Doc's Talk: 'Islamophobia'-Example of Irresponsible Behavior:re-visited

Saturday, March 27, 2010

'Islamophobia'-Example of Irresponsible Behavior:re-visited

GS Don Morris
March 27,2010

One year since I last wrote about this topic, we see the persistence in our enemy. This strategy, ongoing and continued publication of a concept, even though non existant, overtime will become believed by the majority of people.
A headline from a year ago: Eurasia Islamic Council: Islamophobia is "one of the greatest obstacles to world peace"
“The meeting was attended by over 100 scholars from 42 countries. Participants at the event said Islamophobia was one of the greatest obstacles to world peace, adding that acts of terrorism and violence should be condemned regardless of who commits them or why. A joint declaration released after the meeting called on countries and their leaders to provide better educational opportunities for their citizens. According to the statement, steps that have been taken in the field of education worldwide are promising, but must be encouraged further.”6
Today we have the following headline and story-once again demonstrating the persistence of those who want to silence critics of Islam. Create a term that demonizes others, use it often and persist in its use-soon it will become as though it were true.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
UN Human Rights Council condemns "Islamophobia"-no surprise!
Oddly enough, the Council said not a word about non-Muslims denied religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. "UN rights body passes Islamophobia resolution," from Middle East Online, March 25 (thanks to Twostellas):

GENEVA - The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday passed a resolution condemning Islamaphobic behaviour, including Switzerland's minaret building ban, despite some states' major reservations. The resolution "strongly condemns... the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures."
The process of turning a myth into reality is quite an interesting behavioral phenomenon. This occurs when one group of people wants to challenge, infuriate, demand, dictate, and control the ideas and beliefs of another group of people. The motivation is direct and to the point. The outcome is usually for political and/or social engineering reasons to determine for others how they should act, speak, and behave. One of the best examples of this is the application of the term 'Islamophobia' directed to those of us who challenge or question practices of Islam within the Western culture. Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of 'Islamophobia' - a fear and disdain for everything Islamic. As recently as May 17 this accusation bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." Ministers from multiple countries attending the conference 'warned'- according to the Arab News - that this form of discrimination would cause millions of Muslims in Western countries, "many of whom were already underprivileged," to be "further alienated."1 How does something like this come to be?

Let us examine Islamophobia from a different perspective. Allow me to submit that a formula or a blueprint exists for those people who want to marginalize and/or invalidate someone or something. It consists of the following steps - not necessarily exactly in the order presented:
• Create a new term that describes a new behavioral phenomenon
• Within the term use descriptors that sound plausible yet are also familiar to the general population
• Ensure that identifiable behaviors are described and shroud them in a negative bent
• Enroll experts in supporting this phenomena such as university academics, psychologists, human peace activists, human watch groups, and governmental agencies along with the popular media
• Develop strategies to identify individuals who display this 'terrible human behavior' and condemn them for displaying it
• As often as is possible, in public settings , use the term as a means to alienate people from one another-begin a 'name-calling' campaign
• Use this phenomena to discredit anyone who may challenge your point of view-never respond directly to the charge, rather, reverse the situation and 'attack' the individual taking issue with your point of view
• Move to make this display of behavior illegal ; pass local/regional and national legislation that criminalizes the behavior
• Threaten legal action and/or actually take such action even though you know you do not have a case; it puts your antagonist on the defensive- right where you plan to keep him/her
This is a reasonable list of descriptors involved in the process. When one applies the preceding criteria steps to the development and implementation of Islamophobia you find it to accurately describes what has occurred particularly in the West during the last 5-10 years. Values Contrary (VC) Islamists and their non-Islamic supporters have used this to deflect criticism, deny facts, to divert attention, to defame, invalidate, and condemn anyone who challenges the practice of VC Islam.2

In order for Islamophobia to be effective the society upon which it has been thrust must operate within a 'makes me - believe' communication construct3. Without this operational construct in play, Islamophobia would have no impact upon the general population. It is because we actually believe that we can make someone feel or think something and/or that someone or something can do the same to us, the 'communication table' has been set. Afraid that one might OFFEND another person or cause someone to feel insulted or uneasy, we refrain from speaking/arguing or even questioning our antagonists. The West enemies know this and use it as a weapon against us.

We have become afraid to speak up and to challenge VC Islam and their followers. In the process we are afraid to stand for our own values, grounded within another set of beliefs. We do not defend our way of life; we acquiesce to a behavioral set that we do not belief in nor do we want to have as the basis for our social milieu. Said another way, We stand down on our long held values and meekly go forward into the future.

Allow me to provide some examples of the preceding process. Aside from the previously mentioned May 17 activity, In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of American Islamic Relations. CAIR has taken up the legal case of the "Flying Imams," the six individuals who were pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis this past November after engaging in suspicious behavior before takeoff. Not long ago, CAIR filed a "John Doe" lawsuit that would have made passengers liable for 'malicious' complaints about suspicious Muslim passengers. In an interview at the time, CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad accused Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) of being an 'extremist' who 'encourages Islamophobia' for pointing out what most people would think is obvious, that such a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on passengers who witnessed alarming activity and wished to report it4.

An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called "Stop Islamophobia," as reported by the Sunday Times and presented by Daniel Pipes5.

Accusations of Islamophobia, Mr. Malik adds, are intended "to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities." Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: "all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."5

In Great Britain this term is used as a weapon. Hizb ut-Tahrir's manipulation of "Stop Islamophobia" betrays the fraudulence of this word. As the Sunday Times article explains, "Ostensibly the campaign's goal is to fight anti-Muslim prejudice in the wake of the London bombings," but it quotes

Anthony Glees of London's Brunel University to the effect that the real agenda is to spread anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-homosexual, and anti-female attitudes, as well as to foment resentment of Western influence.5

For many people immediate credibility exists if the United Nations supports a position, term, or behavioral action. Within this international organization the term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance, to the point that the Secretary-General of the United Nations presided over a December, 2004 conference titled "Confronting Islamophobia" and in May a Council of Europe summit condemned "Islamophobia."

There are literally thousands of examples available to demonstrate the points I have presented. Does this mean that Islamophbia exists? I offer to you now that it does not-it is not real. You cannot see, touch, breathe or hold onto it. Any thinking, caring person knows that this is simply a humankind term used to describe a behavioral phenomenon that only exists because we allow it to exist. The degree to which we submit to its implementation will adversely impact the values of Western civilization and allow the emergence of a fifth column within our society whose ultimate intention is to replace our way of life with one our enemies cherish.

I leave you with the following: “It's a long-standing rule of apologetics and dissimulation: Keep it general, and the uninitiated will project what they want to hear onto the generalities, thus guarding against uncomfortably specific questions…Of course, it's always entirely up to the West to stop Islamophobia. Muslim countries couldn't possibly consider a few simple steps of their own.”7

End Notes

1.Tawfik Hamid, How to End 'Islamophobia', posted Opinion Journal from the WSJ May 25, 2007

2.GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us, May, 2007, writingtw.blogspot.com

3.GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us-Part One, April, 2007, writingtw.blogspot.com

4.Tawfik Hamid, ibid

5.Daniel Pipes, Islamophobia, NY Sun, October 25, 2005

6. Today's Zaman, “Islamophobia denounced at Eurasia Islamic Council meeting," May 16, 2009

7. Jihad Watch, Islamophobia …”,May 16,2009

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk