Hit me and I will hit back

Hit me and I will hit back
The Age (Melbourne) ^ | 15th September 2004 | Daniel Pipes


In working out how to respond to terror, we should learn the lessons of Nepal and France, writes Daniel Pipes.


Two hostage dramas began in Iraq on the same day, August 19, 2004, when jihadists separately seized 12 Nepalese workers and two French reporters. Although their fates may end differently - the former were murdered and the latter remain alive in captivity - it is striking how similarly impotent both victim populations felt and how differently they responded.


In the Nepalese case, a group of cooks, janitors, laundry attendants and other labourers had just crossed the border from Jordan into Iraq when it was kidnapped by Ansar al-Sunna, a violent Islamist group. On August 31, an Islamist website showed a four-minute video of their executions.


Nepalese responded to this atrocity by venting their anger at the Muslim minority in Nepal. Hundreds of infuriated young men surrounded Kathmandu's one mosque on August 31 and heaved rocks at it. Violence worsened the next day, with 5000 demonstrators taking to the street, yelling slogans such as "We want revenge", "Punish the Muslims" and "Down with Islam". Some attacked the mosque, broke into it, ransacked it and set fire to it. Hundreds of Korans were thrown onto the street and some were burned.


Rioters also looted other identifiably Muslim targets in the capital, including embassies and airline offices belonging to Muslim-majority countries. A Muslim-owned television station and the homes of Muslims came under attack. Mobs even sacked the agencies that recruit Nepalese to work in the Middle East.


The violence ended when armoured cars and army trucks enforced a shoot-on-sight curfew, leaving two protesters dead and 50 injured.


Thus did a frustrated, enraged and powerless people overwhelm their authorities and target close-by innocents.


The French response could not have been more different.


Threats to murder the two reporters met with a massive government effort to save their lives, not by targeting French Muslims but by cultivating them.


Paris strenuously pushed local Muslims to condemn the kidnappings, hoping that their voice would convince the terrorists to release the two men.


In the process, Islamic organisations effectively took charge of the country's foreign policy, issuing statements and acting as though they represented the national population. French commentator Bertrand Badie complains that French Muslims became "a sort of substitute for the French Foreign Ministry".


Likewise on the international level, Paris called in chits for having stood with the Arabs against Israel and with Saddam Hussein against the US-led coalition. French diplomats openly sought the support of terrorist groups such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.


These efforts culminated 30 years of French appeasement and, in the scathing analysis of Norbert Lipszyc, "constituted a major victory for Islamists and terrorists". Lipszyc sees France acting like a dhimmi (a Christian or Jew who accepts Muslim sovereignty and in return is tolerated and protected): "France has publicly confirmed . . . its readiness to submit to Islamist overlords. In return, these have declared that France, dhimmi that it is, deserves protection from terrorist acts."


If the French hostages are released, the policy of appeasement will seemingly have been vindicated. But at what a price! As Tony Parkinson wrote on this page on September 3, "No democracy should have to jump through these hoops to keep innocent people alive." And jumping those hoops has deep implications.


Historian Bat Yeor, the first person to comprehend the gradual process of Europe accepting the dhimmi status, observes that this fundamental shift began with the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, when the continent began moving "into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity".


Bat Yeor points to Euro-Arab collaboration now being near-ubiquitous; it is "political, economic, religious and in the transfer of technologies, education, universities, radio, TV, press, publishers and writers unions". She envisions this shift ending in "Eurabia", or Europe under the thumb of Arabia.


Returning to recent events: the abhorrent Nepalese violence reflected an instinct for self-preservation - hit me and I will hit you back. In contrast, the sophisticated French reaction was supine - hit me and I will beg you to stop. If history is a guide, the Nepalese thereby made a repetition of atrocities against themselves less likely. And the French made such a repetition more likely.


Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the US-based Middle East Forum.

" These efforts culminated 30 years of French appeasement and, in the scathing analysis of Norbert Lipszyc, "constituted a major victory for Islamists and terrorists". Lipszyc sees France acting like a dhimmi (a Christian or Jew who accepts Muslim sovereignty and in return is tolerated and protected): "France has publicly confirmed . . . its readiness to submit to Islamist overlords. In return, these have declared that France, dhimmi that it is, deserves protection from terrorist acts." "

Kerry's roots are in France..I believe that he wants to make America into a dhimmi..What say you ?

in my honest opinion, you should go to all and any lengths to saves lives.. no questions asked.. but i guess we see things differently, torog :) what do you think?

History unfortunatey proves you need to kill a few to save a lot.
Pre-emptive strikes on the white house!

I saw a documentary last night about GW Bushs religious side. Sorta hinted that when both sides claim to have god with them, there can be no diplomacy.
It also had white house staff running away on 9/11.
I thought you guys didnt run away?