Tea With Terrorists
By MICHAEL D. EVANS
Published: August 9, 2007
It is against US law to provide "aid or counsel" to terrorist groups as defined by law, such as Hamas or Hizbullah. Some governments, like Israel, have a similar policy, while others believe it may be a good idea to talk to even the most fanatic Islamist groups.
However, even governments that subscribe to the no-talk doctrine have made exceptions. There have been talks with the IRA, the African National Congress, and Iran during the Lebanese hostage crisis. Even the Israeli government, which condemns such talks because it lends the terrorists credibility, has negotiated with Hizbullah for the exchange of prisoners.
But it's one thing to negotiate with terrorists who have seized hostages – and are bargaining to trade them for some advantage – and to talk with terrorists who are not out to trade, but to destroy. Al-Qaida didn't take hostages on September 11, it made a gruesome declaration of war by murdering some 3,000 Americans.
Terrorism is sometimes excused as the tactics of the weak against the strong, as if those who employ suicide bombers to blow up buses or skyscrapers are somehow doing so because they are the underdogs and have no other resort, unlike powerful, legitimate governments. This naïve tendency to morally equate terrorists and governments insults the victims of terrorism, or their memories.
Terrorists are not people who just drive a hard bargain, they are people who commit crimes against humanity in the service of whatever cause they claim as their own. Their ideology is their justification, not common morality. As Lenin said, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. The hostages on United Airlines Flight 93 understood that the rules of the game had changed and acted accordingly, with great heroism. Being threatened with death was pointless after they realized they would die anyway.
Is not talking with murderers different from letting them talk to us? Apparently there is some bizarre kind of competition among leading American newspapers to publish articles by representatives of outlawed terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbullah. In one, The Washington Post printed an op-ed by Hizbullah Sheikh Muhammad Fadlallah, in which he argues that the meaning of jihad is “no different than any human and civilized concept of self-defense.” This is the same Hizbullah that fired – without provocation -- some 4,000 rockets at the civilian population of northern Israel last summer.
Similarly, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have recently published self-serving op-eds by Hamas spokesmen Ahmed Yousef and Mousa Abu Marzook. This raises a number of important questions. Is the reason such respected journals are opening their pages to the voices of terrorism because they believe racist murderers deserve to be heard, even if they deny the right to exist of a sovereign state and member in good standing of the United Nations?
Is it because there are actually some uninformed readers who don't already know that Hamas is committed to destroy Israel? Could it just be that Hizbullah and Hamas have hired such good PR firms? Would The New York times have printed an op-ed by Josef Goebbels? Maybe next we going to be treated to one by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, explaining why wiping Israel off the map is a great idea – and besides, the Holocaust never happened.
With all the wooly-headed blather about "why don't you just sit down and talk things over" with those people – those people who air their grievances by blowing other people up -- nobody has (yet) invited Osama bin-Laden to publish an op-ed. Maybe there is (so far) enough common sense left in the editorial offices of our leading newspapers to avoid such an atrocity.
Just as we don't need to read the thoughts of those who would murder us, so we don't need to talk with them either. Talking with someone means there is some common interest to discuss. There is nothing to talk about with terrorists.
Published: August 9, 2007
It is against US law to provide "aid or counsel" to terrorist groups as defined by law, such as Hamas or Hizbullah. Some governments, like Israel, have a similar policy, while others believe it may be a good idea to talk to even the most fanatic Islamist groups.
However, even governments that subscribe to the no-talk doctrine have made exceptions. There have been talks with the IRA, the African National Congress, and Iran during the Lebanese hostage crisis. Even the Israeli government, which condemns such talks because it lends the terrorists credibility, has negotiated with Hizbullah for the exchange of prisoners.
But it's one thing to negotiate with terrorists who have seized hostages – and are bargaining to trade them for some advantage – and to talk with terrorists who are not out to trade, but to destroy. Al-Qaida didn't take hostages on September 11, it made a gruesome declaration of war by murdering some 3,000 Americans.
Terrorism is sometimes excused as the tactics of the weak against the strong, as if those who employ suicide bombers to blow up buses or skyscrapers are somehow doing so because they are the underdogs and have no other resort, unlike powerful, legitimate governments. This naïve tendency to morally equate terrorists and governments insults the victims of terrorism, or their memories.
Terrorists are not people who just drive a hard bargain, they are people who commit crimes against humanity in the service of whatever cause they claim as their own. Their ideology is their justification, not common morality. As Lenin said, the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. The hostages on United Airlines Flight 93 understood that the rules of the game had changed and acted accordingly, with great heroism. Being threatened with death was pointless after they realized they would die anyway.
Is not talking with murderers different from letting them talk to us? Apparently there is some bizarre kind of competition among leading American newspapers to publish articles by representatives of outlawed terrorist groups Hamas and Hizbullah. In one, The Washington Post printed an op-ed by Hizbullah Sheikh Muhammad Fadlallah, in which he argues that the meaning of jihad is “no different than any human and civilized concept of self-defense.” This is the same Hizbullah that fired – without provocation -- some 4,000 rockets at the civilian population of northern Israel last summer.
Similarly, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times have recently published self-serving op-eds by Hamas spokesmen Ahmed Yousef and Mousa Abu Marzook. This raises a number of important questions. Is the reason such respected journals are opening their pages to the voices of terrorism because they believe racist murderers deserve to be heard, even if they deny the right to exist of a sovereign state and member in good standing of the United Nations?
Is it because there are actually some uninformed readers who don't already know that Hamas is committed to destroy Israel? Could it just be that Hizbullah and Hamas have hired such good PR firms? Would The New York times have printed an op-ed by Josef Goebbels? Maybe next we going to be treated to one by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, explaining why wiping Israel off the map is a great idea – and besides, the Holocaust never happened.
With all the wooly-headed blather about "why don't you just sit down and talk things over" with those people – those people who air their grievances by blowing other people up -- nobody has (yet) invited Osama bin-Laden to publish an op-ed. Maybe there is (so far) enough common sense left in the editorial offices of our leading newspapers to avoid such an atrocity.
Just as we don't need to read the thoughts of those who would murder us, so we don't need to talk with them either. Talking with someone means there is some common interest to discuss. There is nothing to talk about with terrorists.
<< Home