No more fooling the Arabs - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

No more fooling the Arabs - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

Terrorism in London: The Secret Double Standard

BY FRIDA GHITIS

Philadelphia Inquirer

Miami Herald

Montreal Gazette

etc

We have all learned the ritual. First come the explosions, the grief, the unbelief. How could anyone do such a thing to innocent men and women? Then, as predictably as the sound of emergency sirens follows a terrorist blast, come the calls for Muslim leaders to condemn the bombings. When will Muslims rise up against terrorism, righteous Westerners ask on both sides of the Atlantic. This will end, we are told, only when Muslim leaders make it clear to their people that suicide bombings constitute an affront to their humanity and their God.

All true, no doubt. But there is a secret about terrorism that nobody dares to mention: Westerners themselves, for all their sound and fury, have not wholeheartedly condemned terrorism. Not really. Not with the unequivocal conviction that they now demand of Muslims.

Home-grown bombers

The secret is that until now, terrorism, in its most frequent guise -- against Israelis and Iraqis -- is analyzed and all but forgiven by Europe's mainstream. Terrorists are absolved as long as they are seen as weak or desperate, and their enemy is viewed as a cruel Goliath.

How could a young British Muslim growing up in Leeds, England, come to believe that a suicide bombing is an appropriate way to express a grievance? Very simple. He would watch the news. He would listen to the way that British thinkers respond to bombings of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists and to how terrorist attacks in Iraq are described.
In much of Europe, suicide bombings targeting Israelis do not receive anything remotely resembling the blanket condemnation demanded of Muslims after July 7.

This is not to argue that Israeli tactics must be embraced or that the objectives of Palestinians must be rejected. But if the British want to tell the world -- especially people living within their borders -- that terrorism is wrong, they have to declare without nuance and equivocation that attacks designed and executed for the deliberate purpose of murdering civilians for political goals are morally wrong and completely unacceptable -- always -- no matter who the victims, the perpetrators, or the political views of either side. That is plainly not what has happened until now.

Sympathy for Palestinians

When a wave of suicide bombings slaughtering Israelis reached its most gruesome depths in 2002, the British took to the streets -- to condemn Israel and express their sympathy for Palestinians. The terrorist bombings, by all appearances, were a huge success.

One year later, Mohammed Sadiq Khan traveled from London to Tel Aviv and helped organize a nightclub bombing that killed three Israelis. Then he returned to London and blew himself up in the July 7 attacks.

After the London bombings, British Home Secretary Charles Clarke told an emergency meeting of European ministers that the right not to be bombed to bits outweighs any other civil liberty. That's now. But in April 2002, when Israelis were going out of their minds with grief and fear, Europeans reacted with massive street demonstrations condemning Israel's admittedly Draconian efforts to stop the bloodshed and demanding that Israelis give in to Palestinian demands. Condemnation of anti-Israel terrorism was not high on the agenda.

What message would a young impressionable Muslim glean from such an event? If you feel strongly about a cause, blow yourself up. People will pay attention. They will agree with you, and your cause will benefit.

A terrorist is a terrorist

The writer Paul Berman has a theory about the demonization of Israel in the face of the terrorist slaughter. For those who believe a rational logic governs the world, he argues, the only way to make sense of such acts is to portray Israel as deserving the punishment. And so, terrorism is explained and forgiven.

The British, and much of Europe, have grown so tolerant of terrorism that they refuse to call it by its real name. The policy of the BBC and London-based news agency Reuters is not to use the word terrorist unless quoting someone else.

Even if you don't label it, bombing a train full of commuters is terrorism. And if you want to tell the world that terrorism is wrong, you have to say exactly that -- without nuance, without excuse. Otherwise, you'll find yourself wondering, how could it happen here?

Frida Ghitis writes about world affairs. She is the author of The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television.

Frida Ghitis: London calling

Frida Ghitis: London calling

The New Republic Online: Maul of America

The New Republic Online: Maul of America

MySA.com: Commentary

MySA.com: Commentary

Herald.com | 06/24/2005 | Regimes use Arab-Israeli conflict as pretext to avoid reform

Herald.com | 06/24/2005 | Regimes use Arab-Israeli conflict as pretext to avoid reform

Protesters pick wrong target | ajc.com

Protesters pick wrong target | ajc.com

Herald.com | 07/05/2005 | America gets real about Iraq war

Herald.com | 07/05/2005 | America gets real about Iraq war

How America Changed (in June)

America gets real about Iraq war

Miami Herald, July 5, 2005

By Frida Ghitis

We've all had the experience. We don't see someone for a long time. Then come home and feel that awkward shock of noticing how much they aged during our absence. It's not polite to say it, but I will: America, you really changed while I was gone.

I'm shocked because I wasn't gone very long. In just five weeks, the shift in the nation's mood is clearly palpable.

Perhaps I expected to come home to a country getting its beach towels and picnic baskets ready for summer vacation. Instead, with the arrival of summer, Americans appear to have awakened and suddenly discovered that the United States is at war. In little more than a month the sentiment over the Iraq war seems filled with doubts and anxiety. I don't mean that the country is divided for and against the war. That does not seem much worse than before. But on both sides, for supporters and opponents, uncertainty and worry have seeped into what used to be more of a cold political calculation.

Maybe that's not all bad.

One of the changes that I hear is in the tone of the discussion. Before, the arguments over Iraq sounded much like the debates over Social Security, taxes or any other political issue. But now, opponents of the war sound as if they've come to realize that any political gain their side would accrue from failure in Iraq would come at too high a cost not only for America, but for much of the world. And supporters of the Iraq campaign, who once sounded defensive and dismissive of their critics, now seem to realize that there are grounds for legitimate criticism. Supporters of the war and the president are starting to discover that anyone who questions how well things are going is not automatically unpatriotic or anti-Bush.

Sure, opinions still stand divided to a large degree along party lines. But I sense that in the anxiety over Iraq there is a new element of national unity.

A country that works together to win a crucial campaign stands a better chance of success. Without suspecting ulterior political motives in every comment, there is a better chance that good ideas from all sides will be identified and implemented.

I noticed big shifts in America's mood over Iraq after other trips. After traveling for much of January and February this year, I returned to a country enjoying a mild case of euphoria. After all, the sight of Iraqis defying death threats to exercise their right to vote on Jan. 30 had stirred the hearts of Americans and inspired millions the world over. Support for the president soared then, even more than it has plunged now. The same was true after Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003.

Sentiments will undoubtedly shift again. The carnage in Iraq clearly is cause for worry. Still, violence has not derailed a political process that has so far proved astonishingly successful. Iraqis of all ethnic and religious groups are working together to craft a new political system, even as the car bombs and the suicide bombers explode all around them. And the people who are carrying out the bombings are increasingly seen as the enemies of Iraq. That bodes well for the future.

Still, there are no guarantees in war. That's why the worries about Iraq that took hold during these last few weeks are a sign of realism. At a time of war, we should think about more than what to pack for the beach. That was the old America, the one from five weeks ago.