Holy Violence and Unholy Politics: Radical Islamists from Gaza to Beirut

The radical Islamist violence in Beirut, aided by a motley crew of has- been leftists, quasi fascists and nationalist groups, directed inwards, highlights the threat the radical Islamists pose to their own societies. Societies that have been sleeping while the radicals have been growing like wild and poisonous mushrooms on a spring lawn.

Despite their rhetoric that plays on legitimate national and economic frustrations, their goal is political power- unchecked- except by their own thoughts of what God really really wants.

Once in power, by ballot or by the gun, they would rule ruthlessly against others- just as their secular revolutionary predecessers communists did.

Some of yester year's communists have re-emerged, with the same old bearded face of leftist youth and folly, as radical Islamists. That seems odd but not really.

Both ideologies are rigid, absolutist, totalitarian and violence prone.

It’s disgusting the naïve and misguided support that they get from Western sources and a few Muslims and Arabs in the West.

These supporters live in a democracy, enjoying civil rights and civil liberties, while supporting groups that are clearly and violently against both.

These supporters and apologists defend a regime for others to live under- a regime that they would not accept for themselves for even one day.

The radical Islamists, whatever the brand name, share adverse positions on freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, religious minorities, women’s rights and representative government as we know it.

In this day and age these rights are taken for granted as the norm- but the radical Islamists refuse them, mock them, fight them and oppress their compatriots that support them-

They have their own ideas of a utopia that never really existed except in their heads.

The use of “holy violence” stands out as another common theme- and people are "martyred" whether they want to be or not.

This use of violence is in many ways the post- modern religious incarnation of the radical Arab nationalist and leftist “revolutionary" violence to force one marginal, but well organized and fired up with zeal, group’s will on the rest of society.

As to the US- a common theme among these radical Islamists is an unhealthy obsession with America and an almost- comical kneejerk anti-Americanism.

This is true for all the radical Islamists from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas to the Jordanian Islamic Action Front to the Hizbullah and its lesser Islamist allies in Lebanon.

Comments

Marion said…
The most important element that Mr. Alkhatib's "Holy Violence and Unholy Politics: Radical Islamists from Gaza to Beirut" lacks is balance.

Mr. AlKhatib for some reason doesn't mention anything whatsoever about the Western's, lead by the U.S. superpower, "Holy Violence and Unholy Politics: In the name of Democracy under the Judeo/Christian interpretation of God" that has been playing a major double standard position in it's Middle East policy for decades now. It is a double standard policy which largely evolves around a Judeo/Christian/Democratic hegemonic view of the U.S.'s greatest friend and ally Israel in the region.

Many of the claims made by Mr. Alkhatib against the political Islamist powers that have emerged and risen in the Middle East, which came about largely due to the oppression and frustration of the people from the corrupted powers within and the hegemonic Judeo/Christian/Zionist/Neocon so-called Democratic powers outside of the region, can equally be applied to the Bush administration, and it’s tactics at home, as well as in the Middle East region.

For example:


"Despite their rhetoric that plays on national and economic frustrations, their goal is political power- unchecked- except by their own thoughts of what God really really wants.”—Mr. AlKhatib referring to the so-called radical Islamists.

Taking Mr. Alkhatib’s claims concerning radical Islamists, I could apply them as such:

Despite the hegemonic Judeo/Christian/Zionist/Neocon so-called Democratic superpower rhetoric that plays on the fears of another 9/11 like terror attack, their goal is political power- unchecked- except by their own thoughts of what God really really wants.

Is this why George Bush and many U.S. politicians always say that God blesses America Mr. AlKhatib?

Did Mr. AlKhatib bother to listen to President George Bush’s recent speech at the Israeli Knesset? Did he take note of how President George Bush referred to Israel according to his Democratic Biblical Zionist understanding?

If he didn’t, he can read the entire speech here:

Text of President Bush's speech to the Israeli parliament

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/15/news/Bush-Mideast-Text.php

Excerpts from his speech:

“Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

“The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan. And in time, many Americans became passionate advocates for a Jewish state.”
“Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless”.—President George Bush addressing the Israeli Knesset

What about Ismael, Mr. Bush? Who the Muslim people consider as a part of this legacy of Abraham? What about the oppressed and dispossessed Palestinians?


“Once in power, by ballot or by the gun, they would rule ruthlessly against others- just as their secular revolutionary predecessers communist experience did. Some of yester year's communists have become radical Islamists. That seems odd but not really.”-- Mr. AlKhatib referring to the so-called radical Islamists.

And what about the backgrounds of some of the Neocons Mr. Alkhatib, who have aligned themselves with the Judeo/Christian Zionists?

From Wikipedia:

“…Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, explained:[9]
Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cites a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:[15]
For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it.



And what about the background of the Bush family Mr. Alkhatib, whose very own son George Bush Jr. has aligned himself with the Neocons and the Judeo/Christian Zionists?

You might want to read:

The Bushes and Hitler Appeasement
By Robert Parry
May 18, 2008-05-2008
which can be accessed at:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/051808.html

Excerpt:

“The irony of George W. Bush going before the Knesset and mocking the late Sen. William Borah for expressing surprise at Adolf Hitler’s 1939 invasion of Poland is that Bush’s own family played a much bigger role assisting the Nazis.”

And

"White House told to detail Christian leader visits"

at http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1742338820071217



“Both ideologies are rigid, absolutists, totalitarian and violence prone.”—Mr. AlKhatib referring to the so-called radical Islamists.

What about the ideology of the Neocons and their PNAC, “Project for the New American Century”? Which you call it Democratic Mr. AlKhatib?

SEE:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Excerpts:
“The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these wars one way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.”


“It’s disgusting the almost criminal naïve support that they get from Western sources and a few Muslims and Arabs in the West.”—Mr. Alkhatib

I couldn’t agree with you more concerning the Bush administration Mr. AlKhatib…
Marion said…
Washington’s Pathological Liar
By Khalid Amayreh • May 20th, 2008

George W. Bush is well known for his low intellectuality and clarion ignorance of the world. To mask these serious flaws and shortcomings, he routinely adopts a discourse based on mendacity and dishonesty.



And while it is premature to pass a final judgment on the man, it is probably safe to conclude by now that he has already brought an irremediable disaster upon the United States and the rest of the world.



A few years ago, the ruthless ignoramus of the White House invaded, occupied and destroyed two sovereign countries, and killed or caused the death of over a million innocent people, all under the flimsy pretexts of fighting terror.



Bush even had the temerity to claim that “God told me to do it.”



Last week, human decency was once again affronted by Bush’s diatribe at the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. There he bestowed all the epithets of glory upon a state that practices mass murder, ethnic cleansing and land theft, a state whose very existence was, is and will always be a colossal crime against humanity.



While contemptuously ignoring the Palestinian Nakba, the catastrophe of an innocent people that had to be cruelly uprooted from its ancestral homeland in order to compensate Ashkenazi Jews for the holocaust, George Bush heaped lavish praise on Israel, a state run by an essentially criminal elite of warmongers and war criminals ever since its violent birth sixty years ago.



Bush began his ranting by pointing out how the “Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horrors of the Holocaust,” as if Jewish victimhood, however genuine it may be, gave Zionism the right to commit genocide and ethnic cleaning against another people.



Bush quoted what Elie Wiesel called “the Kingdom of the night” where “soulless men took away lives and broke apart families, adding, “yet they couldn’t take away the spirit of the Jewish people, and they could not break the promise of God.”



But he utterly ignored Zionism’s own kingdom of darkness, where callous-hearted criminals, bearing Jewish names but having Nazi hearts and minds, took away lives and have broken families, who notwithstanding their evils, wouldn’t be able to take away the spirit of the Palestinian people, nor break the promise of God.



Wiesel, the sanctimonious American Zionist paragon of hypocrisy and moral duplicity has little moral authority to lecture the world on the evils of Nazism. A man who says and boasts openly that he identifies himself with Israeli crimes and that he couldn’t bring himself to criticize Israel irrespective of her murderous actions, is obviously unqualified for any moral exemplification.



Bush spoke of Israel’s “thriving democracy,” but evaded the fact that apartheid and democracy can’t coexist.



Could it be that the President of the United States, the erstwhile mother of all democracies, didn’t know that murdering innocent human beings knowingly and deliberately, demolishing people’s homes, stealing their land and confining thousands of doctors, teachers, college professors and other professionals to detention camps, without charge or trial, were unlawful acts that contravened the most basic ideals of true democracy?



Bush enthusiastically hailed Israel for “welcoming immigrants from the four corners of Earth,” but overlooked the fact that for each and every immigrant Israel welcomed into Palestine, a native Palestinian Christian or Muslim was either murdered, dispossessed of his property or deported to the four corners of Earth.



George Bush is indeed a shameful and irredeemable liar. He had the audacity to claim that America’s enduring embrace of Israel’s enduring criminality had nothing to do with the violence, tension and instability in the Middle East.



“Some people,” he said, “suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away.



“This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel’s population may be just over 7 million, but when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.”



Well, no one has ever demanded that the US break ties with Israel, although this would in no way be an unconscionable demand, given Israel’s Nazi-like character.



What much of the world is demanding is that the US stop supporting the Israeli policies of colonialism, ethnic cleansing and genocide against a people whose only “crime” is its survival and longing for freedom from occupation and apartheid.



Bush, having evoked the mantras of the “chosen people” and “Massada shall not fall again,” even lashed out at the UN for criticizing Israel, but was utterly oblivious of the horrendous crimes and grave human rights violations that Israel has committed throughout its dark history, which prompted the international organization to censure the terrorist state.



At one point, Bush seemed as if fornicating with words when he hailed Israel for “forging a free and modern society based on love of liberty, a passion for justice and a respect for human rights.”



What else can be said when a state that is based on ethnic cleansing, oppression, and terrorism is celebrated as a bastion of liberty, justice and human rights? Have words lost their meaning?



Bush’s nearly pornographic disregard for truth and objective facts reached a nauseating level when he praised successive Israeli governments for having tirelessly fought for peace while having to fight valiantly for freedom!!



I don’t know if Bush really believed what he was saying, or if he was just parroting the words prepared for him by his Zionist speechwriter.



Whatever the case, this man is clearly an abomination upon himself, America and the world.



The American people would carry out an act of paramount morality by dumping him and what he represents into the dustbin of history.



Failing to do so, God forbid, would plunge not only America but also the whole world into the abyss. (end)
Marion said…
Coming out of the Closet:
Bush Declares Himself to be a Christian Zionist

We've heard it many times before; simplistic, self-righteous platitudes painting the world in colors black and white. It's the standard Bush speech. This time he gave it at the Israeli Knesset on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary.
At the same time there was something unique about this speech, something that confirms what we have long suspected, but could never affirm with any kind of certainty. President Bush is a Christian Zionist; not just of the I've-got-a-warm-spot-in-my-heart-for-Israel variety, but a true believer; more John Hagee than Ronald Reagan.
This is evident in what Bush said about the establishment of the Israeli state which was, in his estimation, no ordinary event.
Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David -- a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.
This chosen status, according to Bush, is what binds America's destiny to Israel's. We are joined not by strategic political concerns, but by "the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul."
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable, yet the source of our friendship runs deeper than any treaty. It is grounded in the shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul. When William Bradford stepped off the Mayflower in 1620, he quoted the words of Jeremiah: "Come let us declare in Zion the word of God." The founders of my country saw a new promised land and bestowed upon their towns names like Bethlehem and New Canaan.
What this means is that Israel (and by inference, her divinely chosen soul mate, America) stands as a beacon of divine purpose in the world; from her God's light shines most brightly.
You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless.
There is something deeply troubling about the president of our nation making statements like this, particularly in a situation so fraught with moral ambiguity as is the founding of the State of Israel. What Israel celebrates as independence, the Palestinians mourn as al-nakhba (the catastrophe). What Bush lauds as evidence of Israel's divine favor, Palestinians experience as oppression. The truth is surely somewhere in-between. But that it is in-between is beyond doubt.
Those who have held out some faint hope that this president could be a source of healing and hope in the Middle East are bound to be disappointed. There is no hope here, as the kind of extreme Christian Zionist ideology reflected in Bush's speech only adds fuel to the fire. Obama is right. It's time for a change.
John Hubers
Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism



President Bushes full speech can be read here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html
Marion said…
Who are the radical leaders from the West?
And why are some of the so-called Arab secularist or moderate(meaning friendly to Western interests) dictatorships lining themselves so closely to western Zionist/Neocon radical leaders?
And why are so called Arab secularist leaders(if they are secularist) lining up with so-called by the West moderate Arab dictators in the region under the banner of Western Zionism?

*****

Zionism's bosom buddy

"Bush at the Knesset revealed what most Arabs and Palestinians already knew: he is not an impartial broker, reports Khaled Amayreh from Ramallah

In his speech before the Israeli Knesset last week, President George W Bush proved once again that he is a Zionist par excellence. Indeed, the depth of his embrace of Zionism and the totality of his support for Israel surprised even his Israeli hosts. One Knesset member from a far right-wing party lamented that if only Israeli leaders showed similar commitment to Zionism, Israel would be in much better shape.

It is not certain if Bush, a person of conspicuously shallow intellect and of manifestly inadequate moral rectitude, knew what he was saying or if he was merely parroting whatever his speech writers had prepared for him. At any rate, no educated observer having seen the speech would bet that this man would be willing to pressure Israel to end its 40-year-old occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, or come to terms with the legality and morality of the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees uprooted from their ancestral homeland when Israel came into existence 60 years ago.

Bush's lavish praise of Israel and his deliberate, and contemptuous disregard for the Palestinian Nakba, which was being simultaneously commemorated, portrayed a man who is as fanatical about Zionism and Israel as he is ignorant of and mendacious about the objective facts surrounding the Arab- Israeli conflict.

Bush doted upon history, speaking of how the "Jewish people endured the agony of the pogroms, the tragedy of the Great War, and the horror of the Holocaust". He quoted Eli Wiesel, the oft-sanctimonious American Zionist leader who said on several occasions that he identified with Israeli crimes and that he couldn't possibly bring himself to criticise Israel. Bush also spoke of Israel's "thriving democracy", but ignored the fact that murdering innocent Palestinian civilians, demolishing Palestinian homes, stealing Palestinian land and detaining thousands of innocent Palestinian activists and intellectuals without charge or trial because of their opposition to military occupation and apartheid were starkly incompatible with true democracy.

Bush hailed Israel for welcoming "immigrants from the four corners of Earth" but forgot or ignored the fact that for each and every immigrant welcomed into Israel, a native Palestinian was either murdered, dispossessed of his property or banished to the same four corners of the Earth.

Further, Bush denied that America's unconditional embrace of Israeli territorial expansionism and bellicosity had anything to do with instability and tension in the Middle East. "Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over seven millions. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you."

The American president lashed out at the UN, saying that, "we consider it a source of shame that the UN routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world." No mention was made of Israeli settlement expansion policies and routine and grave violations of Palestinian human and civil rights -- the unlawful acts that prompt the UN to censure Israel.

At one point Bush seemed to be speaking of some other country when he spoke of Israel "forging a free and modern society based on a love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity". Anyone who has seen the Israeli occupation first hand would also be astonished when Bush praised successive Israeli governments for "working tirelessly for peace, while having to fight valiantly for freedom".

Palestinians at home and in the Diaspora who were commemorating the Nakba -- the Palestinian holocaust -- were not surprised by Bush's remarks to the Knesset, itself built on land seized illegally from its Palestinian proprietor.

"What do you expect from the president of a country that exterminated millions of Native Americans and then called the genocide manifest destiny?" asked one Palestinian intellectual from Hebron. "What do you expect from a president who invaded, occupied and destroyed two sovereign countries and killed or caused the death of more than a million people... because God told him to do so?"

Hamas, meanwhile, used Bush's speech as reason to castigate the Palestinian Authority (PA) for "blindly trusting the Zionist American administration despite its brazen alliance with Israel". The phrase "He is more Zionist than the Zionists" was on the tip of everyone's tongue throughout the occupied territories.

Even the usually circumspect Mahmoud Abbas, president of the US-backed PA, whom the Americans classify as "moderate", couldn't hide his anger and desperation. "To be frank, his speech angered us and we have many reservations and observations about it," Abbas said.

"And I told Mr Bush that he should display a modicum of balance, honesty and even- handedness. I said it [Bush's speech] was disappointing and a missed opportunity, because you [Bush] could have said that the Palestinian people should have their freedom and independence in order to achieve peace in the entire area."

To be sure, Bush sought to patch it up with Abbas when the two met at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm El-Sheikh over the weekend. Bush told Abbas that his administration was still committed to the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the creation of a Palestinian state. Furthermore, Bush said he was "absolutely committed" to getting an Israeli-Palestinian accord by the end of the year.

"It breaks my heart to see the vast potential of the Palestinian people really wasted," said Bush, while lambasting Hamas, Iran and Hizbullah for all the ills of the Middle East, from the absence of democracy to the absence of peace.

Abbas who has found himself in the often awkward position of having to remain faithful to Palestinian national constants in order to maintain popularity at home and at the same time appease the Americans, whose political and financial backing is crucial for the survival of his regime, had to package his frustration in diplomatic niceties.

"We know very well that you, personally, as well as your administration are committed to reach peace before the end of 2008," said Abbas. He added that, "we are working very seriously and very intently with the hope that we will be able to achieve this objective."

On 18 May, following a meeting with former Meretz leader Yossi Beilen, Abbas reportedly warned that he would "quit" if a peace deal were not reached in six months. His spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, later denied that he was seriously contemplating resignation. According to former cabinet minister Ghassan Khatib, however, Abbas "has very few remaining choices, anyway."

"His term as president of the PA will expire by the end of this year, and it is doubtful that he would run for a new term in the absence of a genuine and acceptable peace agreement with Israel," Khatib said.

Khatib added the organisation of new elections would require two main prerequisites: inter-Palestinian reconciliation and a peace agreement with Israel. Needless to say, neither is immanent, a fact that leaves little if any cause for optimism."


© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/898/re1.htm

Popular posts from this blog

Imad Hamad's column in the Detroit News: Defending the human rights of police officers

United States v. Odeh: The 6th Circuit decision and its implications

Fear and loathing in Dearborn: The Osama phenomenon