility or
deflecting it from one group to another only serves to spread more fog and
increase the fear even further. At this point it could be al-Qaeda, ETA, some
splinter group or - the more horrifying thought - a closely coordinated
operation between all of the above.
That is exactly the reason why capturing one arch-terrorist will matter little
in the long term (but a great deal now). Hitler could not have done what he did
without an infra-structure that believed in him and supported his policies. Bin
Laden could be an independent operator but when looking at Iran (and North
Korea?) one remains wondering how long will it (they) benefit from the terror
that many signs indicate is guided, funded, designed and coordinated by Iran
worldwide (“Capturing
bin Laden isn’t Enough,” Daniel Pipes, The Jerusalem Post, 9 March
2004).
Agreeing with Bernard Lewis, a commentator suggests that terrorists are becoming
desperate and by directing many of their recent actions against fellow Muslims
are losing (“The Radicals Are
Desperate: Islamic radicals are proving that the war against terror is not a
clash between civilizations, but a clash within a civilization,” Fareed
Zakaria, Newsweek, 15 March 2004).
Even if the declaration of “victory” over the terrorists is more than a bit
premature, this view at least exposes the fact that Arabs/Muslims have to
wrestle with their own internal problems and that this unleashed force of
barbarism has a double-edged sword that does not spare their own. And indeed for
the “first time in half a century the royal (Saudi) family is more worried about
American support for democratic change in the Middle East than we are of an oil
embargo” (“Do
We Want to Go Back?” Victor David Hanson, National Review, 5 March
2004).
This also fits into the Iranian picture. Fearing an internal uprising against
the regime, the Ayatollahs opt to deepen their involvement in creating mayhem
all over the world and lashing out at the “Zionist and American enemies.” But
they also have a deep interest in destabilizing Iraq and that explains rather
well why they kill their fellow Muslims so they can have sectarian fights that
will eventually - or so they hope - defeat the U.S. there (in Iran’s backyard)
and leave them in control.
Desperation has never meant there is no blame to be found. And the terrorists
find plenty. It is their way to ignore the woes of their own society and to shed
any responsibility for it by blaming outsiders. The likes of Osama bin Laden and
the Palestinians have created a terror industry coupled with sophisticated
‘blame propaganda’ that would have been hilarious had it not cost people’s
lives. Like the criminal who kills his parents and then cries he is an orphan,
they use terror and then claim the West is responsible for it or that the West
has actually done it. And by West they specifically point to Israel and the U.S.
(“PA: Blaming Israel, U.S. for Arab Terror,” Itamar Marcus,
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, 12
March 2004).
An illustration and reminder of Jimmy Carter’s failed understanding of
international relations as president and today as a pretentious (but
discredited) ‘moral beacon’ can be found in an article written by his national
security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski (“The
Wrong Way to Sell Democracy to the Arab World,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, The
New York Times, 8 March 2004).
Zbig, who
dismissed Islamism in the late 1990s, argues that George W. Bush is trying to
implement democracy in the Middle East the wrong way. He could have suggested
that democracy there is not possible, but that is not his beef. What irritates
him is that Bush is not nice enough to the Arabs, is not ‘sensitive’ enough to
their needs and that he uses ‘democracy’ as a tool to delay the settling of the
Israel-Palestinian conflict (as if it does not really mean ‘Arab-Israeli’
conflict). His undeclared motto is “Be nice to the Arabs and solve the
Palestinian issue” and nirvana will come to the world. This, by the way, was the
underlying criticism against going to war in Iraq: that the road to Baghdad goes
through Jerusalem. Namely, solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict first. As Zbig
himself likes to say: nonsense.
In fact, no other than a Jordanian cabinet member provides a diplomatic lesson
to Zbig by suggesting the exact opposite. Reform in the Arab world does not have
the luxury of waiting until that conflict is settled, perhaps partly because the
lack of reform is what is responsible for it in the first place (“Jordanian
Minister of Planning Awadallah Says the Israel-Palestinian Conflict is No Excuse
for Lack of Arab Reform,” Access|Middle East, 8 March 2004).
And one of the most prominent Middle East scholars proves time and again the
problem is indeed with the Arabs because they are the ones using terrorism and
they are the ones rejecting any reasonable settlement including a Palestinian
state. Bernard Lewis believes that democracy has to succeed because the
alternative is continued tyranny and terrorism: “There are two kinds of
terrorism, but, mind you, they’re not in conflict and are often unified in their
actions. The first kind is always armed with highly ideological means and is
aimed at preserving existing tyrannies. The second, al-Qaeda kind, is aimed at
subjugating the entire Western world.” (“Avoid
the Algerian Precedent,” Fiamma Nirenstein, The Jerusalem Post, 11
March 2004).
This point is more evident than ever in the position taken by Israeli Arabs who
adamantly refuse to have their villages become part of potential Palestinian
rule (“Picking
One Home Over Another,” Erik N. Nelson, Newsday, 7 March 2004).
Despite their affinity with their Palestinian brethren, Israeli Arabs prefer to
stay under Israel’s rule. Given that they will not be uprooted and physically
moved under this plan but simply switched from Israeli rule to Palestinian rule,
their objection is rather telling of their mistrust of Palestinian rule and that
with all their complaints about Israel they prefer its proven democracy over the
abuses of their fellow Arabs (“Umm
el-Fahm, Palestine,” Matti Golan, The Jerusalem Post, 10 March 2004).
Of course, it also gives them a bridgehead to undermine Israel from within.
Sensing an ever so slight wind of change in the Arab/Muslim world, a prominent
Israeli figure notes the perception of what Israel stands for and what Arabs are
doing is striking a cord among some Arab writers who realize the true values
that characterize and differentiates these societies and openly acknowledges
them (“Something’s
Changing in Arab Media,” Amnon Rubinstein, Ha’aretz, 8 March 2004):
“in Israel’s view, the life of an Israeli, even one of Arab origin, is
considered invaluable. In contrast, an Arab citizen can be thrown into prison
for having surfed on the opposition’s Web site ... that shows how much a
citizen’s life is worth in the eyes of Arab regimes.” Except of course that an
Arab/Muslim life is far cheaper than that. Erroneous imprisonment happens in the
most enlightened democracies but wanton killing does not characterize them. Not
as a philosophy. Not as a practice. Not as state/religion policies (of course
with the exception of the Holocaust). Not so in a community that does not
cherish the life of others as well as that of its very own.
But terrorism does not only mean the killing of innocent civilians and striking
fear in the heart of an unsuspecting population. It is also arrogantly taking
over images and language. In 2001, Muslims clerics demanded the Pentagon change
“infinite justice” - its code name for the war against terrorism - because it
was “offensive” to Muslims. Apparently it was also offensive to some “sensitive
circles” in the U.S. (“Infinite
Justice? Recall the Pentagon’s new code name for the war against terror --
before it’s too late," Scott Rosenberg, Salon.com, 20 September 2001) and
abroad (“The
Algebra of Infinite Justice: As the U.S. prepares to wage a new kind of war,
Arundhati Roy challenges the instinct for vengeance,” The Guardian,
29 September 2001).
Ten days after the 9-11 atrocity Muslim clerics worried more about the language
the American president was using - finding it ‘offensive’ - than worrying about
the terrorism they were actively or passively conducive in producing. And
commentators in the U.S. and England were more concerned about being politically
correct than about condemning terrorism. One could only wonder if Winston
Churchill submitted British World War II code words for Hitler’s clearance and
Joseph Goebbels
acceptance prior to their use.
And this still continues. Now Arab American advocacy activists are complaining
the President’s TV campaign ads ‘profile’ Arabs (“Group
Says Bush Ad ‘Profiles’ Arabs: Removal of unidentified photo urged,” Julia
Malone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 13 March 2004). One might want
to be persuaded perhaps that a photo of
Betty Crocker
would have been more appropriate as we all clearly know that recent terrorists
have been ‘all-American’-looking white females. Oh they do not stop. Another
Arab-American ‘advocacy’ group now wants Webster to change its definition of
antisemitism (“Arab
Group: Change Dictionary Entry on Antisemitism,” Ori Nir, Forward, 4
March 2004) and other Arab writers also try to ‘refine’ the differences between
being anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, trying to ‘remind’ the world that “Arabs are
Semites too” (“What
is Antisemitism?” George S. Hishmeh, Jordan Times, 5 March 2004).
With this intense pace they may be candidates for the Nobel Prize in
linguistics. Surely Noam Chomsky will enthusiastically recommend them.
These are by no means naive and well-intended efforts at correcting language,
but rather shrewd tactics to control it. The proof is in the activities they are
involved in. While feverishly condemning ‘profiling’ and the use of ‘offensive’
language these ‘advocacy’ groups embark on a relentless propaganda war, for they
feel they have an entitlement that is immune from any similar criticism. Thus
one such group invited a neo-Nazi to address students apparently in line with
the long tradition of Muslim-Nazi cooperation (“CAIR
Promotes a Neo-Nazi’s Talk,” Daniel Pipes, 11 March 2004).
At the same time they do not shy away from intimidating tactics, harassing even
those who are sympathetic to the establishment of a Palestinian state simply
because they also support Israel (“Bigotry
Outside Faneuil Hall,” Alan Dershowitz, Israelinsider, 5 March 2004)
prompting the famous attorney to state: “The other day, I experienced violent
antisemitism for the first time in my adult life. It took place in front of
Faneuil Hall, the birthplace of American independence and liberty.”
Antisemitism is difficult to understand. When most argue that Mel Gibson’s movie
is not antisemitic (except that most Jews think it is) a prominent novelist and
cultural critic and former catholic priest,
James Carroll is baffling
in his inconsistency when dealing with Jewish-Christian matters on one hand and
Israeli-Palestinian issues on the other. When it gets to the latter he somehow
loses or purposefully ignores the nexus between Jews and Israel to an extent
that seems to nullify his contribution to the former (“The
James Carroll Paradox,” Andrea Levin, The Jerusalem Post, 9 March
2004).
That point is proven by a recent op-ed piece in the Guardian (that
British source of ‘objectivity’) where the writer - a former editor -
essentially suggests that Jews are responsible for the surge of antisemitism
because of their own action (“A
Grotesque Choice: Israel’s repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a
resurgence of antisemitism,” Max Hastings, The Guardian, 11 March
2004). He of course replaces “Israel” for “Jews” as if the two are somehow not
intertwined and proceeds - unstoppable - to perform double victimization: admit
that Jews are victims of antisemitism and then claim they are responsible for
their own victimization. Exemplary logic.
The reality of the outcome of such antisemitic rhetoric (whether malicious or
‘well-intended’) is that words become guides for action, the results of which
are evident in the remnants of the concentration camps as historical witnesses
to the genocide that took place in them (“‘The
Passion’ is Mute Next to Auschwitz’s Quiet Power,” Claudia Rosett, The
Wall Street Journal, 10 March 2004).
There is no denial of the surge of modern Islamist antisemitism, both religious
and secular. The problem is with attribution of cause and effect. The Arab
version of antisemitism is independent of what the Jews do. It is inherent in
the mere objections to whatever signified Muslims losing control over their
perceived dominance. The problem is that it has drawn little attention from
those who should have studied it, and it is therefore somewhat encouraging to
see a call - even if belated - to recognize the need to focus on Islamic
antisemitism appear in no other than the most important higher education
newspaper (“The
Urgent Need to Study Islamic Antisemitism,” Neil J. Kressel, Chronicle of
Higher Education, 11 March 2004): “The warning signs surrounding Muslim
Jew-hatred are too ominous to ignore. The dehumanizing rhetoric used to denounce
Jews in the Muslim world is precisely the sort that alarms scholars who study
genocide and mass atrocities. Surely the problem of Muslim antisemitism merits
the attention of Western social scientists.”
The view from Spain is depressingly sad. This mega-terror took the life of
hundreds of people, injured thousands and shocked millions (not only in Spain).
Every human being must have felt pain and many displayed sympathy with the
victims. Yet the U.N. has never jumped the gun (excuse the metaphor) on
Palestinian atrocities and thus far no one came out with statements that Spain
should grant independence to the Basques. But this atrocity was the first in the
heart of civilized Europe and it must have an effect on its citizens who now saw
for the first time numerous people being blown away, and it was not in Israel or
the U.S. Many European countries have elevated their alert level and for the
first time Greece showed concern over Olympic security. The reminder we needed -
that terrorism is scourge - was not yet another terrorist act. Rather what is
needed is a world united in fighting it. Fat chance. A diet is urgently needed
to equalize the odds.
Note: Subsequent to the writing of this article, al-Qaeda and not the Basque
movement ETA is the prime suspect of the Madrid massacre; and the Socialists won
the Spanish election.