To judge from today’s (16 February 2025) news headlines, the global clash of civilizations – between the Islamic world and the West – is alive and kicking, but few people, at least in the West, are connecting the dots.
This is shockingly naive and shoddy; Morris is conflating two very different forms of terrorism: 1) violent, expansionist jihadism on the one hand; and 2) Palestinian terrorism in the context of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. We should deplore both, but we should also understand them.
The former - as represented by recent terrorist attacks in Europe, and groups like ISIS - is ideologically and theologically driven, and is supported by a small but dangerous fringe of Muslims. For example, polling from the Wilson Center in 2014 found that between 1 to 5 percent of Arabs (depending on the country) were pro-ISIS. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/survey-finds-little-support-for-isis-arab-countries
The second type of terrorism enjoys mainstream support in the Arab and Islamic worlds. And its motivation is different; it is much more akin to terrorism/mass killing committed by the Viet Minh against the French or Mau Mau against pro-British African and British civilians. As with the Vietnamese and Kenyan violence I mention, this was carried out with a basically anti-colonial, anti-occupation motive. (Israelis can dispute the characterisation of Israel as a colonial imposition, but that is how the Arabs see it, and what motivates them).
Certainly in contemporary times this terrorism and violence is shaped and intensified by Hamas' Islamist ideology, but that is not the core motivation, any more than the Viet Minh's Communist ideology was its more motivation. The core motivation is the same that animated secular Palestinian terrorists such as George Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh a generation ago.
That the core motivation of anti-Israeli terrorism is not ISIS-style expansionist jihadism can be shown by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Arab world, including not only extremist Muslims but loads of secular and Christian Arabs, support it. For example polling indicates a majority of Lebanese Christians supported the 7 October massacre: https://www.timesofisrael.com/80-of-people-in-lebanon-support-hamass-oct-7-massacres-in-israel-poll-finds/.
You also see secular Western Leftists, of the sort who would have supported the Mau Mau, Viet Minh (and later Viet Cong) in the 1950s and 1960s, supporting Hamas terrorism. This is deeply regrettable, but the motivation is obviously not a sympathy for expansionist jihadism.
Final note. The fact that the jihadist threat is proportionally small in its base of support doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It is a grave problem. It kills, over and over again, including in Europe. However, these are still different phenomena, and Morris is sloppy and tendentious to conflate them.
On the other hand the 9/11 attacks had a lot of support in the Muslim world, so Al-Qaeda is or at least was perhaps more like Hamas than like ISIS. I don’t think the divide in public opinion follows from whether the jihad is nationalistic. AQ wasn’t nationalistic.
Probably ISIS has low support because it attacks Muslim countries. The public support in the Muslim world is determined by whether the targets are Muslim or not.
Again the level of support for the terrorism in the Muslim world is not determined by whether the jihadists are nationalist or transnational, but by whether the targets are Muslim or infidel. Al Qaeda was a transnational ISIS style group but many Muslims celebrated 9/11. Muslims didn’t celebrate ISIS because ISIS killed other Muslims.
ISIS and Al Qaida view their jihad in the exact same terms Hamas views it.
ISIS and Al Qaida do not view themselves as aggressors. Rather, they view themselves as protecting the Islamic Umma from western colonialism. To them, that colonialism includes colonialism of territory but also colonialism of the mind. They are exactly like Hamas in every single way. Al Qaida was formed in response to America's intervention in the first Gulf War in 1991.
The distinction isn't ideological. The only real distinction has to do the victim of these jihadi terrorists. The victim of Al Qaida and ISIS are Europeans and Americans (as well as Israelis and Jews, but to a lesser extent), while he victims of Hamas' jihad are overwhelmingly Israeli Jews.
Western academia and some media dehumanized and delegitimized the Israelis so much that they view Islamic terrorists attacking Israel as heroic resistance fighters.
A "life coach" who travels to Iran in the manner she did - the West is officially a parody of itself.
This is shockingly naive and shoddy; Morris is conflating two very different forms of terrorism: 1) violent, expansionist jihadism on the one hand; and 2) Palestinian terrorism in the context of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. We should deplore both, but we should also understand them.
The former - as represented by recent terrorist attacks in Europe, and groups like ISIS - is ideologically and theologically driven, and is supported by a small but dangerous fringe of Muslims. For example, polling from the Wilson Center in 2014 found that between 1 to 5 percent of Arabs (depending on the country) were pro-ISIS. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/survey-finds-little-support-for-isis-arab-countries
The second type of terrorism enjoys mainstream support in the Arab and Islamic worlds. And its motivation is different; it is much more akin to terrorism/mass killing committed by the Viet Minh against the French or Mau Mau against pro-British African and British civilians. As with the Vietnamese and Kenyan violence I mention, this was carried out with a basically anti-colonial, anti-occupation motive. (Israelis can dispute the characterisation of Israel as a colonial imposition, but that is how the Arabs see it, and what motivates them).
Certainly in contemporary times this terrorism and violence is shaped and intensified by Hamas' Islamist ideology, but that is not the core motivation, any more than the Viet Minh's Communist ideology was its more motivation. The core motivation is the same that animated secular Palestinian terrorists such as George Habash and Nayef Hawatmeh a generation ago.
That the core motivation of anti-Israeli terrorism is not ISIS-style expansionist jihadism can be shown by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Arab world, including not only extremist Muslims but loads of secular and Christian Arabs, support it. For example polling indicates a majority of Lebanese Christians supported the 7 October massacre: https://www.timesofisrael.com/80-of-people-in-lebanon-support-hamass-oct-7-massacres-in-israel-poll-finds/.
You also see secular Western Leftists, of the sort who would have supported the Mau Mau, Viet Minh (and later Viet Cong) in the 1950s and 1960s, supporting Hamas terrorism. This is deeply regrettable, but the motivation is obviously not a sympathy for expansionist jihadism.
Final note. The fact that the jihadist threat is proportionally small in its base of support doesn't mean it isn't a problem. It is a grave problem. It kills, over and over again, including in Europe. However, these are still different phenomena, and Morris is sloppy and tendentious to conflate them.
Then to what do you attribute the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Ottoman Empire:
https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/pogroms-in-palestine-before-the-creation-of-the-state-of-israel-1830-1948/
or the opening salvo in the modern history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Nebi Mussa Riots of 1920-21?
On the other hand the 9/11 attacks had a lot of support in the Muslim world, so Al-Qaeda is or at least was perhaps more like Hamas than like ISIS. I don’t think the divide in public opinion follows from whether the jihad is nationalistic. AQ wasn’t nationalistic.
Probably ISIS has low support because it attacks Muslim countries. The public support in the Muslim world is determined by whether the targets are Muslim or not.
I see Hamas's infamous attorney has shown up.
Again the level of support for the terrorism in the Muslim world is not determined by whether the jihadists are nationalist or transnational, but by whether the targets are Muslim or infidel. Al Qaeda was a transnational ISIS style group but many Muslims celebrated 9/11. Muslims didn’t celebrate ISIS because ISIS killed other Muslims.
ISIS and Al Qaida view their jihad in the exact same terms Hamas views it.
ISIS and Al Qaida do not view themselves as aggressors. Rather, they view themselves as protecting the Islamic Umma from western colonialism. To them, that colonialism includes colonialism of territory but also colonialism of the mind. They are exactly like Hamas in every single way. Al Qaida was formed in response to America's intervention in the first Gulf War in 1991.
The distinction isn't ideological. The only real distinction has to do the victim of these jihadi terrorists. The victim of Al Qaida and ISIS are Europeans and Americans (as well as Israelis and Jews, but to a lesser extent), while he victims of Hamas' jihad are overwhelmingly Israeli Jews.
Western academia and some media dehumanized and delegitimized the Israelis so much that they view Islamic terrorists attacking Israel as heroic resistance fighters.