Doc's Talk: Possible Burning of One Koran; Definite Burning of One Million News Stories

Thursday, September 09, 2010

Possible Burning of One Koran; Definite Burning of One Million News Stories

RubinReprts
Barry Rubin

News that a crackpot minister at an incredibly tiny church in Florida may burn a Koran is a global story. The man’s plan is condemned by just about everyone, though some point out he has a constitutional right to do so.

There are several, all obvious, reasons for this universal criticism, mainly boiling down to two:

--It is disrespectful to another religion and inappropriate for our society, which is supposed to be tolerant, etc.

--Such a deed might endanger Americans and U.S. foreign policy goals by making Muslims angry and in some cases violent. A lot of "properly thinking," good-hearted Americans are feeling mighty guilty, unnecessarily I might add. One young man said, "Why do I feel the need to walk up to Muslims on the street and wish them peace and show them that Americans are not all bigoted racists?...What has happened to my beautiful country?...The day Americans start burning Korans is the day when Osama bin Ladin has won..."

Yes, this is what years of inducing and indoctrinating guilt has done. Simply another example of arguing that the tiniest blemish on Western society or Israel proves they are evil while elephant-sized warts in other countries are to be ignored.

One doesn't, however, define a country by the most extreme, isolated individuals but by the mainstream. Muslims will only believe that Americans are all bigoted racists (mostly bigoted racists or have any significant number of bigoted racists) if they are told lies about America. Similarly, Americans are being very foolish if they believe this kind of disproportionte nonsense.

Nowadays, the United States can easily win any tolerance competition in the world. On the other hand, a lot of Americans are very much in the race with the rest of the world about who can be the most anti-American.

What is never pointed out is that the threatened action's equivalent—which, remember, hasn’t even happened yet and has no institutional or widespread support—happens daily in dozens of locations throughout the Middle East and the Muslim-majority world, not at the hands of marginal nut-jobs with no following but from powerful political and religious figures or media outlets with huge bases of support.

Every day, there are massive lies told intended to incite people to hate the West and America, Christians and Jews. Every day, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, and Jews are being persecuted and in some cases driven out of Muslim majority countries with no one in the Western power establishment even noticing, must less protesting.

Unfortunately, it is sadly true that the Muslim majority areas of the world are to bigoted racists what Saudi Arabia is to oil; Newcastle is to coal; Florida is to orange; and Hollywood is to movies.

I thought of appending specific examples but since there are so many I suggest you refer to the sites of MEMRI or Palestinian Media Watch or Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) or Survey of World Broadcasts (SWB), or English-language edition of Arabic newspapers (which include translations).

Oh, and by the way, according to the FBI figures for 2008 there are ten times more antisemetic incidents (1013) in the United States than there are anti-Muslim ones (105). How many anti-Christian hate crimes were there? Only four less than anti-Muslim ones, 101.

Remember that bigoted actions in the United States or Europe or Israel are the action of individuals. Radio programs, Christian ministers, and citizens act on their own. In such matters, they face 99 percent social and political disapproval.

But when religious, national, ethnic, or other kinds of slander, incitement, and hatred happen in the Middle East they are the result of government or government-approved action. The people who do so are often drawing government salaries, given access to state-controlled institutions, and are rewarded for what they do and say.

And in comparison to 99 percent disapproval for “hateful” actions in the West, in the Muslim-majority Middle East virtually nobody, outside of a tiny group of (often persecuted) moderates dare raise their voices against these actions. Two examples picked at random from the last few hours: here and here. But you don't need to bother to read these, just choose your own favorites.

Moreover, no matter how many condemnations, apologies, or acts of tolerance occur in the West, no matter how many mosques are built or repaired with U.S. taxpayer money (in countries where it would be impossible to build a church), no matter how many times Secretary of State Hilary Clinton says "Holy Koran" instead of just plain Koran, no matter whether the words "Islam" and "Islamism" are barred from U.S. government documents, these efforts will have virtually no impact on Middle Eastern public opinion. Why? For one thing, because public attitudes have been thoroughly prepared to be hostile and disbelieving; for another, few will ever hear about such things because the media will not report on them, neither will public institutions.

Does that justify bigotry in the West or burning Korans? Of course not. But there’s something else it doesn’t justify:

Refusing in the West to report, analyze, and condemn what goes on daily with far more public support and official approval in the Muslim-majority Middle East.

What are the wrongful motives for that behavior?

--Fear that telling the truth will make “Muslims” angry.

--Belief that one only has the right to criticize one’s own country (or allies) and religion but that exercising rational judgment in discussing others is somehow “racist.”

--Panic that reporting on the bigotry and extremism of millions of others will encourage a minister in Florida with 50 followers to burn a Koran.

Such a paralysis is not how democracies are supposed to function. That is not how people keep their freedoms and way of life.

By the way, if you want to see a brilliant and constructive response to such issues and situations, check out the People's Cube (the funniest and best satirical site on the Internet) "Draw a Positive Muhammad Day" contest in which readers competed to create posters carrying a moderate message for Islam. There are about 50 entries--you have to keep going all the way to the bottom of the page to see them all. This blurb doesn't indicate my endorsement of all of them! But the very first one (Forget Holy War, Improve Local Communities) is particularly brilliant; the fourth (Prophet Mohammad Cancer Research Center) quite poignant; and the seventh ("Let your actions show that Islam is indeed a religion of peace.") is just awesome.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

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