Kirkpatrick on Terrorism
From her previous writings on this same subject Kirkpatrick answers this question in the affirmative. Her definition is narrow and selective by her obvious silence and her unwillingness to criticize all kinds of terrorism.
She has been more than vocal about “Arab terrorism.” However, she elects to be silent about Israeli terrorism--be it terrorism against civilians, vigilantes blowing up Arab mayors, Shin Bet beatings of suspected terrorists, security men using “extreme force” in extracting confessions and Palestinians dying mysteriously in jails. She reiterates at every opportunity that the only bad terrorists disturbing the world order are the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Syrians and the Libyans.
Does Kirkpatrick ever ask why do those “terrorists” react in the manner they do?
What has she offered when she was at the United Nations, or even now to those “terrorists” as alternative civilized ways to achieve their goals? Or even suggest to the world a way to right the wrong that they believe was done to them? Many years of pushing them did not work.
MARK ISSA
Los Angeles
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
