Blaming the Jews, forgetting the Cole, remembering Teheran, &c.

October 10, 2001 10:00 a.m.

f all the questions, perhaps the most delicate is, What do Arabs in general really think of all this? But this question, though delicate, is of utmost importance.

The Western media have long been skittish about reporting Arab public opinion. It’s almost impossible to find out what is in the Arab press: For that you have to go to specialty places like the Middle East Media and Research Institute. If an Israeli extremist hiccups, it’s reported in all the major American papers the next day, along with editorial denouncements. Arab extremists can write virtual Mein Kampfs — and no one notices, or is too polite to mention it.

This is, among other things, a subtle form of racism, because it entails treating Arabs as children, not really responsible for what they say, or needing protection from the broader judgment of the world. Those who really respect Arab people listen to what they say, and do not make excuses for them.

I hereby provide a speck of evidence that some would dismiss as “anecdotal” — a popular putdown when you’re made uncomfortable by what someone is reporting. I know an Egyptian woman, very well educated, widely traveled — about as “Westernized” and “liberal” as you can get in Arab society — and she e-mailed me to tell me, essentially, that Osama bin Laden, even if he really existed, couldn’t have planned and carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, it must have been you-know-who: the Jews, or, more specifically, the Israelis, the Zionists. The father of terrorist Muhammed Atta has said the same thing — It couldn’t have been my son; it must have been the Jews. The father is a distinguished Cairo lawyer.

A bereaved dad, of course, you can understand. Others are harder to make excuses for, even if they have been swimming in official lies all their lives.

It’s difficult to say which is the more revolting: those in the Middle East who accept the obvious fact that Sept. 11 was the work of Arab terrorists, and rejoice over it; or those who do not accept the obvious, and blame the Jews.

There is a swell belief running around the Middle East, and it is finding currency here at home, too, among certain Arab-Americans: You see, not only did Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, plan and execute the attacks, they warned Jews — 4,000 of them, in fact (this is a very precise lie) — who were in the buildings to give them time to escape. As a colleague of mine mentioned, this is what is known, throughout history, as blood libel. And it has horrible consequences.

The Western media are getting bolder about reporting such things, although they are still shy. They would rather cling to the view, and purvey the view, that the bin Ladenites constitute a tiny, tiny sect, with the vast majority of Arabs deploring their acts. If this were so, it would be a tremendous comfort. But reports from all over the Arab world provide reason for concern that it is not so.

Here is Prof. Fawaz A. Gerges, a Middle East scholar at Sarah Lawrence College, writing in Monday’s New York Times. Fresh from a conference in Beirut, he reports, “Compounding the discrepancy between American and Middle Eastern perspectives is a genuine skepticism about the culpability of Muslims in the terror attacks. Engrained suspicions raised by Muslim opinion makers reflect deeply held sentiments among the general public.

“Many Middle Easterners with whom I spoke advanced conspiracy theories to explain what had happened. A Christian director of a Western bank in Beirut claimed that only ‘international Zionism possessed the means and the will to undertake this hideous act.’ These nonsensical views are held by both the man on the street and some in the intelligentsia. It remains to be seen whether the pitilessly aggressive statements by Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith will erase such beliefs among the Muslim public.”

Gerges goes on to say, “Those individuals who did accept the culpability of the Arab perpetrators usually drew a comparison between the terror attacks on America and shortsighted, unjust American policies that have alienated and antagonized most of the rising social classes in the region. In short, they believed America has reaped what it sowed.

“Most of the participants, who represent the pulse of mainstream Muslim public opinion, strongly cautioned their governments against joining the American coalition on terrorism and warned that people would oppose any sustained military assault on a Muslim country, including Afghanistan.”

And so on. Gerges writes with extreme delicacy — almost grudgingly — but, despite himself, he conveys the truth of the matter. And remember, he is writing largely about “the cream of the crop,” the elites, those who attend conferences.

In keeping with his type, Gerges argues that America must do more to assure the “Arab street” — and the conference halls, apparently — that we mean no harm, except to terrorists. In one especially remarkable sentence, he complains that “American embassies in the Middle East have long been impenetrable castles separated from the local communities.” Gee, wonder why that is. How many of our ambassadors and other diplomats have been killed over there — including Amb. Cleo Noel, on direct orders from Yasser Arafat? How many presidents of the American University of Beirut have been killed?

Not impenetrable enough, evidently.

Our very worst fear is that radical Islam will prove the new Communism, with which we have to be at war, whether cold or hot, for decades to come. If the United States acts decisively now, “ending” (as Paul Wolfowitz says) or dissuading those regimes that support terrorism or are inclined to do so, we could deter or drastically shorten such a war — would “do future generations a favor,” as the president says.

In the present context, it would be wrong not to mention a brilliant and chilling piece in the October Commentary magazine: “Oslo: The Peacemongers Return,” by Norman Podhoretz. The piece was written before 9/11, but it is all too relevant. It includes long quotations from the Arab press, obtained from the aforementioned Middle East Media and Research Institute, and it is far from an optimistic piece: but it rings terribly true. It asks the question (if I may interpret), When we will come to terms with what our enemies are saying, and vowing to do to us, and, in fact, doing to us? The piece is not available online, but is worth any effort to get. For decades, Podhoretz has been teaching uncomfortable truths about the Middle East and other subjects, and now, more than ever, he is must-reading.

Now is not the time for finger-pointing, we are told, and that’s undoubtedly right: But we should not shrink from learning lessons, and the USS Cole ought to be revisited, as often as necessary. The feelings of President Clinton and his foreign-policy team are not, at this point, the foremost consideration. The response to that terrorist attack on an American vessel — or an act of war, if you prefer — was, essentially, nil. Those who did it, boasted about it. They composed poetry and sang songs about it! And they paid no price. The (nearby) Yemeni government did not, apparently, even feel a pinkie of American pressure. The incident was all but swept under the rug. And, really, it was just a few sailors, so far away. More than that had been killed at Khobar Towers, by Iranian-sponsored terrorists. Who cared, ultimately? How many Americans even knew?

No wonder our enemies felt emboldened to carry out yet greater attacks. A colleague reminded me of a French saying: “Appetite comes with eating.” Success in terrorism prompts more — and more daring — terrorism, and it is now incumbent on the American military to make the terrorists pay beyond their worst nightmares. It’s not simply a question of revenge; it’s a matter of deterrence.

The haunting question has been raised: What do we owe the dead? What do we owe the dead of Sept. 11, and the dead on the Cole, and all the others over the years? Vernon Walters, the retired general and diplomat, gives the only acceptable answer: That it not be allowed to happen again. That is the true and worthy goal.

In the continuing debate over whether our support of Israel is to “blame,” both sides make excellent points, and both are, of course, right: Yes, they hate us because of Israel. Yes, they would hate us regardless. We are the “Great Satan” ; Israel is the “Little Satan.” Satans all around.

I am reminded of another “incident” of state-sponsored terrorism, or rather, another act of war against the United States, mistakenly characterized as terrorism: the “Iranian hostage crisis,” in which the government in Teheran — basically — held our personnel captive for 444 days (until January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan took the oath of office). The Iranian Muslims, in their fevered denunciations of us, didn’t much mention Israel; they didn’t exactly bleed for Palestinian refugees. They just hated the fact of the free West, led by the United States.

It could be that, more than 20 years later, we are paying for our ineffectuality in Iran, too. And in Lebanon. And so on.

Yet another question to be considered is that of the massive aid the United States has been giving to Arab governments and societies over several decades. People in all times and places occasionally bite the hand that feeds them. Could there be an element here of resenting, hating, and turning on one’s helper?

To rephrase the question, If Washington cut off Arab nations entirely, or significantly lessened its largesse, would the “street” (or the conference rooms or the editorial offices or the faculty lounges) hate us more? As many have pointed out, the U.S. military has saved, or endeavored to save, Muslim lives in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Balkans, and elsewhere. One does not expect an outpouring of gratitude, but the fanatical detestation is mind-boggling to many, and ought to be.

Reading about the calling up of the National Guard, and watching them go off to war, my wife, ever alert, couldn’t help making a political point: All those who dumped on Quayle and George W. for serving in the National Guard — are they so contemptuous of the Guard now (not that they themselves, in most cases, did as much as the men they scorned)?

Many readers have written to ask, What to read? What books do you recommend to further one’s understanding of the Middle East?

Herewith a few suggestions: Anything by Bernard Lewis, dean of Middle East scholars — Semites and Anti-Semites is particularly brilliant, and illuminating. Then, anything by Elie Kedourie, hometown, Baghdad. Then, a book by a friend and colleague of both Lewis and the late Kedourie, NR senior editor David Pryce-Jones: The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (touted in this space before).

Also: Martin Gilbert’s Israel: A History, Conor Cruise O’Brien’s The Siege, Fouad Ajami’s Dream Palace of the Arabs, and a book about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq by Kanan Makiya entitled, perfectly, Republic of Fear.

That should hold you.

A dip into the mailbag: In response to a previous item concerning “racial profiling,” a reader contributed this bit of family history: “I am a second-generation Italian-American. Sometime after my 40th birthday, when going through the papers of a deceased uncle, I discovered a document showing my family to have been victims of racial profiling. It was a letter from the FBI, addressed to the eldest English-speaking male, written shortly after the end of the Second World War, informing him that he could now pick up my family’s radios, cameras, and hunting rifles from FBI headquarters in Manhattan. These items had apparently been seized at the outbreak of the war.

“My uncle fought with distinction in both the European and Pacific theaters, as did his younger brother. My father (the baby of the family) wasn’t old enough to participate (though he did join the National Guard a decade later when he was of age). One of my mother’s uncles served with the OSS behind enemy lines.

“Never once, in my entire life, did I hear a complaint from any member of my family about the actions taken by our government. They felt no affront, demanded no compensation, in fact believed it to be reasonable and prudent behavior in wartime. Similarly, I feel no intrinsic right to reparations for real or imagined wrongdoings against my ancestors. Had the U.S. done less, I venture to say, we would have been disappointed. The issue is one of common sense versus foolishly exposing the country to danger — not one of prejudice.”

An unorthodox view, indeed. Another reader sent the following: “Forget racial profiling: Do national profiling. Almost none of the terrorists were American citizens, and I doubt if very many people who take the time and trouble to become naturalized citizens have terrorist intentions (though I’m sure there are exceptions). When I cross the border to the States [from Canada], I have my ID and birth certificate ready, and I politely answer all questions put to me. I am asking to come into their home, and I don’t feel they are obligated to let me in if they have a reason not to, just as my neighbour doesn’t have to invite me into his backyard pool if he chooses not to. If you are a guest in a country, act like one or get booted out.”

Finally, in response to my assertion that Colin Powell is “the luckiest man alive” — because he has a chance to correct the mistakes he made in the Persian Gulf — a reader writes, “I had always thought that title belonged to Ringo Starr.”