this particular group of militants. It's important to distinguish among them because they have different outlooks, different goals and different agendas. Some are political, and want to represent the Palestinian people in elections and establish a secular, democratic state. Others are specifically religious and see the struggle with Israel and the West in terms of a holy war.
They can't merely be lumped together because that wouldn't be fair to the people who are represented by legitimate political parties, nor would it accurately portray what is going on in the region.
There have been several strains of thought in the modern Middle East, going back to the 20's or 30's, and all deserve study and attention. Some have been socialist, like the original Ba'ath Party. Others, like the Ba'ath Party in recent years, or certain parties in Lebanon, have had fascist overtones. Some parties have been nationalistic, others Pan-Arabic.
Some parties represent or overlap with, certain sects of Islam. You saw this in Saddam's Ba'ath Party, which represented primarily Sunni Muslims, yet was secular. Much of the strife in Iraq today centers around fears that the former rulers will become ruled by Shi'a party, and there is concern as to the extent to which Sharia law will be imposed.
So in Iraq, some of the "insurgents" appear actually to have been members of a former RULING party. That should certainly clarify the fact that all militias, terror groups and insurgents can't be lumped together.
Still other groups are "Islamist", calling for Sharia law and the establishment of one "ummah", motherland - Dar es Islam - over the entire Middle East. In that case there would be no existing modern boundaries and of course, no Israel.
Al Qaeda also has a specifically religious point of view, calling its enemies recently "Crusaders, Christians and Jews," as it exhorted the militias in the region of Israel to resume violence. There's an article linked to this forum about that, with discussion. Some of the participants are concerned that the local struggle in I/P might now expand, although it's never been isolated - all 22 Arab states have been involved and there have been several wars involving many states including the Big Powers. But if al Qaeda gets involved it could ratchet up the violence bigtime:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x93882Hizbollah, "Party of God", which operates in Lebanon and is linked to Shi'a Iran, and apparently has operatives in Syria as well, is also religious as well as political in nature. It has been asked to disarm and has refused. PLO on the other hand, was essentially a secular group, revolutionary in nature.
"Islamic Jihad" is a separate organization from Hamas, Fatah, so forth, which have been more or less honoring the admittedly shaky cease fire with Israel, in hopes of furthering the peace process. Both of those groups are politically active and working on the nuts and bolts issues required to establish a Palestinian state, and of course dealing with the problems presented by daily life.
Al Fatah is Abu Mazzen's party, so far representing the majority - it had been Arafat's party as well. Hamas has recently won some elections.
Hamas has a violent agenda, but has been trying to grow into a real political party while refusing to disarm. European Union and American officials, as well as Israelis, who favor speaking with Hamas as they do represent some of the people living in the OT, continue to regard Hamas as a terrorist organization because they will neither disarm nor cease advocating the destruction of Eretz Israel as a long-term goal.
In recent days, the violence has gotten considerably worse - people have been killed. The group which specifically calls itself, "Islamic Jihad", has taken credit for the killings.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
