George Habash is dead.The New York Times had this interesting tidbit.
A number of accounts say Mr. Habash was born in 1925 in Lydda, Palestine, which is now Lod, Israel. The son of a well-to-d0 grain merchant who was Greek Orthodox, he was known as a hard-working and serious student who was introverted in his youth. He studied medicine at the American University in Beirut, but his studies were interrupted in 1948 when he left school to help his family flee Palestine as violence deepened between Arabs and Jews.That experience of the nascent Israeli Army driving the Palestinians from their homes had a profound effect on the young medical student, who began organizing Palestinians as soon as he returned to medical school, graduating first in his class in 1951. In 1953, Mr. Habash was among the founders of an organization in Jordan called the Arab Nationalists’ Movement. Backed with financing from Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, the group established a medical clinic in Amman and promoted the broader goal of a unified Arab superstate.
In 1957, however, the Arab Nationalists’ Movement was implicated in an attempt to overthrow King Hussein, and Mr. Habash and his followers were fled to Syria. But the group was also forced from that country in 1963, two years after Syria withdrew from a political union with Egypt.
Ignore the “driving the Palestinians from their homes,” but note that Habash, before starting the PFLP helped found Arab Nationalists’ Movement. The following is from the article, I probably quote more than any other, “How Important is the PLO?” by Daniel Pipes. It’s almost 25 years old, and still as valuable as ever.
Pan-Arabism then transformed what would have been an obscure clash over territory into one of the greatest, most significant land conflicts of the age. If not for the Arabs’ impulse to engage in one another’s affairs, the Palestinian cause would probably have remained as peripheral to world politics as that of the Armenians or the Eritreans. But the pan-Arabist focus on Zionism as the paramount enemy made the fate of the Palestinians a matter of direct concern to every government between Libya and Iraq. As the unifying element in pan-Arabism, the cause of the destruction of Israel acquired a symbolic importance out of proportion to the issues at hand. With time, it even took on independent existence, bearing its own mystique.As the principal goal of pan-Arabist politics, the destruction of Israel also became a way for government to assert their legitimacy; many rulers – Jamal ‘Abd an-Nasir of Egypt, the Syrian and Iraqi Ba’thists, and, especially, Qadhdhafi – made their involvement in the “Palestinian cause” a leading warrant of their worthiness to rule. Conversely, the credentials of Arab rulers who did not hew to the standard line on Israel were brought into question (indeed it was expected that any Arab leader who accepted Israel would pay with his life, in the manner of King ‘Abdallah of Jordan, Anwar as-Sadat, and Bashir Jumayyil).
The conflict with Israel thus came to bear on the authority of Arab regimes; giving aid to the Palestinian cause strengthened rulers against challenges from within or meddling from abroad. With the years, Israel’s military prowess rendered the idea of destroying it increasingly senseless – yet the failure to find other sources of political legitimacy meant that Arab rulers continued to depend on anti-Zionism.
In understanding Palestinian nationalism, it’s important to recognize its relationship with pan-Arabism. Palestinian nationalism is less about the dispossession of the Palestinians – if that were the case, it could have been solved easily by now – than it is about non-Arab encroachment on Arab land: Israel.
It’s telling, of course, that the “moderate” leader of the PLO sees the need to honor Habash. (via memeorandum)
PFLP founder George Habash died at age 83 in his home in Amman. His terror gang massacred dozens of Israeli adults, children and babies, assassinated Minister Ze’evi and plotted to kill Rabbi Ovadya Yosef.PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas announced three days of mourning following the death of George Habash, the founder of terror gang PFLP. All PLO flags will be at half mast and there will be an official “house of mourning” in Abba’s Ramallah office.
The Democracy Project emphasizes an aspect of the NY Times obituary:
For those who argue America’s retreat from Vietnam had no ill effects:Mr. Habash later remarked that the Arab defeat that year [1967] convinced him of the need to adopt a strategy like that of the Marxist guerrillas in Vietnam. “By 1967, we had understood the undeniable truth, that to liberate Palestine we have to follow the Chinese and Vietnamese examples,†he said in an interview in 1969.
JammieWearingFool notes that Habash’s death was announced by Leila Khaled. For those of you with long memories, she wasn’t just a member of the PFLP but a hijacker. Theodore Dalrymple had a nice summary of her career:
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, so perhaps it is petty to complain that the presence of the Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled in Britain, to address a meeting of students at London University’s prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies, undermines Britain’s claim of iron commitment to the anti-terrorist cause.For a time, Khaled was the most famous airplane hijacker in the world. In 1969, she took part in the hijacking of a TWA flight that was diverted to Damascus. She escaped by sneaking on to the same bus that carried away the hijacked passengers. She did not give up after her escape. In 1970, she attempted to hijack an El Al flight, which made an emergency landing at London’s Heathrow Airport. Authorities arrested her, and she spent four weeks in prison but was then freed in exchange for a hostage held by the Palestinians.
Now Khaled is back in England’s green and pleasant land. To do her justice, she is not a turncoat to her cause. She told the meeting at SOAS (packed, of course, as you’d expect) that there were no suicide bombers, only freedom fighters. The fact that freedom is not a conspicuous aspect of the political culture of the part of the world from which she comes seems to have escaped her.
JudeoPundit slams the BBC’s “eulogy” for Habash and reminds us:
He was a pioneer in the use of the airline industry for terror-purposes. That makes the 9/11 operation part of his vile legacy.
Unfortunately, most people – especially media folk – don’t have memories that long.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Multiculturalists often talk about the Arab contributions to world civilization. Such there may have been but Habash’s career is indicative of the most salient contribution of the Arabs to the world today: increasingly grotesque and savage forms of violence.
And the world’s response, of course, showed that there were advantages to that. I can only wonder how the world would be different today if the world had reacted with distaste and horror to these depredations rather than at most…not condoning, actually, but understanding.
Geez, I remember Leila Khaled. I was a teenager then, but I remember her photo in Life magazine. She is a beautiful woman, and the photo emphasized her beauty. So the same article that spoke of the depredations of the hijacking also subliminally glamorized her.
A good demonstration of the old saying that “Beauty is only skin-deep.”
Two of the contributions to the world’s media and elites being pretty cool with Arab terrorism are fear and fascinatin. The media, politicians, and other elites are easily cowed, and rush to appease those who threaten violence against them. This is in distinction to the typical American redneck’s reaction, which is to fight back.
The fascination part is more subtle. Elites, especially intellectuals, swoon over those who advocate and use violence, the more mindless the better. That was one of the attractions of the Nazis and the Commies, and the Arab/Muslim terrorists benefit from the same attitude. The elites get a pleasurable frisson from attaching themselves to violent criminals, especially political criminals, and the violent always seem to them more authentic (an important consideration in their eyes) than peaceful and law-abiding people.
I do not know if this is related, but there seems to be a fascination with the Hollywood elite decision makers with movies that depict violence and horror. The same acts that we find despicable in real life, seem to be portrayed more and more on the screen.
Why do these left wing “peace loving” individuals promote such horrific degradation in their movies?
Alex – if the world had reacted with horror, it may have well dampened the effect of terror. At least I’d like to think that, but it’s pretty unknowable. (Though I suppose you could argue that terror was lower during Netanyahu’s term because he wouldn’t put up with it.)
Joanne and Michael – You might be interested in another sick example of this glamorization.
Herschel – Your question is best addressed to Seraphic Secret. As a conservative working in Hollywood he’s likely to have insights to that question.