Share
-
Heaven On Earth
Monthly Archives: May 2006
Strange Bedfellows: The Islamists and the far… What?
When my friend and history-librarian at BU Donald Altschiller told me that the Chronicle of Higher Education had an article on the unholy alliance between the Islamists and the far right, my initial response was, “No, you mean and the far left.”
“No,” he responded I’m fairly sure it’s the right.”
“But the big story is not the alliance with the right, but with the left.” And in saying that, I thought, “alright, finally the MSM is catching on.”
“That may be true,” he responded with his characteristic understatement, “but I’m pretty sure this article is about the alliance between Islamism and the far right.”
And as he repeated his assertion, it slowly sank in: yes, the Chronicle of Higher Education has tackled the problem of unholy alliances between Islamists and Western ideologues who are playing with fire… but who do they focus on? The far right. Alone? No mention of the Left? You be the judge.
April 21, 2006 Friday
SECTION: THE CHRONICLE REVIEW; Pg. 7 Vol. 52 No. 33
Strange Bedfellows
GEORGE MICHAELAmericans, stunned by the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and on the Pentagon, asked themselves, “Why did this happen?” The denizens of the extreme right in America believed they knew why. While mainstream commentators and public officials claimed that it was our values of freedom and democracy that made us targets, shortly after the attacks, extremist Internet discussion groups buzzed with a far different message: The United States had been attacked because of its support for the state of Israel.
That sentiment was shared by many followers of what is generally referred to as militant Islam.
Indeed for years, going back to the Third Reich in Germany, these two seemingly different groups have not only agreed on a common enemy Jews and, after it was formed, Israel but they have increasingly cooperated to forge a narrative of propaganda against their enemy. Last year, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran stirred worldwide condemnation by dismissing the Holocaust as a “myth,” purportedly used as a pretext for the creation of a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world, one of the voices that rose to his defense was David Duke, the former Klan leader (and Louisiana representative) who says he “has dedicated his life to the freedom and heritage of European American peoples.”
The collaboration of Islamic militants and the extreme right cries out for further study. For there are some indications that the narrative they tell could become more mainstream.
At first glance, there would seem to be little common ground between right-wing extremism and militant Islam. After all, the segment of the right concerned about the racial survival of white people generally tends to be derisive of nonwhites; they would not consider Muslims the majority of whom trace their ethnic ancestry to third-world countries to be part of the ideal, exclusively white community. For their part, Islamic fundamentalists tend to look askance at non-Muslims, whom they sometimes designate as “infidels” and Government released a working paper on “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” In it, they asserted that the various interest groups lobbying on behalf of Israel have subverted foreign policy in the Middle East to the detriment of the national interests of the United States. The report has occasioned considerable controversy. Critics like Harvard Law School’s Alan M. Dershowitz have been quick to point out the stylistic parallels between the study and traditional anti-Semitic canards of Jewish dual loyalty and malfeasance. Dershowitz, according to The Harvard Crimson, has gone so far as to aver that the authors culled information for their report from “hate sites” on the Internet. Although such allegations appear spurious, the paper did contain motifs about, for example, the power of Jews in the news media and Jewish manipulation of the political system that have formed the basis of classic anti-Semitic narratives. The report, indeed, has been enthusiastically received by representatives of the extreme right, including Duke, who expressed satisfaction that his criticism of Israel has been vindicated by such esteemed academics.
It is difficult to predict how the unexpected and alarming convergence between militant Islam and the extreme right will unfold in the future. Over the past two decades, several countries have imploded due to centrifugal ethnic rivalries. The extreme right is worried that large-scale immigration, the ascendance of multiculturalism, and the decreasing popularity of the assimilationist ideal could one day foreshadow a similar situation in the United States. The September 11 attacks and their consequences have the potential to amplify their fears. If the “war on terror” should falter, more people in the United States and Europe could become receptive to their views.
The meeting of the minds among what are now just some groups and individuals could presage strange alliances in the future.
George Michael is an assistant professor of political science and administration of justice at the University of Virginia’s College at Wise. Next week the University Press of Kansas will publish his book The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right.
As far as I can make out… not even a hint. No one who was not well-informed would have a clue that the far greater threat — because the ideology is more permeable to mainstream thought — came from the Left. Indeed how many of the comments above could have been made about the Left, from blaming 9-11 on our support of Israel to supporting the Walt-Mearsheimer paper?
As a brief meditation on the issue of the unholy alliance between Left and Islamists, I offer the following passage in an article by Cédric Housez at a site called Voltairenet: Non Aligned [sic!] Press Network in which he attacks a French journalist (writing for Charlie Hebdo — one of the few French newspapers to publish the Danish Cartoons) named Caroline Fourest, who published La Tentation obscurantiste [The obscurantist temptation] in which she tackled the unholy alliance of the Left and islamism.
In [her] essay, she further continued to denounce the French anti-imperialist left wing movements, which are to blame, in her opinion, of indulgence with “Islamics”. We had already described in our columns how Prochoix, through the reports of its main presenters, Caroline Fourest and Fiammetta Venner, and Charlie Hebdo, especially through Philippe Val editorials, had broadened the definition of “Islamism” to finally include most of the anti-imperialist movements of Muslim inspiration [1].
This is a particularly interesting formulation — “anti-imperialist movements of Muslim inspiration.” Something like calling the anti-Iraq war movement a peace movement, when it’s profoundly belligerent and really only opposed to American war. What Islamic movement is against Islamic imperialism? What would an anti-imperialist Islam look like?
By labeling the Muslim organizations as satanic, due to repeated amalgams, Caroline Fourest, Fiammetta Venner and Philippe Val are part of a broader movement orchestrated by journalists, political leaders and heads of associations who want to prevent, due to different reasons, the establishment of a vast anti-imperialist cluster that includes Muslim and rebellious organizations. However, in order to be effective, the discourse to foul Muslim organizations in the eyes of rebellious groups should be delivered by people with an aura of prestige or by those who have at least a substantive audience in such movements. But the image of Prochoix and that of Charlie Hebdo was tarnished in the eyes of those movements due to the explanation and critical analysis of the associations. [2] or publications [3] which are aimed at pointing out the hypothesis and distortion of reality upon which the reports of the presenter of Prochoix and director of Charlie Hebdo are based.
In case you’re not familiar with how the French express themselves that means (with a little help from the French original)…
“by demonizing the Islamists through guilt by association, CF, VF and PV are part of a larger movement of media, politicians and NGOs who want to prevent the emergence of a vast alliance of anti-imperialists that includes Muslims and leftist dissident groups. But in order to do this, the attack needs to come from people with a reputation as leftist (since anything else could be dismissed as right-wing racism). But Charlie Hebdo and Prochoix lost their luster because some of us have trashed them.
In other words, anyone pointing out the grotesque synergy between the Left and Islamism is just doing so because they want to prevent a powerful anti-imperialist alliance. Talk about dupes of demopaths. This is a left-wing version of what they accuse the Zionists of — any criticism is illegitimate because anti-Semitic (or in this case anti-anti-imperialist). Somebody needs to read Ephraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism quickly to find out with whom they’re in bed… because History does count.
Update: In researching for a paper I’m giving on conspiracy theories, I ran across a detail I was unaware of. Voltairenet is the site where Thierry Meyssan first published his conspiracy theories about the Pentagon and 9-11. It currently has a piece on how the Israelis are manipulating the Palestinian factions to kill each other off. Thus we find the classic conspiracist mindset at work: on the one hand projecting the most nefarious motives and deeds onto one’s “enemies” and absolving one’s “friends” of all responsibility. My question is, why did they choose to invoke Voltaire for a site that shows all the signs of a credulity he would have despised? Psychops?
Letter from an American Professor to the Brits
Joseph Skibell writes the following letter to the idiotarians at NATFHE, who want to boycott Israeli academics unless they publicly denounce the dreaded “occupation.” Not only is the boycott a classic example of the kind of moral insanity that European (and American) academics have slipped into like a Pallywood induced stupor, but his answer is a lovely example of how people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
To the leaders and members of NATFHE;
As a writer, as a professor, as a man living in a free, if imperfect society, I urge the leaders and the members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, as writers, as professors and as citizens of a free, if imperfect society, to rethink and renounce their collective motion to boycott Israeli academics.
Must an American novelist really lecture his British academic colleagues on the dangers of McCarthyistic political tests? Must an American really remind his British colleagues that the military troops that represent their will are not quite yet out of Northern Ireland, nor did the world call for a boycott of British academics all during that long conflict, nor did it ask British teachers and professors to swear a political oath in support of the Irish in order to be able to lecture and teach and carry on research in other countries. Must an American really remind his British colleagues of the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the (to a degree duplicitious) British hand in the current Israeli-Palestinian stalemate these historical acts represent?
Lastly, must an American really remind his British friends that, if nothing else, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very complex conflict — in other words, it’s not a Western in which the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys all wear black hats (neither is it a “Middle-Eastern,” in which all the good guys and all the bad guys wear either kippot or kaffiyehs, depending on which side you favor; nor one in which the good guys all pass political litmus tests adminstered to them by the British Thought Police) — and I can only urge your organization and its members as individuals to refrain from simplistic gestures that will do nothing but harm individual professors while it brings disgrace to your organization.
To paraphrase Voltaire: While I personally regret and decry the political and moral positions implicit in your proposed boycott, I would fight to the death for your right to hold those positions, just as I would fight to the death for the right of my academic colleagues in Israel to hold positions contrary to yours and to go about their lives and their work without interference from McCarthyistic boycotts like the one NATFHE is shamefully proposing.
Now that Britain is finally leaving Ireland, isn’t it time she left Israel as well?
Sincerely,
Joseph Skibell
Author of “A Blessing on the Moon” and “The English Disease”
Associate Professor
Creative Writing Program/Department of English
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
404/727-0840
404/929-0025 (fax)
joseph.skibell@emory.edu
www.creativewriting.emory.edu
Note that the Brits who are pushing for this resolution probably don’t think of themselves as “British” in the sense that they insist on thinking of the Israelis as Israeli. They probably share the “self-hate” syndrome that is really a hate my fellows syndrome. The irony here is that the Israeli left exercises far more control over the behavior of both Israeli military and political behavior than the left of any other country in the world, including in Europe.
The “Fatwa Bomb Meter”: Art Spiegelman in Harpers does Danoongate
Hat tip David Steinman.
The new issue is not yet on the Harper’s website.
INTERVIEW-US satirist Art Spiegelman tackles Danish cartoons
Tue 16 May 2006 7:15 PM ET
By Claudia Parsons
ReutersNEW YORK, May 16 (Reuters) – Controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad have been reprinted in a U.S. magazine with commentary by leading U.S. cartoonist Art Spiegelman, who offers what he calls a “fatwa bomb meter” to rate their offensiveness.
Harper’s Magazine published the article by Spiegelman in its June edition available on newsstands from Tuesday, joining only a handful of U.S. outlets which have printed the cartoons which provoked furious protests that killed 50 people.
Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper published the 12 cartoons last year. Other newspapers around the world, mainly in Europe, later reprinted the cartoons.
A number of Muslim clerics have condemned the cartoons and a small minority have called for a violent response. A fatwa is a religious edict in Islam, sometimes equated with a death threat since Iran’s late ruler, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, ordered Muslims in 1989 to kill British novelist Salman Rushdie.
In an article headlined “Drawing Blood: Outrageous cartoons and the art of outrage,” Spiegelman, an elder statesman of political satire famous for his New Yorker cartoons, said the cartoons needed to be seen to be understood.
“As a secular Jewish cartoonist living in New York City, I start out with four strikes against me, but I really don’t want any irate Muslims declaring holy war on me,” Spiegelman wrote in the article, describing himself as “a devout coward.”
“It’s not intended to add fuel to any fire,” Spiegelman told Reuters by telephone.
“I think that the tone is the tone of a secular wise-guy cartoonist rather than a scholar, but I wanted to show … what couldn’t be described,” he said, adding that he was surprised that most of his friends had not seen the cartoons.
‘BANAL AND INOFFENSIVE’
Spiegelman noted that the cartoons appear “banal and inoffensive” to secular eyes, revealing a gulf in understanding.
“To my secular eyes it seems like the real insult has been things like Abu Ghraib,” he said, referring to abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
In the article Spiegelman analyzes each of the 12 cartoons for artistic merit and offensiveness, using a rating system of one to four bombs in the “fatwa bomb meter.”
A cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, generally cited as the most offensive, received three bombs from Spiegelman, who described it as a “hackneyed” expression of an idea.
His most offensive rating of four bombs went only to a stylized cartoon said to depict five women’s head scarves in a line-drawing made up of Islamic symbols such as the crescent.
He said it had “no redeeming features” and in terms of craftsmanship it “might almost be worth a fatwa.”
“I don’t really even quite understand what it’s a cartoon of, except ‘We don’t like Muslims,’” he told Reuters.
The article criticized all sides in the controversy.
“The Jyllands-Posten — a newspaper with a history of anti-immigrant bias — seemed somewhat disingenuous when it wrapped itself in the mantle of free speech to invite cartoonists to throw pies at the face of Mohammad,” Spiegelman wrote. He said many newspapers reprinted the cartoons to reinforce “their own anti-immigrant or Islamophobic biases.”
But he criticized U.S. news outlets for not showing the cartoons out of what he called “political correctness that smelled of hypocrisy and fear.”
Drawing historical parallels with cartoonists jailed in the past, he said, “I do believe in the right to insult.”
Spiegelman’s only mistake in my opinion seems to be in taking the Muslim reaction as a real measure of their sense of offense: “revealing a gulf in understanding.” It’s not clear just what a gulf is revealed in that reaction, given how it was whipped up by people who slipped three fakes in. As Thomas Scanlon noted on the Hirsi Ali panel, “offense is a dangerous principle to use because it’s so easy to take offense.”
I’m subscribing to Harpers.
Honor-Shame: Comments on Dr. Sanity (long)
Dr. Sanity has an excellent exploration of matters of honor-shame cultures and the Arab world. After completing a first-time course on this topic last week, I am more than ever convinced that understanding these dynamics offers the key not only to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to the global struggle right now between the West and Islam. If we want to say, along with President Bush, that the terrorists have hijacked Islam, then it makes most sense to say that honor-shame culture has hijacked Islam, and that hijacking goes back to the very origins of the religion. I repost with interlinear remarks this extremely valuable essay. [Dr. Sanity in blockquote, bold; David Gutmann (whom he quotes extensively) in blockquote, bold, italic; me in plain text no blockquote.]
SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM
General Comments about Shame
Shame is often an underappreciated psychological state. Particularly in the modern world, but also throughout history, shame – in limited quantities and small doses – has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. But healthy shame, on the other hand, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others.
Alain Finkielkraut referred to this problem of a shameless generation among French (Gaulois) youth, who have no problem admitting that they haven’t read their culture’s great literature. At least the last generation, which didn’t read it either, at least had the pudeur to hide that failing. In a sense, demopaths, like the Hamas leader claiming the right to “suicide operations” are shameless. The problem goes back to a humiliation so great that they have lost all sense of honor in their pursuit of restoring honor.
Excessive or inappropriate shame is another thing altogether, communicating forcibly to the individual that he or she is worthless. Shame can be an exceedingly devastating and painful experience
Children who live with constant hostility and criticism learn to defend against the bad feelings and shame within; and to externalize blame onto others. Projection and paranoia, which are both external assignments of blame, are psychological defenses against shame.
Often this excessive shame is dealt with by humiliating someone perceived as weaker or more worthless than the shamed person (e.g., the family pet, women, Gays, or outside groups serve this function for both individuals and cultures).
This tendency to pass down the shame is almost a universal instinct as anyone with more than one child knows from family dynamics. Overcoming it – not doing onto others as others have done onto you – takes real effort, both individual and cultural. In Sagan’s terms, it’s shifting from the dominating imperative (rule or be ruled) to the empathic imperative (golden rule).
Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one’s own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame.
I would put it slightly differently: guilt comes from an internalized sense of having done wrong; shame comes from an externalized sense of disapproval of the peer group or larger society. This is particularly significant since in shame cultures, if no one knows or finds out, it’s not wrong.
The purpose of guilt is to stop behavior that violates a self, family or societal standard. Guilt keeps score on excesses or deficits of behavior deemed undesirable and is expressed in regret and remorse.
Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one’s own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.
My sense is that shame can also operate in this manner: “to stop behavior that violates family or societal standards, keeping score, feeling remorse and regret… that others have seen one weak, faulty.” As a friend of mine who works on African politics put it to me: “corruption is not considered a fault, getting caught is.” The response to this, however, is more interesting: in honor cultures, it is extremely difficult to recover from shame, and generally takes shedding blood to show manliness. Women, who cannot gain honor but only lose it (their virginity/purity), have no recourse.
Are We Waking Up Yet? Not in the Netherlands to Judge by how they treat Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave a press conference today that underlined everything that is wrong with Europe in its confrontation with Islam. Note, among other things, that the Minister of Immigration who has withdrawn her citizenship (at lightning speed) is a woman (hope you’re paying attention, Swanee Hunt).
“..I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practised today, are incompatible with the open society.”
I’m leaving but I will continue my work, Hirsi Ali vows
16 May 2006AMSTERDAM — MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali told an emotional press conference on Tuesday that the decision by Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk she is not entitled to Dutch citizenship is a “disproportionate sanction”.
The lawmaker called the press conference to announce she is leaving the Netherlands, where she has built up a reputation as a critic of Islam and a defender of women’s rights.
A native of Somalia, Hirsi Ali gave a false name and date of birth when she sought asylum in the Netherlands in 1992 from an arranged marriage. She became a naturalised Dutch citizen in 1997.
Although Hirsi Ali has been open about the lies since she joined the Dutch Liberal Party (VVD) in 2002, Verdonk ruled on Monday that the lies invalidated Hirsi Ali’s asylum status and subsequent naturalisation. This means Hirsi Ali was never a Dutch citizen and should not have been a member of parliament for the VVD since 2003. Hirsi Ali told the press conference she is fighting the Minister’s decision.
Her voice sounding deeper than usual, Hirsi Ali said: “I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.”
She became an MP in January 2003. “First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women – especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances.
“Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practised today, are incompatible with the open society.”
She said she had stumbled often in her political career and it had sometimes been frustrating and slow. “However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate.”
“Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?”
Describing the Minister’s decision on her naturalisation as disproportional, Hirsi Ali explained there were associated reasons for her leaving.
“It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004.
“I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbours filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me.”
The Dutch government is appealing this court decision. However, she said, that appeal did not alter her situation. “I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.”
Concluding her statement, Hirsi Ali said: “Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will go on.”
[Copyright Expatica News + ANP 2006]
Anyone who thinks that Holland “woke up” after Theo Van Gogh’s murder needs to rethink. Not only was it the “progressive camp” that did Ali in politically, and her good, cautious, bourgeois neighbors who wanted her out lest they share in the dangers she ran, but that segment of the population that supposedly did wake up has done little to nothing to save her.
Do Not Compare Me To Bush!
At a press conference in London a reported angered Hugo Chavez:
The leftist leader made his remarks on Monday at a joint news conference with London Mayor Ken Livingstone after a reporter for the BBC likened some comments of his to Bush’s phrase, first delivered shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, “You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
At that, Chavez erupted in anger about being “compared to the biggest genocide person alive, in the history of humanity, the president of the United States — killer, genocidal, immoral — who should be taken to prison by an international court. I don’t know to what you are referring when you compare me to President Bush.”
He added: “Have I invaded any country? Have Venezuelans invaded anything? Have we bombarded a city? Have we had a coup d’etat? Have we used the CIA to kill a president? Have we protected terrorists in Venezuela? That’s Bush!”
“More Important than the Holocaust …”
From Ynet:
Arab party member says during Lod rally marking ‘disaster’ of Israel’s establishment ‘this is our memorial day; it is more important to us than the Holocaust is to the Jewish nation’; MK Zahalka: We have come here to say that the Arabs population will remain in Lod forever. Some 1,500 Israeli-Arabs attended the central Nakba Day rally in Lod on Monday to mark the ‘disaster’ of the establishment of Israel. David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence on this day, May 14, in 1948. “This is our memorial day,” National Democratic Assembly member Gabi Tanus told Ynet. “It is more important to us than the Holocaust is to the Jewish nation. Ninety percent of Arab population was expelled on this day; many villages no longer exist, and this is our way of remembering those events” …
“Our message is that we will never forget and never forgive for what happened. We have come here to say that the Arabs population will remain in Lod forever.”
Palestinian Youth get Arrested to Study for Exams in Israeli Jails
Reuters recently ran the following article:
JERUSALEM, May 11 (Reuters) – A growing number of desperate young Palestinian men are deliberately getting themselves arrested at Israeli checkpoints so that they will be sent to Israeli-run prisons, Israeli and Palestinian officials say.
The youths, mostly teenage boys, are taking the dangerous measure in part because they say it is easier to study for exams in an Israeli prison than it is at home in the West Bank. Some also want to escape family hardship and deepening poverty.
Since January, when the phenomenon was first identified, Israeli army officials say at least 80 young men have either turned up at checkpoints and asked to be arrested or else carried knives and other weapons to ensure they are detained.
“It is a growing problem and something that we are concerned about,” said a senior officer in the Israeli Defence Force who is dealing with the issue but who asked not to be identified.
“It is a very dangerous phenomenon that we want to stop.”
Palestinian civil affairs workers say the number may be far higher than 80 and is on the increase as rumours spread among young men about the potential benefits of being imprisoned.
Hijazi Abdul-Rahman, 18, who lives in a village near Jenin, in the northern West Bank, went to a nearby checkpoint with his friend Malik a month ago in an attempt to be arrested.
Abdul-Rahman carried a small knife and Malik, who would not give his family name, openly carried a badly wired bomb.
They were detained by Israeli security forces and sent to a holding cell but released 25 days later after it emerged under interrogation that they were not a serious security threat.
For Abdul-Rahman it was a grave disappointment.
“I lost my chance,” he said, speaking at his home in a village north of Jenin. “I wanted to do my high school exams in prison because it is easier there than at school here.”
Abdul-Rahman said his plan had been to go to prison for up to three years, finishing high school and part of university. In Israeli prisons, study groups are provided that allow Palestinians to sit a variety of exams.
Because prisoners usually receive a stipend of around 1,200 shekels ($250) a month, paid by the Palestinian Authority even if detainees are in Israeli prisons, Abdul-Rahman hoped to emerge with a substantial sum of cash to start his own business.
Since the Hamas movement came to power, stipend payments have been frozen, but that wasn’t about to stop Abdul-Rahman.
“It’s better to spend even your whole life in prison than to be stuck here,” he said. “Here we can’t even have a sandwich.”
DOCTORS WORRY
Palestinian doctors are concerned. “This phenomenon says a lot about the state in which we find ourselves,” said Eyad Sarraj, a psychiatrist and a director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme.
“It’s horrific. It shows that the family structure is not a secure environment for children to pursue their studies. The social fabric and the family itself is breaking up.”
Israeli officials say that when questioned many of those arrested not only reveal a desire to study but the need to escape the strictures of their poor, conservative families where the expectation is that young men go out to work, not school.
Some also get arrested because they have been branded collaborators and try to shake the label by going to prison.
The concern for Israeli security forces is not only that prison numbers are growing and a social breakdown is occurring but that some of the youths will end up being shot or even killed if troops really believe they are being attacked.
Israeli soldiers have been stabbed, shot or targeted by Palestinian suicide bombers at checkpoints in the occupied West Bank in the past and are in a near constant state of alert.
“Often these men don’t know how much danger they are putting themselves in. There is the risk, if we are really under attack, that we will have to respond,” said a commanding officer.
“We know their true intention after only they are caught.”
The officer said he had been in contact with Palestinian rights groups, local governors and the Red Cross about the problem, which is concentrated around the towns of Jenin, Nablus and Ramallah. Detentions spiked ahead of Palestinian exams in March and are expected to do so again before exams in June.
(Additional reporting by Wael al-Ahmed in Jenin)
Judith Apter Klinghoffer at HNN posted this article with the following pertinent questions:
What does the fact that Palestinian youth need to go to prison to be able to study tell you about the realities of life under the Palestinian authority?
Why does the fact that Palestinian youngsters so trust Israeli prison authorities tell you about the reality of the Israeli “occupation”?
A friend of mine just returned with a meeting with Hamas. She worried about being harrassed by the authorities. Her newfound friends calmed her down with assurrances that “Israel would never do such and such . . . ” and promised to call their Israeli friends (the evicted Gaza settlers) to smooth her way.
Reuter calls Palsestinian youth desperate. Why? They live amongst destroyers of all that’s good or productive. How sad.
Questions for Muslims from Andy Bostom
One of the more problematic issues facing American non-Muslims in their “dialogue” with Muslims is a) our lack of knowledge of Islam, and b) our politeness. As a result we don’t know how to deal with statements like “Islam is a religion of peace,” and “Americans are Islamophobes.”
Andy Bostom, author of an indispensable guide to Muslim sources on Jihad in translation, The Legacy of Jihad, has developed a short list.
At the close of a compelling, thoroughly documented address (delivered April 2, 2006, at The Legatus Summit, Naples, Florida) entitled, “Islam and Western Democracies,” Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, posed four salient questions for his erstwhile Muslim interlocutors wishing to engage in meaningful interfaith dialogue:
1) Do they believe that the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword? (see here, pp. 67-75)2) Is the program of military expansion (100 years after Muhammad’s death Muslim armies reached Spain and India) to be resumed when possible?
3) Do they believe that democratic majorities of Muslims in Europe would impose Shari’a (Islamic religious) law? (see here)
4) Can we discuss Islamic history (here and here) — even the hermeneutical problems around the origins of the Koran (see here, here, here, and here) — without threats of violence?
Read the rest of the article. Visit the links. Buy the book. Read it. Ask — politely — the hard questions we need to ask of our Muslim neighbors.
Remember: The difference between polite and civil is that “polite” means not saying certain things lest there be violence; “civil” means saying what you feel needs to be said, and there won’t be violence.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Harvard II: Still Waters run Deep
I went to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali at Harvard’s Center for Government and International Studies last week. Very anti-climactic since the politically correct machinery had managed to smother the real import. Indeed an uninformed person, like the Harvard student sitting next to me who came just to see if there was something important that Ali had to say that might occasion some serious rethinking, could walk away from the event without a clue as to what the real problems were or even where the disagreements lay. But much was going on was under the surface. So the following presentation of the event is peppered with an additional analysis (in italics) of what did not get made explicit.
Apparently she lived up to her reputation for brilliance and courage earlier in the day at Harvard’s JFK School of Government. For accounts her more outspoken presentation and the largely hostile and condescending questions of America’s “best and brightest,” see Miss Kelly who was there for the second half, LFG reader Brigitte and Michelle Malkin reader Michael S.
Ali joined four other people on her panel and the moderator at a long table. Instead of standing and speaking, she sat. Her “talk” was largely answers to five (rather uninspired) questions that she had been asked beforehand.
1. Is immigration really a problem in Europe?
2. Is the Netherlands an open society?
3. Who are the true victims?
4. Which solutions have been tried?
5. And how have they worked?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Her responses were very measured, almost bland.
1. Is immigration really a problem in Europe?
She pointed out that Europe had become, for the first time in its existence, an “immigration continent.” In the past Europeans had emigrated (to colonies like the Americas and Australia), but that in the last few decades the situation had reversed dramatically. Europe these days is taking in about 1.3 million immigrants a year, of which the serious majority (about 800,000) are Muslim. And this is only the legal immigrants. Illegal immigration, by its very nature, unknowable, unquantifiable, may double these figures. Moreover, these immigrants fill the “lower statistics” of the countries they come to: poverty, crime, drop-outs from school, juvenile delinquency, etc. In particular Muslim immigration is proving a problem for welfare states (the proud product of “moral Europe”) on which the Muslim immigrants depend (I’d say prey) heavily.
Many migrants do well, even Muslims. But among those who don’t do well the Muslim population is prominent. Muslims in turn complain that they have become increasingly stigmatized (especially since 9-11). Indeed, they argue, “why should we assimilate? We do not want to participate in Dutch society. Not only is it corrupt with modern sins, but it’s hypocritical. They claim to be an open society, but they stigmatize us.”
Ali then went on to question accusations of stigmatization. The most reliable evidence for stigmatization she argued was economic, the job market. Here she pointed to the exceptional efforts of the Dutch state to integrate the Muslim immigrant population into the economy. Between 1979-2000 they spent 16 billion Euro (not sure where such a statistic comes from, especially since the Euro didn’t exist before 2000, but okay). Given these exceptional efforts, Ali argued, the claim of “stigmatization” is unfair. (This Muslim complaint is what I’d call a demopathic argument, since if anything it’s the Muslims who have stigmatized the Dutch as unbelievers. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that whatever the Dutch government has done, the Dutch people have not shown a lot of interest in socializing with their Muslims immigrants. But I’m sure there are many cases where this is not true.)
The problem, Ali pointed out, is that there’s no way of knowing what happened to this money. In fact there’s no evidence that this money had any positive effect. (Same thing with the money the Europeans threw down the Palestinian money-pit. It has to do with culture of poverty, and is the reason why “Marshall Plans” for the Palestinians don’t work.) Indeed, the evidence suggests that those who benefited most from this state largesse did not integrate, and those who integrate do so because of contact with the Dutch, not state programs. (This brings us back to the problem stigmatization judged by state or individual behavior.) Overall, Ali argued, the 16 billion Euros hindered rather than helped integration.
2. Is Holland an open Society?
Yes. The state does not unnecessarily curtail individual freedoms and in fact takes an active role in trying to help its citizens. Holland’s problems come not from its not being open, but from its being too open. Indeed, its greatest problem comes from its excessive tolerance of crime. It doesn’t enforce the laws that are on the books. This started with “soft” drugs, but now includes either no prosecution or very light sentences for petty thefts, even for break-ins. And what “worked” for the Dutch in the later 20th century, is proving an invitation to crime across the boards for the immigrant population. (In other words, Dutch society is so open its brains are falling out.)
The question we need to ask, however, (and should have been asked by the organizers, who carefully left Islam out of the list of questions), is: Is Islam compatiable with open society? To this Ali answered yes and no. The behavior of many Muslim immigrants – petty crime, dropping out of school, welfare, criminal activities – are not caused by Islam, which is opposed to such behavior. But political Islam is definitely not compatible, and political Islam is perfectly capable of indoctrinating petty thieves into thinking that plundering Europeans is a form of Jizya (tax on unbelievers) that they can take in good conscience as Muslims. Here, she argued, was a dogmatic source of self-segregation. One that took the natural tendency of a foreign culture to stay apart from the host country’s culture and turn it into a principle. This, she insisted, was not in itself inherent in Islam, but for many Muslims it appealed to a primitive mindset. And the distinctive dress, from the burkas to the beards, was a way of advertising the separation: “look at me, this is my religion.”
The Dutch reaction to these immigrants has been a combination of indulgence, indifference and incomprehension. We ignore you, we leave you alone to do what you want, and when you complain we say, “let’s talk.” But if the other side doesn’t want to talk, Ali commented, the talks lead nowhere. And when the talking stops, the violence starts. So the Dutch keep saying, “let’s talk some more.”
Troops on the US border
Bush surely wants his conservative base back:
WASHINGTON – President Bush will call for thousands of National Guard troops to be deployed along the Mexico border in support of patrols aimed at keeping out illegal immigrants, White House officials said Sunday on the eve of an Oval Office address announcing the plan … The officials spoke on a condition of anonymity before the address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. The officials would not say how many troops Bush wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than an estimate of as many as 10,000 being discussed at the Pentagon.
Why Is It?
Why is it that a lot of Western so-called progressives support the worse kind of leaders if they show the right credentials (anti-capitalism and anti-americanism)? From the Times:
When the Cuban novelist Reinaldo Arenas managed to escape to the US in 1980, after years of persecution by the Cuban government for being openly homosexual and a dissident, he said: “The difference between the communist and capitalist systems is that, although both give you a kick in the ass, in the communist system you have to applaud, while in the capitalist system you can scream. And I came here to scream.”
One of the most vexing things for artists and intellectuals who live under the compulsion to applaud dictators is the spectacle of colleagues from more open societies applauding of their own free will. It adds a peculiarly nasty insult to injury.
Stalin was applauded by Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Mao was visited by a constant stream of worshippers from the West, some of whose names can still produce winces of disgust in China. Castro has basked for years in the adulation of such literary stars as Jose Saramago and Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Even Pol Pot found favour among several well-known journalists and academics.
Last year a number of journalists, writers and showbiz figures, including Harold Pinter, Nadine Gordimer, Harry Belafonte and Tariq Ali, signed a letter claiming that in Cuba “there has not been a single case of disappearance, torture or extra-judicial execution since 1959 . . .”
Criticism of American policies and economic practices are necessary and often just, but why do leftists continue to discredit their critical stance by applauding strongmen who oppress and murder their own critics? Is it simply a reverse application of that famous American cold war dictum: “He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard”? Or is it the fatal attraction to power often felt by writers and artists who feel marginal and impotent in capitalist democracies?
Suicide Terrorism: Hatred Comes Home to Roost
The Jerusalem Post has an article on the spread of suicide terrorism through the Muslim world. (Hat-tip ES) It’s a problem that first gained widespread support in the Muslim world in the early months of the”Al Aqsa Intifada.” It was at that point that Palestinian support for these “martyrdom operations” went from below a third to well over two-thirds of the population. All the early “martyrs” invoked Muhammad al Durah as one of their reasons for their deeds. And people danced in the street at the news, and visited exhibits that lovingly recreated the Israeli body parts flying in the air. And the West, instead of showing a firm sense of moral horror at this grotesque development in the cult of death, “understood” the frustration, misery, lack of hope that led to such deeds of desperation. Indeed some Europeans joined the Palestinian death dance. And they all did so because they firmly believed that the Israelis deserved it.
Now, Muslims (and Europeans) slowly awaken to the nightmare they welcomed with such enthusiasm as they realize that in the minds of those who do such deeds, everyone (else) deserves it.
Diving instructors spent the morning of April 25 combing the waters off the coast of Dahab for body parts – the grisly debris from the triple suicide bombing that rocked the popular Red Sea resort town the day before. Wearing latex gloves in addition to their regular gear, the six divers take turns coming ashore to hand off black plastic bags to Egyptian police.
Meanwhile, shopkeepers on the promenade swept up shards of glass and washed away a long trail of bloody footprints. Nearly two dozen people, mostly Egyptians, lost their lives in the Dahab blasts, and for some, the pain of it all is too great to continue as if nothing happened. At least one longtime resident, jeweler Samir Mohammed Aboul el-Yazid, has decided not to reopen his stand.
“I’ve lived here 16 years – almost as long as the Beduins,” he says, his voice choked with emotion. “These people who died are my children. They killed my children.”
A large plaster globe rolls down the street between the Madonna Bazaar and the Santa Claus Jewelry Shop; once a sculpture of the earth, its pedestal has been snapped in two and the map of the western hemisphere completely torn off by the force of the blast. It is hard not to see it as an augury, a dark warning about the future of Sinai’s tourism industry.
“[Terrorists] are damning our homes, damning everything they touch,” says Mohammed Abdel Mohsen Bakry, standing outside the Caponi Restaurant.
From the hotels of Egypt to the Shiite mosques of Pakistan, suicide bombings have become the scourge of the Muslim world. They have killed over 3,100 civilians in Iraq and have even spread to Bangladesh, which has long insisted it had no Islamist problem. Muslims are furious over the attacks, but this has yet to be translated into a principled rejection of so-called “martyrdom operations.”
The EU Insists
Europeans cannot say “Islamic Terrorism.” Period.
Meanwhile, Franco Frattini, the EU’s Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, has already banned the use of the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ to describe Islamic terrorism. ‘You cannot use the term “Islamic terrorism”,’ he insisted. ‘People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion.’
Europe’s Two Culture Wars
George Weigel has anarticle in Commentary about what he calls “Europe’s two culture wars”:
The first of these wars—let us, following the example of Spain’s birth certificates, call it “Culture War A”—is a sharper form of the red state/blue state divide in America: a war between the postmodern forces of moral relativism and the defenders of traditional moral conviction. The second—“Culture War B”—is the struggle to define the nature of civil society, the meaning of tolerance and pluralism, and the limits of multiculturalism in an aging Europe whose below-replacement-level fertility rates have opened the door to rapidly growing and assertive Muslim populations.
The aggressors in Culture War A are radical secularists, motivated by what the legal scholar Joseph Weiler has dubbed “Christophobia.”1 They aim to eliminate the vestiges of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture from a post-Christian European Union by demanding same-sex marriage in the name of equality, by restricting free speech in the name of civility, and by abrogating core aspects of religious freedom in the name of tolerance. The aggressors in Culture War B are radical and jihadist Muslims who detest the West, who are determined to impose Islamic taboos on Western societies by violent protest and other forms of coercion if necessary, and who see such operations as the first stage toward the Islamification of Europe—or, in the case of what they often refer to as al-Andalus, the restoration of the right order of things, temporarily reversed in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.
The question Europe must face, but which much of Europe seems reluctant to face, is whether the aggressors in Culture War A have not made it exceptionally difficult for the forces of true tolerance and authentic civil society to prevail in Culture War B …
Nihilism rooted in skepticism, issuing in the bad faith of moral relativism and Western self-loathing, comforting itself with a vacuous humanitarianism: not only is this not marvelous, it has contributed to killing Europe demographically, and to paralyzing Europe in the face of an aggressive ideology aimed at the eradication of Western humanism in the name of a lethally distorted understanding of God’s will.
Karma coming Home to Roost: Fatah complains about Hamas Foul Play
A piece in the Jerusalem post by the amazing Khaled abu Toameh discusses an interesting dimension of the growing hostility between Hamas and Fatah.
In yet another indication of growing tensions between the two movements, Fatah sympathizers in the Gaza Strip have begun boycotting Hamas-controlled mosques, accusing the Islamist movement of inciting against their leaders.
On Friday, thousands of worshipers refused to enter the Farouk Mosque in the Nusseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, saying the preacher was planning to verbally attack Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and other PA leaders. The Fatah supporters prayed in the streets while their Hamas rivals prayed inside the mosque.
Like most mosques in the Strip, the Farouk Mosque is controlled by Hamas. Leaders of Abbas’s Fatah party have in recent weeks expressed deep concern over “incitement” in the mosques, saying Hamas preachers were exploiting Friday prayers to launch scathing attacks on them.
Hamas officials dismissed the allegations as “lies” and said the only incitement was that coming from Fatah.
Let me see here: Fatah is complaining that the monster they unleashed against Israel is now attacking them? I am shocked. And Hamas is responding that they’re doing nothing of the sort… and that it’s Fatah who is guilty? Shocked again. Don’t these folks have standards of truth-telling?
It’s hard not to feel a certain Schadenfreude at all this. But as usual, it’s the rest of the world that is the ultimate victim of these tactics. Starting with the Palestinians and the Israelis and expanding in concentric circles to engulf us all. Ah for just a little self-criticism.
Maher Miqdad, a Fatah spokesman in the Strip, accused Hamas of using the mosques to incite against political rivals. “They are preparing the stage for bloodshed,” he said. “Some of them have even been calling for the elimination of their opponents, whom they describe as apostates and infidels.”
A Fatah-affiliated businessman in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post he had stopped going to the mosque near his home because of the incitement. “Hamas has turned the mosques in the Gaza Strip into platforms for delivering political speeches,” he said. “They have decorated the mosques with political signs and banners and the preachers are saying awful things against Abbas and other Fatah leaders.”
Note the reference to “apostates” which, in Islam, is a capital crime, and is a major component of the intimidation of all forms of moderation in the current Muslim scene. I wonder how much these spokesman are able to understand that this is karma coming home to roost… or are the Israelis so outside the realm of humanity that they don’t realize that the very things about which they are complaining first came into their lives — “legitimately” — on the wings of anti-Zionism. Wait for suicide bombings against Fatah.
People do Change their Minds
I have speculated that one of the roles that the blogosphere plays in the current world crisis is as a refuge for people who, once on the left, have awakened to the growing insanity of not only of the radical left (obvious to some of us since the late 60s) but now, since 2000, of the “decent” left. Indeed Neo’s blog is not only a fine example of this, but a study in the process. For a really nice example of how such a process can actually happen, see Colin Meade’s blog. His personal statement caught my eye for a number of reasons, but especially its mention of the peace rallies of 2003:
Until recently, I was a committed supporter of the Left. For some years before 9/11 I had been studying modern French and German foreign policy, which had led me to ask some hard questions about the real goals of European integration and its relation to the dark side of the European past. I went on the first antiwar demonstrations, but was shocked by the hysterical and obsessive hostility to Israel and the strategic alliance between the Left and Islamists underpinned by that hostility. Things started to come together in my head. A radical rethink was clearly in order….
A French medievalist, who knows about my interest in the Peace of God Movement (980s-1030s) remarked that the rallies of spring 2003 represented the largest peace movement in history, with millions going to the streets. Having seen the role of the anti-Zionist, anti-American left and its allies in the Arab world filling the streets of Paris with hatred, and the way that the supposedly “decent” and peace-loving “left” looked the other way, I expressed my astonishment at his remarks. “This is not a peace movement. It’s not even an anti-war movement. It’s an anti-American war… but the loudest voices are some of the most belligerent I’ve ever run into.”
“That’s just because you’re an American,” was his response. Hélas. Good to know not every European had his critical faculties paralyzed by American Derangement Syndrome. Thank you blogosphere; thank you Colin Meade.
Making Fun of Chirac
A new movie is coming out in France dedicated to “Chiracophobia”:
Dans la Peau de Jacques Chirac – Being Jacques Chirac – played to tears of laughter at Paris previews this week. It will open in France on May 31 as part of a phenomenon the newspaper Liberation calls “Chiracophobia: the new national sport”.
Already The Tragedy of the President, a book detailing the president’s gluttony, lies, and belief in his own mysterious healing powers, sold out its first print run in days and has topped the bestseller list for seven weeks. Its author, Franz-Olivier Giesbert, has been stopped in the street by people shaking his hand and saying “Bravo!”.
But being Jacques Chirac goes a step further in its humiliating treatment of a head of state. Commentators say the film would have been unthinkable even a few years ago, and its box office takings will reveal whether the nation has lost all respect for the institution of president.
The 90-minute film is made up entirely of clips from archive television footage of Mr Chirac during nearly 40 years in public office, as minister, prime minister, Paris mayor and president. The footage gives free reign to his perpetual suave grin, vanity and famous political dithering and U-turning which saw him named the “weathervane”.
In the meantime the “French Watergate” continues:
What began as a discreet investigation into a computerized list of secret bank accounts has exploded into major scandal that threatens to disgrace President Jacques Chirac at the end of his long political career.
A CD-ROM sent to an investigative judge listed Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy among industrialists, secret agents and politicians holding accounts at Luxembourg bank Clearstream, flush with kickback money from the $2.8 million sale of French frigates to Taiwan in 1991. The list turned out to be fake, embarrassing Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who ordered an investigation into the allegations. Villepin is fending off demands for his resignation and allegations that the whole thing was a scheme to discredit Sarkozy, his chief rival for the governing party’s presidential nomination in elections next year.
Now politicians are demanding that Chirac — who is widely believed to support Villepin for the nomination — break his silence over the scandal and answer questions over his own alleged role. This president’s office insists he had little to do with it. But last week, Le Monde newspaper published extracts of testimony from an intelligence agent who said Villepin asked him to investigate Sarkozy on Chirac’s orders. In what is likely the final year of his political life, the 73-year-old president — who served as prime minister 30 years ago — could see his long climb to the summit of power wither to an ignoble end. Even members of his center-right party are getting impatient with his refusal to address the controversy publicly.
Muslim Self-Criticism
From Indonesian President Yudhoyono:
NUSA DUA (Indonesia), May 12: Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono told a Friday congregation that Muslim nations should oppose terrorism and catch up with progress in the rest of the world.
Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, will be hosting a summit involving leaders of eight large Muslim countries on Saturday in Bali’s upmarket Nusa Dua tourist area. The fifth summit of the Developing 8 group is aimed at finding ways to alleviate poverty in the member states through trade and other economic cooperation.Mr Yudhoyono, who was speaking after Friday prayers at the venue, told the audience Muslim nations should build partnerships that could bring back the glory days in the first millennium when Muslims were at the forefront of scientific advancement. “We are now in the third millennium. We have to work hard to rebuild our civilisation, the Islamic civilisation. That’s why we have to work together to build a strong partnership to fight for global justice, peace and prosperity,” Mr Yudhoyono said. “We oppose — by our Islamic teachings — radicalism and, of course, terrorism. There are many ways for us to achieve our objectives for our Muslim world … peacefully, skilfully and wisely,” said the ex-general, who rose to power in 2004.
Islam, the “Holy Land” and Zero-Sum
Some claim that the problem is political, and can be solved with an exchange of [some] “land for peace.” Others say that’s liberal “cognitive egocentrism” and for the Muslims, this is a no-brainer: no peace without the elimination of the insult to Arab honor and Muslim theology known as the “Zionist Entity.”
You be the judge. (Hat-tip Anti-Dhimmi)
The New York Times reports on a meeting of Muslim Leaders.
May 12, 2006
Islamic Leaders Call for Aid to PalestiniansBy HASSAN M. FATTAH
DOHA, Qatar, May 11 — Religious leaders from a number of Muslim countries issued a joint statement here on Thursday calling on Muslims to support the Palestinian people financially and morally, and declaring that no part of historic Palestine could be ceded or negotiated away.The high-profile entry of the religious leaders fuels rising popular pressure on Arab governments to break the American and European boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and seeks to turn a political issue into a pan-Islamic one.
In a closing statement after their two-day meeting, the scholars, who hold sway over a wide swath of the Muslim world, appear to have raised the stakes over the Palestinian Authority, issuing a surprisingly strong statement against negotiating land for peace in the future.
Surprising to whom?
“This meeting has reverted the Palestinian issue to its rightful depth as an Arab and Islamic issue,” said Izat Reshq, a member of Hamas’s political wing. “We in Hamas always said this is not just an internal Palestinian issue, it is an Arab and Muslim one.”
Prominent clerics like the Egyptian sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Saudi cleric Salman al-Odeh and Sheik Harith al-Dhari, head of the Sunni Muslim Scholars Association in Iraq, met with leaders of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in closed-door sessions here over the past two days to discuss ways to break the embargo on the Hamas-led government.
In their closing remarks, the clerics noted that it was the duty of Muslims to support the Palestinians financially and in any other way they could. The clerics also reiterated a tough line against giving up any right to historic Palestine.