Monthly Archives: August 2006

Terrorists on the Web: Weimann in the IHT

Gabriel Weimann, professor of communication at Haifa University, Israel, is currently a visiting professor at the School of International Service, American University, Washington. He has a new book out Terror on the Internet: The New Arena, the New Challenges. This essay focuses on the disagreements between various tendencies within Jihadi circles as expressed on the internet. Whether there’s an opportunity here for cleavages to exploit is not clear. Sometimes the differences remind me of the debate in the Arab world over whether Israel is the pawn of the USA in its plans for world domination, or vice-versa.

Terrorists on the Web: Deadly conversations
Gabriel Weimann
FRIDAY, JULY 21, 2006

WASHINGTON

Terrorism and the Internet conjure up images of online beheadings and dire warnings of attacks by Al Qaeda. Use of the Internet to recruit terrorists or coordinate attacks is also well known.

Less understood is how the Internet has emerged as a battleground for ideas among terrorists and Islamic militants. The open, often vicious debate on the Web dispels the common view of all militants being of the same feather and offers clues to the motivations and fears of disparate groups tarred by the same brush of terrorism.

Our eight-year analysis of more than 4,800 terrorist Web sites, forums and chat rooms reveals several forms of dispute.

Members of the terrorist community use the Internet to present disagreement within their network, with examples found in online discourse of Qaeda supporters and mentors. For example, a prolonged debate focused on Al Qaeda’s attacks in Saudi Arabia during 2001-2003. Al Qaeda’s online magazine, “Sawt al-Jihad,” or “Voice of Jihad,” devoted an entire issue to this in January 2004.

One anonymous author sought to justify the jihad in Saudi Arabia, saying, “My Muslim mujahid brother, can you not see Muslims killed in Afghanistan, and then in Iraq…? Can you not see the Muslims in this worst condition of shame, humiliation, pain, harm and injury? Can you not see that the headquarters of the war was from the [Arabian] Peninsula and that the center of all kinds of logistical support was this land, which the Prophet, may peace be upon him, commanded be purified from the polytheist?”

Terrorists also use the Internet to attack, sometimes ferociously, other groups. The Chechen rebels, for example, criticized Hamas for eagerness to meet with Russian leaders after their victory in the 2006 Palestinian election.

Or on May 30, 2004, Hamas published a press release on its official Web site discussing the Khobar attack in Saudi Arabia, where 22 people, most foreigners, were killed by a Qaeda–related group during a 25-hour hostage ordeal:

“We reject this kind of attack. We wish to emphasize that they harm the security and peace of our countries, and the national and Islamic interests. Therefore, we call those responsible for these attacks to stop them and preserve the interests and security of their country and nation, especially while our nation is facing external threats and challenges.”

With the Internet, terrorists also launch personal campaigns against other terrorists. Jihadi Web sites, as well as the Arab media, often criticized Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, “the emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq” until his death in June.

The first criticism came from an influential cleric of the Jihadi-Salafi movement, Abu Muhammad al- Maqdisi, the Jordanian-Palestinian Islamist scholar and spiritual guide of al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Jordan and Iraq.

In an online interview, he criticized Islamist insurgents in Iraq for the mass killing of Muslims. On July 5, 2005, he repeated his criticism that “the indiscriminate attacks might distort the true jihad,” generating a wave of online responses by jihadi scholars, clerics and youth.

Later, a religious dispute emerged between Zarqawi and Maqdisi, his spiritual mentor, primarily on Islamist Web sites and from there spreading to the Arab media.

The debate focused on the legitimacy of attacking Muslims and noncombatant non-Muslims. Maqdisi criticized “the extensive use of suicide operations” that killed many Muslims, and stated that suicide attacks were not a traditional Islamic means of warfare, but rather an exceptional means for use only in specific circumstances.

Posting an online audiotape in May 2005, Zarqawi responded, trying to justify the victimization of Muslim civilians within the context of jihad and suggesting that Allah had ordered the killing of infidels by all means, even if this resulted in the deaths of Muslims or infidel women and children.

In July 2005, Zarqawi published another statement discarding Maqdisi’s accusations, rejecting his teachings and praising the advice of other trusted ulama. He argued that Maqdisi had no right to criticize the fighters in Iraq since he had not taken part in the Iraq jihad.

Read the rest.

Judeophobia: Anti-Judaism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism

Much confusion surrounds the discussion of hostility to Jews and Judaism, especially since the phenomenon goes back millennia. Suggested below are some guidelines for thinking about these complicated issues from a medievalist who, following Gavin Langmuir, distinguishes between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism in a significantly different manner from modernists (who emphasize the question of race).

ANTI-JUDAISM: Anti-Judaism is a dislike of Judaism based on zero-sum relationships: in order to feel good about myself, I need to feel bad about Jews. We (Christians, Muslims, seculars) are better because you are worse; we are right (e.g. about the sacred text) therefore you are wrong; our faith is true because we rule (triumphalism); we have honor because you must lower yourselves before us; we have replaced you as the true Chosen People (supersessionism). When Augustine worked out the theology of the Jew as humiliated and wretched survivor, bearing witness to the Christian Truth, he embodied this anti-Judaism. When Muslims worked out the Dhimmi laws, systematically disadvantaging Christians and Jews, they gave this emotional need a legal expression.

At its mildest, anti-Judaism, like any other dislike of a religion or tradition, is a common phenomenon that it is hard to get too indignant about. There’s no arguing about taste, and most people succumb to the temptation to think they make themselves look bigger by making others look smaller.

At its worst, however, anti-Judaism is a compulsive discourse of superiority that needs to see and feel the domination over Jews in order to be satisfied, a religious imperialism. Violent manifestations include bullying, humiliating rituals (kissing a pig’s ass on Good Friday, not walking in the rain lest dirt washing off from the Jew render the Muslim impure), and the occasional pogrom. Jew-hating often serves as a form of scape-goating drug that cuts the pain of suffering (by making Jews feel even more pain), inflicted by the very people who suffer at the hands of those who manufacture their Jew-hatred. In the world of hierarchy where everyone gets dumped on by those above, and dumps on those below, having someone for everyone to dump on becomes a psychological and social necessity.

ANTI-SEMITISM: Whereas anti-Judaism tends to stay in the realm of “normal” if lamentable reactions of envy and resentment, anti-Semitism expresses a deeper paranoia. The very existence of the Jews threatens “us” with annihilation: “exterminate them or be destroyed ourselves.” In order for us to breathe, you must be eliminated. Such beliefs involve a whole range of phobic fantasies of child-sacrifice, blood rituals, and international conspiracies to enslave mankind. The potential for violence in anti-Semitism is both constant profound. Unlike the milder forms of anti-Judaism, which still sees Jews a human beings, however despised, anti-Semitism tends to see Jews as at once super-human (maintaining vast conspiracies over millennia, supernatural figures of evil like the devil, the Antichrist, the Dajjal), and sub-human (vermin, bacteria, apes, pigs). And anti-Semitism has strong tendencies towards genocidal violence. When you believe that the Jews are planning to massacre or enslave all the rest of mankind (Protocols of the Elders of Zion), you have a “warrant for genocide.” The common Arab argument that they cannot be anti-Semitic since they are Semites is at once facetious and dishonest. The Palestinian leader Haj Amin al Husseini had no problem allying with the anti-Semite Hitler during the war, and subsequent Arab leaders have drawn eagerly from European anti-Semitic discourse (blood libels, Protocols, dehumanizing language).

ANTI ZIONISM: Zionism is the Jewish people’s national liberation movement. It is also one of the most left-wing, socialist liberation movements on record, with exceptionally high levels of demotic behavior (reviving a dead language, radically egalitarian kibbutzim, extensive social services, egalitarian law courts). Despite many questions raised about the advisability or legitimacy of Zionism during its first half century, by Jews as well as Gentiles, after Europe slaughtered millions of Jews and the other nations of the world stood by, few people deny the justifiable claim of Jews to be able to defend themselves.

Anti-Zionism argues that the Jews should not have a state, and that the current one is illegitimate, partly as a result of its displacement of the Arabs who lived there in 1948, partly as a result of its constant current aggressions against its neighbors. Were one not to check reality, one would assume that anti-Zionism represented a post-Holocaust form of anti-Semitism articulated by right-wing fascist ideologues hostile to egalitarian experiments in sovereignty and eager to continue their assault on the Jews. Why, among progressives, Israel’s claim to be the only Jewish state should be trumped by the Palestinians’ right to become the 23rd Arab Muslim state is unclear. Anti-Zionism then, depending on how virulent or mild its form, qualifies as a form of anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism. Criticism of Israel within the norms of criticism of other nations, is not anti-Zionism. The evidence suggests that inveterate anti-Zionists have anti-Jewish prejudices as well.

The notion that Israel shouldn’t exist can come from a wide range of (often mixed) motivations. One can, for example, argue practically that from the point of view of zero-sum power politics, Israel’s presence is too irritating to continue to exist in the midst of Arabs, upon whose oil wealth we depend. Or one can take the moral “high ground” and argue that no nation should be built on the act of displacing another, that Israel is an anachronism in a world growing increasingly secular, although it seems odd to invoke such pacifist, secular, and universalist notions in a conflict where violent displacement and religious fanaticism is the very currency of anti-Zionist Arab discourse.

In any case, these arguments are not necessarily either anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic as defined above. And certainly criticism of the Israeli government’s policies can hardly be considered either anti-Semitic or anti-Zionists, since Israelis Zionists are among of the most self-critical ideologues in the world. The line between legitimate criticism (however Zionists might find it misguided) and anti-Zionism gets crossed when the critic holds Israel to such high standards that no country, certainly not one at war, could meet them, and conversely holds the Palestinians and other Arab states to such low standards that they encourage the most immoral kinds of behavior (suicide terrorism).

When anti-Zionism enters into the realm of paranoid conspiracy theories (as it has in the Arab and Muslim world, and has begun to occur among the radical left, when one views the US government as ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government), then it has stepped over into the realm of anti-Semitism. While, strictly speaking, not all anti-Semitism is anti-Zionist (e.g., Richard Nixon, Jean-Marie Le Pen), the vast majority of virulent anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic. In Europe today, most Christian and post-Christian anti-Zionists seem to be motivated more by anti-Jewish prejudice than anti-Semitism, although their harsh attitude towards Israel has begun to spill over into the more virulent kinds of hate. In any case, their hostility to Zionism enables, even fuels, the most virulent Arab anti-Semitic anti-Zionism. And since these violent and public hatreds endanger Europeans, the irrationality of encouraging seems all the more worthy of thought.

NB: Hostility to Jews of both kinds discussed here go back millennia, and the historian can draw from a relatively broad range of examples from which to make generalizations. The evidence suggests that the Jews, while often the first victim, are rarely the last. What starts with the Jews does not end with them. Once the machinery of persecution of Jews gets set in motion, its manipulators readily move to other targets. In the Christian Middle Ages this often meant a shift from persecuting Jews to persecuting Christian dissenters (“heretics”), and the worst period of anti-Semitic paranoia in Europe (late Middle Ages) was also the worst period of inquisitorial persecution. The pattern repeated with Nazi totalitarianism, and the dynamic caught in the famous remark of Martin Niemöller: “When they came for the Jews…”

One can even argue that Jew-hatred tends to harm not only the Jews, but more surprisingly perhaps, those who fall into such obsessions. With a formal zero-sum relationship with Jews as a public statement, most other social relations end up forced into such hierarchical structures. With a paranoid attitude comes self-destructive behavior for all involved. In 1492 the Spanish kicked the Jews out of their country; in the subsequent century, despite vast wealth coming in from their ruthlessly exploited colonies abroad their economy lost ground to their much smaller former possession, for example, the Netherlands (where Jews fled). Similarly, when the Arab Muslim nations became free of Jews after the establishment of Israel in 1948, despite enormous wealth from petro-dollars, their economies failed dramatically in comparison with other nations around their stage of development. As with anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism has served as a “weapon of mass distraction,” that has relegated Arab and Muslim commoners to poverty, oppression, and humiliation. However tasty Judeophobia might be in the mouth, it turns bitter in the stomach.

Are We in 1933 Again? Oz Almog Speculates

Professor Almog thinks hard about issues that most people don’t want acknowledge as remote possibilities. And even as he acknowledges that this round (against Hizbullah) is lost, he thinks the war can be won — if people awaken.

Nor need that awakening mean a convulsion of violence. (Actually that becomes more likely the longer we take to wake up.) Imagine if the media had denounced the grotesque manipulations of Hizbullah and turned Kafr Kana into a global humiliation for the forces of Jihad. (But I am dreaming.)

Islam against the world
Prof. Oz Almog
YNet News
July 31, 2006

This war will end sometime. It will take another day or two, perhaps a week or two, but it will end. We shall persevere, then lick our wounds, gird our loins and go back to the TV commercials, holidays and song festivals. Hizbullah will indeed suffer a severe military blow, and perhaps we’ll earn some artificial calm under the patronage of some international scarecrow army wearing shorts and holding a pair of binoculars. Perhaps we’ll even manage to get our abducted soldiers back under some dubious prisoner exchange agreement that would enable the two sides to swallow their pride. Whatever the consequences, we shall not emerge triumphant from the war in Lebanon which happened to be forced upon us.

We shall not win this war because the Hizbullah cannot be uprooted from Lebanon just as it is impossible to uproot the Moslem fundamentalism prevalent throughout Arab countries. We shall not win, because on the other side there is a group of anti-democratic people (not marginal in the Moslem world) who have legitimized lying and falsehood. It is a group that creates a reality by mere words and imagination and not by empirical methodology, free speech and self criticism. Even if Israeli tanks stand at Beirut’s door, Nasrallah will present himself as Sallah al-Din, and even if all his fighters fall in battle – he will declare victory over the Zionists. And most of his admirers (and they are many) will accept his lies. But above all, we shall not win this war because it is a single battle, just one more promotional campaign leading to the real war whose signs are already on the horizon. The third world war – Islam’s war against the free world.

In the name of a set religious platform

It’s amazing how closely 1933 resembles 2006. The world was then taken aback by a dictator who took power over Germany, a peculiar character almost comical (The Great Dictator by Charley Chaplin, Remember?). He developed a satanic ideology whose goal was to wipe the free world off the face of the earth. Even the President of Iran Ahmadinejad is depicted in the eyes of many as no more than a violent thug who cannot control his words. But he, as Hitler, is not marginal and he is not alone. He is being followed by masses of fanatics, who have replaced the Zig Heil with the call Allahu Akbar.

That world war began with deep feelings of inferiority and sick nationalist chauvinism, similar to that currently standing at our door. (There is no society that tramples on its women or is imbued with an inferiority complex more than Islam). Its inferiority complex and satanic culture have led to a well oiled mechanism of brainwashing that operates out of homes, mosques, educational institutes and communication networks.

Nasrallah abducted Israeli soldiers and shelled settlements not on in the Lebanese or Palestinian interest, but in the name of a set religious platform, aimed entirely at destroying the Jews and the State of Israel. Now, as then, the focus of hatred, the spiritual generator motivating and uniting the mob against the free world, is the Jewish stereotype. In those days it was the stereotype of the ugly, conniving merchant from the Protocols of Zion that plotted to take over the world, or alternatively the communist Jew who plotted to destroy the European Aryan culture. Today, it is the Jewish “settler” who has joined forces with the “great satan” in the aim of conquering Palestinian land, desecrating holy sites and drinking the blood of Palestinian children.

Can we stop the clock?

The rhetoric is almost the same. Just listen to what they are saying there, from Iran to Gaza and Lebanon to Syria, Saudia Arabia and Egypt. In a speech delivered recently by the chairman of the Iranian parliament, he describes Nasrallah having Khomeni’s blood running through his veins. Indeed it does. This blood is boiling in the veins of thousands of religious ministers and Moslem preachers and is pounding in the temples of masses of potential suicide bombers ready to commit suicide in order to perform the mitzvah of spilling the blood of a satanic Jew. And all those politicians and western thinkers (its no coincidence that Spain’s prime minister donned a kafiyeh and the French foreign minister lashed out at Israel from Beirut) led by the media are adjusting their eyes and camera lenses at the destruction perpetrated by our tanks (as if we started this war and as if we are killing innocent civilians, driven by a loss of senses and moral imperviousness). They talk in double standards about the “extent” – they are all European descendents who rolled their eyes during that terrible war.

They are directly or indirectly assisting to update the image of Satan from the ghetto-like Jew to the “new Jew”, namely the Israeli. They are not doing much to prevent the fundamentalist finger from pushing the button that will, God forbid, send 6 million “new Jews” up to heaven in the smoldering smoke of the global era’s nuclear furnace. And we the Jews? Then as now, we are burying our heads in the sand, repressing the new Nazism – the Islamic fundamentalism.

Can we stop the clock of the new anti-Semitism directed at the state of Israel? Perhaps this war will awaken those in slumber. However this time, the western world will awaken in time.

Professor Oz Almog is a sociologist from the Haifa University

Hizbollywood at Kana: The Western Media in Self-Destruct Mode

I will post an extensive discussion of what went on at Kafr Kana and the implications of our media’s coverage of it shortly. I am delighted to see the work done so quickly by so many of those with critical intelligence, asking some very hard questions on the web. In the meantime, I want to make a few short points worthy of consideration:

1) That Hizbullah would trap children in a building so that their deaths could provide a PR victory at a crucial moment should suprise no one. This is a death cult, after all. What is interesting is that the Western ideologues for whom life is so precious, should immediately howl their rage at Israel. The moral disparity between the two parties in conflict thus becomes reversed in the moral equation of Western progressives: the people who show contempt for human life win the PR battle against those who risk their own soldiers’ lives to prevent civilian casualties among an enemy population.

2) The media, which only the day before, had congratulated itself on not getting fooled by Hizbullah’s cheap tactics, fell into the trap the following day. And in so doing, they not only forsook all their professional principles of critical evaluation and honest reporting for the sake of a lugubrious scoop, but they gave a victory to the very forces that oppose the freedoms that allow them to do their work. Like some salivating Pavlovian dog, they rush to pictures of dead babies pour out their humanistic sympathies without a thought to the implications of their credulity.

3) The most terrifying implication of the media’s stupidity here is that they make the death-cult policy of victimizing one’s own a worthwhile strategy. Ha-Aretz had a political cartoon yesterday of Nasrallah and an Iranian mullah watching TV, and the latter says to the former: “See! I told you there was nothing to worry about.” This issue actually gets at the heart of the problem with the “progressive” sympathies with the Palestinians: by embracing the scapegoating “victim narrative” in which Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians (now the Lebanese) are their victims, we do not support the victims, we support their leaders who victimize them in pursuit of goals inimicable to everyone but the most belligerent and cruel, and then blame Israel for their suffering.

He who is merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful.” It happened again yesterday.

UPDATE: For an excellent survey of the blogosphere on Kanagate, see Daniel1360, Hezbollah’s War Crimes: The Human Shields of Kana and their MSM Deniers.

Jumblatt Nails It! Hizbullah, Nazis and Honor-Shame

MEMRI brings us a remarkable interview with Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt,(1) which aired on Al-Mustaqbal TV on July 29, 2006, from which, excerpts below. It is extraordinary in particular since it comes from the leader of a community steeped in the culture of honor-shame (including honor-killings of wayward daughters, even among Israeli Druze who are the most westernized). The man understands honor as a sign of integrity, and understands Hitler better than many a European historian.

Special Dispatch – Lebanon
August 1, 2006
No. 1223

Walid Jumblatt: “Whatever happens, Hizbullah will emerge victorious. To whom will Hizbullah dedicate this victory? Will it dedicate the victory to the Lebanese state, to the honoring of international resolutions, to the Taif Agreement? Or will it dedicate it to the Syrian regime, the Syrian-Iranian axis, in which case we will become scorched earth, annexed to Syria and Iran? Each of these countries wants, with this abduction, to negotiate with America over the remains of the Lebanese homeland.”[...]

“I do not think all the residents of South Lebanon want to be displaced every 10 years.” [...]

“There is no honor without liberty. Honor is meaningless without liberty. Honor is meaningless without democracy. Honor is meaningless without diversity. Honor is meaningless without a free press. Honor is meaningless without pluralism and respect for other opinions. In such a case, honor is meaningless. These are the conditions for honor, not just fighting, missiles, martyrdom, and acts of bravery. No.

“It does not come to us from the theories of several intellectuals. Noam Chomsky, because of his hatred for the Bush administration, comes from America, from Yale or Columbia University, in order to present his theory about the weapons of Hizbullah. Great. But I say to Noam Chomsky today: Our country is in flames. One of those people, an Israeli Knesset member, who enjoys the so-called ‘democracy’ of Israel, presents his theory on how Syria cannot be separated from Iran [sic], but he does not care that at least two-thirds of the Lebanese people want freedom and independence, and to preserve this pluralistic model, which is one of a kind throughout the Arab and Islamic world.” [...]

Interesting response of a man of action and community leader to the mischief done by an American intellectual in which his own people are the victims of that intellectual’s schemes. I guess we might call Chomsky’s work the targeted killing of Israel in which the Lebanese people are acceptable collateral damage.

“There can be no honor associated with a fascist regime like the Syrian regime, or, to be more precise, there can be no honor associated with a regime which is semi-divine, like the Iranian regime.”

Interviewer: “You are referring to the principle of the rule of the jurisprudent.”

Walid Jumblatt: “I don’t want to go into jurisprudent theories… Ultimately, there were civilized peoples… I don’t want to make a comparison, but Adolf Hitler also aroused his people’s sense of honor, and led Germany into war.” [...]

This is a brilliant comment, beyond the reach of most Western academics who eschew language about honor and shame. It is the story of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Testosteronic males who never grew up, sacrficing their own people in a desperate battle against humiliation. And when we add to the mix, genocidal apocalyptic Jihadi ideologies, we have a recipe for what Robert Jay Lifton called “destroying the world to save it.” The pathetic thing about it all, is that rather than recognize it for what it is, the West — especially our credulous media — insists on feeding the beast.

Read the rest.

Endnote:
(1) For more of Walid Jumblatt’s comments regarding the current conflict in the Middle East, please see: MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1213, “Lebanese Druze Leader Walid Jumblatt on Al-Arabiya TV: Do Lebanese Really Agree That the Battle of the [Islamic] Nation Should Be Launched From Lebanon?; I Was First to Warn of the Iranian-Syrian Alliance; I Have the Right to Challenge Nasrallah’s Heroism,” July 26, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP121306 ;
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1207, “Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel’s Borders (4): Reaction in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria,” July 17, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120706 ; and
MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1206, “Iran and the Recent Escalation on Israel’s Borders (3): Reactions in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria,” July 14, 2006, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP120606 .