...we adamantly reject the view that our willingness to engage in "an exercise in mutual listening" with Islamist organizations gives them legitimacy. They already have legitimacy. The Muslim Brotherhood (the most recognizable as well as the oldest pan-Islamic party in the region) is the most widely respected Islamist organization in the Middle East and the second-largest party in the Egyptian legislature, Jamaat e-Islami is the most powerful and respected elected opposition to the Pervez Musharraf government in Pakistan, Hezbollah forms the second-largest bloc in the Lebanese parliament, and Hamas is now the majority party in the Palestinian Authority. In southern Lebanon and in the West Bank and Gaza, the largest proportion of constituent services - in health care, child care, education and employment - is conducted under the auspices of Hezbollah and Hamas, respectively.
...Hamas and Hezbollah would welcome a dialogue with the West not because it would confer "legitimacy" - they already have that - but because such a dialogue would acknowledge the differences between Islamist movements that represent actual constituencies from those (such as al-Qaeda and its allied movements) that represent no one.
[...]
...one of America's most highly regarded experts on Hamas acknowledged to us personally that he had "never met one of them", though he has written innumerable papers and monographs describing their views and held conferences on who they are and "what they want".
[...]
The West's most senior diplomats are wedded to the principle that speaking to "terrorists" is out of the question. The case was best put by former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar, during a visit to the White House in May 2002. [1] "But [what] I would like to say once again is that we can establish no differences among terrorists. They're all the same. They're all seeking to destroy our harmonious co-existence, to destroy civilization. They're seeking to destroy our democracy and freedoms." ("President Bush meets with European leaders", The White House, May 2, 2002.)
[...]
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat e-Islami (as well as Syria and Iran) denounced the attack, expressed their support for the US war against al-Qaeda and even, in the case of Tehran, offered US rescue helicopters on missions in Afghanistan emergency landing rights in Iran.
[...]
Disarmament (or "demilitarization") is possible: it worked in Northern Ireland and South Africa. When coupled with substantive political talks, the unification of armed elements into a single security or military force - demilitarization - provides the best hope for increased stability and security in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. [But this is a different approach to disarmament than was practiced in Sierra Leone, Colombia, and Afghanistan. DDR programs are not usually combined with political talks aimed at integrating armed elements into a single force. -jlt]
Recommend this Post
Monday, August 21, 2006
Notes: Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke, "How to lose the 'War on Terror,' PART 2: Handing victory to the extremists, Asia Times Online, April 1,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Thanks for the links. It's posted here, so that shares it--at least on a preliminary level.
The server for the first item was down, but I did manage to watch a third of the second video.
Guy Lapointe does a regular show for KCR that often features an hour of Alex Jones. That is usually at 2pm Pacific Time on Wednesday. You can catch it live at http://cjly.net/live. I say "usually" because we are right at a seasonal change and it might be different in the fall.
Michael Ruppert is also well thought of here.
Your links provide a lot of information, but it's not really clear to me what part of it you see as connected to Perry and Crooke.
I think many people *suspect* government involvement in 911. One of the receptionists at the community centre where I work out was on about it just last week.
It seems to me that the government has already failed to rally the people. The worldwide demonstrations in early 2003 showed that. But the North American peace movements have been remarkably ineffective at doing anything with what was then called the second superpower.
What do you think is the next step?
Post a Comment