Marquardt-Bigman - Old truths about appeasement in the Middle East

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
23 January '12..



When I recently followed a link from a tweet by Jamie Kirchick, I came to an almost 10-year-old post by Jeffrey Goldberg in Slate. While the piece focuses primarily on a controversy with New York Times columnist Robert Wright who objected to the description of Sadam Hussein’s massacres of Kurds as genocide, Goldberg also explained why he supported invading Iraq. I think some of his points should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in the Middle East, not least because some of Goldberg’s observations remain very relevant even though — or perhaps because — they are based on reporting he did before 9/11.

So here are the most relevant passages:

Wright takes issue with my claim that a successful invasion of Iraq would cause America to be respected in the Middle East, rather than loathed. He writes that many people will loathe us even more in the event of an invasion, and that they are “the kind of people who will work hard to kill lots of Americans.” Wright argues not infrequently against the use of military force to defeat terrorist groups and terrorist regimes because such use of force will lead to more anti-American terror.

Two-and-a-half years ago, I spent some time in a madrasah, a Muslim religious seminary, near Peshawar, in the Northwest Frontier Province. The madrasah was populated by mainly Afghan and Pakistani Pashtun boys, and they were quite feverish in their support for Osama Bin Laden, whose attack on America was still more than a year away. After staying at the madrasah for a while, I drove across Afghanistan, ending in Kandahar. I wrote this experience up for the New York Times Magazine, which published the story under the headline “Jihad U.”

[The piece, published in June 2000, is actually entitled “Inside Jihad U.; The Education of a Holy Warrior,” and makes for very worthwhile reading – particularly in view of the fact that it was published more than a year before the 9/11 attacks.]

Where are the voices of moderate Islam?

Isi Liebler
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem
03 February '11

http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2789

When declaring war against radical Islam in response to the 9/11 bombings, president George W. Bush made the statement that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

His laudable intention was to distinguish between radical Islamic fundamentalists, law-abiding American Muslims and “moderate” Islamic states. But the reality is that the impact of radical Islam extends far beyond the identifiable jihadists.

The mantra is chanted mindlessly by the chattering classes and well-intentioned government officials, who delude themselves into believing that such an adamant denial of reality can somehow ease social tensions.

But regrettably, imbedding such a falsehood into public discourse relating to Islamic terror precludes any rational consideration of the root problem. It also empowers radical Islamists and enables them to more effectively intimidate moderate Muslims aspiring to achieve accommodation with the West.

It is misleading to describe any religion - Judaism, Christianity or Islam - as a force for peace. But to apply such a blithely generalized descriptive term to Islam as practiced in the 21st century is really like saying that pigs can fly.

History provides ample evidence of Christianity’s harsh treatment of ‘heretics,’ and its violence toward all other religions (for example, during the Crusades). By accusing Jews of the crime of deicide, Christianity also laid the foundations for the world’s oldest hatred, anti-Semitism. However, in the 21st century, the dominant interpretations and objectives of both mainstream Judaism and Christianity are unquestionably peaceful. Most Christians genuinely seek accommodation with other religions, and attempt to make amends for the anti-Semitism of their forbears.

Largely, this does not apply to Islam. Like all sacred books, the Koran is also open to many interpretations. But it is simply delusional to generalize that Islam as practiced today is a religion of peace, when it manifestly spawns terrorism and when so many of its practitioners reject the legitimacy of other religions.

The decline of the West

UK’s move against Israel fits into the European trend of appeasing Islam.


Zvi Mazel
Op-Ed/JPost
01 April '10

Osama bin Laden must be laughing his head off while plotting his next action against Europe in his dusty cave somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Once again Great Britain has demonstrated what a staunch ally it can be. One can trust the West; democracy is good for terrorists. It views terror as an ordinary offense against society and deals with it accordingly. Never mind that Bin Laden, Khaled Mashaal, Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the like have basically declared war on Western society and its values, and are making a concerted effort to achieve their aim. First on their list is Israel.

This is not a conventional war but something far more insidious and dangerous. Terrorists hide among civilians to target civilians. This is a gross violation of international law and all the conventions dealing with the rules of engagement should be addressed as such, with Western nations banding together to fight this modern scourge. They have to search and neutralize terrorists.

Like the US, England sends its very own secret service people to search out and kill terrorists wherever they are – from Ireland to Gibraltar to Afghanistan. Of course, they have their pick of Commonwealth passports. But let a master terrorist, a man who has killed, a man who has been masterminding the steady flow of arms into Gaza, the arms used against Israeli citizens, die in suspicious circumstances and all fingers are pointed at the assumed culprit – Israel.

GREAT BRITAIN, a country which has made so many Muslim arch-murderers welcome (Abu Hamza al-Masri, Abu Qatada who was considered Bin Laden’s representative in Europe, to name just two), granting them political asylum on the grounds they would be put to death in their own countries because of their crimes there; Great Britain where the disciples of these murderers launched deadly attacks against British civilians in 2005, decided that now was the time to make a stand.

By expelling an Israeli diplomat it would show the world that it would not let an alleged misuse of its passports go unpunished.

(Read full article)
.