Initiatives
Sources
Sorry Jack, It IS Lawful, Justified and Productive
April 19, 2004
By Robbie Friedmann
Important news items raced each other last week faster than race cars in a
NASCAR event. By the end of the week the
elimination of Hamas’ terrorist leader Rantisi, and the European ranting about
it, replaced the news from Iraq, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the U.S., the U.S.
backing of his disengagement plan, President George W. Bush’s important press
conference and the Osama “truce” offer. With 19 April marking
Holocaust Memorial Day this year, it is worth connecting some dots among all
these.
Osama purportedly offered peace to Europeans but pledged to continue to
terrorize the U.S. Most Western media outlets correctly translated the offer as
“truce” or “cease-fire” rather than “peace,” and indeed the original Arabic term
used implies a temporary arrangement, an arbitration. This offer sounded far
more as an ultimatum than a good-will gesture. It is shocking that the Europeans
flatly and quickly rejected it (“Osama
bin Laden Speech Offers Peace Treaty with Europe, Says al-Qaeda ‘Will Persist in
Fighting’ the U.S.,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Jihad & Terrorism Studies
Project, 15 April 2004, No. 695).
In his press conference last week (President
Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference, Press Conference of the
President, The East Room, 8:31 P.M. EDT, 13 April 2004), President Bush had all
the appropriate components of defining terrorism as an international affliction
and no longer distinguishing between terrorism directed against Israelis and all
other terrorism connecting the dots with Iraq and standing steadfast on his
policy there: “The violence we are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who
takes hostages or plants a roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same
ideology of murder that kills innocent people on trains in Madrid, murders
children on buses in Jerusalem, blows up a nightclub in Bali and cuts the throat
of a young reporter for being a Jew.”
Sharon’s visit the following day resulted in the strongest support any Israeli
Prime Minister has received from the White House. Defined as a shift in policy
and no less than a “shocker” (“Bush
Concedes West Bank to Israel in Policy Shocker,” Barry Schweid, Associated
Press, 14 April 2004). What was pleasing to many (not all) Israelis was received
as doomsday by Palestinians (“Palestinians
See plan as Disastrous,” Margaret Coker, Craig Nelson, The Atlanta
Journal Constitution, 18 April 2004).
The biggest achievement was the virtual nullification of the Palestinian
so-called “right of return” but on most other issues the declarations fairly
clearly suggest they be solved at the negotiating table - assuming the
Palestinians are ever able to drag themselves there. That clearly means the
declarations the President has made should be perceived to be an opening gambit
to the negotiations (“Double-edged
Bush,” Ze’ev Schiff, Ha’aretz, 15 April 2004). Another achievement
was the removal of any ambiguity about Israel’s territorial predicament, as Bush
has made it clear the 1967 borders are not sacred, relying on the significantly
missing “the” in
U.N. Resolution 242 in reference to “territories” (“Old
Realities,” George Will, TownHall.com, 18 April 2004).
Sharon was not the only visitor to the U.S. He was sandwiched between the ruler
of Egypt and the King of Jordan. But the fairly positive press he received in
the U.S. was not shared by his Egyptian counterpart. In fact a scathing
editorial criticized him (“Our
Man in Cairo,” Editorial, The Washington Post, 12 April 2004) as “the
largest obstacle to President Bush’s democracy initiative in the greater Middle
East.” Not exactly a title fitting one who calls himself a great ally and friend
of the U.S.
He is not - as of yet - defined as an enemy, and neither are some of those from
within who are earnestly involved in an ‘uprising’ against the U.S. An American
academic (“A
Berkeley Prof’s ‘Intifada’ Against America,” Jonathan Calt Harris,
FrontPageMagazine, 15 April 2004) who is a native Palestinian with a Ph.D. in
Islamic Studies from U.C. Berkeley, and currently a lecturer in Near Eastern
Studies and Ethnic Studies Departments there, has literally incited to
“...support the resistance (in Iraq); we’ve got to say that we support attacks
against the occupying forces.”
Not surprisingly, a well-respected journalist has finally dared legitimize the
term “fifth column” in reference to the enemy within (“Islamist
Fifth Columns,” Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Washington Times, 8 April
2004). And he is not only talking about Europe and the increasingly growing
(demographically, culturally and politically) Islamist presence there. He also
makes unequivocal reference to the presence of a fifth column in the U.S. in the
shape of activists such as
Abdurahman Alamoudi, an American citizen who was the prime mover behind the
American Muslim Council, and organizations
such as The Council on
American-Islamic Relations. Some have even gainfully acquired the title of “Islamism’s
Poster Boy” (Alyssa A. Lappen, FrontPageMagazine, 15 April 2004) although it
is no longer clear whether they operate from inside the U.S. any longer.
Others occupy prominent clerical positions in the United States. A Detroit
cleric was brazen enough to write - and a paper gullible enough to print - an
article praising Sheikh Yassin as nothing less than a saint (“Peace
Still Possible Despite Sheik’s Killing,” Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi/Special to
The Detroit News, 10 April 2004) and at the same time fully
‘understanding’ and supporting terrorism. He laced his article in terms of
‘peace’ and ‘justice’, ignoring and twisting facts on the ground and
purposefully misleading the novice reader about what he means by peace and
justice.
Mainstream papers in the U.S. have become channels of propaganda for Arab
writers who skillfully twist facts and spare no efforts to make the perpetrators
look like victims (“Toll
of Young Victims Grows: Palestinian children’s deaths at Israel’s hands draw
little attention,” Khalid Amayreh, The Atlanta Journal Constitution,
15 April 2004). Another article in the Atlanta paper shows far more sympathy for
Palestinians than warranted by the journalists' role of factual report and has
deteriorated into opinion providing (“Palestinians
See Plan as Disastrous,” Margaret Coker, Craig Nelson, The Atlanta
Journal Constitution, 18 April 2004).
The lack of willingness to connect between various types of terrorism and to see
terrorism against one (Israel) as terrorism against all is not the only reason
the West has failed to understand and contain terrorism. A fairly lengthy
history of appeasement has ended with President Bush (“The
Fruits of Appeasement,” Victor Davis Hanson, City Journal, Spring
2004) who, “impervious to such self-deception, has in a mere two and a half
years, reversed the perilous course of a quarter-century. Since September 11, he
has removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, begun to challenge the Middle East
through support for consensual government, isolated Yasser Arafat, pressured the
Europeans on everything from antisemitism to their largesse to Hamas, removed
American troops from Saudi Arabia, shut down fascistic Islamic ‘charities’,
scattered al-Qaeda, turned Pakistan from a de facto foe to a scrutinized
neutral, rounded up terrorists in the United States, pressured Libya, Iran and
Pakistan to come clean on clandestine nuclear cheating, so far avoided another
September 11 and promises that he is not nearly done yet.”
Indeed, the result of the appeasement is that friends and allies ‘cannibalize’
each other while the enemy watches and benefits. This form of cannibalism also
applies to internal debates during times of war (“Western
Cannibalism: Eating each other while our enemies smile,” Victor Davis
Hanson, National Review, 8 April 2004): “...resolution will not come from
recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their
autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent
humiliation of their cause.” Indeed, the irony of the political fiasco of the
9-11 Commission is aptly captured by one commentator (“Thank
You for Choosing United, Mr. bin Laden,” Anne Coulter, WorldNetDaily, 14
April 2004): “Bin Laden is still determined to attack inside the United States!
Could they (commission members) please tell us when and where the next attack
will be?”
Along these lines it is encouraging to see projections for the Middle East that
are understanding of the real issues that shape developments in that region and
the rest of the world by not falling into the trap of political correctness (“Possibilities
for Mideast Peace,” George P. Shultz, The Washington Post, 14 April
2004).
But this does not mean that fronts for the old mantra - that have long proven
themselves as hollow - have disappeared. Prominent among them is Tom Friedman
who continues to see ‘settlements’ as a red flag (“Kicking
Over the Chessboard,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 18
April 2004) and Israel as the ‘problem’ (“The
Anti-Israel Saga of Tom Friedman et al,” Irwin N. Graulich, israelinsider,
14 April 2004)
Yet despite all proof to the opposite, Friedman deeply believes that now is a
good chance for Palestinians to ‘prove’ themselves: “Palestinians will have a
chance to reposition themselves in the eyes of Israelis. They will have a chance
to build a decent ministate of their own in Gaza that will prove to Israelis
they can live in peace next to Israel. It will be hard and they will need help.
Gaza is dirt poor. But if the Palestinians show they can build a decent state,
it will do more to persuade Israelis to give up more of the West Bank, or swap
land there for parts of Israel, than any Bush statements or Hamas terror. This
is the best chance Palestinians have ever had to run their own house without the
Israelis around. I wish them well, because if they do well, everything will be
on the table.” This, as if anyone has prevented them from doing so before. The
problem with this approach is that it does not take into account what will
happen if the Palestinians turn the Gaza strip into a terror state - a far more
likely realistic scenario.
While able to inflict great damage to their enemy, it is encouraging to note
that historically Arabs tend to lose the wars they wage. Probably because of the
very similar reason they tend to fight them in the first place. A military
analysis of their campaigns focuses on the reasons for these losses (“Why
Do Arabs Lose Wars?,” Norvell De Atkine, Middle East Quarterly,
December 1999, Volume VI: Number 4).
The analysis focuses not only on economic, ideological and technical reasons but
also on culture and societal attributes, arguing that “...until Arab politics
begin to change at fundamental levels, Arab armies, whatever the courage or
proficiency of individual officers and men, are unlikely to acquire the range of
qualities which modern fighting forces require for success on the battlefield.
For these qualities depend on inculcating respect, trust and openness among
members of the armed forces at all levels, and this is the marching music of
modern warfare that Arab armies, no matter how much they emulate the
corresponding steps, do not want to hear.” An important point for their
potential adversaries to note. Comforting in its outcome but at what a heavy
price.
Given how the Arabs fight wars the threat may not lie in winning conventional
wars against them (Iraq is illustrative of this point). This is not said to
dismiss the cost of such wars in human lives and property. This is more to point
out that the danger lies in the intentions, style, methods, consistence,
persistence, deceit and any lack of shame associated with it. In short, an ethos
that increasingly proves to be disastrous (“The
Ethos of Islam,” Mordechai Nisan, The Jerusalem Post, 12 April 2004).
Often the people of the region get credit for being passive (when not violent)
by blaming the leaders. The leaders of course blame the ‘street’ for needing to
rule with an iron fist. One observer suggests both are true (“The
Mirror of Fallujah: No more passes and excuses for the Middle East,” Victor
Davis Hanson, 4 April 2004): “If we are to try to bring some good to the Middle
East, then we must first have the intellectual courage to confess that for the
most part the pathologies embedded there are not merely the work of corrupt
leaders but often the very people who put them in place and allowed them to
continue their ruin.”
The seriousness and severity of their malice is omnipresent. Last week the
Jordanians were able to
prevent a major chemical terror attack by al-Qaeda against Jordanian and
American interests. And the Palestinians were also prevented from using
biological agents in a terror attack (“Terrorists
Attempted Bio-Warfare Attack: Tanzim plan to detonate AIDS-tainted charge
foiled. Hizbullah aided and funded plot. Additional Passover attacks thwarted as
well,” Amir Rapaport, Ma’ariv, 13 April 2004).
Hearing the support that an Iraqi terrorist leader has for Hamas and Hizbullah,
one observer suggests (“Familiar
Scene: Feeding continues, so terror continues,” Rachel Ehrenfeld,
National Review, 14 April 2004) that the world failed to contain terrorism
while it still could: “The historical and persisting failure of the U.S. and the
West to denounce Palestinian terrorists’ atrocities, and to put an end to their
activities, was clearly perceived as a weakness by the Islamists. This weakness
is now being exploited by al-Qaeda and other Muslim fundamentalists, who have
taken up arms against the U.S. and Coalition forces.” Indeed, the support and
identification of the Iraqi terrorist with his Palestinian and Lebanese
counterparts emanates out of the perception that these organizations are the
closest to winning their jihad in the Islamist world (“Sadr
and Sharon,” Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, 8 April 2004).
Indeed, frenzy feeds frenzy as the Palestinians were showing full support to
Saddam Hussein by burning Israeli and U.S. flags to commemorate the first
anniversary of Baghdad’s fall (“Palestinians
Urge Holy War against Us,” Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, 9
April 2004). Just before the Hamas terrorist leader was eliminated (“Israel
Kills Hamas Leader Rantisi,” Ma’ariv News Service, 17 April 2004) he
was able still to send the following message to the “Iraqi people:” “...the
Palestinian people are with you, you are fighting the American terrorism as we
fight the Zionist terrorism. I’m certain that you would win your battle against
the Americans and you would of course defeat American terrorism. You are there
on the front line because you are fighting the enemies of God and Islam, the
murderers Bush and Sharon.” After statements like this, one remains befuddled as
to why anyone would insist on offering the Palestinians a state of their own.
While the American administration was careful not to condemn Israel for
eliminating Rantisi and clearly expressed the sentiment that Israel has the
right to defend herself, the U.N. and the Europeans were quick to condemn the
elimination as quick as they were to reject bin Laden’s “truce” offer. The
British Foreign Secretary, true to his colors, condemned the act as “unlawful,
unjustified and counter-productive” (“Israel
Kills Top Hamas Leader in Missile Strike,” Reuters, 17 April 2004) and the
EU foreign policy chief has added that “Israel has a right to protect its
citizens from terrorist attacks, but actions of this type are not only unlawful,
they are not conducive to lowering tension.” One remains wondering how terrorist
atrocities contribute to lowering tensions because those are not usually
condemned by the high-minded Europeans. Thus one must conclude they are
tolerated as long as they are not targeting Europe and England. Good old Jack
Straw is simply wrong. Rantisi’s elimination is lawful, it is justified and it
is productive. Letting him live this long was not.
The Americans increasingly understand who the terrorists are. Little wonder.
After all, his elimination was helpful to the U.S. in the same way that Israeli
anti-terror tactics are increasingly found to be helpful to the U.S. in its war
in Iraq (“U.S.
Using Israeli Tactics to Subdue Iraq Uprising,” World Tribune.com, 16 April
2004). One can remain wondering if the Brits will be ever able or willing to
connect the dots without having to experience Islamic terrorism at their
doorstep. Given Blair’s humiliating visit to Libya and the shameful declarations
by his Foreign Minister, it perhaps matters not to the Brits even if they will
be hit again as they were in
Lockerbie.
The Brits, who were quick to send Blair to shake Ghaddafi’s hand and welcome him
back to civilization, are back to their old tricks and now are thumbing their
noses at the U.S. by meddling in the affairs of the Gaza Strip. Specifically
they are training Palestinian ‘security’ forces, except they have conveniently
ignored that the top slots these forces occupy are on the U.S. terror list (“Gaza
– the British are Coming: British involvement in Gaza,” Shmuel Bar, AME
exclusive – 11 April 2004).
Astute observers have warned that virulent antisemitism ends up historically
causing great damage to their instigators not only to their intended victims.
Indeed, current antisemitism in Europe is strongly based on a combined Euro-Arab
anti-Israel sentiment as well as anti-Israel policy but it also has
anti-Christian, anti-European and eventually anti-Western ramifications (“Eurabia
and Euro-Arab Antisemitism,” Bat Ye’or, FrontPageMagazine, 5 April 2004).
Others identify fundamental demographic and cultural changes in Europe with
unforeseen long-term consequences that portend danger not only to Europe but to
the rest of the free world (“The
Way We Live Now: Eurabia?,” Niall Ferguson, The New York Times, 4
April 2004).
For the last few decades Islamist violence has mainly met a church that
preferred to look the other way, for the simple reason of wishing to protect
Christian interests of a decreasing Christian population in places holy to
Christianity. However, in the last year profoundly critical voices have been
heard from the Church. In October 2003 the Vatican denounced with unusual
harshness the oppression of Christians in Muslim countries (“The
Church and Islam: ‘La Civiltà Cattolica’ Breaks the Cease-fire,” Sandro
Magister).
And more recently the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, criticized
Islam itself as “authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving” (“An
Archbishop Tells the Truth About Islam,” Val MacQueen, FrontPageMagazine, 6
April 6004). This resulted in denunciation from the expected British Islamic
quarters, although at least one self-styled Islamist leader later suggested
terrorism not be tolerated and should be reported to police, to which the
leading Islamist radical cleric said that doing so means “apostasy in Islam.”
The Archbishop was joined later by the head of the Catholic Church in England
and Wales, Cardinal O’Connor (“Cardinal
Criticizes Muslim Leaders,” The Western Mail, 12 April 2004) but the
Archbishop might have given up such support - had he been asked - as the
Cardinal indirectly justified terrorism by suggesting it is rooted in
“inequities” - a claim often used as an excuse by terrorists. Nevertheless, the
mere agreement with the Archbishop is significant enough to show that Christian
leaders in England have decided it is time to air their grievances in public and
no longer remain silent.
Support for the charges by the Church clerics is found in no better source than
an Arab liberal writer who argues that leading Muslim ideologues display
positive attitudes towards the use of violence (“Arab
Liberal: Most Islamic Ideologues, Organization Leaders Advocate Violence,”
MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Reform Project, 16 April 2004, No. 696).
This week, Israel and the Jewish people commemorate the Holocaust in an annual
anniversary that now spans 59 years since the most horrendous experience in
human history. An insane system that used a rationally sane scientific approach
to exterminate human beings simply for who they were. And not only six million
Jews. Five million “others:”
Poles, Afro-Europeans, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, disabled, homosexuals and
Jews who converted to Christianity. A total of 11 million people became victims
to perpetrators who thought they were ‘superior’ to them and measured their
‘superiority’ by the ‘inferiority’ of the ‘subhuman’
they so expertly vilified.
The importance of Holocaust Memorial Day
lies in remembering so as to never forget the atrocity that was committed by
evil and learning the lesson so it will never happen again. The challenge the
Islamists of the Osama bin Laden kind (including their peers in Iran, Hamas,
Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Tanzim, Muslim Brotherhood, to name a few, and
many sister organizations as well as those who support them) are posing to us is
no less sinister than the Holocaust. If we are not watchful and vigilant we will
allow an even worse holocaust (if one can imagine that) upon us. Just consider
the history so that it is not allowed to repeat itself. As
Sharon said commemorating the Holocaust: “We won’t let murderers hurt our
people...Our face is toward peace, but the defending sword will not be returned
to its sheath.”