|
|
|
DIPLOMATIC CLUB MAGAZINE
|
|
|
|
NEW EVENT
|
| |
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES
Bi-national Chambers of Commerce
AMNESTY SUPPORTS JIHAD
Condemnations from around the world, and mainly from Muslims, against
the murderous nature of "defensive jihad" have not helped. Amnesty
International Secy.-Gen. provides defense precisely for the Taliban and Jihad,
and groups identified with Hamas gain support among the highest levels of the
American administration.
Human rights are too important an issue to be left in
the hands of human rights organizations. While this is not the first time
that this has been written, the issue is becoming more and more significant.
This time, it is Amnesty International – again – which is giving its
imprimatur to jihad. Read and believe.
The story is not new. In the previous chapter, as told
in Ma'ariv, Gita Sahgal, the head of Amnesty's gender unit, expressed
her opposition to the fact that the organization maintains links with Moazzam
Begg, who is ideologically identified with the Taliban. Her remarks were
published in
The Sunday Times. On the same day,
Sahgal was suspended, after working at Amnesty for three years. Naturally, a
storm ensued, but to no avail. Begg is still with Amnesty, Sahgal is out.
Various activists and groups have organized
a petition calling for the restoration of fairness to
human rights, and against the link between human rights
organizations and people who identify – or are identified – with groups like
the Taliban. Even the
Women Living Under Muslim Laws organization has issued
a sharp statement. These women, who
have lived under the Taliban regime for many years, have been repressed in
every possible way.
The most astounding reaction came from Amnesty
International Secy.-Gen. Claudio Cordone himself, who has come out in defense
of the link between Amnesty and Taliban devotee Moazzam Begg. In his view, "Jihad
in self-defense is not antithetical to human rights." While
Cordone's response was sent one month ago, it was only released for
publication a few days ago. It immediately met with outraged reactions,
mainly from Muslims. The first reaction was from three Muslim human rights
activists from Asia,
who wrote a joint letter: "Endorsement
of the concept of 'defensive jihad' by an organization such as Amnesty
International would call into question its commitment to research the
ideological underpinnings of acts of terrorism and its commitment to the
eradication of discrimination on the basis of sex/gender and religion." This
time, it does not come from conservative elements but from veteran human
rights activists. Dozens of people and organizations, most of them Muslim,
have joined the petition against Amnesty. In their response,
human rights activists from Algeria
clarified another point: The problem, first of all, is with jihadists and much
less with those who react against them. Let us also hope that this is their
attitude to Hamas and Israel. They also recall that despite their having
warned against it, human rights organizations have – time and again –
preferred, in effect, to defend the jihadists.
According to Islam, there is a distinction between
"aggressive jihad" (jihad at-Talab) and defensive jihad (jihad ad-Daf).
While the former is a collective obligation, the latter is a personal
obligation, incumbent on every Muslim. Therefore, this is how the
fundamentalist Islamic ideologues may recruit any Muslim. "Defensive jihad",
which Cordone has defended, is the essence of the philosophy of
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam and Osama Bin-Laden,
as well as of Sayyid Qutb, the ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood. In
effect, anyone who undertakes jihad, holds to the slogan of "defensive
jihad." In moderate Islamic circles, there is opposition to any jihad. But
the Secy.-Gen. of Amnesty has given his imprimatur to jihad and condemns those
who struggle against it.
This is not the first time that human rights
organizations have confused jihadists and those who oppose it. Only three
months ago, the American feminist organization Code Pink held a solidarity
march in the Gaza Strip. Before any claims that these are ultra-marginals in
the US, it would be worthwhile to point out that
the founders of the organization have a link to
Barack Obama and that
Sen. John Kerry even gave a solidarity letter to the
delegation that left for Gaza. Worse, one of the
organization's founders, Jodie Evans, was active, during the recent US
presidential elections, in raising funds for Barack Obama, and the
organization itself created links with the Muslim Brotherhood and the
Taliban. The Hamas regime's repression of women does not faze them. They are
not alone. They were preceded by the solidarity ships to the Gaza Strip,
which turned into solidarity missions for Hamas. At the same time, various
groups have participated in the solidarity march with Hamas' led by British MP
George Galloway, Turkish MPs and other Western "human rights activists." The
solidarity with Hamas included, as usual,
a whiff of anti-Semitism. Thus, the
union between a Taliban supporter and Amnesty is not unusual. Anti-Israel
demonstrations in the West have always included two branches – radical Islam
and the radical Left.
Cordone, like many of those who organize solidarity and
support marches for jihad organizations such as Hamas, know exactly what the
ideology of Al-Qaida, Hamas and the Taliban is. They know that it entails the
hatred of apostates, anti-Semitism, violence against women, the denial of
fundamental rights and the enforcement of harsh Sharia law, including
amputations. These are the laws that the Taliban has enforced in
Afghanistan.
These are the laws that have been adopted by the
Hamas parliament in Gaza, the implementation of which was
delayed only by Operation Cast Lead. They know that defensive jihad serves as
a justification for undermining regimes in Egypt, Iraq, the Gulf emirates,
Pakistan and Afghanistan. In effect, there is no aggressive jihad today, only
defensive jihad. The results are mass killings, mainly of Muslims. And
despite this, groups like Amnesty and other human rights organizations provide
them with justification, call for dialogue with them and identify with them.
Cordone has sharpened a debate that has gone on in
recent years, when he made it clear that, in his perspective, the Americans
are to blame for the bomb attacks and what goes on in Afghanistan, and not
Al-Qaida or the Taliban, which are only engaged in "defensive jihad." And it
is Israel that is to blame for what goes on in Gaza because Hamas is engaged
in "defensive jihad." And in general, Cordone's letter is a work of casuistic
self-righteousness, to the effect that there is a need for dialogue with the
Taliban, as per the demand of the Amnesty official and the Taliban figure –
Moazzam Begg, whom the Amnesty Secy.-Gen. takes the trouble to defend – alike.
One must welcome the uproar caused by Cordone's
remarks. Because his remarks are causing an awakening. If Robert Bernstein,
who founded the largest human rights organization in the world, Human Rights
Watch, could
publish an article against the organization he
established, and Salman Rushdie could
publish an article against Amnesty,
the organization which helped him when a fatwa calling for his murder was
issued, then there are signs of some sort of awakening.
Many human rights organizations also carry out important
and deserving activity in exposing outrages. But their important foot has
become stuck in anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric and, at times, they
also become pro-jihadist. Thus, they shoot themselves in the important foot.
Thus, human rights organizations sell their souls to groups whose existence is
predicated on the repression of human rights in general, and those of women in
particular. Indeed, there is no need to state that things are no different in
Israel. Human rights organizations carry out important activities. But even
here, there is the same exact link with groups that identify more with Hamas
than with Israel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
