Initiatives
Sources
Thou Shalt Not Kill! . . .?
May 16, 2004
By Robbie Friedmann
A recruit for a suicide bombing mission had timely second thoughts on the way to
meet his 72 virgins and apparently preferred to have his chances with them on
Earth (“West
Bank Teen Halts Suicide Bombing Role,” Mohammed Daraghmeh, The Washington
Post, The Associated Press, 10 May 2004). But one or even a few such cases
do not stop the flow of the many who are ready to give up their lives for Yasser
Arafat, a corrupt criminal who has a well-oiled terror machine (“The
Teflon Terrorists,” Rachel Ehrenfeld, FrontPageMagazine.com, 11 May 2004)
and who continually inflames violence in the area (“Arafat
Calls on Palestinians to ‘Terrorize Your Enemy,’” Arnon Regular, Ha’aretz,
15 May 2004).
Arafat, playing out his status as Nobel Peace Prize winner and the great
humanitarian he is (“Mofaz:
Palestinians Smuggled Body Parts in UNWRA Ambulances,” Ma’ariv
service, 15 May 2004) succeeded in his 15 May speech (commemorating the
Palestinian “Day of Catastrophe” they brought upon themselves) to destroy in one
sentence the “Geneva
Accord” that his Israeli protagonists were so proud of: Arafat insisted the
Palestinian refugees have a “right” to terrorize Israel and also “the
right to return to Palestine,” namely, to destroy Israel. Arafat has finally
emptied all air from the Geneva Accord that was based in large part on selling
Israelis the idea that Palestinians have given up the “right of return.”
This is an important point because the Western world still tends to view the
Arab-Israeli conflict as distinct from its own war on terrorism. The U.S.
benefits from Israel’s experience in fighting terrorism yet it still sees
Israel’s efforts not as part of the ‘global’ war on terror. The beheadings of
Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg or the parading of a head of an Israeli soldier in
the streets of Gaza come from the same mind-set that has the exact same goals
and destiny for all Westerners (“The
Two-Conflict Delusion,” Saul Singer, The Jerusalem Post, 13 May
2004).
There is only one overall war against terrorism (and the forces behind it) and
that war involves many battles on many fronts: “Does anyone really believe that
all the head-severing crowd wants is to live in peace with Israel? To claim the
conflicts are separate is to imply that brutal murderers are capable of wanting
peace, and to grant the terrorists the high moral ground. Someday, the West will
win and the jihadi camp will lose its stranglehold over the Palestinians and
other parts of the Muslim world. At that time, the Arab-Israeli conflict will be
solvable, just as the Cold War evaporated with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Until then, playing into the enemy’s two-conflict game is not a sign of hope but
a delusion that drives away the hope it seeks to keep alive.
Following the knee-jerk reaction to the Iraqi prison fiasco there, is a danger
of ‘over-correction’ of the prison system there that could hurt intelligence
gathering efforts. Yet, more level-headed commentary has been seen. Admittedly,
the prison pictures are shocking and so are the abuses that took place; but from
all we know this was not torture. It was humiliation and for those who cannot
afford being humiliated but can afford to die while murdering others this may
have been a far more humane method than torture. In that sense the apology of
President George W. Bush (and then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld) was
inappropriate and only weakens the U.S. stand as a powerful nation, as after all
we offended our own values not Arab ones (“Torturous
Apology,” Mark Steyn, The Jerusalem Post, 11 May 2004).
Indeed, the apology to an Arab ruler by the President of the United States is
seen as a mistake and so was the relegation of Iraq’s future to a U.N.
representative who is the epitome of the problems of the Arab world (“The Curse
of Pan-Arabia,” Fouad Ajami, The Wall Street Journal, 12 May 2004). As
the ‘dean’ of Middle East scholars suggests, the very notion of the U.S. turning
to the U.N. renders it weak in the eyes of the players in the Middle East
(“Iraq, India, Palestine: Turning to the U.N. only Confirms the Arabs’
Perception that the U.S. is Weak,” Bernard Lewis, Wall Street Journal, 12
May 2004).
Not surprisingly, and regrettably, some Western media have even outpaced Arab
sources in already placing the blame for the Iraqi prison scandal on... Israel
(“Blaming
Israel for Abu Ghraib?,” Honest Reporting, Communiqué, 10 May 2004). Yet
blatant antisemitism is too much for even some French journalists who suggest
that Israel is the cause of modern Arab antisemitism. They fail to grasp that
such a position actually underscores if not legitimizes antisemitism (“Antisemitism
in the Arab World,” Dominique Vidal, Le Monde Diplomatique, May
2004). At least they are capable enough in identifying its danger - if not for
the Jews then for the Arabs - by stating that “antisemitic propaganda is
retrogressive for the Arab world and will do it untold harm.”
Some suggest the Arabs have no leg to stand on when they criticize the U.S. for
mishandling prisoners (“Iraqi
Abuse?” Don Feder, FrontPageMagazine.com, 4 May 2004). Such suggestions are
forgetful that Arab propaganda is smart, vicious, gross, and knows what strings
to pull in order to intimidate and weaken the West. Having no leg to stand on
has never bothered them. But truly the important issue in the Iraqi prison is
that humiliation is not torture and to wit, an experienced writer illustrates
this by outlining real historical examples of torture (“U.S.
Atrocities in Iraq,” Walter E. Williams, Townhall.com, 12 May 2004).
Indeed, in an illustration of what torture is, the Iraqi prison fiasco was
contrasted with the torture of several foreign nationals by the Saudis who
forced them to ‘admit’ they committed terrorism on Saudi soil. Apparently it was
easier to deflect blame to others than admit they have a home-grown problem (“Saudi
Justice?” CBS “60 Minutes,” 9 May 2004). The Saudis of course denied it and
their ambassador to London said they “do not torture people.” Of course it is
well known that they are all too busily involved in humanitarian activities that
are purely intended to improve the human condition and do not have time or the
inclination to torture anyone. And given Arafat’s winning of the Nobel prize it
is probably only a matter of time before the Saudi national executioner will
join him as a winner.
It is doubtful the “60 Minutes” segment on Saudi torture was effective in
putting the Iraqi prison story in perspective. But the public murder of Berg did
(“Turning
Shame into Outrage,” Charles Paul Freund, Los Angeles Times, 13 May
2004): “Shameless brutality of this degree has the power to transform the shame
of Zarqawi’s enemies. Zarqawi has reminded his enemies that, unlike him, they
are at least capable of shame. Zarqawi’s righteous snuff movie is an act of
lunacy, a gift to his enemies and, one hopes, an unwitting suicide note.”
Berg had the misfortune of joining a long list of terror victims, such as
Daniel Pearl who was
murdered in a similar fashion, and
Leon Klinghoffer who
was shot and pushed into the sea. Or thousands of others who were stabbed,
blown-up, shot or had their office building collapse on them as a result of
using civilian jetliners as missiles by the same kind of terrorists..
Some reacted with understandable abhorrence (“Nick
Berg’s Murder,” Editorial, New York Post, 12 May 2004). Others tried
to find out what this murder means for the West, suggesting that it does not
understand the true nature of the Islamist threat (“The
Beheading of an Innocent,” Walid Phares, FrontPageMagazine, 12 May 2004).
Some perceive that it actually resulted in “stiffening American resolve and
inflaming American outrage,” yet they also suggest we fight this war “to save
Islam,” seeing al-Qaeda as an aberration rather than something that emanated out
of Islam or is supported by it (“What
Nick Berg’s Murder Tells,” Andrew Sullivan, FrontPageMagazine.com, 12 May
2004). One only needed to watch representatives of American Muslim advocacy
groups squirming in their seats unable to condemn Berg’s heinous murder or
suggesting it is ‘atypical’ of Islam (“Still
Waiting...,” Neil Cavuto, FOX News, 12 May 2004).
Others used the murder to put the prison fiasco in perspective (“A
Reminder of the Enemy’s True Nature: A crime that puts the prison abuse into
perspective,” Joe Scarborough, Jewish World Review, 13 May 2004). Or that
“We are at war with a vicious enemy, and propaganda in wartime is a weapon whose
consequences can be deadly,” suggesting that the prison pictures and the way
Western media handled them helped provide the excuse for the murder - a rather
doubtful argument (“The
Images We See -- and Those We Don’t,” Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe,
13 May 2004).
In a Machiavellian way, Arab news sources lament Berg’s murder as damaging to
the Arab cause, but not because murder is bad but rather because it ‘erased’ the
impact of the prison fiasco. Yet an Arab editorial is not shy of criticizing
Arab leaders and at least calling on them to take proper action as a direct
lesson from the Berg murder [“Berg’s
Death Augurs Ill for Arab Societies,” Editorial, The Daily Star
(Beirut), 13 May 2004]: “... the region’s kings, princes and presidents need to
learn a valuable lesson from this abhorrent incident: that fractured societies
produce real-life theaters of shame like the Berg murder in a systemic manner,
and that similar fractures are infecting their own societies. If the Berg
beheading does not catapult the region’s leaders from the world of lethargy to
the world of vigorous action to establish law and order in their own societies -
and beginning with themselves - then they will be considerably weakened. They
need to prove that their vision extends beyond their own vested interests to
their people and societies. What more is needed to galvanize Arab leaders into
action? Today, a man named Berg was put to the sword; tomorrow, it could be the
Arab nation torn asunder by the same savagery. A reassessment of the concept of
‘leadership’ is urgently required, and the Arab summit scheduled for 22-23 May
would be an excellent place to begin.”
Just do not hold hopes too high for that Arab summit to produce any tangible
results.
There is a story about a primitive fellow who wanders tired and thirsty in the
desert. He finds a railroad track which is certainly easier to walk on than
sand. He then hears a whistle, but having never seen a train before - and this
one being hidden behind a small hill - by the time he realized what was coming
at him it was too late. His leg got stuck in the track and the train cut it off.
Years later his wife bought a new kettle and placed it on the stove to boil
water for tea. When the water boiled the kettle whistled. He then quickly got up
from his chair, ran to the stove, dropped the kettle to the floor, beat it up
with his cane and stomped all over it with his wooden leg. To his bewildered
wife he said: “It is important to kill these monsters when they are small.”
Indeed, much of the trouble today could have been avoided had the writing on the
wall been heeded in the mid 1970s and an ultimatum issued to the ‘revolutionary’
Islamists in Teheran to release the American hostages with a clear ‘or else’ (“The
Wages of Appeasement: How Jimmy Carter and academic multiculturalists helped
bring us Sept. 11.,” Victor Davis Hanson, The Wall Street Journal, 10
May 2004). The attitude of appeasement has not been totally defeated, even after
9-11, but the U.S. will “neither appease nor ignore such killers but in fact
finish the terrible war that they started.”
Yet there are still forces everywhere in the West who do not understand that
terrorists do not need a reason to be ‘provoked’. Our mere existence is enough
for them. These forces also arrogantly believe that one is enough to tango and
they rush to blame America for everything that is wrong with the world (“Blaming
America First,” Linda Chavez, Jewish World Review, 13 May 2004).
One of the leading voices of appeasement - even if a supporter of the war in
Iraq - argues that the U.S. “made a mess” in Iraq. And after correctly
identifying that the problem lies with the Arabs (“Cursed
by Oil,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 9 May 2004) he then
offers his tireless mantra that the U.S. is responsible for it and that the
Israeli settlements are an “obstacle” to progress in the area (“Dancing
Alone,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 13 May 2004).
He pays lip service to acknowledge that Israel is a democracy and Iraq is not,
but then goes as far as equating Israeli ‘settlers’ with extremist Shiites in
Iraq (“Tyranny
of the Minorities,” Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 16 May
2004). One remains bewildered as to what it is he does not understand about
democracy and when the last time was that Israelis sent suicide bombers against
Arab populations anywhere. Perhaps, if he gets his own news from NPR it may
explain why he sees victim as perpetrator (“The
Kids Deserved to be Killed?” Tamar Sternthal, CAMERA.org, 14 May 2004).
Constructive criticism is usually helpful, but what we see today is evidence of
a political agenda that is supportive of terrorism. The world does not stand up
in rage and anger against those who terrorize people in Bali, Istanbul, Jerba,
Jerusalem, Madrid or New York. By criticizing the victims’ (offensive and
defensive) measures against terrorism these not-so-innocent groups are aiding
and abetting terrorism. After all, just imagine a million people marching in
Paris, London and Washington against the radical Islamists who preach hate and
support terrorism. Wouldn’t that be a powerful message? The moral support that
terrorists receive today from inside Western sources is equivalent to if not
greater than the impact collaborators with Nazis had (“Proposal
for Universal Demonstrators,” Yaakov Achimeir, Ma’ariv, 9 May 2004).
Some - even in Europe - do understand the gravity of the challenges the West is
facing (“Why
the West is Fighting – and Why it Must Win,” London Daily Telegraph,
13 May 2004). Others add a dimension of urgency (“Stop
Navel Gazing,” Caroline Glick, The Jerusalem Post, 14 May 2004): “In
behaving as though the Palestinian branch of the global jihad is engaging in a
war over a few kilometers in Gaza, Judea and Samaria rather than playing a
central role in the global jihad against non-Muslims, we are making it harder
for our allies, first and foremost the Americans, to see the true nature of the
war they too are fighting. If it is only Israeli settlers who are preventing
peace by living in mobile homes in Judea and Samaria then perhaps it is only
America in its ‘arrogance’ that is preventing the jihadis from coming to a
meeting of the minds with the West. As the jihad spreads throughout the world,
we must stop finally with our self-destructive self-absorption. The butchers in
Zeitoun who kicked the remains of our soldiers like footballs on Tuesday, like
the butchers in Baghdad, Karachi, Riyadh and beyond who kill with barbaric
ecstasy and primordial hatred do so not because of anything we have done. They
do so because they are barbarians. And if we do not wish to be destroyed, we
must do everything to destroy them and nothing to give them hope for victory
against us.”
Indeed, some see it correctly as a fight for survival and therefore argue that
nothing short of an absolute victory is acceptable (“It’s
a Fight for Survival -- Pull Out All Stops,” Bruce Herschensohn, Los
Angeles Times, 12 May 2004): “The only subject worthy of our national
attention and the only pursuit that should be acceptable is total victory - no
matter if others are offended or even destroyed.”
Interestingly enough, even in Israel, which has shown tremendous restraint over
the last three and a half years of unrelenting terror against its population,
there are voices calling for far more drastic measures than have been used to
date, suggesting to inflict serious damage on the enemy (“Time
for a change in Tactics,” Margot Dudkevitch, The Jerusalem Post, 11
May 2004): “Maybe it’s time to act like other armies and do what we have to do –
and force the other side to pay the price. Maybe that is the only way to wipe
terrorism off the map.” And not only journalists in Israel but also strategists
there are suggesting it as they assess the threats (“Strategists
Call for Israeli Strikes against Expanding WMD Threat,” World Tribune.com,
14 May 2004).
Even a Nobel Peace Prize winner is joining the crowd (probably to the chagrin of
the Prize Selection Committee) arguing that war is necessary to save people when
the threat against them is more evil than war itself (“Sometimes,
a War Saves People: We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do
evil,” Jose Ramos-horta, The Wall Street Journal, 13 May 2004): “It
is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being
politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from
Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq
risk doing.”
Christian clergy who dared to speak against terrorism have been attacked (so far
only verbally), not only by the terrorists and their supporters from within but
also by their supporters from without. A case in point is the former Archbishop
of Canterbury (“Carey
under Fire Again Over ‘Muslim Martyrs’ Speech,” London Daily Telegraph,
13 May 2004).
In a sense, it really does not matter if this is a religious war or not (“Islam
Has Lost its Way,” Shmuley Boteach, The Jerusalem Post, 12 May 2004).
The fact remains that extremists have hijacked the narrative of Muslims and it
became not only dominant but unchallenged. While there are protests in the West
against the war - and in Israel against government policy - one is yet to see
protests in the Arab/Muslim world (and for that matter in the free world as
well) against terrorism. The problem is that being devout or not, using God’s
name in vain is still powerfully heard around the world and ‘battle’ cries as
well as heinous murders carried out by terrorists are preceded and followed by
invoking their god’s name (“Devil’s
Work Done in the Name of God: The chant of Allahu Akbar – God is Great – is
heard in every mosque around the globe,” Piers Akerman, The Daily
Telegraph, Australia, 13 May 2004).
Indeed, even if al-Qaeda has been damaged, it has spread its cancerous influence
to such an extent that there is little doubt now that a worldwide jihad
is surging in any and all corners of the world (“Global
Jihad,” Corine Hegland, National Journal, 7 May 2004). “...bin Laden
has taken that ‘transnational emotion that binds all Muslims’ and effectively
harnessed it to his political agenda. He has, at the moment, no credible
competition. Moderate Islam is on the retreat, and Western democracy has little
traction among the corrupt and repressive governments of Islamic countries.”
Murdering civilians or desecrating the graves of the dead constitutes a pattern
to an extent that even Western media are using the terms of reference of the
terrorists. Thus “vandalizing” (not desecrating) graves now constitutes a
(legitimate) act of protest (“Gaza
Commonwealth Graves Vandalized in Protest,” Nidal al-Mughrabi, Reuters, 10
May 2004).
This abomination has reached unprecedented proportions. Some of its aspects are
making the practices of the Soviet regime pale in comparison. There they made
‘un-history’. When they wanted to eliminate a leader from collective memory they
expunged the relevant pages from newspapers and history books. The Arab/Muslim
obsession goes much further by inventing a new history - that never was. Through
that process the claims of Judaism and Christianity in thousands of years of
well-documented history are denied. (“Sec.-Gen.
of the Iranian Committee for Supporting the Intifada: ‘The Palestinian People
Lived on This Land Before Jacob and the Children of Israel’; ‘The Palestinian
Problem is the Problem of All Muslims’,” MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 712, 13
May 2004).
And they do not limit this re-writing of history and the preaching of hate to
their own countries (“Plain,
Misguided, Hatred,” Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 7 May 2004). They take
full advantage of Western freedoms to export it to their intended
targets/victims (“Kingdom
Comes to North America: Top Saudi cleric to visit Canada,” Steven Stalinsky,
National Review, 13 May 2004). Yet thus far it appears to have only
caught the attention of media watch groups and several bloggers, but no
government action has been taken (“Hate
Comes to Canada,” Daimnation, 13 May 2004; and “RoP
Head to Visit Canada,” Little Green Footballs, 13 May 2004).
Whether this is a clash of civilizations, a culture war or a war of religions is
less important than realizing that this is a war. It is a war where the
enemy does not need any provocation or cause to attack us. In this sense it is
the continuation of the Nazi ideology of annihilating those who do not fit in
their system of supremacy. In the same way their murderous genocidal campaign
resulted in unprecedented atrocities, the terrorists are devoutly emulating the
Nazi intent and tactics as part of a larger strategy for global jihad.
The sixth commandment is sometimes wrongly translated into “thou
shalt not kill.” But in the Hebrew original and in the early Greek
translations the term is “though
shalt not murder.” One can wonder how this semantic confusion came about,
yet there is one issue that remains clear throughout history. There are
conditions under which killing is permitted, condoned and sometimes even
encouraged as an imperative. For example, self-defense when one’s life is
clearly in danger.
Murder is not condoned under any civil society. That is why we will win this
battle against those who are more barbaric than Barbarians. They have no
future and we cannot allow them to rob us of ours.
The fight for our survival means the enemy’s life is worth less than ours. It
also means U.S. diplomacy needs to be demanding and assertive, not groveling and
apologetic. A report today quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell as saying “Our
heads are bowed over the outrages at Abu Ghraib prison” to a group of Arab heads
of state and business leaders meeting in Jordan. “You will see in the weeks to
come that we are a nation of justice . . . that America is still the best chance
for peace in the world.” The report goes on to state - assessing as news - that
“Powell’s attendance at the World Economic Forum was part of a diplomatic
campaign to buoy America’s tarnished reputation over U.S. soldiers’ abuse of
prisoners in Iraq and the administration’s silence over violence in the
Palestinian territories” (“Arabs
Give Cool Reception to Penitent Powell,” Margaret Coker, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, 15 May 2004).
If the U.S. has made a choice on who is a terrorist and who is not, who is a
terrorist-supporter and who is not, then that moral choice needs to hold and not
dissolve at the sight of “grievances” and excuses. Blaming Israel for violence
in the territories is like blaming the U.S. for being violent against Osama bin
Laden, or a police officer for legally arresting - by using force - a criminal.
It his high time to use all necessary measures in self-defense of our future.