Russian version
The big blur: Who's us? Who's them?
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Diana West
Jewish World Review April
16, 2007 / 28 Nissan, 5767
If anyone still paid attention to the mythical Bush doctrine — the part
about our enemy being terrorist networks and the governments that support
them — it would be time to add another government to the enemy watch list:
our own.
How else to react to Congress' rubberstamp on a White House request
for tens of millions of dollars for the Palestinian Authority's Hamas-Fatah
coalition government? And so what if the money is earmarked for terrorist
Fatah, not terrorist Hamas? "You're either with us or you're against us"
was the way it was supposed to go, and Fatah is no more "with us" than
Hamas in any struggle against jihad terror. By rights, our support for
the P.A. should put us on our own worst enemies list.
It doesn't work that way, of course, because the United States, along
with Israel, has decided to pretend that Fatah is "moderate." This makes
our support for Fatah, and, by extension, its coalition partner Hamas,
practically kosher.
To borrow from the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, this semantic
con may be thought of as "defining terrorism down," lowering the bar on
what constitutes civilized statecraft to a point where Fatah can stay involved
in suicide-bombing attacks through its Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and keep
its hands clean enough to shake those of Quartet players.
Defining terrorism down allows Fatah, — whose constitution declares
as its first goal the "eradication of Zionist economic, political, military
and cultural existence" and its "opposition to any political ... alternative
to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine," — to be seen as "moderate,"
at least in the eyes of its willfully degraded "peace process" partners.
Defining terrorism down also eliminates a crucial line between "Us" and
"Them."
Let the U.S. tax dollars flow. Instead of the dividing lines the first
Bush term was known for, we now abide by something more like a big blur.
Its amorphousness gives cover not just to parleys with Palestinian terror
groups, but to negotiations with Iraqi terrorists (a major flopola), and
even meet-and-greets with assorted terror-masters (think House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and Syria's Assad, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and
the Muslim Brotherhood). Without traditional guidelines, we lose our bearings.
Without words that mean what they say, we fail to realize we have done
so.
Meanwhile, new guidelines, even new words, come into practice. For
example, the European Union has now compiled a handbook full of "non-offensive"
phrases to use when discussing Islamic terrorism. "Islamic terrorism" is
out (the phrase, not the practice), replaced by "terrorists who abusively
invoke Islam" — or so it is reported.
We don't know for sure because this handbook of sweet non-offensivenesses
is actually classified. According to the Daily Telegraph, other terms banned
by this "common lexicon" likely include "jihad," "Islamic" and "fundamentalist."
This could pose a problem if anyone wants to discuss a fundamentalist on
an Islamic jihad. Then again, thanks to the secret codebook, nobody ever
will, right?
Sounds like a plan to define jihad terror down and out — which is not
at all the same thing as getting rid of jihad terror. Instead, it eliminates
the means by which jihad terror is named, categorized, and understood.
Fatah is "moderate." "Jihad" is verboten. "Islamic terrorism" is unmentionable,
which, as far as EU-crats are concerned, is like saying it doesn't exist.
Meanwhile, more or less nonviolent "Islamization" isn't even on the charts.
Such Orwellian movements also eliminate the very concept of an "enemy,"
an "other side," and certainly an "other side" defined by its Islamic precepts
of jihad and dhimmitude. Sure, we still have the Al Qaedists to kick around,
that tiny-band-of-"extremists" we always hear about from political leaders.
This same little band was invoked just this week by Sen. John McCain as
"a tiny percentage of hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims ... the
vast majority of (whom) are trying to modernize their societies ... to
build the same elements of a good life that all of us want."
Hmmm. If the vast majority of hundreds of millions of Muslims are trying
to build "the good life," what's the problem? The problem is with the rhetoric.
Any rational assessment of, say, the rapid entrenchment of Sharia across
Europe — by no stretch the "good life" we "all" want — turns it into sloppy
goop. But rational assessments are out.
Blur is in. It's the post-Bush Doctrine way to define away that vexing
problem of Us and Them.
Us, anyway.
© 2007, Diana West
Russian version
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a