Posted on 02/26/2009 11:06:07 AM PST by mojito
In his latest “Memo from Cairo,” New York Times correspondent Michael Slackman virtually begs the Obama administration to avoid using the word “terrorist” in reference to Hamas and Hezbollah. According to Slackman... calling these groups “terrorists” turns off the Arab world, in which people view Israel as the “real terrorist,” whereas Hamas and Hezbollah are just “trying to liberate their countries.” In turn, intimates Slackman, using a “loaded word” like “terrorist” when describing Hamas or Hezbollah makes peace impossible.
Let’s leave aside for a moment that Slackman has managed to pass off his own view on the mind-numbingly dull one-man’s-terrorist-is-another-man’s-freedom-fighter cliché as a news story. Let’s also leave aside that Hezbollah isn’t actually fighting an occupation, as Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon – with U.N. certification – almost nine years ago. And let’s also accept Slackman’s assumption that a woman sitting on a curb in Cairo selling bread, mint, and green onions while watching goats eat trash off the street – yes, this is one of Slackman’s sources for this story – has a significant impact on Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. There’s still a good deal wrong with Slackman’s analysis.
First, the administration’s choice of words – i.e., whether it calls Hamas and Hezbollah “terrorists” or “our dearest friends” – has nothing to do with Israeli-Palestinian peace prospects. Hamas didn’t start firing rockets into Israel because the Bush administration called it a terrorist organization; nor did Hezbollah kidnap Israeli soldiers to set off the 2006 Lebanon war because it was on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. In short, Slackman’s causal argument is at odds with the facts, not to mention basic logic.
Second, it’s not clear what the upshot is [for] the U.S. changing the language it uses to describe these groups. For starters, it seems incredibly unlikely – and that’s being generous – that Hamas would suddenly be willing to recognize and make peace with Israel if the U.S. no longer referred to it as a terrorist organization. Moreover, changing our definition of “terrorist” to give Hamas and Hezbollah a pass would jeopardize U.S. public diplomacy: the moment we fail to call non-state actors who target civilians for political ends – and this is precisely what Hamas and Hezbollah do – terrorists, we lose the right to our most compelling and widely accepted moral argument against al-Qaeda. How long will it be before 9/11 is seen as remarkable only on account of its scale, with its criminality a topic for navel-gazing debate?
Finally, Slackman conveniently ignores the primary reason why the U.S. still refers to Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations – namely, because these groups have refused to renounce terrorism, and doing so has long been a key precondition for their engagement with the U.S. Naturally, Slackman doesn’t bother to ask a leader from Hamas or Hezbollah the obvious question: if you’re not really a terrorist organization, why don’t you just renounce terrorism as per western demands?
Of course, it’s easy to explain these oversights. In Slackman’s world, the Arab-Israeli conflict has little to do with the major combatants’ strategic choices – after all, Slackman doesn’t interview these combatants. Rather, he interviews ordinary Egyptians and a handful of former Arab diplomats and scholars – so, naturally, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict requires that the U.S. do what it must to achieve their approval.
Does foreign policy analysis get any lazier than this?
In Obama's world there is only Obama, a world-historical figure of Lincolnesque proportions.
When these two worlds collide, it will not be a good day in the real world where Americans and Israelis actually live.
What shall we call them, then, to appease the Arab world?
Ragamuffins?
Hooligans?
Whippersnappers?
Well gosh.... we wouldn’t want to “turn off” the Arab world, would we?
Obamah is making sure the Terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are well funded with taxpayer dollars!
Aww man, are the poor terrorists feelings hurt?
The only important thing is what Bibi and Israel calls them and what they are going to do to defend themselves.
Screw the NYT.
Okay, henceforth we’ll call them MUSLIM MURDERERS.
How about “Freedom Fighters?”
So goes in the world of warm fuzzies.
Yes, I’m glad I’m not the only one who noted that the evening after it was announced he was giving Hamas $20 million for “relocating” he called Hamas a terrorist organization.
Okay...to the extent that they Fight against Freedom, not for it.
I believe Obama is already shying away from the “terrorist” word. I think he’s been using ‘violent groups” as the alternative term. Maybe that will offend them less............../s
“the Arab world, in which people view Israel as”
who cares what they view anything as? WHAT ABOUT WHAT WE VIEW THINGS AS? WHY DOES THE WHOLE WORLD HAVE TO BE ABOUT THE WHOLE WORLD?
On Tuesday, December 20, in a New York Times article headlined, “Iranian’s Oratory Reflects Devotion to ‘79 Revolution,” Slackman joined local correspondent Nazila Fathi in cravenly proclaiming, “...it should not have been a surprise when he {Ahmadinejad) quoted Ayatollah Khomeini and called for Israel “to be wiped off the map,” then labeled the Holocaust a legend that was the fault of Europeans and said Israel should therefore be moved to Europe.”
Later, he added, “Some Iranian analysts say that by increasing the world’s hostility, Mr. Ahmadinejad is hoping to reproduce (a) sense of internal unity.
It just seems like that would be the only term they wouldn’t object to.
The word “terrorist” describes their behavior, therefore, if the Arabs do not wish to be called “terrorist” then STOP THE BEHAVIOR! (see, wasn’t that easy?)
Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING
If this dude doesnt like that Islamic Terrorists are being called “terrorists”....then he can move his arse to the UK
It has the advantage that you can phone it in from Cairo. You don't actually have to go into the war zone to write about it. You just write what you want and then find people to feed you the quotes you've pre-written.
Newspapers are doing a tight spin right into the tarmac, and guys like this are a big reason why the news business has become so laughable. Save your 50 cents, you can make up your own phony quotes for free.
Slackman reminds everyone the truism that is at the heart of middle east analysis. Firing missiles into a neighborhood is not terrorism. Shooting back is terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.