View Single Post
Old 23-03-04, 08:27 PM   #48
schmooky007
hi
 
schmooky007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,708
Default

and multi, since you constantly whine about how the west always supports israel and the unfairness of it all, here's an interesting article from the jerusalem post for you

Letters from London: Different strokes for different folks
By DOUGLAS DAVIS

If Osama bin Laden had been killed in the early hours of Monday morning, the sound of champagne corks popping in the Foreign Office would have echoed around London. British officials would have happily congratulated each other, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw would have enthusiastically made the rounds of television studios to crow about "progress in the war on terror."

Somehow, Israel's war on terror means something quite different. Straw, currently in Brussels where he is, ironically, stiffening the wobbly spine of his European partners on terror in the wake of the Madrid bombings, was first out of the blocks with his denunciation of Israel's assassination of Ahmed Yassin.

The attack, he intoned, was "unacceptable" and "unjustifiable." Everyone understands Israel's need to protect itself against terrorism, but – and there is always a "but" when it comes to Israel's self-defense – "it is not entitled to go in for this kind of unlawful killing." Just four days earlier, Straw had told a joint press conference in London with his Italian counterpart, Franco Frattini, that, "Nobody can opt out of the war against terrorism. As far as the British, and I know the Italian governments, are concerned, nobody is going to opt out either." Nobody, apparently, except Israel. Different strokes for different folks.

But why is Israel's response to Hamas regarded as being so different from the West's response to its close cousin, al-Qaida? They are, after all, virtually indistinguishable in terms of ideological motivation, operational method and strategic objective.

Some argue that Straw is simply attempting to win back votes in his own heavily Muslim constituency; others argue that he is seeking to restore Britain's credibility within the European Union, where London – a full-blown combatant in the "war on terror" – is seen as Washington's patsy.

That might explain some of the motivation for Straw's apparently perverse response to the overnight developments in Gaza. But it is not the whole explanation. The point is that for Europeans Israel's battle against Islamic psychopaths who explode themselves in buses, bars, pizza parlors and discotheques are not part of their "war on terror."

While Europe is facing the imminent threat of dozens of its citizens being blown to smithereens, Israel is perceived to be engaged in a political-military struggle with a deprived, dispossessed nation that is seeking no more than the expression of its legitimate national aspirations.

If European political leaders have bothered to read the Hamas Charter, they have also chosen to suspend disbelief and simply discount the overwhelming message at the heart of that document: an absolute rejection of any negotiation with Israel and an uncompromising determination to destroy the Jewish state.

So when Israel targets the man who founded the organization, who embodied its zero-sum ideals, who inspired the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, it is regarded in the European councils of state as a noxious, hateful, illegitimate act.

The objectives that the Hamas Charter so clearly articulates – including a detailed religious justification for killing Jews – is simply overlooked in the frenetic drive to secure a "viable Palestinian state."

There is another deeply sinister reason for Israelis to be profoundly concerned about the European response to Yassin's death: Those who confidently asserted that the slaughter in Madrid would bring Europe to a greater understanding of Israel's predicament are dead wrong; on the contrary, as terrorist outrages permeate across the continent – and security experts are certain that they will – it is Israel that will bear the blame and European Jews who will feel the consequences.

Israel's "treatment of the Palestinians" and its "refusal to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state" are widely regarded among the political and media classes, as well as among the wider European public, as the progenitor of Islamic extremism and the source of Islamic terrorism. It is Israel, therefore, that is widely perceived to bear responsibility for having brought death and destruction on an industrial scale to the West.

Europe's leaders are always ready with a pro-forma condemnation when Israelis are killed, but there is no pro-forma condemnation of the killers. Rather, there is a profound and fundamental belief that Israel is the intransigent author of its own pain. I have lost count of the number of times European officials have told me: "Sharon is the problem. Arafat is the solution. And if you don't want Arafat today, you will have to deal with Hamas tomorrow."

In the face of further terrorist atrocities in Europe, there can be little doubt that Israel will ultimately pay the price, both political and economic. Nor can there be much doubt that European Jews will suffer the consequences of the virulent anti-Semitism that has been germinating across the continent since September 11, 2001. The stage has been set. It's show time. Again.
schmooky007 is offline   Reply With Quote