See it here first
Decembers opp ed for Egypt Today.
Don’t forget to keep submitting question to Noam Chomsky for next month’s interview.
Condemnation works.
On the 9th of November three terrorist attacks in were pulled off in-sync. They were carried out in the form of three suicide-bombings, unwittingly hosted by popular up-scale hotels in the Jordanian capital. They were classic Al Qaida; “soft” marks, coordinated for maximum exposure, damage, and panic. It was orchestrated and claimed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Al-Qaida in Iraq.
A scenario that has sadly become almost mundane in the Middle East? Not quite.
Something different happened this time; something remarkable.
Terrorists rarely apologize or feel the need to justify their motives and actions. However, in direct response to protests in Amman that were sparked by these attacks, one of which reached an estimated one hundred thousand plus on November 18th, Zarqawi, arguably amongst the most ruthless of terrorists, felt the need to do just that; explain himself.
On a recording from a website Zarqawi claims the suicide bomber that struck the Radisson Hotel was targeting a hall housing Israeli intelligence officials, not the Muslim wedding in which both the groom and bride’s fathers were killed, amongst about thirty of the attendees including Moustapha Akkad, acclaimed Syrian “godfather” of the Halloween horror film series and Bashir Nafeh, the Palestinian West Bank intelligence chief. He claims “part of the roof fell in on the wedding hall, either from the blast or even - he says - from a separate bomb placed in the roof, though not by al-Qaida.”
"We didn't target them (the wedding). Our target was halls being used by Zionist intelligence who were meeting there at the time," he said. "Our brothers knew their targets with great precision."
"God knows we chose these hotels only after more than two months of close observation (that proved) that these hotels had become headquarters for the Israeli and American intelligence," he said.
He also accuses Jordan of acting as a protector for Israel and allowing Israeli companies to take over its economy. He then proceeds to warn Jordanians to avoid hotels and tourist attractions in Amman, the Dead Sea, and Aqaba as well as embassies of governments participating in the war in Iraq . Needless to say, that warning, in all likelihood, caused billions of dollars of foreign investment into what was once perceived as one of the few stable Middle Eastern countries to be rethought, postponed, or redirected; in essence, amounting to an economic death sentence. Perception cannot easily be gauged, but the fact that this terrorist act will, without doubt, have the most detrimental effect on the Jordanian economy, one of the few Arab economies that were beginning to truly flourish on an international level, in years is undeniable.
Then something just as remarkable happened. His family and tribe renounced him. Fifty seven members of his family, the al-Khalayleh family, including his brother and cousin, took out half-page advertisements in Jordan’s three main newspapers condemning and disowning him. In the strongest terms they stated that "we announce, and all the people are our witnesses, that we — the sons of the al-Khalayleh tribe — are innocent of him and all that emanates from him, whether action, assertion or decision." and that "We sever links with him until Judgment day"
This is perhaps the single most powerful strike on Zarqawi’s influence to date. His family, part of the Bani Hassan tribe, one of ’s largest and most prominent, holds senior positions in both the army and government. Support Zarqawi relied on heavily according to an ex-convict that shared his cell that also claimed that "Prison wardens and other prisoners feared him because of his family connections and influence." Combined with the obvious support he lost amongst the regular people of Jordan, Zarqawi is doomed.
Some call Ernesto “Che” Guevara a freedom fighter; some a terrorist. There is a fine line between terrorists and freedom fighters; and it is the masses that determine which side of the line one falls. That is why there is so much confusion and lack of overall conviction in Middle Eastern minds when it comes to terrorism. Some see them as thugs while others feel that these people are heroically fighting occupational forces in and Palestine. Is it not every man and woman’s duty to defend their homeland and honor? Of course it is. But to hold on to unavoidably relinquished ideas and not try every possible means towards strategic resolution is idiotic at best, self serving at worst.
For those that see examples of Zarqawi as thugs, we are in agreement. However, to those who see him and his like as holy freedom fighters I have questions.
First of all, how do you find these actions adhering to the tenants of Islam? Supposing these were religiously ordained holy wars instead of conquests for land, oil, or domination, did not the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) instruct his followers that in the case of such a holy war the responsibility of the women, children, elderly, even vegetation, and livestock of the enemy is their responsibility and that their destruction is murder? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; and the initiator is the aggressor? Yes, but I do not see conflict between the first statement and the second, especially since the vast majority of these attacks are wildly and completely indiscriminate; indiscriminant to innocence or blame.
There is absolutely no justification to the murder of a little twelve year old girl, be she Jewish, American, or Iraqi; be she living in occupied territory, born to a country with an ugly foreign policy, or the daughter of your own.
While true Osama bin Ladin’s family similarly renounced their black duck, there is no comparing the magnitude of popular support. had protests that reached the hundred thousand mark to back up the written denunciations by his family while Osama became the most preferred name parents of other Muslim nations gave their children.
Is this because Zarqawi regularly targets, almost exclusively, Muslim and Arab targets while bin Laden is more of an international man favoring Madrid, London, and New York? Perhaps, but to see any other distinguishing characteristics between these two murdering men is naive. Make no mistake, the central theme that these two men share is simple. A Taliban style Pan-Arab Islamic Empire complete with forced burkas, female circumcision, and no higher education. A forced retardation in civilization in a fools attempt to revert to the greater days of our once proud Islamic empires; this instead of trying to increase our educational levels, empowering the people, and strengthening our economies in the pursuit of a real and tangible Golden Age?
One could never have guessed the renaissance by looking at tenth century Europe. A quick history lesson: the “Renaissance” (meaning the “Rebirth”) was a term made in reference of fifteenth and sixteenth century Italy to the times of the great Roman Empire that shared the Middle Ages (in reference to the interim between those two golden ages) or Dark Ages (in reference to horrible acts of savagery and the decline in education) between them. They certainly did not accomplish this by forcing senatorial robes and attempts to conquest the known world.
So which was Che Guevara; a freedom fighter or a terrorist? The people he represented are the ones that get to decide. They make that decision by carefully analyzing if he was for the good of their ideals and livelihoods or detrimental.
I believe that we, the Arabs or Muslims of the world, are the first victims of these terrorist acts. Be it on our economies, our place in the world, or on the morality of our children being brought up in the midst of this we are weakened with every hit. The sooner we truly realize this, the sooner we can shed these people from our midst, start developing a game plan, and begin to truly realize our goals.
Let us applaud our Jordanian neighbors; and let us learn from them. The next time when we are attacked (there are no “ifs”), as we were in Sinai by those dead-set on our ruin, let us also rise in union against them. Let us give them no shelter, offer them neither aid or comfort, and may god give us the wisdom to realize our enemies.
Karim Elsahy






A guerilla is someone who attacks military targets in order to win the fight on the battle field level.
Whether either of them is a "freedom fighter" surely depends on what exactly they are fighting for (is it freedom?).
But I don't think freedom and fear can go along. (Comment this)
Yup, no argument there; except it’s usually not that easily defined. What if civilians, though not the intended target, received the heaviest casualties like they tend to in every war? Can not “shock and awe” be considered terror from a closer up perspective?
Many argue that there can not be civilians in occupied territories (sure there are exceptions but the general idea is a because of the oxymoron.), and in the case of Israel since every adult there is a trained soldier and conscripted in the event of an attack then there are no Israeli adult civilians. I know this is a generalization but, personally, I certainly see the logic.
But in the end scholarly babble doesn’t matter.
“A guerilla is someone who attacks military targets in order to win the fight on the battle field level.”
No, actually a guerilla by definition avoids the battle field level.
“Whether either of them is a "freedom fighter" surely depends on what exactly they are fighting for (is it freedom?).”
Excellent man; that is so well put on so many different levels.
Karim (Comment this)