Showing posts with label Fascism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fascism. Show all posts

Thursday, January 05, 2023

nation v. faith


THE ABSURD TIMES



PROTO-FASCISM

BY

HONEST CHARLIE


It has become clear even to the lowest and most vulgar minds in the world, if they bother to observe, which is unlikely as recently the highest level of political observance they practice, or perhaps are capable of of observing, is the role counting in the capital building, free footage for domestic "news" outlets, if they do observe (and this is possible) activity in Israel that this Zionist state is determined to wage a war not only as a step toward apartheid but as a FINAL SOLUTION. Zionists are still aware of the term which they learned from Hitler and Nazi Germany, and which is being preached increasingly by Israelis such as Fogel in the illustration above, slogans preached openly just as white supremacist slogans gained traction and visibility in the U.S. as a result of the recent administration here.


Notions or phrases such as Zionism or Christian Nationalism are not religious terms, nor is anyone who is a member or advocate of such things a believer in some higher power. Furthermore, any individual who claims to believe in such property-oriented and forceful aggression over truth can not possibly be considered a believer in such a "faith" without directly insulting it and contradicting all that it really stands for.


Although a Security Council meeting was mentioned as convening today, no information on the, not surprisngly, has been made public. However, here is an interview, reproduced word for word, with two very knowledgeable professionals on the subject:


"Far-right Israeli politician Itamar Ben-Gvir's Tuesday visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem is being roundly condemned across the Middle East. Ben-Gvir is a key part of Benjamin Netanyahu's new far-right government, which includes ultranationalist and ultraorthodox parties that are calling openly for the annexation of the West Bank. "The international community has to speak with one voice in rejecting this extremism and rejecting those terrorists and those elements of fascists in the Israeli government," Palestine's ambassador to the U.N., Riyad Mansour, urged Wednesday. In 2007, Ben-Gvir was convicted in an Israeli court of incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization. In 2021, he relocated his parliamentary office to the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem, where settlers have attempted to violently evict Palestinian residents from their homes. As the newly sworn-in minister of national security, Ben-Gvir will now be responsible for border police in the West Bank. We speak to Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist and author, and Diana Buttu, a Palestinian lawyer and former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization, about Ben-Gvir's visit, Netanyahu's new government and surging violence against Palestinians.


Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: The United Nations Security Council is preparing to hold an emergency meeting to discuss the recent visit by Israel's new national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem. His visit was condemned across the Middle East. The Palestinian Foreign Ministry called his visit an "unprecedented provocation." The militant group Hamas warned Ben-Gvir's actions could lead to more conflict. Jordan has summoned Israel's ambassador to protest the visit, with Jordan's Foreign Ministry decrying it as "scandalous and [an] unacceptable violation of international law."

Al-Aqsa Mosque is one of the holiest sites in Islam. It's also one of the holiest sites in Judaism. Temple Mount was the site of a Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans 2,000 years ago. On Wednesday, Palestine's ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, condemned Itamar Ben-Gvir's visit.

RIYAD MANSOUR: The attack is not only against our holy sites in Al-Aqsa Mosque and in the Haram-e-Sharif. There are — because of this environment of extremism that this Israeli extreme government, the extremest in the history of Israel, is providing, is leading to additional aggression against our Christian sites, Christian graveyards. You've seen by now that there are crosses over, you know, graveyards being trampled upon and attacked by extreme settlers. This is a toxic environment. The international community has to speak with one voice in rejecting this extremism and rejecting those terrorists and those elements of fascists in the Israeli government.

AMY GOODMAN: Itamar Ben-Gvir's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque came just days after he was sworn in as part of Benjamin Netanyahu's new far-right government, which includes ultranationalist and ultraorthodox parties that are calling openly for the annexation of the West Bank.

Netanyahu's selection of Itamar Ben-Gvir as his national security minister has sparked widespread condemnation. In 2007, Ben-Gvir was convicted of incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization. Ben-Gvir lives in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank. In 2021, he relocated his parliamentary office to the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem, where settlers have attempted to violently evict Palestinian residents from their homes. For years, Ben-Gvir hung a picture in his home of Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli American who killed 29 Palestinians at a mosque in Hebron in 1994. The Jerusalem Post's editor-in-chief described Ben-Gvir as, quote, "the modern Israeli version of an American white supremacist and a European fascist," unquote. Ben-Gvir will now be responsible for border police in the occupied West Bank at a time when violence and the killing of Palestinians has been surging.

To talk more about Itamar Ben-Gvir's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Israel's new far-right government, considered the most far-right government in Israel's history, we're joined by two guests. In Tel Aviv, Gideon Levy is with us, an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, columnist for the newspaper Haaretz, member of its editorial board. He's also the author of the book The Punishment of Gaza. And in Ramallah, we're joined by Diana Buttu. She is a Palestinian lawyer and former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization, also a fellow at Democracy for the Arab World Now, or DAWN. Her latest piece is an op-ed in The New York Times headlined "Israelis Have Put Benjamin Netanyahu Back in Power. Palestinians Will Surely Pay the Price."

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Diana Buttu, let's begin with you. Let's start with this latest action, considered an incitement by so many, both Palestinians and Israelis, not to mention the rest of the Middle East. Talk about who Itamar Ben-Gvir is. I mean, he wasn't just charged with incitement of racism against Arabs; he was convicted of it and supporting a terrorist organization.

DIANA BUTTU: Yes. Itamar Ben-Gvir is — he's a disciple, he's a follower, of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was a man who believed that Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from their homeland. And Itamar Ben-Gvir has espoused the exact same views as Meir Kahane and continues to espouse these same views. He's talked very openly about his support for Baruch Goldstein.

And his visit, his latest visit, to the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound is not just a visit. It's an attempt to show that there will forever be Israeli sovereignty on the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and he's trying to incite violence. Not only is he trying to incite violence, he has long believed that the Al-Aqsa Mosque should be — should disappear, and in its place the Temple Mount be recreated. So, his policies have always been that of inciting to violence, inciting to hatred. And although he was only convicted once, he has been indicted more than 50 times.

The fact that he is allowed to be a minister in this government just shows how much it is that the international community is allowing fascism to reign, and that they're effectively doing nothing. All that we have heard since this visit and since he's become minister is that the world supports the status quo. But it is that status quo that has led to people like Itamar Ben-Gvir being able to become minister and their actions being normalized. I fear that what he intends to do is to create more and more and more violence as a pretext to, once and for all, as he put it, showing Palestinians who the masters of the house are. Those are his words, not mine.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Gideon Levy, could you also respond to Ben-Gvir's appointment as national security minister and, in particular, his appointment to this post?

GIDEON LEVY: Benjamin Netanyahu had to create a government. He heads — he is leading the biggest party. And he decided this time to go with the most extreme right-wingers. The problem is not this. The question is why those right-wingers are so popular in Israel. And here we face a reality which is well known for a long time. The Israeli society is a very right-wing, nationalistic and, part of it, racist society. We have to face this. That's the main problem, not if Ben-Gvir is minister or is not. The problem is: Who are we facing when we speak about Israel?

And in many ways, I see also a positive side to the results of the last elections. By tearing all the masks, now we see reality. Now it's not the umbrella of the Zionist left, who speaks so nicely and does almost the same like the right-wingers. Now we face the extreme racism in its most pure expression. Those people don't deny their racism. Those people say very clearly that Jewish supremacy means that only Jews have rights in this land. And I hope that both some parts of Israeli society and, above all, the international community will finally draw the conclusions.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Gideon Levy, that's exactly right that these far-right parties have received this kind of support, almost 11% in this election, but that's much higher than in the past. So, could you explain why you think these far-right, hard-line, extremist parties are more popular now in Israel than they've been in the past?

GIDEON LEVY: It's almost inevitable. If you continue with the occupation, supported by the Zionist left — not only supported but led by the Zionist left — and if this reality of an apartheid state continues, it calls for extremism. It calls for telling the truth. It calls for telling — for tearing the mask and saying, "We aim to be an apartheid state. The occupation is not temporary; the occupation is here to stay. And if it is here to stay, it means we are an apartheid state, and we are even not ashamed of it." After 56 years of occupation, you can't expect anything but this radical movement, while the Zionist left never tried to separate itself from the occupation, never tried seriously to put an end to it. So, if there is no other force in the Israeli power, let's go for the extreme. This makes a lot of sense.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Diana, could you also talk about that, the shift in the Israeli polity further to the right, and the role, indeed, that the left has played? You wrote a recent piece headlined "Israel's So-Called Left Has Aided the Far Right's Rise."

DIANA BUTTU: Yes. Gideon is exactly right. Look, there's been a so-called left inside Israel for quite some time, but this so-called left is — I say "so-called" because that's exactly what it is, so-called — they self-proclaim as left-wing, but this is a left wing that has never stood up against the occupation. It's a left wing that has supported the various attacks on the Gaza Strip. It's a left wing that has supported the siege and blockade on the Gaza Strip. It's a left wing that has supported the enactment of racist legislation, even in the past couple of years. And so, when you're an Israeli voter who sees that the options are between this so-called left wing, which has supported the exact same things as the right wing has, then, of course, it's natural that they're going to vote for this fascist right.

The big problem has been that we've never seen that Israelis have paid a price for their electoral choices. It's always been that Palestinians pay the price. And with this new government, it's going to be Palestinians once again, but even more than in the past. Unlike previous Israeli governments where there were other issues that they may have been focused on, this current government, this new government, is myopically and only focused on making life miserable for Palestinians. They don't have any other political platform, other than to try to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. This is why we've seen, since the beginning of this year, that Israel has killed at least one Palestinian per day. And this is why we're seeing the plans to completely ethnically cleanse the Palestinian town of Masafer Yatta. It's because this government has put in its crosshairs Palestinians. And given that there's nobody in the international community that's stopping them, it's going to continue full steam ahead.

AMY GOODMAN: So, let me ask you about Masafer Yatta, near Hebron, in the occupied West Bank, the southern part. Israel's military has begun demolishing homes, water supplies, olive orchards. This week, Israeli armored vehicles accompanied demolition crews as they razed homes and farms in two villages. Last year, the Israeli High Court of Justice approving the home demolitions, which will uproot more than a thousand people, leading to the U.S. congressmember, who happens to be Palestinian American, Rashida Tlaib, tweeting, "Not even one week into 2023, new far-right apartheid government is moving to ethnically cleanse entire communities — which would displace more than 1,000 Palestinian residents, including 500 children. All with American backing, bulldozers, and bullets."

Talk about the U.S. support at this point for Israel. You have President Biden congratulating Netanyahu on his return to power, saying he looks forward to working with an old friend for decades, adding, "the United States will continue to support the two-state solution and to oppose policies that endanger its viability or contradict our mutual interests and values." Can you talk about what you feel — and I'd also like to get Gideon's response to this — the U.S. should be doing now?

DIANA BUTTU: Look, the U.S. is way behind in the times. And if they still think that there's something left of a two-state solution, then it's only in their dreams that they're seeing it, because we certainly don't see it on the ground. Instead what we have seen is that Israel has been allowed to do whatever it wants when it comes to killing Palestinians, when it comes to stealing Palestinian land, when it comes to ethnic cleansing. When it comes to crossing the red lines that are enshrined in international law, Israel is allowed to get away with it — and not only get away with it, but continues to receive support and financial support from the United States, as well. This isn't just a question of statements, but they're also getting financial support from the United States. And as we look around the world and we ask ourselves, "We're now in the year 2023, and they're still talking about a two-state solution, a two-state solution that died more than two decades ago?" And yet they've done absolutely nothing on the ground to make sure that two-state solution comes to fruition. Instead, all that they have done is to facilitate Israel's process of slowly ethnically cleansing Palestinians.

One of the new members of this new government is a man named Smotrich, who came out just last year, in 2021, and said that the only reason that Palestinians who are citizens of Israel, like me, are still allowed to exist is because the job wasn't finished in 1948, thereby basically telling us that our time here is short.

What the U.S. has instead done is, instead of giving them a red light and scaling back and decolonizing and pushing for Israel to end its occupation, end its apartheid, it's pretty much served as a mask for Israel to continue to do whatever it wants to do. And this is why we're in this situation now. It's we've seen that the world is doing nothing. We see that the Israelis, as a result, don't have to pay a price. And so, once again, it's going to be Palestinians that pay the price for Israel's electoral choices.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Gideon Levy, if you can respond? Also talk about what you're writing in Haaretz, a very well-respected Israeli newspaper, on whose board you serve, and the response of the Israeli population, for example, to these demolitions.

GIDEON LEVY: Let's face reality. The United States is supporting the apartheid system, is very interested in continuing the occupation and has no interest in human rights of the Palestinians. There's no other way to describe the American position throughout decades, because would it be different, would the United States seriously mean to put an end to the occupation, the occupation could have come to its end years ago, if not decades ago. So, it's all about a hollow lip service that the United States is paying from time to time, all kind of hollow condemnations. By the end of the day, Israel, this apartheid state, is this closest ally of the United States. The money of the taxpayers of the United States go to Israel more than to any other country in the world, and this means that the United States is in favor of an apartheid state, nothing else but this.

As about your second question, the question about the Israeli reaction to what's going on in Masafer Yatta can be asked only — and, Amy, I highly appreciate you, but can be asked only in the United States, not in Israel, because in Israel, nobody cares, and nobody heard about Masafer Yatta. Masafer Yatta is well known maybe to the readership of Haaretz, not all of it, maybe to a small devoted left camp which is still active. But most of the Israelis not only couldn't care less, they never heard about it. And if they will hear about it, they will just yawn in your face, because, finally, they all buy the official propaganda — namely, Israel is doing it against terror, or Israel has to protect itself, and all those old slogans of lies and lies and lies.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Gideon, could you outline what you expect the policies that this new government will initiate, from substantive changes to the judiciary, as well as restrictions on civil liberties within Israel itself, and, of course, what we said in our introduction, the steps towards the annexation of the West Bank?

GIDEON LEVY: As we talk now, the Supreme Court of Israel is dealing with some of the first actions. And the Supreme Court will try to stop them, but the Supreme Court by itself will be a subject of attacks by this new government, who is going to limit the legal system very much and very quickly. It's really admirable to see how fast they act. While the Zionist left had one-and-a-half year of being power and did nothing, they are not yet one week in power, and they are already running with their initiatives.

Now, about annexation, I can tell you — that's my, obviously, private view — I really hope they will annexate at least part of the West Bank, if not all of the West Bank. The West Bank was annexated 55 years ago. The West Bank is practically annexated to Israel. Israelis live in the West Bank and behave in the West Bank as if it's part of Israel, and it is part of Israel. Now, once Israel will declare it officially and legally, then it will be really a question, because then the apartheid state is declared, you understand it. If Israel annexate the West Bank without giving full civil rights and national rights to the Palestinians, which nobody in this government or in any other government means to give, once this is happening, Israel declares itself an apartheid state. And then I would like to see how Washington and the EU and some others will react to an official declaration of apartheid. Will they treat it like the first apartheid state, namely, South Africa, or will they continue to hug Israel as a darling of the West, even though it's a declared apartheid state? So, let's challenge the world.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Diana, could respond to the points that Gideon has made? And also, you've written a great deal in your recent articles both about settler violence against Palestinians and Israeli security forces' complicity in that violence. If you could elaborate on that and respond to what Gideon said about apartheid?

DIANA BUTTU: Look, it's already an apartheid state. And I don't need for Israel to declare it to be an apartheid state. They already know it's an apartheid state. My fear is always: What is it that's going to happen to people on the ground? And whether Israel annexes or whether they don't annex, the result for Palestinians is the same, that Israel is continuing this process of land theft, it's kicking people off their land, it's turning Palestinians into people who are homeless, and it's killing them, as well. This has long been its process, long been its system.

Now, it's not just the Israeli state that does this. It's not just the army, but it's also Israeli settlers. We've already seen that in all of these years, with all of these attacks that have been conducted by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, that rarely, if ever, is an Israeli settler ever prosecuted for their crimes, or rarely even charged for their crimes, much less see the full conviction. And this is because Israel has turned a blind eye towards violence that it perpetrates against Palestinians. But again, I don't expect anything differently from the Israeli state, nor do I expect anything differently from Israeli settlers. That is their raison d'être. That is their reason for being.

What I would have expected is that somehow the world community would have stood up and would have done something differently and begin to hold Israel accountable for its actions. It would have held the Israeli state, its soldiers and so on. And instead, we don't see it. For example, just this past year, a Palestinian American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, who was also a friend, was murdered by Israel, by Israeli forces. Her death was probably the most investigated death that I've ever seen in all of my years of living here in Palestine, from everything from outlets from CNN to AP to The New York Times to NGOs and so on. And yet, to this current day, we still don't see that anybody has been held to account, even though we know that it was an Israeli soldier who shot and killed her.

And so, this is what it means to be living as a Palestinian, is that you're always living in the space where your life mean absolutely nothing and that your life could be extinguished at any moment, whether that happens at the hands of an Israeli soldier, whether it happens at the hands of an Israeli settler, or whether your land and your homes are demolished by the Israeli government. That's what it means to be living as a Palestinian.

AMY GOODMAN: And I want to encourage people to go to our website at democracynow.org, where we interviewed Democracy Now! correspondent Sharif Abdel Kouddous, who did a documentary for Al Jazeera called The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, and we also interviewed Shireen's niece, Lina. Diana Buttu, we want to thank you so much for being with us, Palestinian lawyer, former adviser to the negotiating team of the Palestine Liberation Organization. We'll link to your piece in The New York Times, "Israelis Have Put Benjamin Netanyahu Back in Power. Palestinians Will Surely Pay the Price." And Gideon Levy, Israeli journalist in Tel Aviv, columnist for the newspaper Haaretz and member of its editorial board."


Sunday, October 14, 2018

ISLAMOPHOBIA, OTHER THE FIRST



THE ABSURD TIMES




OUR ENEMY THE FIRST

Many stupid things are going on in the name of religion, and Islamophobia is the most prominent right now.  There is even a confusion of race and religion. 

It seems quite obvious that only with a geocentric solar system that the concept of any sort of God is sane, yet we perpetuate it even today.  The Church realized this early on when it suppressed the proofs of a solar centric solar system (it is even strange to need to use that term) as it was a threat to old superstitions, but it seemed that the concept of a god would outlast even scientific advances. 

Now it is quite all right to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, just so long as you believe that there is a prime mover.  The debate comes in when the division of who speaks for the prime mover.  When 9/11 happened in revenge for attacks, it was quite handy to use Islam, or what was touted as Islam, as a synonym in this country for the enemy.   We really do not care what the original prophets of these religions said, just so long as we could consider them enemies.  Our Constitution has proven to be a bit of a hindrance as many here still believe in it, but it remains a convenient enemy.

Fascism demands an "Other" and we are quite willing to provide a number of them to the masses just so long as we can cater to other interests.  So, here is a brief history of how we made Islam our enemy, or one of out "others".


Tomgram: Juan Cole, How Muslims Became the Enemy

 

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: As any of you who check out the TomDispatch Facebook page know, I'm a big fan of Juan Cole. I consider the columns he miraculously produces daily for his blog, Informed Comment, a must-stop on my morning travels through the online world. He's written for TomDispatch before and has a new piece today on the grim world of Islamophobes in Washington (and elsewhere). Today, however, turns out to be special for him: it's the publication day for his new book, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empiresa must-read in an American world in which Islam is increasingly seen as little more than a religion of terror, jihad, violence. In it, he sets the record straight on the seventh-century Prophet Muhammad, the remarkable strain of peaceful thinking that runs through the Muslim holy book, the Qur'an, and the history behind it all. Eugene Rogan, author of The Arabs: A History, writes: "A brilliant and original book destined to challenge many Western preconceptions about Islam." Indeed! And here's the good news for any of you who want to support TomDispatch and also get a signed, personalized copy of Cole's newest work: just go to our donation page, contribute $100 ($125 if you live outside the U.S.), and request it. Note that this offer will only last a week. Tom]
Here's a story that's never left my mind. Back in 2011, Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis was the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversaw the war on terror across the Greater Middle East, and he was obsessed with Iran. He cooked up a scheme to launch a strike to take out either an Iranian oil refinery or power plant in the "dead of night," an act of war meant to pay that country back for supplying mortars to Iraqi insurgents killing American troops. And in those years, when asked by President Obama to "spell out his top priorities" in the region, the general reportedly replied: "Number one: Iran. Number two: Iran. Number three: Iran." His Iranophobic obsession finally unnerved the Obama administration enough that, in 2013, he was removed from his CENTCOM post five months early.
I bring up this ancient history only because these days Mattis, reportedly in danger of being ditched by the president after the mid-term elections, has proven to be just about the only "adult in the room" in Washington when it comes to Iran -- and doesn't that just speak worlds about the Trump administration? After all, the president's National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has wanted to bomb that country since something like the dawn of time, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are both Iranophobes (as well as Islamophobes) of the first order, as is the president who has already torn up the nuclear pact the Obama administration negotiated with Iran and seems to be careening toward some kind of a conflict there. If so, given the American experience of the last 17 years in the region, what could possibly go wrong? As British journalist Patrick Cockburn ominously pointed out recently, "The exaggeration of 'the Iranian threat' by the Trump administration this week at the U.N. General Assembly in New York was very like what was being said about Iraq 15 years earlier."
As the redoubtable Juan Cole, whose iconoclastic new book, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires, has just been published, makes clear today, Donald Trump and the congressional Republicans have wielded Islamophobia domestically the way the anticommunists of my childhood once did McCarthyism. When you stop to think about it for a moment, they might be considered addicts on the subject: they just can't keep away from it or get enough of it. And here's the weirdest thing of all: yes, their Islamophobic program is to keep you know who out of this country, and that's often noted, but it seems, as well, to have another goal: to keep us in the Greater Middle East, militarily, until hell freezes over. After all, even under a president who once decried the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've never made it out of either place.  We're now more or less permanently in Syria as well and seemingly no less permanently enmeshed in the Saudi war in Yemen. Next stop: Iran? Tom
Hating Muslims in the Age of Trump
The New Islamophobia Looks Like the Old McCarthyism
By 
Juan Cole
These days, our global political alliances seem to shift with remarkable rapidity, as if we were actually living in George Orwell's 1984. Are we at war this month with Oceania? Or is it Eastasia? In that novel, the Party is able to erase history, sending old newspaper articles down the Ministry of Truth's "memory hole" and so ensuring that, in the public mind, the enemy of the moment was always the enemy. Today, there is one constant, though. The Trump administration has made Muslims our enemy of the first order and, in its Islamophobia, is reinforced by an ugly resurgence of fascism in Germany, Italy, Hungary, and other European countries.
It's hard today even to imagine that, in the late 1980s, the rightwing Christian Voice Magazine published a "candidate's biblical scoreboard," urging its readers (and potential voters) to rate their politicians by how "biblically" they cast their ballots in Congress. One key measure of this: Did that legislator support the anti-Communist Muslim jihadis in Afghanistan, a cause warmly supported by evangelist Pat Robertson in his 1988 presidential campaign? Now, attempting to appeal to twenty-first-century evangelicals, President Trump has announced that "Islam hates us."
The kaleidoscope of geopolitics and Islamophobia is now spinning so fast that it should make our heads spin, too. At times, it seems as if Donald Trump is the anti-Ronald Reagan of the twenty-first century, idolizing former KGB operative Vladimir Putin, but seeing former U.S. allies in the Muslim world like Pakistan as purveyors of "nothing but lies and deceit" -- until, that is, with bewildering rapidity, he suddenly gives us the "good" (that is, oil-rich) Muslims again, willingly performing a sword dance with the Saudi royals, seemingly entirely comfortable with the scimitar of the Saracen.
Islamophobes Galore
While the president oscillates between abusing and fawning over the elites of the Muslim world, his true opprobrium is reserved for the poor and helpless. His hatred of refugees uprooted by the horrific Syrian civil war, for instance, stems from his conviction that this population (predominantly women and children, as well as some men fleeing the fighting) might actually be adherents of the so-called Islamic State group (also known as ISIL, ISIS, or Daesh) and so part of the building of a secretive paramilitary force in the West. He's even speculated that "this could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe."
This summer, he also tweeted: "Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!" And a day later claimed it had risen by 10%. Though immigrant communities can indeed produce some crime until they find their footing, the crime rate in Germany, despite the welcoming of two million immigrants in 2015 alone, has fallen to a 30-year low, as have crimes by non-German nationals.
Nor, of course, is there an army of terrorists the size of the active-duty forces of France or Italy among those hapless Syrian refugees. Still, that outlandish conspiracy theory may be part of what lay behind the president's blatantly unconstitutional 2015 call for a "total and complete shut-down" of Muslims coming to the United States. Consider it a great irony, then, that some significant part of the turmoil in the greater Middle East that helped provoke waves of refugees and an Islamophobic backlash here and in Europe was, at least in part, the creation of this country, not Muslim fundamentalist madmen.
The Islamophobes like to argue that Islam is an inherently violent religion, that its adherents are quite literally commanded to such violence by its holy scriptures, the Qur'an. It's a position that, as I explain in my new book, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires, is both utterly false and ahistorical. As it happens, you would have to look to far more recent realities to find the impetus for the violence, failed states, and spreading terror groups in today's Greater Middle East. Start with the Reagan administration's decision to deploy rag-tag bands of Muslim extremists (which al-Qaeda was first formed to support) against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. That set in motion massive turmoil still roiling that country, neighboring Pakistan, and beyond, decades after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Of course, al-Qaeda notoriously blew back on America. Its September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington were then used by American neoconservatives in the administration of George W. Bush -- some of whom had served in the Reagan years, cheering on the American-backed Afghan fundamentalists, as well as their Arab allies -- to set the United States on a permanent war footing in the Muslim world. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, promoted on the false pretext that Saddam Hussein's government supported al-Qaeda, kicked off a set of guerrilla insurgencies and provoked a Sunni-Shiite civil war that spread in the region.
Hundreds of thousands would die and at least four million people, including staggering numbers of children, would be displaced over the years thanks to George W. Bush's boondoggle. The al-Qaeda franchise ISIL (formed initially as al-Qaeda in Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion) arose to expel American troops there. Ultimately, its militants made inroads in neighboring Syria in 2011 and 2012 and the U.S. allowed them to grow in hopes of putting pressure on the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
As is now all too clear, such policies created millions of refugees, some of whom streamed towards Europe, only to be greeted by a rising tide of white Christian bigotry and neo-Nazism. There's no way to measure the degree to which America's wars across the Greater Middle East and North Africa have, in fact, changed our world. When, for instance, British Prime Minister Tony Blair signed on to Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, how could he have foreseen that he was helping set off events that would result in a British withdrawal from the European Union (a decision in which anti-immigrant sentiment played an outsized role) -- and so the diminishment of his country?
Having helped spread extremism and set in motion massive population displacements, Western elites then developed a profound fear of the millions of refugees they had helped chase out of the Middle East. Executive Order 13769, President Trump's abrupt January 2017 visa ban, which created chaos at American airports and provoked widespread protests and court challenges -- many of its elements were, however, ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court -- appears to have been premised on the notion that a Trojan Horse of Muslim extremism was headed for American shores.In reality, the relatively small number of terrorist attacks here by Muslim-Americans (covered so much more intensively than the more common mass shootings by white nationalists) have most often been carried out by "lone wolves" who "self-radicalized" on the Internet and who, had they been white, would simply have been viewed as mentally unbalanced.
Still, realities of that sort don't make a dent in the president's agenda. In 2018, the Trump administration will likely only admit about 20,000 refugees, far less than last year's 45,000, thanks to administration demands that the FBI carry out "extreme vetting" of all applicants without being given any extra resources to do so. Of the refugees admitted in the first half of this year, only about one in six was a Muslim, while in 2016, when 84,995 refugees were admitted, they were equally divided between Christians and Muslims.
On average, the U.S. still admits a little more than a million immigrants annually, of which refugees are a small (and decreasing) proportion. Since 2010, more immigrants have come from Asia than any other area, some 45% of them with college degrees, which means that Trump's very image of immigrants is wrong.
His ban on immigrants from five Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia) was largely symbolic, since they were generally not sources of significant immigration. It was also remarkably arbitrary, since it did not include Iraq or Afghanistan, where violent insurgencies and turmoil continue but whose governments host American troops. It does, however, include the relatively peaceful country of Iran.
Trump's Muslim ban has broken up families, even as it harmed American businesses and universities whose employees (or in the case of colleges, students) have been abruptly barred from the country. The restrictions on immigration from Syria and Yemen are particularly cruel, since those lands face the most extreme humanitarian crises on the planet and the United States has been deeply implicated in the violence in both of them. Moreover, Iranians who do emigrate to the U.S. are, for the most part, members of minorities or political dissidents. In fact, no nationals from any of those five banned states have committed lethal acts of terrorism in the United States in the last 40 years.
The Islamophobia of President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and others in the administration, aided and abetted by the megaphone that Rupert Murdoch's Fox News offers, has had a distinct impact on public opinion. Attacks on Muslim-Americans have, for instance, spiked back to 2001 levels. A recent poll found that some 16% of Americans want to deny the vote to Muslim-Americans, 47% support Trump's visa restrictions, and a majority would like all mosques to be kept under surveillance. (A frequent, if completely false, talking point of the Islamophobes is that Muslims here have a single ideology and are focused on a secret plan to take over the United States.) You undoubtedly won't be surprised to learn that such unhinged conspiracy theories are far more prevalent among Republicans than Democrats and independents.
Similarly unsurprising is the fact that Americans in the Trump era give a lower favorability rating to Muslim-Americans (a little over 1% of the U.S. population) than to virtually any other religious or ethnic group (though feminists and evangelicals are runners-up). By a spread of about 20 points, they believe that Muslim-Americans are both more religious than Christian Americans and less likely to respect the country's ideals and laws. They slam Muslims for according women and gays low status, though a majority of Muslim-Americans say that homosexuals should be accepted in society, a belief that Muslim-American women hold in the same percentages as the rest of the American public. As for those women, they are among the best educated of any faith group in the country, suggesting extremely supportive families.
In reality, Muslim-Americans are remarkably well integrated into this country and have committed little terrorism here. In the past decade and a half, on average, 28 Muslim-Americans a year were associated with acts of violent extremism out of a population of 3.5 million and most of those "acts" involved traveling abroad to join radical movements. Muslim-American extremists killed 17 people in 2017, a year in which white gunmen killed 267 Americans in mass shootings.
Changing Bogeymen
The Islamophobia that Donald Trump has made his own arose in the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, once the bogeyman of Communism was removed from the quiver of the American Right. The 1990s were hard on the Republican Party and its plutocrats (with a popular Clinton in the White House), and on the arms manufacturers facing a public increasingly uninterested in foreign adventurism with no sense of threat from abroad. The Pentagon budget was even briefly cut in those years, producing what was then called a "peace dividend." (It wasn't.) And though it's now hard to imagine, in 1995 the United States was not involved in a conventional hot war anywhere in the world.
In this no-longer-so-new century, the Republican Party, like the Trump presidency, did, however, find the bogeyman it needed and it looks remarkably like a modernized version of the rabidly anti-Communist McCarthyism of the 1950s. In fact, the endless demonization of Muslims may be less a cudgel to wield against the small Muslim-American community than against Democratic opponents who can be lambasted as "soft on terrorism" if they resist demands to demonize Muslims and their religion.
In my own state of Michigan, Elissa Slotkin, an acting assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the Obama years and a former CIA analyst, is running as a Democrat in the 8th District against Congressman Mike Bishop. Slotkin played a role in developing the anti-ISIL strategies that Trump adopted when he came into office. Nonetheless, our airwaves are now saturated with pro-Bishop ads smearing Slotkin, a third-generation Michigander, for her supposed involvement in President Obama's Iran nuclear deal and so for being little short of a Shiite terrorist herself. Similarly, in San Diego, California's 50th district, the scandal-ridden campaign of Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter (indicted for embezzling $250,000 in campaign funds) continues to broadly intimate that his opponent, Ammar Campa-Najjar, a Christian American of Palestinian and Mexican descent, is a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator seeking to enter Congress.
Still, despite all the sound and fury from the White House, the U.S. Muslim population continues to grow because of immigration and natural increase. Over the past 30 years, between 3,000 and 13,000 immigrants have arrived annually from Egypt, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, and a handful of other countries. Their governments are close geopolitical allies of the U.S. and to interdict their nationals would be politically embarrassing, as Trump discovered when he attempted to include Iraq on his list of banned countries and was persuaded to change his mind by Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.
Of course, not all Americans share Trump's bigotry. Two-thirds of us actually disapprove of politicians engaging in hate speech toward Muslims. Some 55% of us believe that Muslim-Americans are committed to the welfare of the country, a statistic that would break the 60% mark if it weren't for evangelicals. Two Muslim-American politicians, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, won Democratic primaries in Detroit and Minneapolis and so are poised to become the first Muslim-American women in the House of Representatives.
Such an outcome would be one way in which Americans could begin to reply to the wave of Islamophobia that helped lift Donald Trump into office in 2016 and has only intensified since then. The decency of Middle America has certainly been tarnished, but as the polls indicate, not lost. Not yet anyway.
Juan Cole is collegiate professor of history at the University of Michigan. He runs a news and commentary webzine on U.S. foreign policy and progressive politics, Informed Comment. His new book, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires (Nation Books), has just been published.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Storyand Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, and John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands.
Copyright 2018 Juan Cole