| Muslims = Terrorists |
|
|
| Sunday, 29 October 2006 | |
|
Terrorism has long been the chief demonizing marker that Israel and the United States have used in their wars against Islamic states and peoples who have stood in the path of their imperial ambitions. Israel has led the way in charting this course. With massive propaganda, the Zionists succeeded in equating the Palestinian resistance with terrorism. In no Western country did this propaganda encounter greater success - including Israel itself - than in the United States. Most liberal Americans - and a few leftists - argued that Palestinian terrorists threatened Israel's existence. After the capitulation of Egypt at Camp David, Israel pursued more lofty ambitions. The original dream of a Pax Israelica, stretching from Morocco to Pakistan, now seemed within reach. Only the newly emerging Islamist forces in the region - notably, in Iran - now stood in its way. The nascent Islamists offered both a challenge and an opportunity to Israel. If Israel could paint the Islamists as a civilizational threat to the very survival of the West, the American voters could be goaded into supporting Israel's war against the Islamists: or better still, make this war their own. This is not to discount the lure of Middle Eastern oil for America's power elite. Although the US is the world's only superpower, its relative economic position has been declining for some time. Although the US may not reverse its economic decline, it could solidify its power by gaining control over the world's oil spigot in the Persian Gulf. Europe and China could be tamed if they knew that the US had its hand on the oil spigot. This temptation was strong, but it also carried risks. In a democracy, moreover, there stands another obstacle. Public opinion in the United States would resist such a major and risky war. Americans, therefore, would have to be prepared for war by conjuring fears of new Islamic hordes gathering to attack and destroy the West, especially the United States. Israel, the Zionists and their neoconservative allies in the United States began to work on these fears. It would not be too difficult to revive the West's old obsession about fanatical Muslims, forcing their religion upon infidels at the point of their swords. But these atavistic fears would have to be decked anew. The Zionist and neoconservative thinkers would go to work painting Islam as anti-modernist, opposed to freedom, and inimical to the rights of women and minorities. In other words, Muslims were the last remaining obstacle to the final and irreversible triumph of Western values and power. This was not all. The Zionists also argued that the Muslims were an active and growing threat to the survival of the West. The new forces gathering under the Islamic banner were determined to attack the West. Israel was only their immediate target. After destroying Israel, they would go for the United States and Europe, their real targets. Their goal was nothing less than the imposition of Islamic law on Western Christendom. Most importantly, the Zionists warned repeatedly, the Islamists would use terror - the same tactics they had employed so long against Israel - to destroy the Western economies. This strategy could scarcely fail to achieve its objective. On the domestic front, Americans were being told constantly of Islamic hostility to modernity, to the West and the United States especially. On the international front, the US and Israel together deepened their siege of the Islamic world, with open wars against Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Afghans, and threats of new wars against Iran, Syria and Pakistan. Under these dire circumstances, small groups of Muslims - no more than a few hundred at first - broke away from the mainstream Islamist movements who were battling the repression and corruption of their own governments. These splinter groups advocated attacks against the United States, the 'far enemy' that they argued was the real power behind Israel and the indigenous tyrannies. When these splinter groups began their terrorist attacks in the early 1990s, the Zionists, neoconservatives, and other assorted right-wing reactionary groups had gained what they waited for. Here was proof, they proclaimed, of the malevolent designs of the Islamic terrorists, the Islamic fundamentalists, nay, of the entire Islamic world. Wake up, the Zionists began telling the Americans. The Islamic terrorists who have been attacking us since 1948 have now attacked you. We face the same terrorist hordes. It is the Islamic world, stupid. So, when the nineteen hijackers from al-Qaida attacked the Twin Towers, renewed efforts were launched to establish a definitive connection between Islam and terrorism. Some voices proclaimed that all Muslims are terrorists or at least potential terrorists. The US government was not going that far yet. It proclaimed that it was waging war against Islamic terrorists, not against Islam. What the US government did after 9-11, however, sent exactly the opposite message. It launched a war against Iraq, a secular Arab government, opposed to the Islamists and with no known connection to the perpetrators of 9-11. It gave up its pretense of playing the honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. It launched plans to effect 'regime change' in Syria and Iran. US intentions in the Middle East were summed up ominously in its plans to bring 'democracy' to the region. The real plan - long a part of Israel's strategic plan for the region - was to redraw the map of the Middle East. The advocates of civilizational war in the United States were not yet resting on their laurels. They had not achieved quite what they wanted. They wanted all-out, open war against the Islamic world. They wanted the US to equate Islam with terrorism, and Muslims with terrorists. They wanted to deport Muslims who called the West their home, or shut them up in internment camps. They wanted to legalize the torture of Muslims, and their indefinite detention. Indeed, they were celebrating the loss of their own liberties as a necessary tool in the war against Islam. Unremittingly, Israel, the Zionists and neoconservatives are pushing the United States to start the total war against Islam. They work openly, covertly and by deceit. On the ideological front, their goal is to define all Muslims as terrorist. This goal appears to be nearly in sight. They have persuaded many Americans that all terrorists are Muslims even if all Muslims are not terrorists. A tenuous distinction indeed, if there was one. If all terrorists are Muslims, and we cannot tell the bad ones from the good ones, can we then afford to give 'good Muslims' the benefit of the doubt? Can the West risk its survival on so fine, so tenuous a distinction? Should the West risk its survival on this distinction? The charge that all terrorists are Muslims is a scarcely concealed advocacy for war against all Muslims. It does not matter that this equation is false. The claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs was also false; so was his connection with the 9-11 hijackers. But these lies were used to invade, occupy and devastate Iraq. If this new falsehood prevails, and it appears to be gaining ground, this is what will drive the war against Islam - the most deadly after the second World War. Duped into rage, Americans will stand four square behind the war of the twenty-first century to defeat the Islamo-fascists, to eradicate the Islamic terrorists. Once this is over, they can enjoy the glories of yet another American century.
M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at a university in Boston, and author of Challenging the New Orientalism: Dissenting Essays on America's 'War Against Islam' (IPI Publications: 2006 forthcoming). He may be reached at alqalam02760@yahoo.com c M. Shahid Alam Readers have left 2 comments.
anon:
Quote
Subtle brainwashing can only describe what non muslims are being 'taught' as to what terrorism and extremism is. Being taught that terrorists and extremists can also be white does not help the brainwashing process.
Neither does having a fact based debate. That is why holocaust memorial days are such an exclusive affair as it numbs the mind to what is happening to muslims (humans) in the world today and ends up brainwashing and dehumanising us all so we end up thinking that genocide, atrocities, barbarity and evil only means something for which there is six million victims and conveniently fails to remember that each and every victim is a human tragedy in itself. The brainwashers want the great british public to think and believe that only islam and muslim are the enemy and are extremists and terrorist whereas the question of who is actually suffering as a result of whose actions is purposely never asked or answered.
(1)
2006-10-30 18:34:45
George:
Quote
Professor Alam may be an authority upon economics but his grasp of recent Middle Eastern history is woefully askew. Probably the most serious ommission is that of the post-67 war arms embargo and the US State Dept's role up to the beginning of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and the impact that had upon US Foreign Policy.
Prior to 1973 France and Britain had been Israel's primary arms suppliers, not the USA. The US policy had been wieghted slightly toward the Arab States until then driven by the State Dept and to a lesser extent the CIA. US ambitions post WW2 had been to replace Britain and France as the dominant Western nation. An arms embargo was imposed by the UN upon all the belligerants in the region. This hit the Arab states particularly badly as they had lost the bulk of their weaponry in 67. In return for aligning themselves with the USSR they demanded that the USSR supply them with new weapons and military technicians to train the armies. This included pilots during the 1970 "War of Attrition" who flew some sorties against the IAF. However from early 1973 the Israelis began to complain to the Western states, and especially the USA, that the USSR had breached the arms embargo and that the Arab states were preparing for war. President Nixon asked the State Dept for their advice, and the State Dept assured him and the Israelis that the Arab states had no intention of starting another war. On this advice Nixon decided that the US would not supply weapons to Israel. Back and forth the Israelis went to the US stating that Mossad had hard evidence that the Arab states intended war and were conducting exercises to this end. Again Nixon repeated the same assurances he had received from the State Dept and the CIA, and that he would not supply weapons to the Israelis. France and Britain made it clear that they now supported the Arabs and would not supply weapons. They were fearful of restrictions on oil supply and loss of Arab markets. Thus in October 1973 when the Egyptian army stormed over the Suez Canal the IDF was ill-prepared, and the IAF was decimated by the mobile SAM's against which it had no real defence. Nixon suddenly faced an angry Israel who said "we told you so!", and a genuine fear in the USA that Israel would be destroyed, with the Jews being massacred. He was furious with the State Dept and CIA for failing to predict this would happen. He was also fearful that he would be the president who allowed the Jews to be slaughtered. He also felt betrayed by the Arab states whom he felt had lied to him. Nixon authorised the immediate delivery of massive quantities of weapons to Israel which swung the balance in Israel's favour as the Egyptian thrust faltered. But there was yet another development that influenced US policy. In response to the embargo Israeli governments authorised massive investment in military technology and production capacity seeking to attain self-sufficiency. In order to fund this the Israelis aggressively began to market their products in areas that the US had considered their own exclusive territories. To start with it was small arms and low level comms equipment. But soon IMI was selling much more sophisticated equipment and cut deep into the markets of companies such as Collins Rockwell. IMI equipment had the cache of being rugged and battle tested which was very attractive to S. American countries. Unknown to the US IMI also made heavy investment in modern military airframe manufacture. Thus in the late 1970's when Mexico awash with oil money invited tenders to supply fighter jets, the Israelis entered the Kfir jet. The USA had assumed that this contract for 200 planes would go to them. They were then deeply shocked when Mexico announced that it was buying the Kfir and that production had already started. On one hand they feared for jobs in their own industry and on the other they realised that an Israel self-sufficient in arms would be totally uncontrollable. What followed was basically the payment of bribes to Mexico and Israel to put aside the contract and for the US to supply planes at the same price, while the US Navy leased all the Kfirs made up to that point. From this moment onward US policy was concretised in virtually unwavering support for Israel. US and Israeli arms industries now cooperate at almost every level, the US benefitting from the lower costs of R&D in Israel. The US armed forces have encouraged this as they benefit from the battle testing that Israel can undertake and from the additional source of specialist equipment supply when needed. All of this predates the raise of Islamism. To fail to consider the consequences of the Yopm Kippur War for US policy is to undermine any argument. Professor Alam personal prejudices so influence his perspective that he appears unable to factor in anything other than the notion of an imperialist Israel and a clash of civilisations. Further neither Israel nor the West conflates the acts of "resistance" by the Palestinians and acts of "terrorism" against western targets. This conflation is at the centre of the Arab / Muslim paradigm, and it has been successfuly promoted in many spheres. The simple test of this is to explore the question "Is it credible to believe that were Israel to disappear tomorrow, that peace and stability would arrive in the Middle East within the foreseeable future?". My own opinion is that this Israeli / Palestinian conflict is simply a ruse by which Arab states have avoided internal reform and justified oppression. Further the pressures within the Middle east have little do with the West and far more to do with the rapidly expanding populations far in excess of the capacity of those territories to provide for them. The existance of Israel has no bearing upon the fecundity and mortality of Arab peoples.
(2)
2006-10-31 21:20:10
|

















