Published by The Freeman Center

The Maccabean Online

Political Analysis and Commentary
on Israeli and Jewish Affairs

"For Zion's sake I shall not hold my peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I shall not rest."



 

 

ORWELL MEETS ALICE - LINGUISTIC DISTORTIONS

Through The Mid-East Looking Glass

By Bernard J. Shapiro (1993)

 

 

Since the unfortunate reprisal against Arabs in Hebron ten years ago, there has been a dramatic decline in the accuracy of the media. We have been treated to the modern equivalent of Orwellian newspeak, not to mention a harrowing trip through Alice's looking glass. One could not help but notice how pure and innocent the Arabs were being portrayed. A casual observer would certainly think that all violence in Middle East was a product of bloodthirsty Jewish settlers roaming the Judean hills looking for Arab prey. 

The PLO leadership, its hands dripping with Jewish and Arab blood, demanded protection from the vicious Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (YESHA). It refused to return to the negotiations until its demands were met. The gullible international media took this whole charade seriously. The United Nations began debating a resolution to give protection to the poor vulnerable Palestinians. The PLO demanded that all Jewish communities of YESHA be ethnically cleansed of those rotten murderous Jews. At the very least they should be disarmed.
 
The high and the mighty beseeched Arafat to return to the talks with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, obviously anxious to please his PLO friends, began a crackdown on Kach and Kahane Chai and other so-called Israeli extremists. Consider this: Rabin determined that Baruch Goldstein acted alone in his reprisal act. He then decides to outlaw the organizations associated with him. Guilt by association is what made McCarthy big in the 50's. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. 
 
Reality Check:
Now Kach and Kahane Chai have been labeled as terrorist organizations although they never have committed a single act of terror as a body. The PLO, which is guilty of thousands of murders of Arabs and Jews, continuing still, is labeled a "partner for peace" and will be given arms to kill some more (as policemen).
 
Reality Check:
Are Arabs in danger from armed Israelis in YESHA? Some research reveals the following figures since the famous handshake on September 13, 1993:
Israelis killed by Arabs = 1400+
Arabs killed by Arabs = 200+
Arab attacks on Israeli targets = 15,000+
Israeli attacks on Arabs = 1
(Goldstein killed 29)
It is clear that except for the attack by Goldstein, the Arabs have not been threatened by Jews and certainly need no special protection. If you travel to YESHA you will notice that every Jewish village needs a security fence, while every Arab village is open. Doesn't this tell you who is threatened and who isn't? All the talk about disarming the Jews is a cover for the Arab desire to murder them. And if you desire murder, wouldn't it be nice to disarm your victim first?
 
The media has begun to adopt another tactic which we should protest. In the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, CNN and most of the other media opponents of the suicidal Oslo, Roadmap, Jewish Expulsion Plan are being referred to as right wing extreme Arab-hating and anti-peace groups. Do you ever remember the PLO or Hamas ever being referred to as Jew-hating groups, although their covenants and speeches are filled with hatred of Jews? Arafat, who has been quoted on many occasions as referring to Jews as, "filthy, sons of monkeys and pigs," is never referred to in the media as a Jew-hater. 
 
Reality Check:
To the best of my knowledge there is a distinct difference between Jewish feelings about Arabs and Arab feelings about Jews. Arabs are taught from the earliest grades to despise Jews and their clerics preach hatred (Itbach El Yahoud - slaughter the Jews) in every service. Jews, on the other hand do not preach hatred, but those that are not brain dead recognize, after 100 years of being attacked, that Arabs mean them harm. The media is totally obfuscating the truth about the conflict by the use of such terms as Arab-hating Jews.
 
Another problem with media coverage of the Israel-PLO deal is the way its opponents are described. Arabs opposed to the deal because they want to kill or expel all Jews from "Palestine" immediately are equated with Jews and Israelis who want Israel to survive in secure borders. Opponents of the deal are called anti-peace as opposed to supporters being pro-peace. 
 
Reality Check:
Most opponents of the deal with Arafat oppose it because it is suicidal for many strategic, historical and objective reasons. None of us are anti-peace. We just recognize that the path chosen by the Rabin/ Peres government will lead not to the hoped for and advertised peace, but to Israel's destruction.
 
In another bizarre twist of logic the Los Angeles Times reports that Israel's leading peace group, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), has urged Sharon to remove 500,000 Jewish inhabitants of YESHA(including Jerusalem) to avert widespread bloodshed under Palestinian self-government, and to forcibly evict all Jews within five years. They said that their continued presence, "fostering violence and bloodshed endanger peace prospects." 
 
Reality Check:
The facts demonstrate that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews that are the cause of 99.9% of the violence. Why not remove the Palestinians? What Peace Now is really admitting is that there is NO PEACE or any prospect of PEACE.
 
The liberal Jewish establishment and most of the media were appalled when Rabbi Meir Kahane first began talking about transferring the Arabs from Eretz Yisrael. Most are still appalled at this idea. A new idea has come into fashion, though, among these same righteous Jews: transferring the Jews from YESHA (heartland of Eretz Yisrael). Former Secretary of State James Baker recently said it would be a good idea to use the $10 Billion in US loan guarantees to buy out and transfer the Jews fromYESHA. US President Bill Clinton seemed to like the idea and so did Rabin's coalition partner Meretz. 
 
Reality Check:
There is no moral difference between transferring either Jews or Arabs from YESHA. What Kahane said years ago about the inability of Jews and Arabs to live together is being validated today by the same people who condemned him.
 
The 100-year war of extermination launched against the Jews of Israel by the Arabs has had many twists and turns. Sadly it seems headed for Alice's looking glass and the world of 1984, where black is white, war is peace and good is evil.
 
* * * * * * * 
FREEMAN CENTER'S FAVORITE QUOTE:
"In Germany they first came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Pastor Martin Niemoller (A Righteous Gentile)
 
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR ERETZ YISRAEL AND ZIONISM?
 
 
 
Calling Things by Their Names
 
By Caroline B. Glick
 
 
25 November, 2011 / 28 Mar-Cheshvan, 5772
 
 

 
 
There is a price to be paid for calling an enemy an enemy. But there is an even greater price to be paid for failing to do so. 

Next month, the US's long campaign in Iraq will come to an end with the departure of the last US forces from the country. Amazingly, the approaching withdrawal date has fomented little discussion in the US. Few have weighed in on the likely consequences of US President Barack Obama's decision to withdraw on the US's hard won gains in that country. After some six thousand Americans gave their lives in the struggle for Iraq and hundreds of billions of dollars were spent on the war, it is quite amazing that its conclusion is being met with disinterested yawns.
 
The general stupor was broken last week with The Weekly Standard's publication of an article entitled, "Defeat in Iraq: President Obama's decision to withdraw US troops is the mother of all disasters." The article was written by Frederick and Kimberly Kagan and Marisa Cochrane Sullivan. The Kagans contributed to conceptualizing the successful US-counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, popularly known as "the surge," that former president George W. Bush implemented in 2007.
 
In their article, the Kagans and Sullivan explain the strategic implications of next month's withdrawal. First they note that with the US withdrawal, the sectarian violence that the surge effectively ended will in all likelihood return in force. Iraq's Iranian-allied Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is purging the Iraqi military and security services and the Iraqi civil service of pro-Western, anti-Iranian commanders and senior officials. With American acquiescence, Maliki and his Shiite allies already managed to effectively overturn the March 2010 election results. Those elections gave the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya party led by former prime minister Ayad Allawi the right to form the next government.
 
Due to Maliki's actions, Iraq's Sunnis are becoming convinced they have little to gain from peacefully accepting the government.
The strategic implications of Maliki's purges are clear. As the US departs the country next month it will be handing its hard won victory in Iraq to its greatest regional foe - Iran. Repeating their behavior in the aftermath of Israel's precipitous withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, the Iranians and their Hezbollah proxies are presenting the US withdrawal from Iraq as a massive strategic victory. They are also inventing the rationale for continued war against the retreating Americans. Iran's Hezbollah trained proxy, Muqtada al-Sadr has declared that US Embassy personnel are an "occupation force" that the Iraqis should rightly attack with the aim of defeating.

The US public's ignorance of the implications of a post-withdrawal, Iranian-dominated Iraq is not surprising. The Obama administration has ignored them and the media have largely followed the administration's lead in underplaying them.
 
For its part, the Bush administration spent little time explaining to the US public who the forces fighting in Iraq were and why the US was fighting them.
 
US military officials frequently admitted that the insurgents were trained, armed and funded by Iran and Syria. But policymakers never took any action against either country for waging war against the US. Above the tactical level, the US was unwilling to take any effective action to diminish either regime's support for the insurgency or to make them pay a diplomatic or military price for their actions.
 
As for Obama, as the Kagans and Sullivan show, the administration abjectly refused to intervene when Maliki stole the elections or to defend US allies in the Iraqi military from Maliki's pro-Iranian purge of the general officer corps. And by refusing to side with US allies, the Obama administration has effectively sided with America's foes, enabling Iranian-allied forces to take over the US-built, trained and armed security apparatuses in Iraq.
 
All of these actions are in line with the US's current policy towards Egypt. There, without considering the consequences of its actions, in January and February the Obama administration played a key role in ousting the US's most dependable ally in the Arab world, former president Hosni Mubarak. Since Mubarak was thrown from office, Egypt has been ruled by a military junta dubbed the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, (SCAF). Because SCAF is comprised of the men who served as Mubarak's underlings throughout his 30-year rule, it shares many of the institutional interests that guided Mubarak and rendered him a dependable US ally. Specifically, SCAF is ill-disposed to chaos and Islamic radicalism.
 
However, unlike Mubarak, SCAF is only in power because the mobs of protesters in Tahrir Square demanded that Mubarak stand down to enable civilian, majority rule in Egypt. Consequently, the military junta is much less able to keep Egypt's populist forces at bay.
 
Throughout Mubarak's long reign, the most popular force in Egypt was the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood. The populism unleashed by Mubarak's ouster necessarily rendered the Brotherhood the most powerful political force in Egypt. If free elections are held in Egypt next week as planned and if their results are honored, within a year Egypt will be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is the outcome Obama all but guaranteed when he cut the cord on Mubarak.
 
Recognizing the danger a Brotherhood government would pose to the army's institutional interests, in recent weeks the generals began taking steps to delay elections, limit the power of the parliament and postpone presidential elections. Their moves provoked massive opposition from Egypt's now fully legitimated and empowered populist forces. And so they launched what they are dubbing "the second Egyptian revolution." And the US doesn't know what to do.
 
In late 2010, foreign policy professionals on both sides of the aisle in Washington got together and formed a group called the Working Group for Egypt. This group, with members as seemingly diverse as Elliott Abrams from the Bush administration and the Council on Foreign Relations and Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress chose to ignore completely the fact that the populist forces in Egypt are overwhelmingly jihadist. They lobbied for Mubarak's overthrow in the name of "democracy" in January and February. Today they demand that Obama side with the rioters in Tahrir Square against the military. And just as he did in January and February, Obama is likely to follow their "bipartisan" advice.
 
From Iraq to Egypt to Libya to Syria, as previous mistakes by both the Bush and Obama administrations constrain and diminish US options for advancing its national interests, America is compelled to make more and more difficult choices. In Libya, after facilitating Muammar Gaddafi's overthrow, the US is faced with the prospect of dealing with an even more radical regime that is jihadist, empowered, and already transferring arms to terror groups and proliferating nonconventional weapons. If the Obama administration and the US foreign policy establishment acknowledge the hostile nature of the new regime and refrain from supporting it, they will be forced to admit they sided with America's enemies in taking down Gaddafi. While Gaddafi was certainly no Mubarak, at worst he was an impotent adversary.
 
In Syria, not only did the US refuse to take any action against President Bashar Assad despite his active sponsorship of the insurgency in Iraq, it failed to cultivate any ties with Syrian regime opponents. The US has continued to ignore Syrian regime opponents to the present day. And now, with Assad's fall a matter of time, the US is presented with a fairly set opposition leadership, backed by Islamist Turkey and dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. The liberal, pro-American forces in Syria, including the Kurds, have been shut out of the post-Assad power structure.
 
And in Egypt, after embracing "democracy" over its ally Mubarak, the US is faced with another unenviable choice. It can either side with the weak, but not necessarily hostile military junta which is dependent on US financial aid, or it can side with Islamic extremists who seek its destruction and that of Israel and have the support of the Egyptian people.
 
How has this situation arisen? How is it possible that the US finds itself today with so few good options in the Arab world after all the blood and treasure it has sacrificed? The answer to this question is found to a large degree in an article by Prof. Angelo Codevilla in the current issue of the Claremont Review of Books titled "The Lost Decade."
 
Codevilla argues that the reason the US finds itself in the position it is in today owes to a significant degree to its refusal after Sept. 11, 2001 to properly identify its enemy. US foreign policy elites of all stripes and sizes refused to consider clearly how the US should best defend its interests because they refused to identify who most endangered those interests.
 
The Left refused to acknowledge that the US was under attack from the forces of radical Islam enabled by Islamic supremacist regimes like Saudi Arabia and Iran because the Left didn't want the US to fight. Moreover, because the Left believes that US policies are to blame for the Islamic world's hostility to America, leftists favor foreign policies predicated on US appeasement of its enemies.
 
For its part, the Right refused to acknowledge the identity and nature of the US's enemy because it feared the Left.
 
And so, rather than fight radical Islamists, under Bush the US went to war against a tactic - terrorism. And lo and behold, it was unable to defeat a tactic because a tactic isn't an enemy. It's just a tactic. And as its war aim was unachievable, the declared ends of the war became spectacular.
 
Rather than fight to defend the US, the US went to war to transform the Arab world from one imbued with unmentionable religious extremism to one increasingly ruled by democratically elected unmentionable religious extremism.
 
The lion's share of responsibility for this dismal state of affairs lies with former president Bush and his administration. While the Left didn't want to fight or defeat the forces of radical Islam after Sept. 11, the majority of Americans did. And by catering to the Left and refusing to identify the enemy, Bush adopted war fighting tactics that discredited the war effort and demoralized and divided the American public thus paving the way for Obama to be elected while running on a radical anti-war platform of retreat and appeasement.
 
Since Obama came into office, he has followed the Left's ideological guidelines of ending the fight against and seeking to appease America's worst enemies. This is why he has supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This is why he turned a blind eye to the Islamists who dominated the opposition to Gaddafi. This is why he has sought to appease Iran and Syria. This is why he supports the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition. This is why he supports Turkey's Islamist government. And this is why he is hostile to Israel.
 
And this is why come December 31, the US will withdraw in defeat from Iraq, and pro-American forces in the region and the US itself will reap the whirlwind of Washington's irresponsibility.
 
There is a price to be paid for calling an enemy an enemy. But there is an even greater price to be paid for failing to do so.
 
* * * * * * *
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where her column appears.
 
caroline@carolineglick.com