From the Editor

Assassins--Then and Now

For 200 years, beginning in the late eleventh century, members of a small Islamic sect with members scattered throughout the Abbasid and Seljuk empires, their base an inaccessible mountain fortress in Persia, used terror as their tool in their attempt to take over the entire Near East. They were called the Hashishins because of their heavy use of hashish--the name turned into the one we know, Assassins.

The parallels to today's Islamic terror networks are astonishing. The Assassins were Ismailis, a subsect of Shiites (who believe the only rightful successors to Mohammed are his son-in-law Ali and his progeny). They were determined to impose their "pure" form of Islam upon the Islamic world, and their method was murder, conceived as a sacred religious duty. A series of leaders beginning with Hasan Sabbah imposed absolute obedience upon the sect's followers who were trained and sent out to assassinate Moslem rulers, their chief advisers and military leaders in order to sow chaos and anarchy and pave the way for Ismaili domination. The Ismaili terrorists would disguise themselves and blend in with the ordinary population and murder in full knowledge that they would be sacrificing their own lives.

Their deviousness and use of the "technology" of their day calls up the imaginative forms of terror used by today's Assassins. For example, in September 1106, an Assassin disguised as a beggar presented a petition to the Grand Vizir of Khurasan and stabbed him to death as he read it. Tortured to name his confederates, he denounced twelve loyal leading courtiers and military officers who were executed. With one stroke of the knife, he had inflicted massive damage on the state. A few years later the grand vizir to the Sultan was crossing the Tigris at Baghdad to attend services at the Great Mosque when a boat suddenly rammed his craft (shades of the U.S.S.Cole) and an Assassin jumped board, plunging a knife into his neck.

The current "purifiers of Islam" have targets that go beyond those of the Assassins. The latter's goal was confined to taking over the Moslem world of the period; today's purifiers' sights are bigger than those set by any would-be conqueror since Hitler: the entire world.

Leadership: George W. Bush v. Ariel Sharon

There is a painful contrast between the leadership now being provided by President George W. Bush and the absence of leadership from Ariel Sharon. And nowhere is it better illustrated than in the contrast between the magnificent speech Bush gave to both Houses of Congress and the pitiful interviews Sharon has given in the recent weeks, both to the Jerusalem Post and on television, including CNN. Bush speaks directly to the nation, giving it inspiration and direction for the difficult period ahead. Sharon has been silent since his election. Indeed, Herb Keinon, the Jerusalem Post's interviewer, told Sharon that he is being criticized for failing to speak to the nation, to raise its spirits. Sharon's reply was that he was talking to the public through the Jerusalem Post interview! Here is the exchange that followed: Keinon: Is that enough? Sharon: I don't know--what are the surveys [of public opinion] today? (An aide then assures him they are not "bad.")

This is leadership?

Perhaps the reason Sharon does not speak to the nation is that he has nothing to offer but contradictory, discordant statements. Israel, he tells Keinon, like the U.S., is engaged in a struggle against terrorists, those who send them, those who aid and abet them. Arafat, says Sharon, is conducting a strategy of terror. Arafat is Israel's Bin Laden. So what does Sharon propose to do about it? "When there is a ceasefire, then we can talk peace." On this "reasoning," the U.S. should now be deep in negotiations with Bin Laden, since far more than the two days quiet that Sharon has demanded prior to "peace talks" has elapsed since the World Trade Center bombings.

Unity in the U.S. v. Israel

In the wake of the terror attacks, American political leaders have closed ranks. Senate Minority leader, Democrat Richard Gephardt, summed it up: "There is no room for partisanship here. As Americans we will work together to do what needs to be done."

Contrast the genuine unity in the United States in confronting the terror threat with the phony unity of

Outpost               - 2 -               September-October 2001