The "Grievances" Defense

by Peter Huessy
May 30, 2013 at 5:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3732/grievances-defense

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing the grievances would remove the terrorism. The U.S. was warned, however, before 9/11, that it faced a "poisonous coalition" of terror groups, wealthy sheiks, military establishments and intelligence, all fueled with an apparently endless supply of indoctrinated recruits from madrassas and mosques. This coalition now has nuclear weapons. A credible case can be argued that the West has the right of self-defense.

The April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens.
These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: "Why are we being attacked?"
A newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves "addressing grievances and conflicts" that feed what is described as "extremism."
But will this work?
After 9/11, despite the impression of a nation coming together, almost immediately many pundits, media outlets and academics blamed America. We were, for example, attacked because "our chickens [were] coming home to roost." Three reasons were most often cited: our sanctions against Iraq; our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia and our support for Israel.
Over a quarter of a century ago, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, our UN ambassador during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan's, first explained this tendency to "always blame America first." It flowed from a view that saw American military power as a harmful force in world politics. Steven Kinzer in All the Shah's Men argued in 2003, just two years later, that, "It is not far-fetched to draw a line through the Shah's repressive regime and the Islamic revolution [1979] to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York." A decade later, former Congressman Ron Paul similarly argued the attacks of 9/11 were in retaliation for American troops being deployed in Saudi Arabia in 1990-1991, there to drive Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. And on May 23, the administration sought to explain what it terms "violent extremism" as a reaction to the "thousands of civilians that have been killed" in Iraq and Afghanistan," implicitly by American intervention.
Even now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the "Blame America" syndrome is on full display.
The New York Times charged that the US had failed to assimilate the bombers' family, implying presumably, "What could anyone expect them to do other then bomb the Boston Marathon?"
Then the bombers were humanized. They were described as friendly school chums, attractive to women. The New York Times compared one of the bombers to the hero of that classic American book Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield.
Then came the "self-actualization" explanation for terrorism: apparently, as the two brothers were not members of any terrorist group but possibly just lone-wolf types, America had failed to "assimilate" them properly -- implying that their bombing was somehow our fault.
That rationalization was followed by strenuous efforts to avoid making any connection to their Islamic background, their travel to Dagestan, and their connection to a nearby Boston mosque from which a half dozen members and key leaders have been convicted of terrorist acts in the past decade.
In Sweden, similarly, the BBC said the rioting youths, while from predominant "immigrant areas," were unhappy about joblessness.
The mayor of London assured everyone that even while one of the butchers was "dripping blood and swearing by Almighty Allah 'We will never stop fighting you'," there was no connection to Islam to be drawn.
This compulsion to explain terrorism as driven by grievances against America continues as the politically correct narrative.
If "legitimate grievances" motivate terrorists, the thinking apparently goes, then such terrorism is justified.
Former President James Carter argued that Hamas's and Hezbollah's use of terrorism against Israel "is understandable" because after all they do not have a modern air force with which to fight.
If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing these grievances would remove the terrorism.
If poverty is the problem, advocate more foreign assistance.
If Israel is the problem, establish a Palestinian State.
If the presence of the U.S. military in the Middle East is the issue, withdraw the military force.
If our negative attitude toward Islam is the problem, repeatedly citing Islam as a "religion of peace" wipes out the threat.
But if government officials' assertion that the US is not at war with Islam -- meant to convey to citizens of the Islamic world that they need not fear us and we will no longer "attack them " -- it also conveys the notion that many followers of Islam do not feel compelled to attack those whom they see as insufficiently "Muslim," let alone Jews, Christians, Hindus and others not of the Islamic faith.
That official view also ignores that in 732 and 1683, Islamic forces were twice defeated at the height of their attempted conquest of much of the known world -- the latter attempt on September 11, 1683, at the gates of Vienna, where a army led by a Polish king defeated an Islamic army many times its size.
The search for "grievances" implies it is simply coincidental that 30 of the 32 current "Most Wanted" by the FBI are Muslims, and that of the more than 2,200 terror attacks in 2012, over 2000 were undertaken my Muslims or in the name of Islam.
Critics of U.S. policy under the Bush administration claimed that it was our perceived status as a military "bully" in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, that propelled young Muslim men to "fight back."
But this analysis fails to take into account that long before the U.S. liberation of Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S., Israel and others -- even in the Muslim world -- were regularly and routinely being attacked and murdered by people "in the name of Islam".
The State Department regularly officially designates countries involved in funding, training or providing safe haven for terrorists as "state sponsors of terror." In the commentary about 9/11 and the intervening terrorism of the past decade, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya have routinely been identified as top sponsors of terrorism.
Although not thought of as terror masters, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia created the Taliban and thousands of Wahhabi mosques, and supports terrorist groups such as the PLO.
North Korea, Venezuela, China and other non-Islamic countries have also worked with, and supported, state sponsors of terror that are primarily "Islamic."
This factor appears to be missing in the current administration's analyses.
But for most in the media and the academic world, the role of either terror states or Islam is dismissed. Terrorism is reduced to legitimate grievances that the West, Israel and the United States are capable of addressing but have failed to clear up.
Ahmad Shah Massoud, however -- head of the Northern Alliance, the Afghani force that defeated the Soviet Union, and who was murdered just shortly before 9/11 -- had warned the U.S. that it faced a "poisonous coalition" of terror groups, wealthy sheiks, military establishments, and intelligence services, all fueled with an apparently endless supply of indoctrinated recruits from madrassas and mosques.
This coalition now has missiles and nuclear weapons.
If, however, the driving force behind terrorist attacks on the United States is a strategy to harm the United States and other Western nations, to eliminate their presence in the Middle East or terrorize them into agreeing to live under the laws of Islam, a credible case can be argued that the U.S. and its allies have the right of self-defense.
This is even truer if the threat the West faces is a force that seeks to establish totalitarian Islam throughout the Muslim world, then everywhere else. If the tip of the spear may indeed be a nuclear weapon, let us rethink what it means to "provide for the common defense."

Related Topics: Peter Huessy

Bethlehem's Female Mayor Faces Smears, Threats

by Khaled Abu Toameh
May 30, 2013 at 3:00 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3738/bethlehem-mayor-vera-baboun

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

Fatah's armed wing, Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, issued a leaflet, urging the intimidated mayor to withdraw her complaint.

The good news is that Bethlehem has its first female mayor.
But the bad news is that Mayor Vera Baboun, elected in October 2012, has since been facing a smear campaign that reached it peak last week when assailants damaged her private vehicle.
The assault on the mayor's car serves as a reminder of the ongoing tensions between the Christian minority and Muslim majority of Bethlehem. It also highlights the huge challenges facing Palestinian women in a conservative society.
The leaders of the Christian community in Bethlehem rarely talk in public about the tensions with their Muslim neighbors; they prefer instead to direct their criticism against Israel. By turning a blind eye to the problems facing Christians, these leaders are doing a disservice to their own community.
Ever since she was elected, Baboun, a mother of five who was headmistress of the Roman Catholic High School in the nearby town of Beit Sahour, has been forced to deal with a well-organized campaign aimed at discrediting her and removing her from her job.
The campaign is being waged by some Muslim residents of Bethlehem and its surrounding refugee camps.
Some Palestinians clearly find it difficult to accept a woman as mayor of one of the most important Palestinian cities.
These residents apparently do not like a woman is sitting in the mayor's seat. That she is Christian also seems to bother some of her opponents.
The assault on Baboun's vehicle did not come as a surprise to her or to many Bethlehem residents.
In recent weeks, she has been strongly condemned by some Muslim residents of Bethlehem and nearby refugee camps for allegedly insulting their feelings and their religion.
The residents claim that Baboun prevented Palestinian girls from reciting a poem that included the phrase "Islam is our religion."
Moreover, residents have accused the mayor of banning girls from performing while wearing the hijab [headscarf].
Although Baboun has denied the claims, arguing that they were part of a slander campaign, Muslim activists have used social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter to denounce her and ask for her resignation.
Alarmed by the smear campaign and threats made against her family and her, Baboun lodged a complaint with the Palestinian Authority against those responsible.
Earlier this week, the Palestinian Authority police in Bethlehem detained four Palestinians on charges of slander and libel against the mayor. Three of the detainees were Muslims, while the fourth was Maher Canawati, a Christian member of the Bethlehem Municipal Council.
The detention of the four men only increased tensions in the city; some residents accused Baboun of using her influence to crack down on her critics.
As if that were not enough, Fatah's armed wing, Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, issued a leaflet urging Baboun to withdraw her complaint.
The group also called for the resignation of the entire municipal council and holding new elections.
Although the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades later denied any link to the leaflet, the intimidated mayor rushed to withdraw her complaint.
Explaining her decision, Baboun said, "I filed the complaint to say enough is enough! There is a law in the country and I chose to pursue the case in the legal framework. But now that Fatah has promised to follow up the case, and because I do not wish to escalate the situation to avoid affecting society peace, I withdrew my complaint."

Related Topics: Khaled Abu Toameh

The Islamic Mindset in the Middle East

by Harold Rhode
May 30, 2013 at 2:30 am

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3737/islamic-mindset

Send

Comment

RSS

Be the first of your friends to like this.

It might be helpful to ask why we refuse to see the Muslim culture for what it is? It is clear from the abundant writings of the Saudis, Salafis and other Wahhabis that they want to destroy both our culture and us.

Many secular Muslims seem to hate the U.S., Israel, and even Christians living among them, just as passionately as their religious brothers do, but in a form that is political rather than religious.[1] In Islam, there is no separation of religion and state: Muslims might even be atheists, but they may bring to their atheism many of the values of the cultures around them.
The inability to abandon old views might be typical of all cultures: it is so much easier to retain habits – such as the disparagement of other races or gender -- and when circumstances change, to dress them up in different clothes. This seems particularly true regarding peoples' views of the "other," whatever the particular form might take of "different from me." We all often have difficulty abandoning old feelings towards those we do not like -- especially when those feelings become socially and politically acceptable, or even encouraged. When such inhibitions are removed, we often do not change our views, but merely the reasons for why we hold them.
In Russia, for example, the view of Jews both during the Tsarist Empire and under the Communists, as that the Jews were hated ostensibly because they had committed "deicide" -- killing the Christian Lord, Jesus. Later, under the Communists, when Jews did their best to disavow their religion and ethnic origin, and put Judaism behind them to assimilate and become the ultra-secular "New Soviet Man," the Russian Orthodox Christian Communists still hated Jews. But now, the Christians claimed, they did not hate the Jews for supposedly killing Christ; instead, they said they hated the Jews for being "cosmopolitan" -- implying that their allegiance was not wholeheartedly to the Soviet Union. The old Russian sentiment remained.

In the Muslim World

Before the Islamist takeover of Turkey in 2002, senior Turkish secular political and military leaders often blamed the U.S. for supporting Greece: Greece was Christian and Turkey, though secular, was Muslim. Because both Greece and the West were Christian, they claimed, Turkey was therefore fated to remain an outsider in the Western club. Some members of the Turkish secular elite apparently felt that being even a secular Muslim was such a barrier to Western acceptance that privately they excoriated Ataturk for not making the Turks abandon Islam and adopt Christianity. To compound their feelings of frustration at not being accepted as Westerners, they often brought up a story about the Turkish Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, who seized Constantinople [Istanbul] from the Greek Christians in 1453. According to this story – which may or may not have been true -- after Constantinople had been subdued, Mehmed thought long and hard about whether to remain a Muslim, or to convert to Greek Orthodox Christianity. In the end, Mehmed chose to remain Muslim. Had he converted, these secular Turks lamented, modern Turkey would have been Christian and had no problem being embraced by the West.
Many Turks also have difficulty understanding that in the West, there could be political and religious animosity among some Christians against Jews. Deep within the Muslim culture, "all non-Muslims are one entity" allied against the Muslims.[2] The classic Islamic view is that there are two worlds – the World of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the World of War (Dar al-Harb) which will be forever locked into conflict,[3] at least until all the non-Muslims submit to the peace of Islam. The Muslim view -- with the division between Sunnis and Shi'ites overlooked -- goes on to claim that all Muslims are one people.
So even though these secular Turks might feel deeply aliened from Islam -- they eat pork, drink alcohol, do not fast on Ramadan, and some explicitly say that they are not even Muslims -- their view of themselves can still be rooted in Islamic culture both toward themselves and toward others.
Some years ago, for instance, on a trip to the Iranian holy city of Ghom [Qom], a young Iranian mentioned that he was Communist, that he hated religion, and was only visiting Ghom to accompany his religious mother to pray at the shrine. When the conversation turned to the civil war in Lebanon, where many religious and ethnic groups were fighting each other, and we asked whom he supported, he replied that as a good Communist, of course he supported the poor Muslims who were by exploited by the rich Christians. When reminded that there were also rich Muslims exploiting poor Christians, he looked confused, and said, "But we have to support our Muslim brothers" -- the classic Islamic view that all Muslims are brothers against the non-Muslims,[4] dressed in modern clothes. So much for "communism."

Christians and Muslims in the Galilee

Christians and Muslims live in close proximity in the Israeli Galilee. Islamic religious law defines Christians and Jews as fellow monotheists, "People of the Book [5]." In Islamic culture, however, they are called "dhimmis,[6]" -- tolerated, second-class citizens who have the right to live under Muslim rule, but only as political and social inferiors who must pay for "protection" not to be looted or otherwise abused. Galilean Muslims often say Christians are pagans because "they believe in saints," i.e., they deify Jesus who was a human being, which is anathema in Islam. If Christians are supposed to be People of the Book, they cannot be pagans. Sunni culture -- like in the Galilee - often brands them as such.
Sunni Muslims often express similar reservations about their fellow Shi'ite Muslims who revere Imams, the descendents of their prophet Muhammad -- also apparently too close to polytheism for comfort.
In the extreme, this exclusionary view has culminated in the radical Sunni branch of Islam and the ruling philosophy of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, which brands Shi'ites as apostates, and whose followers do not even regard Shi'ites as fellow Muslims.
As the Saudis claim that people gather at the graves of Muhammad's family and his companions to "worship" the people buried there,[7] the Wahhabis have systematically destroyed the graves and called the Shi'ites apostates. The Shi'ites reply that they although they have deep respect for their Imams and other great leaders, they do not deify their Imams.
Even though, therefore, according to Islam, all Muslims are brothers, when Islamic culture clashes with the rules of Islam, culture wins.

Iraq after Saddam Hussein

In Post-Saddam Iraq, besides Sunni-Shi'ite conflicts, both sides have increasingly made life so difficult for native Iraqi Christians that they have felt it necessary to flee Baghdad [8] for areas in the north where Christians predominate, or else for Kurdish areas. The Kurds, mostly Sunni, seem to have more of the classical respect Islam requires towards non-Muslim dhimmis as fellow monotheists. The Kurds, therefore, seem more prepared to respect the classic rules of Islam than many of the Arabs whose ancestors brought Islam to the world.

The Egyptian "Arab Spring" and the Non-Muslims

Many of the leaders who started the revolt against Mubarak were predominately secular, but nonetheless seem to have retained their animosity not only toward Israel, but also toward the Egyptian Copts, the original population that inhabited Egypt for three and a half millennia before the Muslim onslaught in the mid-seventh century. Because these Egyptian Copts were Christian, to the Muslim Egyptians, they essentially remained guests in the own ancient house. [9]
Egyptian Christians have historically often borne the brunt of Muslim rage, ending in the murder of Copts and the destruction of their churches. This formally contradicts Islamic Shar'ia law, according to which, Christians are allowed to live under Islamic rule, albeit as second-class citizens. Even so, violence against Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other minorities -- in Iraq, Yemen, Bangladesh and other Muslim countries -- has been has been part and parcel of Islamic culture for centuries.
During the first few days of the Tahrir Square, during demonstrations against Mubarak, some Muslims demonstrators protected the Christians as they prayed at the square.[10] Shortly after the public Christian prayers, however, the wrath of many Egyptian Muslims returned; they turned on the Christians,[11] even though the Christians had never, of course, been the cause of the Egyptian people's anger towards the Mubarak regime. The anti-Christian and anti-Semitic attitudes displayed by large numbers of Egypt's Muslims from all sections of society -- peasants, city dwellers, the military, and Muslim intellectuals, and from the Egyptian religious establishment -- have been involved in a violence that stems from Islamic culture and that fosters anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Hindu and anti-"other" sentiments.
Although many Muslims may say they adopt modern ideas such as democracy, freedom, and human rights, the question remains how deeply these concepts have permeated a habitual way of thinking. So many of our Muslim government and political interlocutors cloak their thoughts in words familiar and soothing to the West. Our government leaders and bureaucrats therefore believe -- and want us to believe -- that these observant people are like us. Sadly, we are all too willing to accept their words at face value. We cite Islamic religious law as if we understand it better than they do -- and as if to reassure ourselves that these Muslims actually do accept our way of looking at the world. Our government officials and academics often go to great lengths to find fatwas emphasizing that Christians, Jews, and Muslims can co-exist peacefully; while formally true according to Islamic law, however, this "co-existence" only happens where Islam rules, and Christians, Jews, and others live as second class citizens.
Today, almost any bearded individual who calls himself a Sheikh can issue fatwas; and can easily find fatwas to support almost anything. It seems as though these Sheikhs now have more influence than traditionally-trained Muslim religious leaders, and currently constitute what is regarded as Islamic culture.
It might be helpful to ask why we refuse to see Muslim culture for what it is. The answer, unfortunately, is that if we did, we would then have to re-think the ways we deal with leaders from Muslim countries in ways our policy establishment is simply not prepared to do. If we stopped deluding ourselves, we might have to ask ourselves whether the Saudis can really be our allies; their long term goals are so inimical to ours. This view does not necessarily mean that our interests always diverge. The Saudis, we, and even Israel, for example share similar views on how dangerous the Iranian regime is to our interests. But these are just short-term interests. In the long term, it is clear from the abundant writings produced by the Saudis, Salafis and other Wahhabis that they want to destroy both our culture and us.
If we were to recognize this reality, we would no longer we able to hide behind the misnomer that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Islamic culture -- which stems from the Islamic religion -- and the West cannot in the long run peacefully co-exist. If we were to recognize this reality, our whole outlook on and policy towards the Islamic world would have to change. Are we prepared to do that?