(Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at FrontPageMagazine.com on November 23, 2004.)
We are currently running a campaign to put an ad in as many college newspapers as is possible, which points out that the war on terror is seamless: the Islamic radicals who want to destroy the state of Israel are the same radicals who want to destroy us. This is a vital point to understand in the war on terror because the principal way our enemies seek to divide us and sap our will to resist is by arguing that our policies are a “root cause” of the attacks against us. Many who do not support the terrorists nonetheless will accept the argument that the attacks on us are caused by our support for the state of Israel and Israel’s policies, in turn, are the cause of the attacks against it. This is the argument, for example, of Pat Buchanan and the paleo-conservatives at The American Conservative. It is even more effective on the left side of the political spectrum, particularly on college campuses where a left-wing professoriate and anti-American radicals are able to exploit the distorted version of history that has already been inflicted on college students to turn them against the war in Iraq in particular and America’s war against Islamic terror in general.
Thus far we have been able to place the ad in 15 college papers, thanks to your contributions and support. But four college papers have already rejected the ad for political reasons. These are the Daily Californian (Berkeley), The Battalion (Texas A&M), The Exponent (Purdue), and The Maroon (University of Chicago). None of these papers would provide a reason why the ad was rejected. That is because the reason is intimidation by pro-terrorist groups on campus. When I spoke to the editor of the Texas A&M Battalion it was apparent to me that she had no quarrel herself with the ad and no reason for not running it. She kept referring to the “editors” ignoring the fact that she is the editor-in-chief. When I called Robert Wagner who is the “General Manager of Student Media” at Texas A&M, he told me that the paper had a right to reject the ad.
In fact the paper at Texas A&M doesn’t have such a right. As part of state institution, the Battalion is subject to the First Amendment, which means that its editorial decisions about whether or not to run political ads must be viewpoint-neutral. If the Battalion doesn’t run our ad in the next few days they will hear from our lawyer, who is John O’Neill, the leader of the Swift Boat vets.
Unfortunately, universities have dealt with the problem of the campus leftists’ political censorship by washing their hands of the problem. Thus, the Daily Californian and many other college papers are quasi-independent of the universities whose name they bear and whose offices they use, and can escape the protections of the First Amendment. Private universities like Purdue and the University of Chicago are also exempt.
What is really behind these editorial decisions is a campaign of intimidation by radical and pro-terrorist groups on campus. This is what the editor of the Chicago Maroon said to our staff when asked the reason for the rejection (as related by our staffer): “I just got a call from Judy from the Chicago Maroon. She said they have decided that our half page ad (“Israel Is The Canary In The Mine” — read the text of the ad below.) is “not appropriate” for their paper. She said that she won’t put this in writing the reasons for the rejection (as I asked her to do), because we “know the ad is controversial.” She said she doesn’t want to deal with the repercussions of publishing the ad. She said that people come screaming and yelling at her when she publishes anything like this. She said that we don’t have to hear them but she does, and that people threaten to stop others from advertising in their paper, and that she is not going to run the ad.
Mild as it may seem, this is a form of terror.
Text of the Ad:
The war between Arabs and Jews is not the cause of the war on terror, as apologists for Muslim radicals claim; it is the war on terror.
Twenty-five years ago, there were two non-Islamic democracies in the Arab Middle East, Israel and Lebanon. This was too much for Islamic radicals, Syrian irredentists and Palestinians who joined forces to destroy Lebanon and make it a base for terror.
The goal of the post-Oslo Intifada is not to establish a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish state. Its goal is an Islamic umma extending “from the Jordan to the sea.” That is why Oslo was rejected by Arafat even though Barak and Clinton offered him an independent state on virtually all of the land Palestinians claimed in the West Bank of the Jordan. That is why the very birth of Israel is referred to by all the present Palestinian leadership as the “Naqba” — the “catastrophe.” To Islamic radicals at war with the West, the very creation of Israel is a catastrophe.
American apologists for Arab aggression are also apologists for Islamic aggression. In their eyes, Arab terror in the Middle East has a root cause in the policies of Israel, whom terrorists refer to as the “little Satan.” For apologists of the Islamic terror of 9/11 and the Zarqawi terror in Iraq, jihad is not a self-generating creed but has a “root cause” in the policies of “the Great Satan,” which is us.
Peace in the Middle East and peace in the war with al-Qaeda and Zarqawi will come only when the terrorists surrender or are defeated.
To order David Horowitz’s book Unholy Alliance, click here.
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter