Those who want to bail out the bigots

Carolyn Glick:


The Organization of the Islamic Conference has called daily for an Ethiopian pullout from Somalia. So too, the Arab League demands that Ethiopia retreat. With their people on the ground retreating with the ICU, as has been their consistent policy towards Israel, so in Somalia the Arabs and Muslims wish to win at the negotiating table what they cannot achieve on the battlefield.

In this pursuit, they enjoy support from a familiar quarter. Five days before Ethiopia invaded Somalia, the EU attempted to mediate the conflict in a manner that would prolong and legitimize the ICU's control of Somalia.

On December 20, EU mediator Louis Michel shuttled between Baidoa and Mogadishu. Later that day he triumphantly announced, "There is a strong, good will by both parties to resolve this conflict with political dialogue."

When word of the Ethiopian invasion got out, Michel - like his associates in the EU Secretariat - moved immediately to condemn Ethiopia. Sunday he said, "I condemn in the strongest terms the escalation of the conflict in Somalia into an all-out war and appeal for all Somali sides to cease immediately all hostilities. I express my deepest concern on the reported involvement of foreign forces in Somalia and urge all external players to refrain immediately from intervening militarily in Somali affairs and provoke further violence."

Last week, as he engaged in his shuttle diplomacy, Michel pointedly did not take a public stand regarding the ICU's declaration of jihad against Ethiopia or its announcement that it would target any UN-peacekeepers that entered the country.

Israelis routinely assume that Europe's pro-jihadist policy towards the Palestinians is a result of anti-Semitism or anger over Israel's military victory in 1967. But the EU's treatment of Ethiopia and the TFG indicates that Brussels' hostility towards the Jewish state is part of a much further-reaching policy. Europe's pro-jihad position toward the war in Somalia indicates that its support for jihad is over-arching rather than limited to specific battlegrounds.

It is also ridiculous as I have stated before. The hysterical reaction to the defeat of the jihadist is just remarkable. Why do these people step in to save people who would abuse them for watching a soccer game? I think it comes from a misunderstanding of warfare and from a point of view that deems everything negotiable. When you are dealing with religious bigots who think they are on a mission from God, this ignores the fact that the Islamist believe any compromise of their beliefs will be the equivalent of a cut and run from paradise. Clearly the best solution in dealing with these people is to destroy their organization and their fantasy of world domination.


Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains