Thoughts from France: Terrorism and resistance
Huguette Chomski
Magnis
 |
| Toulouse, March 2012 |
On
the morning of Monday, March 19, 2012, a man called Mohamed Merah grabbed a
child, Myriam Monsonego, by the hair. The seconds that followed were an
eternity of suffering for the terrified little girl whom he dragged along the
ground and then murdered by means of a gunshot to the head.
In
doing this, Merah carried out an act of resistance.
We
are shocked by such a statement? We cough, we hesitate, we find this a bit
exaggerated.
We
find it scandalous that a certain French schoolteacher asked her students to
observe a minute’s silence in memory of the child-killer, Merah.
We
stress that almost everyone who matters in France unreservedly condemned his
horrifying actions. And this, of course, is true and as it should
be.
But does this mean civil society has satisfied its obligations, and is thereby relieved of further self-examination?
Is
it so extraordinary that one of the lost children of our republic murdered
three unarmed French soldiers? All three were of North African origin. Were
their deaths an accident? Or did Merah and his accomplices target them as
‘traitors’ on the assumption that they had fought the Taliban?
Is
it so extraordinary that – unable to find a soldier to murder on that Monday –
he turned his attentions to the natural alternative: Jewish children, a Jewish
school? Have not Jewish children been considered a legitimate target by many
whom «those who matter in the world» judge as respectable?
The call to murder Jews – with no minimum age – is a recurring theme in the broadcasts and sermons of the Tunisian Salafists. The Tunisian authorities remain silent in the face of this murderous hatred.
A similar message, only slightly more disguised, also exists in the ranks of Egypt’s Moslem Brotherhood with which France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the United States administration are approving of «dialogue», regarding it as interesting and promising.
It also exists in the Charter of Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Moslem Brotherhood, and the party that claims responsibility for countless massacres of Israeli children – they praise such massacres as glorious acts of resistance.
They
are hardly alone. The Popular Resistance Committees and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigade, a unit of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, among others, do the
same.
Appallingly,
even the official television station of the Palestinian Authority recently
broadcast a sermon by the PA-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Hussein,
calling for more killing of Jews. [Source]
Is
the slaughter at the Jewish school in Toulouse worse than the horrifying May
2004 massacre of the Hatuel family: a pregnant mother and her four daughters
aged from 9 years old to two? The mis-named Palestinian Popular
Resistance Committees claimed this as one of its heroic military achievements!
Is
Toulouse worse than the massacre in Itamar a year ago in which the Fogel family
was decimated: both parents and three of their five children, the youngest of
whom was three months old?
No,
it is not worse. The reality is that Itamar is Toulouse.
But we shall be told that what happens in France, by comparison with events far away, affects us to a much larger extent – and this is a thousand times right. The massacre in Toulouse has stunned us. We are still struggling to recover.
But there is a problem here that cannot be swept under the rug.
There
are very «proper» people, not in the least of immigrant background, who found
that we made too much of these Jewish children who, although French, were also
Israeli and buried in Israel, while the children of Gaza… suggestive suspension
dots.
Little wonder that Baroness Catherine Ashton, a luminary among luminaries, found it necessary to associate the memory of the murdered children of Toulouse with the children of Gaza whose blood Mohamed Merah claimed to be avenging.
The children of Gaza have been turned into archetypical victims.
Let
us then talk of the children of Gaza – with a sad and loving thought for the
unhappy children killed in the war of 2009.
I
do not know how many they were. Nor does anybody in France know. The figures of
Hamas – a thoroughly unreliable source of information – have systematically
been accepted.
But
to allow people to believe that Israeli army soldiers
deliberately targeted those children, as did Mohamed Merah and his
countless terrorist predecessors, is dishonest. Those poor children were
civilian victims of war, not the targets of that war.
Dare
one ask how many Libyan children were unintentionally killed by NATO bombs
during their intervention? Do we even know? Were we given civilian casualty figures
for that war?
The
blood-drenched dictator Gaddafi caused a great many casualties in the course of
his regime’s collapse.
Propaganda was the answer and that was
correct. It was explained that he used his civilians as human
shields. Again, that was correct.
But
then, what has Hamas done but use its civilian population, children first, as
human shields? The difference is that the Hamas has achieved an extraordinary
resonance in our media.
To
oversimplify an extremely complex conflict led to mythology replacing reality;
assumptions instead of analyses; propaganda instead of objective information.
The
devastating result is total confusion.
If
the French icon Stephane Hessel supports Hamas and gives it the title of
resistance fighters, then is it not feasible to implement Hamas methods into
France?
This
is something that humanists should question.
So
now what?
Jihadism
has landed in France. Merah’s death is in no sense its epilogue.
For
us simple citizens, our concern is neither the jihadists, nor the
instrumentalities of State intelligence nor security. Our concern is with
the reaction of civil society. Is
civil society up to this challenge?
Why
are we not able to do what the Moroccans did after the attacks? Articulate with
a clear voice: NO TO TERRORISM.
The
will to defend French republican society should not lead us to
self-censorship. On the contrary.
During
the march that took place on the evening of the massacre on Monday, March 19,
everyone around me, my comrades in the struggle against racism as well as a
prominent lawyer, were categorical: the murderer was a neo-Nazi. The notion
that he might be an Islamist was im-po-ssible.
Responsibility might lie with the foul ideas of the National front, or even of
the government.
Why is our reaction not just as clear when the alternative view, the “impossible” theory, is confirmed?
Why
are we asked to avoid speaking of Islamic extremism, so as not to
stigmatize Islam?
This
is not what democrats in North Africa and the Middle East expect from us,
especially those in Tunisia courageously fighting the rise of the salafists
tolerated by the Ennahda regime.
Pointing
to the responsibility of Islamism - political Islam - that oppresses and kills
Muslims first of all, enables one to distinguish it from spiritual Islam and
the right of worship guaranteed to all citizens.
There
is a dangerous confusion. To illustrate: We know that Sheikh Youssef
Qaradawi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, was invited to address a rally of
the UOIF on April 6. Responding to the voices of protest after the
Toulouse horror, Nicolas Sarkozy said Qaradawi was not welcome in
France.
The
edifying reaction of a certain researcher associate of Ecole des Hautes Etudes
en Sciences Sociales was that he could not understand the ban. For him,
Qaradawi is simply a moderate supporter of the Palestinian cause and of its
right to resist, not in solidarity with jihadist movements. [Source]
The researcher should have investigated more carefully. Qaradawi, the so-called moderate, is the author of the hallmark treatise on Islamic law, “The licit and the illicit in Islam”, and a man who prominently glorified the assassins of Sadat.
Yes,
he condemned the London tube bombings; a necessity in order to acquire a
position of authority in Europe!
But
he published a justification for suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians
of all ages. He issued a fatwa allowing to "kill Jewish embryos in
the womb of their mothers because once born and grown up, they become soldiers
of the IDF". [Source]
So are we really a «republic united against terrorism»?
Far
from it, unfortunately.
Either
condemnation of terrorism is universal or it does not exist.
Paris
- March 27, 2012 (Translation: Bernice Dubois)
No comments:
Post a Comment