Author Archive E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

April 18, 2002 8:45 a.m. A telling sermon, a tale of two ambassadors, Tiger talk, &c.

or the last many days, I have had the depressing experience of going through the materials supplied by http://memri.org — depressing, but enlightening. And very necessary, for anyone who cares to understand the Middle East.

The website, of course, is the cyber manifestation of the Middle East Media Research Institute, which is the outfit, headquartered in Washington, dedicated to providing translations of materials from the Arab world: newspapers, television shows, speeches, sermons, school textbooks, and so on. The Arab world has always been somewhat dark in this respect; MEMRI sheds unrelieved light on it all.

(I have written a piece on the institute and its effect for the forthcoming issue of National Review. The piece is entitled “Thanks for the MEMRI (.org).” Therefore we pay tribute to the still-with-us Bob Hope at the same time.)

Did you hear the sermon preached by Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi in Gaza City — broadcast on Palestinian Authority TV — last Friday? Of course you didn’t: but plenty of Palestinians did, and so did MEMRI, which provides a translation:

The sheikh pours into Palestinian ears, “We are convinced of the [future] victory of Allah; we believe that one of these days, we will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as conquerors, enter Haifa as conquerors [gee, what country are those places in?] . . . as Allah has decreed.”

This doesn’t sound like the expulsion of a few settlers.

“Our enemies suffer now more than we do. Why? Because we are convinced that our dead go to paradise, while the dead of the Jews go to hell, to a cruel fate.”

But crueler than their current fate of trying to compromise with these enemies?

“The Jews await the false Jewish messiah, while we await, with Allah’s help . . . the Mahdi and Jesus, peace be upon him. Jesus’ pure hands will murder the false Jewish messiah. Where? In the city of Lod, in Palestine . . .”

Hang on, they’ve enlisted Jesus now?

“A reliable Hadith [tradition] says: ‘The Jews will fight you, but you will be set to rule over them.’ What could be more beautiful than this tradition? . . . Who will set the Muslim to rule over the Jews? Allah . . . until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say, ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.’ Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews.”

Well, thank God for the Gharqad tree. Is it broad enough to protect Israel?

MEMRI also informs us that Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, imam at Al-Azhar University in Egypt — which is sort of the Oxford of Sunni Islam — has changed his mind about suicide bombings: He now sanctions them, or rather, asserts that Islam sanctions them. And the people are following.

Tantawi’s positions are listed clearly on one of the most important Muslim websites in the world — www.lailatalqadr.com, for those who read Arabic — and are translated by MEMRI:

“[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat . . .”

We also know that, on March 18, a demonstration at Al-Azhar “featured eight students who had been trained to carry out suicide attacks against Israelis” — this according to Al-Mustaqbal in Lebanon. And Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, a Hamas leader in Gaza, informed the Israeli Arab weekly Kul Al-Arab, “Two days ago, in Alexandria, enrollment began for volunteers for martyrdom [operations]. Two thousand students from the University of Alexandria signed up to die a martyr’s death. This is the real Egyptian people [as opposed to the mealy-mouthed and temporizing Mubarak government].”

Maybe so.

If it weren’t for the Middle East Media Research Institute, most of this would be lost to us — one can’t rely on the major Western media for it. I think PBS once had the slogan — maybe it still does — “If PBS doesn’t do it, who will?” Well, if MEMRI didn’t do what it does, we’d all be in the dark.

You may not have read the little ditty from Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi ambassador to Britain. He contributed a verse called “The Martyrs” to a Saudi-owned Arabic daily in London, Al-Hayat.

Referring to a recent Palestinian suicide/homicide bomber, the ambassador said, “Tell Ayat, the bride of loftiness . . . She embraced death with a smile while the leaders are running away from death. Doors of heaven are opened for her.”

Thank goodness Saudi Arabia is a moderate state.

And the “crazies,” by the way, aren’t some lonesome or fringey ranters in a renegade mosque: They occupy positions like . . . ambassador to Great Britain, and higher.

In Paris, another ambassador — that from Israel — “received a threatening letter containing a bullet, the latest in a wave of attacks and threats against Jews in France,” according to the New York Post.

“Elie Barnavi told Europe 1 radio that he had received a letter containing a bullet for a Magnum .44-caliber revolver, but he would not tighten personal security as a result.”

Said the ambassador, “It is perhaps not the most effective way to use a bullet, but it is not very pleasant.” He also explained that “ I am well-enough protected and, in general, I don’t believe in absolute protection. It doesn’t exist.”

I believe that’s what we call — to use a word appropriate to this capital — sangfroid.

We have remarked, many, many times, on the horrible endurance of old lies about the Jews: Arabs (in high places) are still peddling the blood libel, and they’re doing it about every other day. The foreign minister of Syria, Mustafa Tlass, is the author of The Matza of Zion, for heaven’s sake, a pretty little volume that perpetuates the blood libel.

And Arabs are still talking about the Jews’ poisoning of the water supply! That is a lie dating from medieval times, when anti-Semites claimed that the Jews were “poisoning the well” (which is where we get the expression). This is a lie that both Arafats — Yasser and Suha (his wife) — champion. In fact, it is one of the lies that Mrs. Arafat advanced in the presence of First Lady Hillary Clinton. The world was startled for a second; then it turned away (until Sept. 11).

One question I have is: Can’t they think of any new lies? I mean, the blood one and the water one are so old.

It’s a shame about the Arab world, that they are still in the grip of these murderous fantasies.

Oh, hang on, here’s a bulletin from A. N. Wilson, the distinguished British novelist, writing in the Evening Standard:

“Not a word is said about the fact that tens of thousands of Britons marched through London to protest about the unlawful killing not of foxes, but of hundreds of Palestinians; they were protesting against the wreckage of property, the terrorising of the old, of women and children, the poisoning of water supplies, the destruction of the Palestinian police, administrators, infrastructure.”

The “poisoning of water supplies.” It will apparently never die: never, ever, ever. The thing to do, constantly, is to fight against such people — against such people as Wilson.

Speaking of dear Suha Arafat, she made news this week when she not only endorsed suicide bombing against Israelis, but said that, if she had a son, she could think of “no greater honor” than to dispatch him on such a mission.

In the New York Times story that reported on this, the writer, the famous Judith Miller, quoted from some MEMRI translations, and said — after one such quotation — “according to . . . the Middle East Media Research Institute, a translation service in Washington that opposes the militants.”

That was a mighty curious little qualification: “that opposes the militants.” As opposed to translation services that embrace suicide bombers? And are we supposed to trust MEMRI less because it “opposes the militants”?

When the Times first started using MEMRI — after Sept. 11 — it hired “independent translators” to confirm those translations. MEMRI’s work has never been found to be anything but honest, accurate, and meticulous.

If they don’t fully trust MEMRI by now, they should perhaps continue to hire independent translators, and forego the crappy little statements like “that opposes the militants,” thank you very much.

I thought I should mention that Daniel Gordis’s contribution to the April 13 New York Times — found here — is one of the most moving op-ed pieces I have ever read (out of a few, trust me).

In Germany, thousands of people protested Israeli military actions, chanting such slogans as “Sharon is a murderer and fascist” and carrying banners that read “Holocaust in Palestine.”

I have only one thing to say to these Germans: You wish. You wish.

Actually, Israel and its survival are necessary not least because of Germany.

Funny how language gets turned around on the Jews: “holocaust” (which Arabs and others constantly accuse them of); “right of return” (this is a Palestinian usurpation); “diaspora” (another appropriation); “terrorism” (which Israel is always accused of, by people who commit, support, or excuse real terrorism), etc.

In fact, you can know a person by these words. Now-retired New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis once famously accused Israel of trying to “exterminate Palestinian nationalism.”

Hmm, that’s an interesting word to use in that context: “exterminate.” How’d it come to him?

In Kiev, “a mob of about 50 youths attacked the central synagogue, beating worshipers with stones and bottles and shattering windows,” according to the New York Post. The mob had marched down the boulevard shouting “Kill the Jews!” before attacking the synagogue last Saturday night.

Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said, “The act was not motivated by anti-Semitism, but was an act of brutal hooliganism,” related to soccer.

Yeah, maybe: maybe not. Are soccer hooligans especially Jew-focused?

This incident — and those like it across Europe — brought to mind a striking memory. Back in the early ’80s, there were (Arab) attacks against Jews living in the Marais district of Paris. The government didn’t seem especially eager to do much about it. Menachem Begin, then prime minister of Israel, said (approximately), “If the French government can’t protect Jews, then the IDF will.”

It was bravado, of course — but meaningful and stirring bravado, and I’ve never forgotten it.

I suppose you want a little Masters talk to end this grim session. There is little left to say about Tiger, which is why NRO ran my essay of April 2001 on Monday instead of fresh commentary (that, and the fact that I didn’t have time to write anything new).

(That essay, incidentally, is reprinted in the just-published anthology Chasing Tiger: A Tiger Woods Reader, available from DaCapo. We now conclude this commercial message and return to our regular programming.)

Tiger has now won seven “professional majors.” We used to say that Jack Nicklaus had won “20 majors,” because we loved that beautiful, awesome round number: twenty! (We counted Jack’s two U.S. Amateurs, and bear in mind that the Am used to be considered a major, as the British Am was — they were two legs of Bob Jones’s “Grand Slam.”)

With Tiger on the scene, we more commonly say that Jack won 18. But if we count for Tiger the way we have traditionally done for Jack . . . Tiger’s won ten, sports fans.

He turned 26 last December.

I, for one, thought the CBS commentators were pathetic and annoying, claiming that the other leaders — Tiger’s challengers on Sunday — were choking, and that Tiger himself was playing mediocre golf. They acted like spoiled children being deprived of the show they had wanted.

Well, it was a very fine show, of championship golf. Those challengers were not “choking.” No one in the field — forget the leaders — but no one in the field shot under 70, except for one “unconscious” guy. Did they all choke? The entire field? Ridiculous. The course was brutal.

And everyone was saying that, with the conditions so benign, there should have been hot scoring. Sure, there was no rain or wind: but the pin positions were infernal. That’s why a field of the best players in the world could hardly manage par — and why Tiger’s closing 71 was so good.

He did what he needed to win. His mission was to win the tournament — to be low man. Not to entertain the chatters in the booths or us watching on television. And the true golf fan, I believe, was entertained, and awed, and delighted.

A final word: Every time Tiger wins, all the alleged experts talk about the “intimidation factor”: “Oh, they’re all intimidated by Tiger! They just back down! They’re not up to the challenge! What weak sisters!”

Well, let’s see. Tiger, like every other golfer in the world, “loses” most of the tournaments he enters. He loses most of the majors he enters. What do we say then? Does the intimidation just ooze away? How about when he has a head-to-head challenger, à la Bob May at the PGA, or Sergio at that previous PGA? What then?

To talk about the “intimidation factor” is lazy, illogical, and wrong.

I promise I’ll give you a lighter and more enjoyable Impromptus later. But let me leave you with a little Al Sharpton.

It was noted in the New York Post that he has begun having himself introduced, on his radio show, as “The Honorable Reverend Doctor Al Sharpton.” That’s quite a mouthful. How’d this happen?

Well, we got the explanation from Sharpton’s spokeswoman, Rachel Noerdlinger (yes, you heard that right, Rachel Noerdlinger, and that makes for a fascinating story, which I may explore and relate sometime). Sharpton picked up the “Doctor” when he received an honorary degree from the A. P. Clay Bible College in Baton Rouge. He calls himself “the Honorable” because he is boss of the “National Action Network,” which, according to Miss Noerdlinger, is “a position of honor to people in the community.” (What community would that be?) And “the Reverend”? Who the hell knows?

Anyway, I feel I can’t do better than Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live, who said, “No matter how many titles he piles up before his name, if the last two words you hear are ‘Al Sharpton,’ he’s not fooling anybody.”