LETTER: Column misleads readers about `Islamic militants,' current state of Middle East

---

I agree with Jeffrey Zinsmeister's basic thesis about the environment in his column "Environmental protection beneficial to everyone" ( Thresher , Sept. 27). His characterization of the Middle East, however, needs some clarification.

First, calling Hizbollah and Hamas "militant Islamic groups" is misleading. Yes, the members of these organizations are Muslims and militant, just as the members of the Irish Republican Army are Catholic and militant, but the IRA is not called a militant Catholic group. Hizbollah seeks to drive out the Israeli invaders in Lebanon in accordance with a 1982 United Nations Security Council resolution that demands Israel withdraw from Lebanon.

In this way, Hizbollah is more of a nationalist or self-defense group. Its attacks on Israeli troops in Lebanon are sanctioned by international law, which permits a country to kill members of an invading army. Similarly, if Mexico stationed its army in a nine-mile strip of Texas, calling it a "security zone," international law would justify the United States repelling the Mexican army. Just as Hizbollah is best described as Lebanese, Hamas is best described as Palestinian. Hamas wants Israel to return occupied Arab lands (Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, West Bank) in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions passed in 1967.

Second, Zinsmeister's assumptions that it is unsafe for Americans to travel to the Middle East are largely misguided. It is more unsafe for Americans to be in New York City (or Detroit, Atlanta, and other major American metropolises) than it is to be in the Middle East.

On the front page of the same Thresher issue is an article about Allison Fine, a Rice student who spent one year in the West Bank. She was well-received and had a safe stay. Additionally, there are dozens of American expatriate communities in the Middle East that have lived there peacefully for decades.

Third, Zinsmeister's attributing the recent bombing in Al-Khobar, Saudi Arabia, to a militant Islamic group is irresponsible and premature at best. The culprits of that crime have not yet been caught. They are better described as "anti-Saudi" than "anti-American" because they feel the Saudi government has dreadfully mismanaged its resources and cheated its people.

Calling them "Islamic militants" is misleading and confusing because they are opposed to the Saudi government which is Muslim and enforces "shari'ah," or Islamic law.

Ahmed Shaikh

Brown '97

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the October 4, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.