A World Obsessed with Arab Anger (Born to Lose and really, really peeved about it!)

The Arizona Republic ^ | April 4, 2004 | Craig Weiss

[quidnunc]

Israel landed a devastating blow at Palestinian terror by assassinating Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas, two weeks ago. Yassin was responsible for directing terror attacks that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis and tens of Americans.

In a too-familiar scene, the United Nations Security Council swiftly voted to condemn Israel's focused response to Palestinian terror. Although the United States vetoed this preposterous resolution, the Bush administration admonished Israel for escalating tensions in the region.

The purported justification for these criticisms is that Israel's action threatens to increase Palestinian rage, and thus to promote further acts of terror.

Both the Security Council vote and the U.S. criticism reveal a dangerous mind-set that threatens American and Israeli lives. The accepted worldview is that when fighting terror, one must avoid actions that are liable to enrage the Arab world, however effective and justified those actions might otherwise be.

-snip-

Tellingly, while world leaders are preoccupied over rage in the Arab world, there seems to be no concern whatsoever about the emotional stability of Westerners. Is anyone worried that if there is one more suicide bombing in Israel, Jews will start blowing themselves up in Palestinian pizza parlors? Was the world concerned that after 9/11, enraged Americans would fly planes into Saudi Arabian buildings?

A more sensible evaluation of Arab anger should consider those things that do not rile Arab emotions. We should ask why Palestinians do not seem to mind that while their economic situation is desperate, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has embezzled more than a billion dollars. (Just last month, French authorities discovered that Arafat had wired $10 million to his wife so she could rent an entire hotel floor for herself at $16,000 a night).

-snip-

[Publius6961]

The only anger I can work up is that American taxpayer money ends up in that pot directly or indirectly.
The euroweenies can throw away all the money they want.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
52	District of Columbia	10.00	1	10.00			10.00	1

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[saquin]

Exactly. I'm sick of everyone fearing the reaction of the "Arab Street".

Consider this.

What would the reaction of the "Arab Street" be if Christian fundamentalists kidnapped an innocent Muslim journalist, forced him to say "I am a Muslim" into a camera, and then filmed his gruesome beheading?

What would the reaction of the "Arab Street" be if Christians killed 4 innocent Muslim contractors, burned their bodies, tore off pieces of their charred corpses and flung them over telephones wires, dragged the corpses through the streets, then hung what was left of them from a bridge, all the while chanting "Yes, yes to Christianity"?

Why is no one worried about the reaction of the "American Street" to these atrocities committed against us?

[FairOpinion]

An excellent WSJ editorial from 2002:

Why the Muslims Misjudged Us
They hate us because their culture is backward and corrupt.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=105001688

"The catastrophe of the Muslim world is also explicable in its failure to grasp the nature of Western success, which springs neither from luck nor resources, genes nor geography. Like Third World Marxists of the 1960s, who put blame for their own self-inflicted misery upon corporations, colonialism and racism--anything other than the absence of real markets and a free society--the Islamic intelligentsia recognizes the Muslim world's inferiority vis-à-vis the West, but it then seeks to fault others for its own self-created fiasco. Government spokesmen in the Middle East should ignore the nonsense of the cultural relativists and discredited Marxists and have the courage to say that they are poor because their populations are nearly half illiterate, that their governments are not free, that their economies are not open, and that their fundamentalists impede scientific inquiry, unpopular expression and cultural exchange. "

[dr huer]

Lets not have it called an assasination, but just exiling the sheik to Paradise, which is where his religion says that he is now.

[Jack Black]

OK. It took 10 seconds. I spend about 100 times that here every day. Everyone knows it's the right thing to do. Skip a dinner out and keep FR up and running. You'll feel good!

[txzman]

I have a wonderful reaction to Arab anger demonstrated in terror. Its called a production line full of daisy cutters.

[meenie]

Been there. I'll feel good when the US tells the UN to shove their peace keeping advice and world government theories up their wreck them. At the same time, take the grounds with eminent domain and refuse to pay one more red cent for dues.

[Restorer]

What would the reaction of the "Arab Street" be if Christians killed 4 innocent Muslim contractors, burned their bodies, tore off pieces of their charred corpses and flung them over telephones wires, dragged the corpses through the streets, then hung what was left of them from a bridge, all the while chanting "Yes, yes to Christianity"?

It really wasn't all that long ago that we did things very like this in the US.

The relevant anger generally had it roots in racial or economic motives, rather than religious ones, though.

Such actions were very common 100 years ago, and still fairly frequent in the 20s and 30s. Their last occurences were in the 50s.

And, no, such lynchings weren't unique to the South, although they were much more common there.

[Jeff Gordon]

The Arabs <- God's chosen losers.

[Betaille]

"I'm sick of everyone fearing the reaction of the "Arab Street"."

Amen to that! Has there ever been a civilization so agressive and murderous, and yet so coddled by the rest of the world as modern Islam? Do Americans not have a right to their own rage? Do Israelis not have the right to their own rage? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
WHY ARE MUSLIMS THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO SEEM TO HAVE "HUMAN RIGHTS"!?!?!?

[Phosgood]

B.S.

[Phosgood]

B.S.

[The Right Stuff]

those actions certainly occurred, but on a rare basis and never with the approval of decent people.

[sultan88]

Why do you say "B.S."??

[Restorer]

"According to the Tuskegee Institute figures, between the years 1882 and 1951, 4,730 people were lynched in the United States: 3,437 Negro and 1,293 white. The largest number of lynchings occurred in 1892. Of the 230 persons lynched that year, 161 were Negroes and sixty-nine whites."

I think 230 people lynched in a year is a pretty fair number. It is a myth that only "white trash" participated.

As I noted, lynching dropped off dramatically after WWI. It is equally a myth (on the other side of the issue) that it was widespread in the South during the 50s and 60s. Although I'm sure fear of it was indeed ubiquitous.

[surely_you_jest]

Why is no one worried about the reaction of the "American Street" to these atrocities committed against us?

Possibly because since, say, the end of WWII our bark has been far worse than our bite?