Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Guerra é engano II

Depois de ter feito referência a um artigo que apresenta a doutrina islâmica do engano, mentira, dissimulação não apenas como legítima, até como aconselhada ou obrigatória, passemos a um exemplo prático a propósito de um tema na ordem do dia, a saber, o conflito israelo-árabe.

Caroline Glick, no artigo "Hamas' Free Lunch", tenta perceber, através da análise dos primeiros sinais emitidos pela administração Obama a esse respeito, qual será a política americana face ao conflito israelo-árabe.
Nesse processo, Glick faz referência às declarações de Muhammad Dahlan, alto responsável da Fatah, em entrevista à televisão da Autoridade Palestiniana, nas quais Dahlan afirma que a Fatah nunca aceitou o direito à existência de Israel. Desmentindo rumores de que, no processo negocial em curso entre a Fatah e o Hamas, a Fatah tentava convencer o Hamas a reconhecer o direito à existência de Israel, Dahlan terá dito:

«(...) "I want to say in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement, we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." (...)»

Glick prossegue a descrição do logro:

«(...) Dahlan went on to explain how the fiction worked. Arafat was the head of the PLO but also the head of Fatah. While as chairman of the PLO he recognized Israel and pledged to end terrorism and live at peace with the Jewish state, as head of Fatah he continued his war against Israel. Dahlan even bragged that to date, Fatah has killed 10 times more Palestinians suspected of cooperating with Israel's counterterror operations (the same operations the PLO committed to assisting) than Hamas has.

Dahlan explained that all Hamas needs to do is to follow in Fatah's footsteps. It should say that the PA government accepts the West's terms, but in the meantime, those terms will remain inapplicable to Hamas as a "resistance group." In that way, Dahlan explained, Hamas will be able to receive all the West's billions in financial assistance.

As he put it, "Do you imagine that Gaza's reconstruction is possible under the shadow of this bickering between us and the international community? [Gaza reconstruction] can only be dealt with by a government... that is acceptable to the international community so that we can... benefit from the international community." (...)»

Novo exemplo de engano islâmico, no qual o ocidente se dispõe a acreditar, diz respeito ao comportamento recente do presidente sírio Bashar Assad. Sigamos Glick:

«(...) Syrian President Bashar Assad this week told Italy's La Repubblica newspaper that he and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were just a stone's throw away from a peace deal last year. Last week Assad participated in what was supposed to be an anti-Iranian conference in Saudi Arabia.

Both of Assad's gestures were meant to make the Americans feel comfortable as they renew their diplomatic relations with Syria(...).

(...) Assad knew that Washington and Paris would pay no attention when upon returning from Riyadh he announced that Syria's relations with Iran will never be weakened. He knew they will never question his false account of his indirect negotiations with Israel. He and Olmert couldn't have been a stone's throw away from a peace accord, because Assad refused to have any direct contact with Israel. (...)»

Glick conclui com uma avaliação do que parecem ser os objectivos do ocidente na sua maneira de enfrentar (ou de não enfrentar) os conflitos e as tensões no médio-oriente, a julgar pela sua ostensiva complacência para com a persistência islâmica na diplomacia da mentira:

«(...) [I]f the American and European pursuits of peace with Fatah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have not caused them to change their behavior one iota, what are the Western powers talking about when they say that it is imperative to push the peace process or engage the Syrians and the Iranians? After all, Western leaders must know that these processes are complete farces.

Sadly, the answer is clear. Western leaders are not pursuing peace in these processes. They are pursuing appeasement. They call this appeasement process a peace process for two reasons. First, they know their countrymen don't like the sound of appeasement. And second, by claiming to be championing the noble goal of peace in our time, they feel free to attack anyone who points out the folly of their actions as a warmongering member of the Israel Lobby.»

Via Jihad Watch.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.