|
 y
now, readers are familiar with a refrain of mine: “No one knows
what’s in the Arab press, no one knows what the Arabs are saying,
no one realizes how bad it is, the Western media have long sanitized
the news from that part of the world, it matters critically —
now more than ever,” wail, wail, wail.
Well, I’m
going to wail some more. The invaluable Middle East Media and Research
Institute (MEMRI) has provided a translation of an extraordinary,
and yet all too typical, interview
with an Egyptian sheik named Muhammad Al-Gamei’a. He is “the
Al-Azhar University representative in the U.S. and imam of the Islamic
Cultural Center and Mosque in New York City” — in other
words, a mainstream guy, in this context. Al-Gamei’a returned
to Egypt after the 11th, citing harassment. And he gave this abhorrent,
and dangerous, interview.
You can read
his libels for yourself, but they include that: after 9/11, Americans
refused to engage in commercial activity with Arabs. Arabs couldn’t
go to hospitals, because Jewish doctors were making them sick. Americans
were firing on mosques, and murdering Arabs in the street, with
impunity. (Of course, in reality, cops are ringing everything having
to do with Arabs and Islam — certainly in my city, New York.)
Americans know that the Jews are responsible for the
9/11 attacks, but they’re afraid to speak up about it, for
fear of being labeled anti-Semitic.
I will now
do a little quoting:
“You see
these people [i.e., the Jews] all the time, everywhere, disseminating
corruption, heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs. [Because
of them] there are strip clubs, homosexuals, and lesbians everywhere.
They do this to impose their hegemony and colonialism on the world.
“Now they
are riding on the back of the world powers. These people always
seek out the superpower of the generation and develop coexistence
with it. Before this, they rode on the back of England and on the
back of the French empire. After that, they rode on the back of
Germany. But Hitler annihilated them because they betrayed him and
violated their contract with him.
“On the
news in the U.S. it was said that four thousand Jews did not come
to work at the World Trade Center on the day of the incident, and
that the police arrested a group of Jews rejoicing in the streets
at the time of the incident . . . This news item was hushed up immediately
after it was broadcast . . . The Jews who control the media acted
to hush it up so that the American people would not know. If it
became known to the American people, they would have done to the
Jews what Hitler did!”
I will stop
now, and, as I’ve said, MEMRI has published the complete interview
on its site. Bear in mind that this is not only libel — not
merely harmless and absurd lies — but blood libel: the libel
that says, falsely, that the Jews have committed murder, and are
murdering. This stuff is as common as water in the Middle East.
And — here is my refrain again — no one knows it: although
they are learning a bit more now.
This is why
it’s impossible for Israel or the United States to make progress
in the Middle East: The people are fed on a constant, ceaseless,
unending diet of lies. It raises the question: Can you blame them,
for feeling and acting as they do? If you were made to believe what
they are made to believe about Jews, Israel, and the U.S., wouldn’t
you be the same way? Are they really at fault?
Well, a good
many are at fault, including this damnable imam.
The worst part
of that interview (almost), from my point of view? The sympathy
the guy pretends for the United States and the American people:
They’re not so bad, you see, it’s just that they’ve
been horribly deceived by the Jews.
To hell with
him.
Well, here was a depressing news bulletin: “U.S. prosecutors
will likely try to indict suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin
Laden and his senior deputies on charges directly related to the
Sept. 11 terror attacks . . . The indictments most probably would
be sought from a grand jury sitting in New York, though other grand
juries in the Washington area are available.”
The American
love of the courts — bordering on religious worship —
is pretty much comical in this instance, which is an instance of
obvious and necessary war. Clarence Darrow, Atticus Finch, and Perry
Mason simply have nothing to do with it, fellas. The attacks on
our embassies, the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, the attacks
of 9/11? War, war, war, and to be treated as such, properly. That’s
why the phrase “bring them to justice” is an alarming
one. No, bring them to defeat.
You have perhaps noticed the following gambit, particularly from
liberal arguers: Oh, in this terrible, awful, serious time, don’t
the Lewinsky scandal and Gary Condit seem small?
No, actually,
they don’t, and they shouldn’t be trivialized in this
way. A president of the United States used a 21-year-old intern
for sex in the Oval Office. He committed perjury, subornation of
perjury, witness tampering, and abuse of power (and that’s
just off the top of my head). He organized a good portion of the
executive branch to cover up his misdeeds. And he was quite rightly
impeached, though not, sadly, convicted.
As for Rep.
Condit, he is a plausible suspect in the murder of a young woman.
Now, what seems
truly trivial to me is, oh . . . how much of a milk subsidy James
Jeffords received from the government, and whether Karl Rove was
as nice to him as he might have been. That’s what’s
asininely small.
Rep. William Lacy Clay, a St. Louis Democrat, is upset. The congressman
is black — boy, is this relevant — and he claims he was
“profiled” recently at Baltimore-Washington International
Airport. You see, he was scanned by a metal detector after already
walking through the primary security device. And, according to the
St. Louis Dispatch, he is “concerned that if he
can be profiled, Arabs and people who appear to be of Middle Eastern
descent might receive even worse treatment.” The head of the
St. Louis Urban League chimed in, “We know how it feels to
be profiled. It’s another form of racism.”
Oh, grow up,
people. Everyone is being treated this way at airports across
the country in the wake of 9/11. Don’t flatter yourself that
you are being singled out. I have seen it with my own eyes; I have
heard the testimony of fellow travelers (pardon the expression).
This sort of thing — the double metal-detecting and so on —
is happening to everyone, including to little old Norwegian-American
grandmothers trying to get out of Minneapolis.
There are so
many things to say about the sheer selfishness and narrowness and
audacity of William Lacy Clay that I can hardly type. I think of
the expression, “The bride at every wedding, the corpse at
every funeral” — the need to be always at the center of
attention. I think of the line, “You’re so vain —
you probably think this song is about you.”
Our national
“song” at the moment is definitely not about William
Lacy Clay and the color of his skin. It is about trying to think
about how to keep Americans safe in the aftermath of a huge massacre
and act of war. And perhaps William Lacy Clay can save his self-centered
carping for a little bit later.
It’s tough
all over.
Of course, everything about “identity politics” is reeking
more than ever. Consider a little case involving the “director
of research” at a group billing itself as the National Italian
American Foundation. In a previous column, I quoted and commented
on an interview with the Italian defense minister, Antonio Martino.
It had been reported that Martino had said that his country would
not join with the United States in its war, and that at the same
time Washington must not act without a broad coalition. Later, Martino
said that he had been misquoted — a claim that I duly reported
in a subsequent column.
In the meantime,
the Washington Times, a treasure of a newspaper, had quoted
my original clip, blasting Martino. And then here comes Dona de
Sanctis, director of research at the National Italian American Foundation,
writing an indignant letter to the editor. She said, “It is
a mystery to us why at this time of great national and international
tragedy Mr. Nordlinger and The Washington Times should use their
immense power [!] to alienate 25 million Americans of Italian heritage
. . .”
Did you read
that? Are you rubbing your eyes? “Alienate 25 million Americans
of Italian heritage.” When I saw that, I was struck speechless
(a rare occurrence). Who can think of ancestry at a time
like this? Well, many can, obviously, and this is part of the American
sickness. The idea that Americans whose forebears came from Palermo
should be especially offended at a column criticizing an Italian
government official in 2001 is mind-boggling, and also a little
frightening, given the special need for American unity and a single
national identity. Women like Dona de Sanctis, and groups like the
National Italian American Foundation, are an albatross in this country,
weighing us down, leaving us tense, bitter, and divided. What’s
wrong with being an American? Isn’t that good enough? Who asked
these people — who asked Dona de Sanctis — to represent
Americans whose ancestors happened to come from Italy? What are
they doing carrying water for a foreign power? Can’t the Italian
Defense Ministry speak for itself (as, in fact, it did)? Can’t
Dona de Sanctis and her gang of blood-obsessed friends leave the
Balkanizing to the Balkans?
As I’m
in a rather belligerent, McCarthyite mood, I would like to say to
Signora de Sanctis, “Love it or leave it, cara (O
amarlo o lasciarlo [in case she can’t speak English]).
Be an American, or find your way to the nearest port. Take your
hyphen and shove it [to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt]. There is no
time now — and there should be little tolerance now —
for your silly little ethno-national games. The economy is tough,
yes, but you might try to find yourself a real job.”
Thanks.
We have been talking quite a bit, in the last few weeks, about American
identity and about Arab-Americans in particular. (Who knew the “Italian-Americans”
would figure in this? As Jimmy Durante used to say, “Everyone
wants to get into the act.” Everyone wants to be a victim,
wants his “ethnicity” to count. Apparently, being an American
is just plain boring.) Anyway, much of our problem was encapsulated
in a single New York Times headline, on October 13: “American
Muslims: Caught in the Middle, with Disdain for bin Laden and Criticism
for the U.S.”
That headline
said more than its writer probably knew. To trot out a cliché
— or rather, another cliché, this seeming the time for
them — there is no middle ground. The president was right,
bless ’im: Either you’re with us, or you’re
with them. There is no middle when evil has declared war
on good. And that starkness is just as clear now as it was from
1939 to 1945. Lovers of gray, and of nuance, will just have to wait
for another day.
Speaking of headlines, here is a typical one, also from the Times:
“Right-Wing Israeli Minister Shot in Jerusalem.” The reference
was to Rehavam Ze’evi, who had resigned from Sharon’s
cabinet the day before he was killed. Now, you could argue that
the headline was rather unfair — mean — to the murdered
man and his family (and country): What does it mean in the Israeli
context to be “right-wing”? Ze’evi was a hard-liner,
and he had no illusions about Arafat and the intentions of the PLO
for the Jewish state. In this sense, more and more Israelis are
becoming “right-wing” — the dovish, I would say capitulationist,
group Peace Now is practically defunct at the moment. Also, the
headline might have suggested to some that Ze’evi had it coming.
Put it this way: If another cabinet minister — say, Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres, a Laborite — had been killed, would
the headline have read, “Left-Wing Minister Shot in Jerusalem”?
Of course,
there’s a war on (I’m speaking of the Arab-Israeli conflict
now), and you could argue that everyone — certainly every government
official — is fair game. But then you would have to call it
a war when Israel acts, too — which the U.S. administration,
to take one example, doesn’t like to do. Besides which, Palestinian
terrorists are not too discriminating when it comes to killing Israelis:
They didn’t ask for the voting records of the diners at that
pizzeria; they didn’t inquire into the political views of the
dancers at that disco. They just murdered, their specialty.
The Times’s
headline was a little ill-considered.
Back to my refrain, about discovering what Arabs and Arab-Americans
think. There is a good opportunity for an Arab-American or Arab
journalist to talk to Arab-Americans and Arabs in this country,
and report honestly to the rest of us what is being said. Of course,
that person would be pounced on as a snitch or traitor. But he would
be rendering a real service, and if I could pull off a sophisticated
Black Like Me experiment, complete with accentless Arabic
and all, I would do it.
I have an anecdote
for you (and bear in mind the mot of the late, great political scientist,
Aaron Wildavsky: One story is an anecdote; two stories are data):
A South Asian friend of mine hops in a cab (New York). The driver
— a Pakistani — feels he can speak freely to her: “Well,
you reap what you sow, and the Americans had this coming” (essentially).
My friend discovers that the driver and his family have been in
this country for nine years, living off the fat of the land, so
to speak. My friend — incensed, but having to arrive at her
destination — refrains from telling him that, if he finds this
country so wicked, he can see his way out.
So, you don’t
like second-hand anecdotes about New York cabbies? I can accept
that. But then you must dig out your own information, and not ignore
a subject that is of ever greater consequence.
A peek at the mail. I have heard from many Americans working in
the Middle East who report, with disgust and heartache, that the
people around them responded either with outright joy or quieter
satisfaction to the mass murder of our people on September 11. One
man teaching English in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia, wrote, “The
thrill shown on the beaming faces of my oh-so-polite college-age
students was a great gob smack.” Other letters reported worse.
Also, I remarked
in the previous column that one correspondent had identified himself
both as a reader of NRO and a listener to the NPR program “Fresh
Air.” Many others wrote in to say, “Me too! Me too!”
Must be a worthwhile show, “Fresh Air.”
Then there
was this: “I was highly amused by your wondering how many conversations
about Rumsfeld were taking place around the country, because my
wife and I had virtually the same conversation as the one you recounted
in your column:
“Wife:
‘Is that Rumsfeld?’
“Me: ‘That’s him.’
“Wife: ‘He looks mean.’
“Me: ‘I’d say he looks serious and stern, which are
pretty good qualities in a secretary of defense.’
“(Wife nods in agreement.)”
As for Americans
from coast to coast expressing solidarity with New York, and perhaps
having a new appreciation for it, one man wrote, “Hey Jay,
we might all love NYC, but gah-ron-tee, we still hate the Yankees!”
Yeah, I know the feeling.
Finally, to
my question, “Don’t you feel a little sorry for Barry
Bonds and Rickey Henderson, achieving those great milestones and
receiving so little attention?” many, many readers shouted
back, No! They’re jerks!
Tough crowd.
|
