Daniel Pipes has an excellent article over at FrontPage magazine, on Nepalese and French reactions to their nationals being taken hostage in Iraq. Where the Nepalese rioted against mosques in Katmandu, the French handed over their foreign policy to institutions representing muslims in France, while calling in favors with Arab states for their anti-Israel stance, and accepting support offered by terrorist organizations like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad:
These efforts culminated thirty years of French appeasement and, in the scathing analysis of Norbert Lipszyc, “constituted a major victory for Islamists and terrorists.” Lipszyc sees France acting like a dhimmi (a Christian or Jew who accepts Muslim sovereignty and in return is tolerated and protected). “France has publicly confirmed that its dhimmi status, its readiness to submit to Islamist overlords. In return, these have declared that France, dhimmi that it is, deserves protection from terrorist acts.”He rightfully concludes to say that through both countries' actions, Nepal is less likely to again become the target of attacks or kidnappings, while France is.
If the hostages are released, the policy of appeasement at home and abroad will seemingly have been vindicated. But at what a price! As Tony Parkinson writes in Melbourne’s Age newspaper, “No democracy should have to jump through these hoops to keep innocent people alive.” And jumping those hoops has deep implications.