Propaganda and Strategic Threat

Hassan A Barari (“Israelism, Arab Scholarship on Israel, a critical assessment.”) states that “Israeli studies in the Arab world are weighed down by biased projection, ideological deformation, predisposition and the need to expose rather than to understand or explain the ‘other’.”   This could also apply as a template for Muslim-Non Muslim interaction.

Conflict within the Muslim world has never been about Israel but has always been about Israel.  Let me explain. Israel is an imperfect symbol for a Western ideal of democracy and human rights. It is an outpost on the lip of a hostile Arab volcano that contemptuously denigrates both principles.  It is this allegiance to a poisoned Arab chalice that before everything, defines, as it obstructs any relationship.

I apologize to Jonah Goldberg, if any of what follows should be attributed to him. To the author of “Liberal Fascism,” the word ‘fascism’ is “a modern word for heretic.” Heretics are hounded, marginalized, tortured and killed for their thought crimes. How ironic therefore that a fascist will utilize the word as a weapon to be wielded against anyone with whom they disagree, with cavalier and promiscuous abandon. Its core supporters are to be counted amongst liberals and adherents of left wing politics. They claim to represent the moral high ground which means that they inevitably preach a need for “Social rebirth.”  The Nation of Islam, many Afro-centric groups, Anti-Zionist groups and individuals employ tactics that differ little from totalitarianism.  While fascism is associated with militarism, in its nuanced Western state it rejects Western intervention in the affairs of nations to which the military is central to controlling society.

The means by which ‘undesirables’ are targeted is by a sophist argument that goes: if it is good, it cannot be bad; while if it is bad, it cannot be good.  The irreducible logic of modern day fascism is that the chosen are flawless and therefore, to argue for objective or principled reason falls on deaf ears.  In this way, anti-Zionism is no different to fundamentalist Islam or The Church that gave us the apparatus of the Inquisition.

The foundation stone of this cultural prejudice is obedience, and it largely discourages critical thought.

In support of this poisoned Occidentalist mindset we refuse to critically examine conduct or mores of behavior outside of our own small corner of humanity.  We dissect our society through a conflict prism defined by Western guilt, colonial angst and indifference to a cultural competition that is often, aggressively waged against us. Comparisons are inevitable but usually superficial, so it is better not to make any judgment at all. And this is the problem.  Our differences make us unique but not all differences are to be admired.  We should celebrate what is worthwhile and reject what is not.

Instead we seem to have adopted a laissez faire approach to ethics.  It is easier to feign concern and do nothing so as not to offend.   Part of the reason for this is that we all want to believe that everyone is equal, of identical aspiration and talent; if only we provide the means by which ‘they’ may demonstrate their qualities.  We want to believe that the kindness and grace we confer on others is reciprocated and if, one day, we should need their help, then not withstanding our failure of altruism, they will forgive us and nevertheless, they will help us too.  The fallacy of this line of thinking was demonstrated when, in spite of Muslims being the main victims of the Boxing Day Tsunami (that killed an estimated 230,000 people in 2004) donations came from everywhere but the incredibly oil rich Muslim world.

The basis for our strategy of ignoring crimes that other nations commit is perceived economic necessity (will ‘they’ trade with us if we criticize them?); indifference and racism.  Our intellectual elite justify this reality by pointing out our own lax standards of public morality.  So it behooves us to hold our tongue whenever we feel squeamish about how others behave.  Who are we to criticize the unethical misbehavior of any individual or group? Of course this logic then cascades down to withholding our criticism of unsavory misbehavior in our own society. To be an ethical hypocrite makes for an intellectually athletic series of denials as to the not so complicated nature of evil.  One persons’ bloodthirsty murderer becomes another persons’ freedom fighter irrespective of the psychopathology displayed in their behavior.

Barari‘s book was a critical assessment of how the Arab world viewed Israel. But statements were sheathed in a protective coating of superior Arab purpose and Islamic purity.  This is understandable if we consider that dissent is an unnatural component of the Islamic environment. Dissidents are subject to arrest and torture. For the less fortunate, there is an almost casual preference for the bomb, the bullet or the sword as the favored response to any idea that does not conform to an acceptable narrative.

Until the Arab and greater Muslim world loses the propaganda war it remains incapable of genuine reflection, debate or engagement with either Israel, the USA or for that matter, anyone else.  But for Israel the greater strategic threat to its survival is its inability to conduct a public relations counter assault against those religious and political racists who deny it and deny us our equal rights in the world.

The USA and the Do Nothing Lobby

We are witnessing the beginning of a new Cold War.  A nation without a vision of itself and its society soon grows weary of its entanglements.  If an internal identity is under unceasing critical evaluation and individualism is raised to a pinnacle, above reproach from the group, then pursuit of an external policy will be defined by short term political considerations. We should not dismiss the way this key element of foreign policy has been bungled.  President Obama has displayed behavior that is both naïve and unsophisticated; for the ruler of the free world there can be no excuse for this failure.  I understand that the man cannot be separated from his ideological or cultural heritage but ‘interest’ must be defined by the national interest before anything else and it is not in the national interest for the USA to be seen as lacking in imagination or weak, indecisive and cowardly.

In 2008, before his election as President of the United States of America considerable controversy was created by the emphasis placed on his commitment to his Chicago community and its racially divisive preacher. One prominent journalist stated that it was only right he should primarily represent the black community of America.  In fact this issue may be part of the legacy from which Obama is unable to escape. As President he is leader of all Americans. His background shapes the man but cannot govern his decisions because America is 320 million people of which one in eight, are Black.  By the same token, his latitude towards the illiberal attitudes of America’s friends and enemies has failed to translate into greater stability abroad or heightened security at home.

His ‘A New Beginning’ Speech in Cairo in June 2009 did not spell out clearly enough the dire need for reciprocity between the Muslim world and the Rest.  His speech was full of good intentions which were praised by many in the Muslim world.  But it was his failure to understand the mutuality of action that soon showed up the weakness in his policy.  In a speech that President Obama delivered in Indonesia in November 2010 he spoke of choosing between being defined by our differences and giving in to a future of suspicion and mistrust or, of forging common ground. In fact the President may have been elucidating a liberal view of the world but 95% of the world is not liberal and he was wrong.

We are defined by our differences and it is our uniqueness that creates our individuality, or in macro terms, our national identity.  It is what creates great nations.  We forge common ground by understanding and living within those differences where possible.  Obama spoke about committing ourselves to the steady pursuit of progress but that already places us, in opposition, to most of the Muslim world unless that progress is defined as being reactionary, homophobic, misogynistic and favorable towards the oppression of minorities.

Lack of purpose also leads to a paucity of influence. Are we witnessing the start of a new cold war? Russia has sought a way back into the front line of nations since the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1991.  Without the ideological conflict and control over the physical boundaries that defined the USSR in opposition to the American umbrella of democracy and capitalism, Russia floundered.   Without its Eastern European Empire and its respect by fear Russia’s place in the world was shaken by internal unrest and renewed insecurity, this time the product of Islamic terrorism and American/German expansion into its traditional geographical spheres of influence.

I am not advocating for military action against the regime of the dictator Bashar al-Assad, but for too long the West found it convenient to ignore the crimes of the Developing World and left foreign policy to political activists within the community of global charities.

In a previous article (Syria, A Russian-American Failure, 29^th June 2013) http://thebilateralist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/syria-russianamerican-failure.html I stated that:

“If Syria was an opportunity for us to demonstrate our wisdom, there has been none shown to date….”

I also stated that:

“This is an area where America has failed to grasp an historic opportunity to create a strategic partnership with Russia.”

By allowing Russia to manipulate the conflict in Syria to its advantage it has raised its profile above that of the USA demonstrating that while the US talks, Russia acts. It may have made a key ally (Israel) less secure by making it more vulnerable to pressure from both Russia and those nations that will look towards Russia in the future for protection and guidance.  It has provided China with the excuse it needed to expand its naval operations into a part of the world from which it has until recently been excluded.

The U.S. government is deeply hated within the Muslim world and certainly, by the vast majority who perceive their inalienable right to conquest as unworthy of debate. It is both a reality of the nature of being a player on the world stage (that others fear and loathe your success in contrast to their failure) and a consequence of the disdain felt by nations whose former imperial glories burn bright in their consciousness with the intense humiliation of their present disrepute.

The most successful wars are those forestalled but only if we are able to remove the underlying causes of conflict.  Russian success may perpetuate Syria’s agony but also prevent further use of chemical weapons in Syria by creating the momentum for disarmament.

It is estimated that Syria has 1,000 tons of chemical weapons in its non-conventional armory. If Russia is able to achieve supervision of that arsenal under international control (said to be scattered over 50 sites around the country) and to ensure its subsequent destruction it is Russia that will have returned to the World stage, newly revitalized, its prestige and influence raised in contrast to lowered U.S. authority.

If the US thinks it can afford to lose stature on the global stage then it should also remember that those who rely on others to lead from the front end up not leading at all.  That is a legitimate choice but also an abdication of America’s global position.

The Syrian Nightmare and Chemical Atrocities

Chemical warfare has been used in contravention of Chemical weapons conventions since the end of the Second World War. This is undeniable. What begs the question is the selective way that we choose to react to its use.

For instance the extreme Left has claimed, not without justification, that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon.  That it does not produce mass casualties is irrelevant, they would say. In fact this polemical response to atrocity is little more than a sound bite that makes the interlocutor appear radical rather than being the reactionary rant of a favoured son (or daughter) trapped by their own uncomfortable reality.   British Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn is a Palestine Solidarity Campaign Patron and an obsessively anti-Israel campaigner so perhaps he is a little bit biased when he compares white phosphorous to Sarin gas.

Often from a position of discomfort the Left will retreat behind a wall of conspiracy. The British MP George Galloway stated that Israel is to blame for Arab violence and if chemical weapons were used in Syria, then it was al-Qaeda that used them and not the Shiite regime. Many people call George an antisemite. He would of course be the first to deny this.  It does not help that he is on the payroll of Press TV which is the mouthpiece of the radical Iranian regime.   But it does make him a hypocrite who is impelled by his loyalties to make every possible excuse for Islamic terror. And it is one of those gigantic crosses the Left is always too happy for someone else to carry on their behalf.  Blaming another settles the corrupt conscience.

Muslims are both individually and collectively blameless for the sins committed in the name of their prophet and their god as long as there is a Jew out there able to take the rap, or, a crusader (a Christian imperialist).   They don’t call that antisemitism because with a not inconsiderable dollop of irony, all Jews are classified as “Western” and therefore, Christian. Labels create the false connection that the professional requires to weave his lies into his (or her) tapestry of deception.  It is what we call ‘propaganda’. 

The following is a list of known acts of chemical warfare that followed the end of WW2 (first three examples provided by Wikipedia):

• North Yemen Civil War – July 1967 – Minimum 1,500 killed 1,500 injured by mustard and phosgene gas

• Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988) -   50,000 Iranian soldiers killed by Mustard Gas plus unknown number of Iranian civilians.  But note: these are only initial deaths as long term fatalities are at least double this figure.
• March1988 Iraq used chemical weapons on Halabja – a Kurdish town that supported Iran against Iraq – 5,000 civilians died in the initial attack.
• The Kurdish–Turkish conflict. Germany reported that Turkey had used chemical weapons against the Kurds, on multiple occasions, latterly in 2012. No casualty figures are given.

It behoves me to point out that the widespread use of Agent Orange by America, during the Vietnam War is also noted as an example of chemical warfare.

The Syrian government called the allegation that they carried out the killing of 1429 civilians (including 426 children) on August 21^st 2013: “fabrications, lies and false accusations.”

Realistically there is no way other than by the admission of guilt that we may be certain of the identity of the perpetrators of these latest crimes against humanity in Syria. What is demonstrably true is that the Syrian opposition choreographed the press release, neatly wrapping little bodies so that they could display them for the grateful foreign press. It does not mean a war-crime did not occur. However ignoring adult casualties for the greater propaganda value of the child victim is a particularly egregious act of cynical exploitation. It degrades the victim so that in their deaths they become no more than useful objects.  It is a sanitised display for an armchair society.

One of the current theories is that President Bashar al-Assad’s brother Maher, carried out the atrocity as an act of revenge for his own thwarted ambitions. But he has not been seen since the bombing that wounded him and killed his brother-in-law in July 2012. And there are rumours he succumbed to those wounds.

In law we are supposed to seek out the burden of proof and that proof is going to be almost impossible to conclusively provide. With historical precedents and a less gullible public we have become distrustful of governments and their imaginative means for creating casus belli. During the period from February 2011 until 21^st August 2013 between 83,000 and 110,000 people died in the Syrian Civil War. Accurate civilian casualties are impossible to collate because both sides have their own dishonest agenda. The majority of civilian deaths were not collateral damage but war-crimes and there has been an abundance of video proof to demonstrate the crimes committed by both sides against combatants.  So another 1,400 deaths while terrible should excite us no more than previous fatalities.

But they do excite us, and for a simple reason. The history of human warfare is one of killing civilians.  The development of a civilized world means recognizing that civilians should be placed outside of the attention of military action.  We have imperfect conventions that do not easily capture the modern problem of irregular soldiers, civilians who take up arms and terrorists (or freedom fighters). Many on the Left view all civilians as collaborators in the regime under which they live and therefore, legitimate military targets. And there are theologies that view all victims as sacrifices for their God’s ultimate victory over the infidel.  So it hardly comes as a surprise that death in war is a political rather than a humanitarian issue.  The reason we try to keep to the rules of war on non-conventional weapons use is that the potential for mass destruction is all that much greater. If we are to try to protect the civilian population from the depredations of war it is of greater importance to sanction governments because individuals are less likely to commit atrocities than governments.  That, at least, is the principle.

Then we recall the Khmer Rouge and Rwanda.

On January 14, 2013, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for an international inquiry into what “may amount to crimes against humanity” in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. I am quoting liberally from an essay in the World Affairs Journal for July/August 2013.   The DPRK’s hunger-increase rate from the 1990s, when one of the most devastating famines in the last century claimed the lives of between two and three and a half million people, is the highest in the world despite considerable international humanitarian assistance.

(http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/forgotten-genocide-north-korea%E2%80%99s-prison-state?utm_source=World+Affairs+Newsletter&utm_campaign=14399f4adc-WAJ_Park_8_21_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f83b38c5c7-14399f4adc-294582421)

To seek reason in mass murder is to pander to prejudice.  Why we chose to highlight some conflicts and to ignore others is simple. Politics has neutered the UN. Its usefulness is measured in the money it spreads around to the elite members of corrupt regimes and the political lackeys whose chauvinism is given protected status by the world body more concerned with protecting the reactionary status quo than creating a humane world.

Syria is an ethnic and religious mix of mutually intolerant groups.  Each group fears for its survival or demands historical justice. Sunnis at 60% of the population hate their Shiite overlords.  Even if al-Qaeda (which is Sunni) did not have the technical ability or logistics to be able to launch an effective gas attack against Damascus, Russia will block any move to sanction the regime in Syria because first, it does not want to lose prestige – influence – Syria is their country; and second, resurgent military dominance is dependent on successfully defending its ally.

So the Syrian civil war is unlikely to find an overall ‘winner’ – unless an even bigger bully is able to come in on the side of one of the combatants once all of them have exhausted supplies, men and the spirit to fight on. That could take years and many more deaths.

The Galloway’s of this world will willingly conspire to blame the Jews or the Zionists. Many a comment in the social media has stated that the US and Europe will ultimately do Israel’s bidding. Yet Israel has made it abundantly clear that it derives no benefit from regime change or, from the continuation of the Alawite status quo.  Arab nationalism has created a self-replicating venom coursing through its internationalist veins. The Arab world has no interest in peace with Israel unless that peace derives a financial benefit. “Peace” is seen as no more than a stage towards the eventual elimination of a non-Arab contaminant in the Arab sea. To embellish the wisdom of President Shimon Peres: Israel is an island of tranquillity floating in a toxic ocean of Islamic ethnic (and religious) bile. That maelstrom has always surrounded her and was never contingent on the existence of a Jewish State.  Intolerance towards non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities was the eternal prize that Muhammad bestowed upon his faithful servants.  It poisoned attitudes towards those who stand up to prejudice and therefore Islamic behaviour towards all of us for 1,400 years.

Julius Cesar said “Men willingly believe what they wish to be true.” If we seek simple solutions to complex problems we create even greater damage than if we leave well enough alone.

The definition of a sociopath (according to Dictionary.com) is: a person afflicted with a personality disorder characterized by a tendency to commit antisocial and sometimes violent acts (and a failure to feel guilt for such acts).  A person with a religious mania may feel justified in committing acts of horrifying cruelty that no normal human being would be capable of contemplating. This passion defines many fundamentalists for whom the ends will always justify the means.  And there are lots of preachers that will encourage them in their mission.  It is the greatest failure of organized religion.

If the Shiite regime falls al-Qaeda could easily take control of Syria. Christians have been executed because of their faith. There have been unconfirmed reports that al-Qaeda has committed atrocities against Kurds in Northern Syria.  The Sunnis would not like the Kurds to gain self-determination.   The most respected military leader in Arab history, the man who defeated the crusaders was Saladin the Kurd.  A united Kurdish nation would weaken at least four Muslim nations that currently seek to aggressively undermine peaceful international co-existence by their chauvinistic expansionist dreams.

It is our indecision that makes us appear pathetic to our ideological adversaries.  War is a serious matter.  But dithering makes us appear not just weak but cowardly.  It does not bode well for when there is a real international crisis. There are few differences between Egypt and Syria other than scale. The slaughterers will always celebrate their blood-lust and there are few if any recorded differences between the past actions of secular Muslims and those that worship the Muslim Brotherhood.  Both demand continuous tribute from their enemies. The Assad families thirst for blood might shame even the Brotherhood but Al-Qaeda lacks only the weapons of mass destruction to fulfill its ‘destiny.’   It is for this reason alone that intervention is complicated. Depose one dictatorship and another will take its place.  There are no guarantees that the replacement will be any better but it could easily be much worse. And that is a scenario we do not want on our consciences, no matter how tainted they may be.

Syrian intervention is justified, as it is in North Korea and many more places beside.

The fundamental issues of inequality and oppression that afflict Islamic societies have not been addressed.  It makes the likelihood of regime change making any kind of difference, extremely doubtful.  In fact it will only increase resentment and hatred towards the non-Muslim world.

It is naïve to believe that words can change people or nations behaviour. It seems that President Obama truly believes in the transformative power of his oratory. From his first speech to the Muslim world as President (delivered in Cairo on 4th June 2009) he promised “A New Beginning.”  He spoke of "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."  

President Obama’s failure was then, as it is now, that he refuses to acknowledge the essence of what drives contemporary Muslim interactions with the rest of the world.  One Arab spokesman made the following point when asked about the prospect for an American intervention in Syria.  He said:

“If a strike benefits Muslims and Arabs then it is good but not if it is for their (US) own interest.”  What this moral Muslim gentleman intimated by his sage words was this:  If any of Syria’s minorities are helped out by American intercession in Syria then let the slaughter continue.

Days of Rage - an Egyptian Melt Down

Everyone is concerned about the coup d’état by the Egyptian military.  Of course, no-one is calling it a coup but it is difficult to describe a situation where the elected government of a country is replaced, by force, with an unelected government as anything other than that.  The media are full of excited speculation about the direction the violent confrontation will take. No doubt as the death toll rises they will become even more energized and speculative about the probable direction of the conflict.  This is not about democracy but about a venomous identity and Western support for a failed extremist theology.

Debate is polarized because the facts presented by pundits are no more than entrenched political ideological positions and therefore, they are not truths but passionately held theories at risk of being shown to be false.

No wonder the experts are so agitated. It is difficult to generate excitement about Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks where a news blackout is in place to prevent either side from grandstanding in order to undermine the talks.  There are no natural disasters to take our minds off the tedium of our cyclical weather.  And wars are thankfully uncommon in the 21^st Century. And so we are left with Egypt. Because, save for Syria, nothing much else is happening in the world.  Therefore, everyone will offer their sage advice without really contributing anything honest to the discussion. 

We could be presumptive and view the whole exercise since the January 25 Revolution in 2011 overthrew the regime of President Hosni Mubarak as the military giving the Muslim Brotherhood plenty of rope to hang itself.  They certainly did that.

The Egyptian Military allegedly own around a third of the Egyptian economy.  Following the 1952 Revolution by that same military they have continued to exercise control in a country that has a relatively diverse economic base and therefore, the potential to sustain the economy irrespective of the upheavals that global events create internationally.  But the most powerful rival that the military faces is the Muslim Brotherhood. It is an Egyptian creation, having been founded in Egypt in 1928 and it has remained influential, feared and for much of that time, banned. When not banned it was tolerated and encouraged in its social work which alleviated poverty for many Egyptians, fostering obedience rather than helping anyone to actually leave poverty behind them.

The Brotherhood is a conservative, Islamic movement that is fundamentally intolerant of any vision other than its own narrow Islamic one. It has been happy to encourage others to create chaos even as it remains on the sidelines, often providing condemnation of violence while tacitly approving of those that carry it out.  Quite simply, the greater the chaos, the more people flock to its cause.  Islamic social and political justice, a destiny of conquest and rejection of a Western identity deemed corrupt, this is the dream. And it is the vision for a purified Islam, untainted by foreign influences.  Its nativist approach is by theological design ethnocentric and wholly bigoted.

While not all Muslim Brotherhood movements have been reactionary they are the exception, not the rule.

Morsi never had his eye on the economy.  He took the country from being a natural gas exporter to a state that this year needed to import gas.  Fuel shortages sent food prices soaring in a country where estimates of the population vary from a low of 80 million to a high of 90 million. And it has almost two million new mouths to feed born each year.   Over 50% of the population are under the age of 25 and 13.5% are unemployed (although the percentage is much higher for the young who despair of any kid of positive future) see: CIA World Factbook. Morsi was more concerned with consolidating power than feeding his people.

And here lies the crux of the problem. A movement that sees progress as a contagion and views its purpose as a return to the period of the brutal founding of its faith, in the seventh Century CE, can be relatively successful (as it has in Iran and Turkey) if it controls the nations’ resources (which in Egypt they did not) and if it is capable of running the country. But the Muslim Brotherhood rushed headlong towards economic catastrophe and did not seem concerned with the damage it caused.  Recent forecasts of Egyptian food needs are horrifying.  Egypt imports 80% of its grain needs and 60% of its total food requirements. It is expected to run out of both food reserves and cash before the end of 2013. With the overthrow of the Morsi regime this nightmare scenario may now be delayed by an emergency loan of twelve billion dollars provided by the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia

Starvation, violence, anarchy and terrorism are the dangers that lie barely beneath the surface of Egyptian society. The danger lies in the oft quoted example of Algeria. After the generals cancelled the 1991 election victory of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) a civil war was ignited that ultimately killed between 50,000 and 200,000 and was witness to whole villages being slaughtered.   The Muslim Brotherhood is patient but it has never been a particularly pleasant winner; it is an even worse loser. When the "Arab Spring" came to Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood took control of Tahrir Square and sexual harassment, abuse, and rape of women skyrocketed.

83% of Egyptian women have experienced sexual harassment, but 98% of foreign female visitors have suffered an often worse fate if, they dared to appear in public. In Tahrir Square after the revolution, organized rape of women became common place and this was somehow justified through the accusation that the ‘accused’ women were Coptic Christians, or Foreigners.

If the will of the people is something we should all respect then similarly we should respect the arbitrary sexual violence of the Egyptian Revolution, it’s burning down of churches, the ethnic cleansing of the Christian minority and its incitement against Israel.  Certainly, the world’s major newspapers have had a hard time coming to terms with the fall from power of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

At the time of the July 3rd coup against President Morsi, the world’s major “quality” newspapers were all horrified by the overthrow of Egypt’s first democratically elected president without considering the damage he had done to Egypt or why he failed.

The April 6 Movement that preceded the Revolution to overthrew President Mubarak made their own progressive demands for change.  But their platform did not tackle the strategic issues inherent within Arab society of triumphalism and jingoism (which by definition seeks, by belligerent endeavor, the acquisition of power and dominance through a focus on chauvinistic enterprises.) The international Press romanticized popular enthusiasm for change by referring to the youthful exuberance of the protesters ‘camping out’ in Tahrir Square but it was still change within an historical framework that was willing to ride to power on the back of popular prejudice.

True revolutionaries are bigots who willingly sacrifice others for their cause even as they demand real change.  This summer, Tamarod, the successor to the April 6 Movement likewise, took to the streets to demand a ‘return’ to so called ‘liberal’ democracy.  They overthrew President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood government. They also called for the cancellation of the peace treaty with Israel – a demand that the Muslim Brotherhood saw as desirable but placed on a wish list far, far away.  In celebration of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan a virulently racist TV serial was broadcast across the Arab (and wider?) Muslim world. As the Morsi overthrow sunk in, initially, Muslims destroyed 40 churches and severely damaged 28 others.

Nations that willingly embrace violence and hate; that demand greater respect for their ‘values’ while showing not the slightest interest in reciprocation or in fact, of reforming their own hate filled societies have no right to make demands of us.  And yet, on the eve of his first trip to the United States, President Mohamed Morsi instructed the United States to show greater respect for Arab values.  Turkey has told its citizens and their descendants living throughout the European Community they are first and foremost, Turkish Muslims.  Negative reciprocity is a marker for Islamic relations with the non-Muslim world; generosity and kindness are not.  It is always easier to blame a traditional foe for ones own failures.

The Jewish faith teaches that there was a beginning and that we should look forward, not back.  Perhaps this is Islam’s greatest weakness (as well as its greatest strength). Everything is referenced to the past, not as a guide to the future but as a model of unchallengeable and therefore, unchangeable perfection.  If the embodiment of all that is to be aspired towards took place 1,400 years ago, at a time of Muslim savagery and conquest then the failure to complete that conquest with equal or even greater murderous cruelty must have its non-Islamic scapegoat.

We can be sure that there will be many conspiracy theories surrounding the failure of the Morsi era.  It lasted less than a year.  But the one thing Egypt will not do is to seriously address the internal dysfunction and prejudice that has made it unable to overcome centuries of malevolent mediocrity.

Free and fair elections brought fascism to power in Egypt and in the West too many cheered the result.  A recent article asked whether democracy was a process or a result. In fact, democracy is a state of mind.  It is not a favor that is granted and one that may be diminished by special interest groups but an inalienable right. It is tolerance for widely divergent opinions; respect for everyone, even ones enemies; it is checks and balances and then and only then, a press and judiciary that is free from fear or interference. But most important of all, democracy works because it rejects the demagogue and practices emotional control on an individual and group basis.  The election of a fundamentalist party to power was a vote for fascism.  In contradiction to the accepted view, it was a failure of democracy.

Respecting Arab values will neither feed the Arab masses nor will it save the defenseless Arab (or non-Arab) woman from her groping and predatory Arab master. But in the Western World choosing sides is unpopular, unless it is against America or Zionism (i.e. Jewish Israel). 

And that is why there will be no meaningful discussion of the failure of the Arab Spring or of the nature of the illness that afflicts Egypt.

Peace in Our Time?

The State of Israel released 26 murderers. Some Israelis will justify this with reference to the ongoing conflict since a situation of enduring warfare creates inequality between peoples which cannot be resolved without the achievement of peace.  Many in the Muslim world will celebrate the release of murderers.  Far too many in the Western World (particularly within the anti-Zionist Left) will delight in this concession granted to the Palestinian Authority, ostensibly because unequal justice is no justice at all.

Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet agreed the move for political reasons. Abu Mazen in his turn did not demand as pre-conditions for negotiation either a return to the 1967 borders or a construction freeze.  Israel held him to his word by announcing prior to the commencement of negotiations the construction of 800 housing units in Jerusalem and a further 1,200 within Judea and Samaria.

Perhaps the ultra-orthodox are more far sighted than we thought.  If peace talks fail they will be the only political force in Israel that retains any credibility.

Is it reasonable to assume failure for this latest round of negotiations (the first in three years) even as they have barely begun?  If peace were hopes then success would be guaranteed in spite of any obstacles.  Polls on both sides have consistently supported the talks by a margin of two to one. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4417563,00.html  Courage is a pivotal requirement for both sides and peace will not be achievable without it. But the greatest danger facing both sides is incitement – it shows failure of nerve. So where are the pitfalls?

Palestinians never cease to incite hatred of Israel’s Jewish population while promoting maximalist demands reminiscent of previous Jew-haters throughout history.  Mr. Abbas tells the world that his country will be Judenrein (Clean of Jews).  At the end of July 2013 he reiterated this point (according to Reuters) in a briefing he gave to mostly Egyptian journalists.

Such tactics are not intended to encourage faith in negotiations. Fatah recently honored jailed Fatah Leader Marwan Barghouti because he had killed “61 Zionists”.  When we glorify killers we also send out a message.  Sticks and stones will break your bones but with words begin the slaughter.

President Mahmoud Abbas received his doctorate by denying the holocaust and associating Zionism with Nazism.  He later justified his position with reference to the ongoing state of war between the two peoples (Jews and Muslims?) and “in 2013 he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abbas

That said, is it credible to announce the expansion of Israeli construction within “disputed territories” even though in most Arab/Muslim eyes all of Israel is disputed territory? Realistically, the world will soon forget that Israel released 26 murderers as a “gesture of reconciliation” and blame us for (to use yet another former Nazi expression) our “Judaization” of Arab (Palestinian) land.

Realistically, the way to a conclusion of successful negotiation is not through making further concessions (even prisoner releases) to a holocaust denying President but by applying pressure through his fellow Arab and Muslim leaders around the world.

Israel has a case for its defense and it is time to trumpet it loud and clear. Blame, if it is not Arab, is ours, and frankly, that is not an option we should accept. It is naive to believe at this time, in compromising on our history because the current global narrative does not accept the original sin of Palestinian dislocation. Our conflict begins long before 1948 and it is a weapon of Arab and Muslim prejudice that has enabled them to rule us all with fear for too long.

For Israel to get Palestinian attention the Arab world must appreciate that they have the potential for significant losses – both spiritual and material - if they continue to use the conflict as an excuse to extort from the West rights and privileges that no other people receive.  Islam is a political theology, like communism, only of considerably greater vintage. And like communism it has grown by conquest, by terror and by waging a relentless propaganda war that mocks its rivals as it creates fear in them.  If Muslims scream hatred from the political and religious pulpit then peace is not possible, except as a sham.  Throughout its history Trojan Horses have taken many forms. ‘Religion of Peace’ is one of the memes used by Islam and its western apologists.

Pressure from brother Arab nations and the worldwide Muslim community can create a momentum for change in the Palestinian leadership if the same bad press begins to attach to them, by association.

It is even possible that theological Nazis such as Hamas could be terminally muzzled, but for that to happen Israel must start to consider the end game.  That starts with fighting the propaganda war. And nothing that I have either read or heard would indicate that Jerusalem has the faintest idea of how to even create the conditions under which we may approach the starting point of an end game.

Syrian Refugees, Compassion or Folly

Tolerance and Respect.

Two interesting words: Tolerance indicates fairness towards those people with whom we do not agree while respect indicates deference. As individuals we can agree to practice the former without having any enthusiasm for the latter, but Society is built around the latter and only afterwards reluctantly offers us the former.

In a perfect world,  Society would practice both in equal measure.  When do conflicts occur?  When the laws of society to which we all defer are disconnected from, and the object of alienation for groups, to whom our laws are an unwanted and unwarranted imposition on their beliefs. A multicultural society must be predicated on an assumption of adherence to basic laws; everything else is open to negotiation.  For instance, female circumcision, forced and child marriage – are against the core beliefs of our society.

It is not easy living in the twenty-first century.  I can be tolerant of Muslims but not of their Israel-centric revanchism.  I am uncomfortable with Islam’s institutionalized inequality, its militant imperialism and its insistence that my way of life is inferior. But then, my relationship with patriarchal and hegemonic ultra-orthodox Judaism is also problematic at best.  And progressive, pro-Palestinian Christians? They disgust me with their theological and historical revisionism, their antisemitism masked as anti-Zionism.

Our society encourages bigotry. In an interview with al-Jazeerah, the popular Arab television network, the celebrated atheist Professor Richard Dawkins damned the Jewish “god” but when asked by the interviewer about the Islamic “god” refused to be drawn into making a statement. Selective tolerance that demonizes one group while declining to comment on another creates a dynamic between the two groups, in effect, legitimizing violence against followers of the “Jewish God” (which he described as hideous, a monster and ‘the most unpleasant character in fiction’).  Professor Dawkins is world renowned; his crime against humanity is therefore all the greater for his cowardice and selective bigotry.  His unique incitement against the “Jewish god” makes his crime also, one of antisemitism.  But then, selectivity in narrow-mindedness is usually, financially, very profitable, but also prudent in a world that murders Islam’s critics.

Sadly, there is nothing unique about Professor Dawkins lack of moral courage. Those that question the historical basis for the existence of the State of Israel never question the legality of any other state created in the twentieth century. Communists and Socialists fail to acknowledge Israel’s right to exercise a Law of Return even though they are silent on the other twenty six countries that practice the same law.  They are silent about the racism inherent within the greater Arab colonial project and shy away from referring to the ethnic cleansing that has always been committed in the name of the Islam.

Israel, it seems, is truly isolated, even without a boycott.  With calls to open up the Western world’s borders to Syrian refugees the one issue of which I am truly concerned, is Arab-Muslim intolerance and disrespect. We have enough of it here already and it existed before the Arab-Muslim migration to the West.

Am I being unfair to Syria’s refugees?  Britain has been remarkably tolerant of racism and religious bigotry when it was the Jews that were targeted.  I cannot trust that my government will look after me.  Radical Muslim cleric Abu Qatada was first arrested in the UK over alleged terror connections in 2001 and he successfully fought deportation from 2005 until 2013. During that time how many minds did this vile creature pollute?

Britain happily excludes those people who might offend Muslims and in recent times has excluded a Dutch member of parliament and two prominent American critics. But Islam’s hatred of “the other” i.e. anyone not blessed with the same beliefs they share, is theological and therefore not subject to change through reasoned debate or palliative legislation.

Europe has no problem recognizing the threat from the right but has been overwhelmingly silent on the horrors committed by the Left and by the terrors perpetrated in the name of Allah. The Left will often react with violence to any attempt at discussing the crimes committed outside of Western Europe, unless, that is, they are the alleged crimes of Israel or the USA. A sinister aspect of this conspiracy is that in order to demonise it, Israel is considered to be a ‘white’ nation.  This makes it much less complicated for the hypocrite to damn.

Compassion without fidelity to the law of the land, and passion without respect leads to nihilism.  Are we that far off from the experience of France – a country which has not even seriously attempted to crush the malevolent pride of those who celebrate the evil child murderer Mohamed Merah?

Expediency is our enemy. Our borders should be closed for the simple reason that the nation and the continent do not need to import more hate.

Israel’s Release of 104 Palestinian Murderers

'We had to choose between a bad decision and an even worse one,'  these were the word spoken by Defense minister Moshe Yaalon today, justified by hints that secret deals had been made, either with the USA or Palestinians.

The lone consolation we can ease from the deep fissures of despair caused by the staged release of nationalist murderers is that this is a political decision that neither Israelis nor any one else can influence, for now.

In principle it may be that some of the incarcerated psychopaths will do no harm on their release into Arab society.  But some people would persuasively argue that Arab society encourages the sociopath and therefore, what we regard as deeply repugnant behaviour is, within Arab society, a social norm.  It is in the response to this discordance between Islam (the blanket around which the Arab world has chosen to wrap itself) and the West that Israel as an outpost of Western Civilization has failed to creatively respond.

In recent blogs I have criticized Israel’s founding fathers for their failure to integrate Israel’s Arab and ultra-orthodox minorities into society. Assuming that an Arab fifth column would need to be assimilated at some time in the unknowable future and that the ultra-orthodox would simply die out as the logic of superior secular culture enveloped them, has proven to be incredibly myopic.

Israeli Arabs have no support network within Israeli society to support them against Arab extremists who refuse to countenance co-existence with the Jews (Israelis).  Islamic triumphalists agitate for an Arab apartheid mini-state that will progressively undermine Israel.  It is Israel’s failure to undertake robust action against any individual or organization that does battle against minority integration that has shaped today’s terrible situation.   And the government of Israel will now release more people who undermine the authority of the state into communities that will become even more radicalized by their presence.

A quote from Ynet today:  “As talks resume in Washington, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says 'In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands'....” I have no problems with that, but I do have a response:

First: the Islamic world, particularly the Arab world has shown itself to be fundamentally incapable of honoring the cultural heritage of other races or religious groups throughout its 1,400 year history. In areas ruled by Palestinians, trust is wholly absent and respect non-existent. There is not a single reason to believe that this bigotry can be cured or controlled in an independent Palestine.   Jewish and Christian holy sites have often been targeted for desecration and destruction. The United Nations Organisation can never be trusted to assuage our concerns.  All areas of archaeological and religious interest that come under Palestinian oversight will have to be internationalized and even that will not guarantee religious freedom or security for Jews and Christians.

Second: If Palestine is to be ‘Jew free’ then it is only just that Israel be free of all people who desire to classify themselves as Palestinian rather than Israeli.  It is after all, a declaration of identification, of personal as well as national fealty.

I have two issues with the release of Arab murderers as a pre-condition for the restarting of peace talks.

The essence of sovereignty is the right of the nation to make decisions in its own defense. And that includes the right to lock up those who kill, for whatever reason.  Once the State takes the decision that Israeli Arab activities are outside of State jurisdiction then it also declares that its sovereignty is conditional. Therefore, it is no longer an independent nation.

I am not concerned that Palestine and Gaza will take to their collective bosom those who commit murder with a bliss that broaches not a moment of shame but that Israel will absorb up to 14 of these deeply sick individuals.  Their hatred contaminates the very air that their Israeli Arab neighbours breathe.  Their physical presence pollutes any free space that they inhabit.

The bigots will point out that Israel also had its terrorists in the struggle for independence. But as Ben-Dror Yemini wrote in Ma’ariv on the 28^th of July ‘….somebody always pops up to repeat the lie that the Jews who fought the Mandate were also terrorists.  A half-truth is worse than a lie, because there was terrorism in the struggle against the British, but it was uncharacteristic.  Most of the Yishuv opposed it.  The Yishuv did not support it and did not finance it.  For the Palestinians, the murderers are heroes.’ The Palestinians honor them, they throw huge amounts of money at them, they immortalize them.

Goodwill gestures are meaningless if they fail to carry the people with them. A recent poll found that 88% of the Jewish population is opposed to the release of these murderers as a precondition for restarting negotiations. Previous swaps were supported by a majority of Jews.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu owes the people an explanation.