| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Yeah, it was a big blunder to condemn these guys. What's a few wanton murders of innocent civilians among friends? From Qatar's Peninsula On-line, with thanks to Twostellas:
DOHA: The US has made a big mistake by branding outfits like Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorists, which are in fact fighting for their national interests, according to Henry Laurens, a French expert on Middle East affairs, who is currently visiting Qatar.Laurens, who is a professor at College de France, has written extensively on Middle East issues, especially Palestine. He has just published a book in French titled The Arab East at American time: From Gulf War to Iraq war.
"Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorists but nationalists. Once you brand them as terrorists, then you can not talk with them. This is the mistake that America has made. In fact these groups are ready to talk, unlike Al Qaeda and similar groups," Laurens said in an interview with The Peninsula yesterday.
They are also different from Al Qaeda in the sense that they are functioning within their own countries and are not launching any bomb attacks outside their territory, he noted.
Asked about the so called "terror attacks" that are taking place in Iraq and Palestine, Henry said: "Instead of using the word ‘terrorist’ I would prefer to describe them just as attacks, kidnappings or murders.
“The word terrorism is very vague and misleading since it has been used by different groups in different meanings. The US bombings in Iraq and the Israeli attacks in Palestine can also described as terrorist acts in the same way that the anti-US attacks in Iraq are termed as terrorism," he observed.
One might suggest to this gentleman that a key difference is that the US goes out of its way not to hit civilians targets (although the Iraqis, like Hamas and Hizballah, make that as difficult as possible by launching attacks from civilian areas, in order to capitalize on civilian deaths that result from the response. Those responsible for abuses like Abu Ghraib are punished in the US. Those responsible for suicide attacks against civilians are celebrated as heroes by these "nationalist" groups.
Posted by Robert at October 1, 2004 7:04 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
http://www.spectator.se/stambord/index.php?p=232#comments
Sweden's largest newspaper: Israeli killing of Hamas leader was "terrorism"
Aftonbladet is Sweden's (and Scandinavia's) largest newspaper. The woman writing this is the political editor-in-chief. Tell Ms. Helle Klein what you think about her piece on this email:
helle.klein@aftonbladet.se
Posted by: Ali Dashti![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 1, 2004 7:27 AM
This reminds me of a joke I heard a while ago:
Arafat and Bin Laden meet. Bin Laden asks Arafat: “How come that we are both terrorists, we both kill innocent people to further our goals but you are celebrated all over the world, you have many friends, and got the Nobel Peace prize while I’m hunted all over the world, I’m branded an enemy, and many want me dead?”
Arafat says:” It’s simple I only kill Jews.”
This is especially true when it comes to France. Killing a few thousand innocent Jews will not come between them and their Arab friends.
at October 1, 2004 8:15 AM
Henry Laurens, a French expert on Middle East affairs? He sounds like he works on just about any university faculty in the USA, if not the State Department.
Posted by: George Mason at October 1, 2004 10:58 AM
Laurens has it all wrong. If he bothered to read the Hamas charter, he would see that it clearly wishes for the imposition of the Sharia. Hezbollah is no different. And, in fact, the facade of "nationalism" which is so intimately connected to the invention, post-1967, of the "Palestinian people," with a few islamochristians front and center to disguise the fact that the war against Israel has always been a Jihad, a relentless Jihad against an Infidel sovereignty in the middle of dar al-Islam.
As long ago as 1920 the local Arab notables demanded the imposition of the sharia from the British by that time in control. Anyone who bothers to study the vocabulary of the Arabs steadily from that time until the present will see that it is rife with the classic demands of Islam. It is only for the outside world that this "two tiny peoples" stuff, which goes over so well, is offered.
Note, by the way, that on at least four separate occasions Arafat invoked, at the height of those dizzying and utterly pointless "negotiations" with the Israelis and the attendant American ciphers, Muhammad's Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya -- the treaty which established (see Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in Islam) for all time, the basic principle of Islamic jurisprudence for treaties between Muslims and Infidels: no permanent peace treaty is possible. None. Ever. The model for all such Muslim jurisprudence is the agreement that Muhammad made in 628 A. D. with the Meccans -- the agreement known as the Treaty of al-Hudaibyiya. It was to last for 10 years; it lasted 18 months, until the ranks of Muhammad's followers had sufficiently grown so that he could go on the attack. Indeed, at the time the agreement was reached Muhammad declared to his followers that it was a great "Victory." Why was this seeming peace-treaty a "victory"? Well, because the Muslims were under no obligation to honor it, and indeed whenever they were in a position to go on the attack, they not only could, but should do so.
It is instructive that the hapless Dennis Ross, who has spent his entire adult life on one comimcal pursuit -- "negotiations" between Arabs and Israelis, or between Israel and the "Palestinians" -- that will lead, in his view, to a "settlement" of the problem, a "solution" of the problem. What nonsense. Anyone who had spent a few days, at most a week, studying the relevant texts, would understand that there is no possibility of a permanent peace between Muslims and any Infidel people or polity. The Muslim view is coherent, stable, and not subject to change. A year or so ago, Dennis Ross, on some NPR show, was asked by a caller about the relevance of Islamic doctrines to the matter of treaties with Infidels. His voice revealed confusion, befuddlemenet, consternation -- he had absolutely no idea what the caller meant. He simply did not understand that the doctrines of Islam might not only be relevant, but might be the only thing that was truly important to discussions of the value of "treaties" (as opposed to Israeli power as deterrence, which if it is obviously overwhelming, in turn can create the conditions of peace -- i.e. not war -- by allowing Arab states to invoke "darura" or necessity as a reason for not going to war with Israel).
In this respect, he was like so many others. He simply hasn't studied Islam. It's so difficult. I mean, there are all those suras, and who knows what they are all about, what their real meaning is, and how do you know which ones are taken seriously, and which ones aren't. And what, Dennis Ross will now be asking plaintively (once he reads this comment) what are these "hadith" and do they really matter? And then he will ask some graduate student or some associate slaving away in his office to prepare a position paper or a memorandum or something, anything, that Dennis Ross will be capable of reading quickly and pretend to understand.
Dennis Ross is not alone. Tom Friedman was asked, on a show, if he could nave five -- only five! -- books on the MIddle Easst he could recommend. Silence. Silence. Stunned silence. Finally, Friedman offers, tentatively, one title: an antediluvian text by J. C. Hurewitz. That was it. Nothing else. Tom Friedman, right now "on leave" to write a "book." What value will such a book have? The value of "The Lexus and the Olive Tree"? Of Platitudes and Plongitudes -- no, I meant "Latitudes and Longitudes"? His columns on the MIddle East, and on everything else, are full of pompous inside-dopesterism ("when I had dinner with a group of Moroccan intellectuals in Rabat last week...") and portentous, grandiose "theories." ("I have a theory. Call it the exstra-virgin olive-oil meets Land o' Lakes butter theory of international relations...." -- no, I just made that one up. But you get the dreary Friedmanian idea). Save us from these silly silly people. Please.
Posted by: Hugh at October 1, 2004 11:02 AM
once again we see the left masquarading religious war as secular nationalistic war. This is a common subterfuge of left wingers, who in their obssesive secularism must strip all religion from their understanding of conflicts.
thus converting bloody Islamic jihad into "wars of leberation" to conform with their preconcieved views of human stuggle (a la che guavara?).
at October 1, 2004 12:24 PM
I've always wanted to know what is the form of Muslim prayer. What do they pray for? Do they have something in the nature of the Lord's prayer?
Does anyone have any idea?
Posted by: DP111 at October 1, 2004 5:34 PM
It' going to be interesting to sit back and watch the French squirm in what I believe is the not too distant future, when those 5-7 million Muslims in their country start making noise about establishing their own state in France.
Posted by: krkrjak at October 1, 2004 5:35 PM
krkrjak:
If the french are too civilized to drive the moslem enemy from their lands then a small part of land where ALL moslems in France can be banished to live under sharia' will be a small price to pay for the non-moslems of france!
And yes, if histyory is any guide, it won't be long before demands backed by violent insurgencies to establish an little independent states under the Koran in different parts of Europe will be commonplace.
Posted by: voletti at October 1, 2004 8:22 PM
Hugh: As for the State Department, I remember a training session in which the Islam of the Malay lands was identified a "Peaceful, Sufi-inspired Monsoon Islam", as opposed to the supposedly "fundamentalistic" Desert Islam. Proof of Sufi peaceableness was found in their dialogue with Quakers--as if the Society of Friends didn't also once tell us Stalinism was Progressive (Come to think of it, A Quaker Pacifist is only a violent, militant Ranter or Fifthe Monarchy Man who got the worst of a run-in with the Ironsides, and lived to tell the tale); or that "gentle, Sufi-inspired" Moro jurementados gave our forces a run for their money back in 1902, and still give the independent Philippines headaches.
Moral of the Story: mired in 1960's vintage rosy visions of "mystical" religions, the Department of State is aptly called Foggy Bottom when it come to dealing with ANYONE's religion--including those professed by a large number of its employees.
Posted by: Kepha1 at October 2, 2004 12:30 AM
How can this twat claim that Hizbollah are fighting for "national interests"? They don't represent a nation, they are a private army living on the land of other nations Lebanon and Syria - both of which have their own armies. Hamas too are a private army living within the Palestinian Authority of Gaza which is "governed" by the PNC hich has its own militia.
Posted by: Tziona at October 2, 2004 3:22 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)