not what the prophet would want
Sat, Jun 8, 2002 at 9:54:12 am PDT
A Muslim teacher of international relations at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts writes an article for the Washington Post condemning suicide bombings: Not What the Prophet Would Want. It’s always good to see Muslims take this stand, although it would mean more if it came from a religious leader instead of a teacher.
But there are also troubling statements in this article, revealing an underlying victimhood and hatred of Israel that comes through in spite of the writer’s attempt to appear even-handed. For example:
Only the most morally obtuse would deny the genuine suffering of the Palestinian people during the past 60 years or the legitimacy of their demand for a state.
In other words, Palestinians have been suffering at the hands of Israel since 1948.
No one can deny that there’s tremendous suffering in Palestinian areas. But is it the fault of Israel? If the Arabs who lived in the area (which was not “Palestine,” by the way; it was controlled by England and the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan prior to 1948) had accepted the UN’s original partition plan, they would have had their state from day one, on much more land than they’ll ever get now. Instead, the Palestinian Arabs were promised by their Arab neighbors that they would be allowed back into the area as soon as the surrounding Arab countries finished wiping Israel off the map—a disastrous miscalculation based on hatred and self-delusion that continues to this day. After that first war, the Palestinian Arabs were deliberately kept as unsettled refugees by their Arab “brothers” (with the complicity of the UN), instead of being accepted into their countries and repatriated. And so it remains, because the Palestinians are worth more to the cynical leaders of the Arab world as permanent victims.
So who is really responsible for their suffering?
And as for that second point, that “only the most morally obtuse” can deny the legitimacy of Palestinian demands for a state—well, the author himself does a pretty good job of refuting it:
The Palestinians who defend suicide bombings -- or terrorism in general -- must ask themselves if their tactic is yielding any result except death and misery for themselves and the Israelis, not to mention an erosion of international confidence in their willingness to live peacefully within their own state. Beyond that, they must ask what type of nation they hope to become. The way people struggle against oppression determines in large part what type of nation they will be once they are free.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
And what to make of this?
Another argument frequently made by Muslim scholars is that of reciprocity. As Sheik Ahmed Yassin, leader of Hamas, has repeatedly said, "As long as they target our civilians, we will target their civilians." No doubt Israel's occupation and attacks have inflicted terrible civilian casualties, if not through direct targeting, then through the disproportionate use of force, such as sending tanks against boys throwing stones or using helicopter gunships to assassinate suspected militants and to bomb targets in heavily populated areas.
Never mind the offensive implication that the bloodthirsty freak Yassin can be considered a “scholar.” Every time I read one of these “boys throwing stones/disproportionate use of force” arguments, I want to ask these idiots what they think would be proportionate? Sending disguised IDF soldiers into Palestinian areas with nail-stuffed bomb belts? Sneaking into Palestinian towns in the middle of the night and shooting children in their beds? Throwing grenades into a kindergarten? As for bombing in heavily populated areas, do discotheques and pizza parlors count?
Throughout this article, notice how the words “oppression” and “occupation” are used as if they’re simple facts, not open to debate at all.
Unfortunately, although he does condemn suicide bombing, there’s no sign whatsoever that the author accepts the existence of Israel. Quite the opposite, in fact; his position seems to be that while attacks against civilians are immoral and counter-productive, the war against Israel itself is justified and should continue. The language throughout is not of conciliation and peace; it’s of victimhood and war and struggle against the evil Zionists. And I can’t avoid the conclusion that the only reason articles like this are appearing at all is because anti-Israel Arabs are dimly starting to perceive that we’re on to them.
So they tell us what we want to hear, in the Washington Post. Which has no effect at all on monsters like this.
