Chris Moore – September 29, 2006
In their cynical attempts to spark
World War III against what they call
Islamofascism, neocon ideologues have engaged in a consistent modus operandi. They routinely take anecdotal incidents of Muslim outbursts in reaction to offensive, provocative remarks made by Western leaders or in Western media, and then use those outbursts to propagate
glittering generalities about the entire Islamic creed—generalities that would not be tolerated in Western civil society if they were directed at any other religious group.
Take, for example, Charles Krauthammer’s latest Washington Post
column, one in a long line of propaganda pieces designed to advance the public impression that Islam is inherently violent. Following the pope’s ill-timed quotation of a Byzantine emperor’s remark that the primary message in Muhammed’s teachings was the “evil and inhuman command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” Krauthammer cites a grand total of three sets of incidents touched off by the comment to prove that “
Islamists” are murderous. None of the incidents Krauthammer cites resulted in a death, and only one—a series of attacks on churches in the Israeli occupied territories—resulted in property damage. And this in a religion of 1.3 billion adherents.
“How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I’ll kill you for it,” is how Krauthammer characterizes the general Islamic reaction. And as Krauthammer sees it, it’s all part of a pattern of “intimidation.” “First, Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Quran-flushing at Guantánamo. Then the Danish cartoons.” And now this.
To Krauthammer, the handful of incidents listed above prove that “It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout "God is Great" as they slit the throats of infidels… and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.”
Ignoring altogether Krauthammer’s absurd generalizations about a billion and a half people based on the actions of perhaps a few thousand of them over the span of 20 years (he had to reach all the way back to the 1988 contretemps over Rushdie’s
The Satanic Verses to find one of the examples on his list), what about Krauthammer’s other contention, that Islam is the ultimate “violent purveyor of monotheistic religion”? If Krauthammer can make generalizations about Muslims (pardon me,
“Islamists”) based on the actions of a few thousand of them over 20 years, then isn’t it fair to make generalizations about
Judaists (the Jewish equivalent to the word
Islamists) based on the actions of the
officially Jewish state of Israel?
Does Judaism violently purvey its brand of monotheistic religion on behalf of Jews? The current and historical behavior of
Zionism (which in practice is
Jewish nationalism) certainly suggests so.
In fact, just weeks ago, in what
it claimed were retaliatory attacks for the cross-border skirmish that resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers, the Jewish state engaged in a destructive bombing campaign and incursion into Lebanon that killed some 1,000 civilians, created over 1 million Lebanese refugees and damaged Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure on what Amnesty International
reports was a “catastrophic scale.”
“Israeli forces pounded buildings into the ground, reducing entire neighborhoods to rubble and turning villages and towns into ghost towns, as their inhabitants fled the bombardments,” Amnesty said.
And as a sadistic calling card, the Israelis left behind hundreds of unexploded,
U.S.-made cluster bombs that are likely to plague Lebanese civilians for years. “The United Nations estimates that Israel dropped or fired some 1,800 cluster bombs during its war with Hezbollah, the vast majority during the final three days when a cease-fire was imminent. Those bombs contained more than 1 million bomblets, many of which failed to explode and remain a menace to civilians,”
reports the Washington Times.
Even the head of an Israeli rocket unit
described his own government’s wartime conduct as “insane and monstrous.”
Apparently, collective punishment of thousands of non-Jews under the pretext of “Jewish security” has become commonplace for the Israeli government, which in June
destroyed a power plant that supplied electricity to more than half of the Gaza Strip's 1.3 million residents following the captivity of one of its soldiers by Palestinian militants. The soldier’s abduction was in
retaliation for Israel’s assassination of a Palestinian resistance leader and the killi ng of six members of a family on a Gaza beach during an Israeli shelling. Some
analysts believe the shelling was a deliberate provocation designed to incite Palestinian reprisals.
Such Israeli government provocations are commonplace, and the degree to which retaliation will likely take place is studied well in advance—a calculated cost-benefit analysis that directly contradicts its professed concern for every Jewish life.
As Israeli writer Bradley Burston
puts it: “Our chosen means of self-defense - incursions, body searches, discriminatory laws and regulations, refusal to recognize, refusal to negotiate, raids and bombings, house demolitions, imprisonments without trial, building walls through villages and over farmers' fields, kidnappings and assassinations of leaders - directly act upon the Palestinians' every humiliation nerve.”
Obvously, the Israeli government is well aware of this. But it proceeds with its deliberate strategy of retaliation-generating oppression anyway.
So based on the Krauthammer rules, what are the generalizations we can make about
Judaist? That they are sadistic? That they are vengeful? That they believe in collective punishment? That they are experts in the science of
fomenting wars? That they collectively relish the Mossad’s dark
motto, “By way of deception, thou shalt do war?”
Let’s take it a step further. Based on the fact that the Jewish state has race laws that
institutionally discriminate against non-Jews, the fact that its principles of discrimination are sanctioned and subsidized by the U.S. government due to the efforts of Zionist partisans scattered across America, and the fact that the Israeli government was one of the staunchest
allies of the apartheid-era South African government, can we conclude that worldwide
Judaists are racist bigots who support a global system of imposed racialism? Can we conclude that hierarchical Zionism is the
model for a fledgling
totalitarian caste system that will place
Judaists on top, render Muslims as untouchables and systematically murder, marginalize and terrorize those who oppose it the way it has murdered, marginalized and terrorized the Palestinians for the last 50 years?
Such generalizations, if ever allowed in the mainstream Western press, would be widely condemned as “anti-Semitic” and derided as “conspiracy theories.” Yet here is Jewish nationalist Charles Krauthammer, in one of the most prominent, influential and widely read newspapers in the entire world, systematically making gross generalizations about 1.3 billion Muslims based on the actions of a handful—without a whisper of controversy.
But Krauthammer doesn’t stop there. He also has the chutzpah to claim that it is the “Islamic mobs” that enjoy the double standard.
“In today’s world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders,” he writes.
Well, he has it partially right. Religious sensitivity is a one-way street. Jewish nationalists and
Christian Zionists can endlessly engage in innuendo about the threat that the entirety of Islam poses to the West through clever rhetorical devices like
Islamism and
Islamofascism, but when their opponents seek to play by the same set of rules that they themselves established and make reference to Judeofascism and the threat that that totalitarian movement poses to the West, they are considered beyond the pale.
Anti-Islamofascists, who are comprised of Christians, Jews, the secular, and even some Muslims, argue that
Islamofascism refers merely to militant Islam. Fine. If the growing anti-Judeofascist movement, which is also comprised of representative from all of those groups, stipulates that
Judeofascism is merely a reference to militant, racialist Zionism, will the term be accepted in mainstream media the way
Islamofascism is? Will it be tolerated in civil discourse the way
Islamofascism is? And what about the word
Islamists? Will its equivalent—the word Judaists—be allowed in the pages of the Washington Post any time soon? Somehow I doubt it.
For as long as possible, mainstream media will continue to keep Americans in the dark about a nefarious ideology right under their noses that is doing everything in its power to engage them in World War III on behalf of its dark vision of State-enforced racialism—and then has the temerity to portray itself as the victim of intolerance and the embodiment of liberal Western values. Chutzpah, indeed.
The hypocrisy is rank—and ultimately untenable.
Last updated 30/09/2006
Homepage