When Extremists create instability

[tw]

From the New York Times 5 Oct 2001 page A8
A two day conference of Muslim and Christian leaders were suppose to highligh cooperation, not conflict.

A lineup of clerics, brought together by the left-leading Catholic group that won this year's Unesco peace prize was expect to offer somewell-chosen, hopeful words - a little preaching from the converted.

But then, the very first religious speaker at the conference began by loudly excoriating "arrogant Zionists".

By the end of the morning, several other speakers had explicitly tied terrorism to the treatment of Palestinians in Israel, expressed strong anti-American feelings and shown how hard it was even for moderate religious leaders to moderate their language when it came to recent events.

The first speaker, Yusuf al-Qaradawl, a theologian and director of the Sunna Research Center in Qatar denounced the attacks [on the WTC] but added: "We Arabs are among the most sensitive to this because of the evil inflicted on us by arrogant Zionists. We go to sleep at night and get up in the morning in a Palestine transformed into a continuous funeral. We refuse terrorism but don't consider it terrorism to defend one's own home."

A moderate Arab from a moderate country expresses so much anger? If moderates are so angry, then how many more intelligent Arabs and Muslims are easily recruited into the ranks of terrorists? This conference of Christians and Muslims was only for moderate religious leaders. Normally such language is not expressed by moderate religious leaders. But as an American, do you only notice when even moderates speak "loudly excoriating"? Yes. A shortage of condemnation for Ariel Sharon even in the Cellar demonstrates how ignorant America has been of American persecution of Palestinians.

Even George Jr. has sharply reversed opinions and called for a Palestinian state. But let's see how the extermist Prime Minister responds emotionally.

from The Economist 29 Sept 2001 P60
Mr Straw [British Home Secretary] was talking tough not only about terrorism but also about what he thinks are its causes. ... he said he understood that "one of the factors which helps to breed terrorism is the anger whcih many peope in this region feel at events over the years in Palestine" This caused pandemonium in Israel, which he visited afterwards. The Israelis were so furious that it took a 15 mintue telephone call from Tony Blair to talk Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, into meeting Mr Straw at all.

What did Mr Straw do? He talked reality. The leaders of Isreal don't like hearing reality. They liked it when they could steal the land, massacre Palestinians, hide behind the resulting terrorist bombings, and you remained ignorant. They love the instabilty created, in part, by American public ignorance. Did you know about Sharon's massacre in Lebanon? Why not? But to extermist mass murderers such as Sharon, reality from the British Home Secretary is enough to get him into a tirade. We support these people? Remember point two in the Economist's previously cited reasons that led to the WTC destruction - "dismal record of governments ... many of which are propped up by American aid or arms". They were talking also about Israel - the government we most prop up.

Why can bin Laden recruit suicide bombers from a religion of peace. Look at what we, an ignorant American public, have done to the Palestinian people by even promoting a man accused of massacring Egyptian prisoners of war. Why was the USS Liberty attacked by Isreal? Why was the WTC attacked? Look at the attitudes and the anger in speeches even among moderate religious leaders. Having a Capital One card does not provide protection from this reality.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by tw
A shortage of condemnation for Ariel Sharon even in the Cellar demonstrates how ignorant America has been of American persecution of Palestinians.

That's a bit presumptuous of you, don't you think?

The American people, and for that matter, the US government have no control over the fact that Israel has had 5 prime ministers in the past 6 years. Sounds like the Israelis can't make up their mind just what they want. Given that a large number of Americans live in Israel, and given that Israel is a "safe haven" for the US in the Middle East, it would seem unlikely that aid to Israel will be stopped or reduced. Furthermore, Bush (a president elected by a minority of the voters) seems to have distanced himself from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unlike his predecessor.

The sentiment is understood, but I find your statement to be rather insulting. Just because people here on the Cellar (and in the US in general) aren't voicing displeasure over Sharon as you do doesn't mean that some do not feel the same way.

[Griff]

Lotta typos in those quotes, you typin' em in by hand or are those sources goin to ell in a bucket?

[Griff]

Lay it out for me, how is the US responsible for Sharon?

[tw]

Originally posted by Griff
Lay it out for me, how is the US responsible for Sharon?

The best way to answer that is to first understand history as detailed by a 'tw' post in the thread Tony Blair, the new Churchill?


That 10-08-2001 05:13 PM background post is entitled "Remove Support for Israel?" in response to a question from Undertoad.

[jaguar]

While i don't doubt for a second that Sharon is a butcher i think he has started ot realise that you can't kill them all, at some point ya gotta reason with them. He'll still drag his feet like a dog going to the vet but..

Thanks syc, i don't like him any more than tw does.

This echos my arguement i've had on other threads so well, there is mainstream arab support for Bin Laden and that support is caused by the actions and inactions of first world countries. Ordinary people don't kill themselves in droves and risk their lives for no reason.