It is not that he cannot deal with them. After a wave of suicide bombings in Israel in 1996, Arafat went after Hamas root and branch, rounding up members, taking over their mosques, and reminding them he was in control. But things have changed. There is a collapsed peace process with Israel; many factions of Fatah are backing Hamas; and the Palestinian people do not generally support him. He has lost their support because he has provided the Palestinian people with nothing but more bloodshed and carnage. Let's dig deeper into this astounding turn of events.

First, what has changed is how the typical Palestinian views his or her world now. Most Palestinians view the killing of innocent civilians as a legitimate response to what Israel has done in the West Bank. Moreover, Palestinians appreciate the social work the Hamas charities have done. In Gaza, for example, Hamas provides impressive welfare programs for the one in three workers without a job. This is in stark contrast to the inefficiency and corruption of the Palestinian Authority in the same area. Finally, what is perhaps the most important reason for the growing support of Hamas is that it has joined forces with other Palestinian factions, including Fatah, in what is now a near national consensus. If there is indeed a national consensus then this uprising (=the intifada) will last until Israel "leaves their land." Ceasefires are not ruled out, but only if they fit with the larger national goal of driving the Jews out!

Second, Arafat is therefore in a difficult situation. If he yields to the US and to Israel and arrests, prosecutes and punishes the terrorists, then he risks a bloody confrontation with the various armed groups, which could bring the collapse of his own personal and institutional authority. And, if he does nothing, he risks alienating the US, which remains the key to peace in the Middle East. Further, he will continue to experience the wrath of Ariel Sharon, who personally blames him for the collapse of order in the territories and who is attacking PLO leaders, potentially even Arafat himself.

Finally, this whole mess poses a major danger for the United States. If the US does not provide some strong help to bring peace to this area, then it will witness the demise of Arafat as a force, and the replacement of the PLO with Hamas. The reality is that Hamas is now a part of the Palestinian mainstream and it can no longer be ignored. If Hamas continues to gain support, then it will be impossible for Israel to have peace, and for the US to have any influence in the region.

So, the increasing paralysis of Yasser Arafat is a challenge of monumental implications for the Palestinians, for Israel and for the United States. One can see why the person who settles the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will gain instant power, favor and influence worldwide.

See The Economist (1 December 2001), p. 43.

Back to top

MUHAMMAD OMAR: THE MAKING OF A PROPHET

Muhammad Omar, the commander of the Taliban and now fugitive from the Northern Alliance and the United States, is a man driven by visions. He believed, I presume until now, that he was to be the emir of Afghanistan and the spiritual and political leader of all Islam. Where did he get such a grandiose vision? Why did he believe something so ludicrous and bizarre? What does all of this tell us about the situation in Afghanistan?

First, born in 1959 near Kandahar, Omar rarely ventured from that city and lived a life of self-imposed ignorance of all but Islam and war. Repeatedly scarred and blinded during the war with the Soviets in the 1980s, he came to believe about a decade ago that he had been called by Allah to purge Afghanistan of sin and violence and make it a pure Islamic state. That vision was fulfilled when the Taliban religious scholars made him their leader and gave him the title "mullah," though he never completed any religious education. This deep-seated conviction reached its peak on 4 April 1996, when he unsealed a shrine in Kandahar that held a cloak believed to have belonged to Muhammad the prophet. The cloak had not been touched for decades. He lifted it in the air as he stood on a rooftop, and placed it on his own shoulders, a cloak which only Muhammad is said to have worn. At that moment he declared himself to be the commander of the faithful of all Islam. No one had made such a claim since the Fourth Caliphate, over 1,000 years ago.

Second, the same month of the cloak incident, Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan, the only country where he could find refuge and allegiance. Bin Laden flattered and praised Omar, encouraging his belief that Afghanistan was the center of a new religious empire of Islam. As recently as last January, bin Laden affirmed Omar as the "new caliph," the supreme ruler of all Muslims and the rightful successor to the prophet. Further, bin Laden swore an oath (a "bayat") of fealty to Omar, binding the two men together. Bin Laden provided the wealth, weapons and vehicles, and Omar provided bin Laden and Al Qaeda the security and protection both needed. From Afghanistan bin Laden has been building his Al Qaeda empire, now collapsing. Increasingly, the Taliban became more financially dependent on bin Laden. Bin Laden is the one who persuaded Omar to destroy the giant Buddhas of Bamyan, to harass UN workers and to arrest the eight Christian aid workers, only recently released.

Third, Omar gradually shifted his focus from Afghanistan and, under the tutelage of bin Laden, began to see his goal as not only the liberation of Afghanistan but also a worldwide jihad against the United States. That shift was critical for what happened on 11 September. That shift is likewise the reason for the war in Afghanistan. My prayer is that both Omar and bin Laden can be brought to justice. They represent a demonic power (real or figurative) that has destroyed Afghanistan, the Twin Towers and the West Wing of the Pentagon. Omar is a deluded man whose visions convinced him of a lie, and bin Laden is a murderer whose visions of where Islam should be in today's world is out of touch with reality. Their alliance has brought the destruction of many people and of an entire country.

See The New York Times (22 November and 7 December 2001), articles by Douglas Frantz and David Rohde and Tim Weiner respectively.

Back to top

EUROPE AND ISRAEL: A RELATIONSHIP OF HATE

In a recent article by Bret Stephens, the relationship between Europe and Israel is characterized as one of distrust and downright hate. In the name of an "evenhanded" approach to the Middle East, the European Union is a tacit enemy of Israel. Here is the evidence that Stephens presents to support his claim:

First, in April France voted to censure Israel at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, while abstaining from a vote against China. In September, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw offered that "one of the factors which helps breed terrorism is the anger which many people in this region feel at events over the years in Palestine." Further, the European Union has so far refused to follow America's lead by freezing the assets of terrorism groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, because "Hezbollah could play a major role in regional stability."

Second, Israel went from being the idol of the European left, which viewed Israel as the model socialist country to, in 1967 after the Six-Day War, being the Goliath of the region. Listen to Stephens, "Partly under the sway of Soviet propaganda, partly in keeping with the fashion of radical chic, European leftists abruptly transferred their allegiances to the Palestinians and the PLO. . . ." But from the European right also came a shift. In 1967 de Gaulle of France slapped an arms embargo on Israel for the Six-Day War. Other rightists followed.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the reality of European dependence on oil has been the main reason for the shift. Although there is not as much Arab oil dependence as there was in the 1970s and 1980s, the habit of reflexively appeasing the Arabs is a reality. Thus, in 1980, the European Union recognized the PLO despite the fact that Yasser Arafat had made neither peace with Israel nor dropped his overt sponsorship of terrorism. Currently, the European Union provides the PLO with the bulk of its foreign aid.

In short, the European Union is openly hostile towards Israel and demonstrably pro-PLO and pro-Yasser Arafat, once again proving that without the United States, Israel would be in dire circumstances! Israel needs the United States, for we are its only major defender in the world community.

See Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal (29 November 2001).

Back to top