Column One: On 'dual loyalties'

JPOST.COM ^ | 10/17/2003 | CAROLINE GLICK

[APRPEH]

SELECTIONS In the aftermath of Wednesday's attack on American personnel in Gaza, the US announced that the FBI will conduct a thorough investigation. ........... Last week, WorldNetDaily reported that the FBI has rejected, apparently systematically, applications from Jewish Arabic speakers to serve as translators for the Bureau. ............. Two weeks ago, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, the Muslim-American responsible for for vetting and accrediting candidates for Islamic chaplaincy positions in the US military, was arrested on terrorism-related charges. ............... Last year, in the face of public protests, FBI Director Robert Mueller spoke at Alamoudi's American Muslim Council's annual dinner. FBI spokesmen have referred to the AMC as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the US."

Yet Alamoudi has publicly expressed support for Hizbullah and Hamas. The director of the AMC, Eric Vickers, refused on a television interview to acknowledge that Al Qaida is a terrorist organization. Alamoudi has said repeatedly to Muslim audiences that the goal of Muslims in America is to turn the US into an Islamic state. .................... Something similar seems to be going on with the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

This week, Sabah al-Iman, a member of the Council, participated in the meeting the Arab League's Damascus-based Israel boycott committee on behalf of US-occupied Iraq. While in Damascus, al-Imam stated that the post-Saddam Iraq would not be party to any commerce with Israel.

Why did the Iraqi Governing Council feel it necessary to send an emissary? Egypt didn't. Neither did Jordan. Iraq expert Amatzia Baram of the US Institute of Peace referred to the participation of a member of the Iraqi Governing Council at the meeting as "a travesty." ............... In Baram's view, "It is a complete outrage that he went to Damascus, which is a center for anti-American and anti-Israel extremism and violence. What it means is that Iraq under US occupation is reverting to its foreign policy under Saddam Hussein. This move constitutes the bankrupting of the entire US operation in Iraq. ... It is one thing, in the absence of a peace agreement, for the Iraqis to bar Israelis from doing business in the country. It is quite another for them to make such an announcement at a meeting of the boycott conference in Syria." ...................... The US is trying something revolutionary in Iraq. It is attempting to bring openness and freedom and democracy to a country that has known none of these things and is surrounded by other countries that fear all of these things. But if the new Iraqi national identity is based on the old Iraqi anti-Semitism then the attempt is destined to fail.

If the Iraqis after Saddam can find no better reason to keep the country together than the need to stay unified to fight Israel, then maybe there is no reason to lift a finger to prevent its break-up. If hating Israel is the core of the Iraqi national identity, then that identity is undesirable.

[APRPEH]

Caroline Glick has to know that whether democratic or not, arabians will never accept Israel, except as a vassal state at best. During the cold war dumping a govt that was not pro-american and not free in favor of one pro-american and not free was acceptable. today the rules seem to be in the WOT that a non-anti-american arab state not sending bombs to america is okay even if they still support bombs being sent to israel. this is the real duality. this policy is doomed if true.