Threats can be real, or perceived from a souring relationship with an adversary. However, it can also be construed as a pretext to justify wanton aggression; the invasion of Iraq, using the pretext of a WMD threat is a well-known example of this, as was the disproportionate Israeli ‘retaliation’ in 2008 that resulted in a massacre of largely defenceless civilians in the Gaza ‘concentration camp’.
The ‘rocket’ attacks of Hamas done in retaliation were amplified through the Zionist dominated media as substantive, to justify the disproportionate Israeli response. The facts show, the damage caused by the so-called rockets was like a minor nuisance, in comparison to the death and destruction inflicted by the Israeli armed forces. In the end, the score sheet read: about 10 Israeli dead against 1,800 Palestinians, plus the injured. The same argument can be brought against the US decision to use the Atomic bomb over Japan, who posed no threat as it was on its knees. In fact, Japan requested the US through Stalin to ‘negotiate’ the terms for surrender, but Harry Truman, a cruel bloodthirsty leader wanted to test the weapon, so he bombed two cities populated by ‘Orientals’ with no military significance.
For any nation to demonstrate the threat, it has to show that:
a) The threat itself is not a response to one’s earlier aggression.
Using those two criteria, one can assess the validity of the Islamic threat that has become popular in the West, especially amongst the far-right in the post-9/11 era.
From the perspective of the West, it would be naïve to dismiss the Islamic threat as merely post-9/11 propaganda to justify the aggressive foreign policy towards the Islamic world. The substance of that threat was largely manifested by non-state actors waging guerrilla warfare, or what is commonly known as acts of terrorism. Even a cursory glance at the events chronologically shows that these acts of ‘terrorism’ are one of retaliation and hence, self-induced by the West. The threat stems from its own actions. If the war did not continue over Iraq after the First Gulf War with crippling sanctions, 9/11 would most probably not have occurred; likewise, if the Blair regime did not invade Iraq using the pretext of WMD, there would have been no 7/7.
In recent times, there has been the talk of an Islamic threat from within the West, especially by the right, and the murderous act of Anders Breivik has bought this to the forefront. The substance of this perceived threat is construed out of the natural expansion of the Muslim population, and their unwillingness to assimilate. The crude language used by the far right, and odious columnists like Melanie Phillips, shows a clear undertone of xenophobia and racism.
Nobody can dispute that there is a clash of values between Islam and Western Liberalism, otherwise the two would be synonymous and the debate would not arise. Often some Muslims have responded to the allegation of Islamic threat by claiming that Islam is compatible with liberalism, but that is fundamentally flawed; the prohibition of interest, gambling, homosexuality and sexual promiscuity are few obvious examples of this clash of values.
However, Muslims are not insisting on applying Islamic law on the rest of society; therefore, how is this clash of values a threat in a democracy that is supposed to be multicultural and upholds the notion of freedom of belief? Where is the notion of freedom, if the West is unable to tolerate the differences? It seems the Islamic threat stems from the lack of clarity of the Western values of freedom. Indeed, this can be seen in the double-standard policy of the West, who are supporting the rise of the Arab masses to determine their future but not when it comes to Palestinians trying to free themselves from the tyranny of Israel.
Moreover, the Muslims in the West are not the ones imposing Sharia through military invasion in distant lands, and they are law abiding citizens at home. If the values of the West are superior, the Muslims will naturally adopt them but why should they be compelled to assimilate in a free society? The banning of the veil as one example goes against the notion of individual freedom; if freedom is to be supreme, then the choice of the bikini or the veil must be there.
As for the expansion of the Muslim population, it is not some conspiracy to take over; it is the consequence of upholding strong family values. Concurrently, the relative decline of the population in some western countries is the result of toxic liberal values, which encourage men and women to seek other goals in life than raising a family. If I was to be as crude and racist as the far–right, I would simply gloat and state that Muslim couples are always sober and have a healthier libido!
The lack of response to Al-Qaeda and the subsequent Arab Spring shows the Muslim world are not interested in waging Jihad against the West, they only want to acquire basic human rights, freedom to determine their government, social justice and economic progress - that includes the Palestinians. The so-called Islamic threat is merely a pretext for the far-right, the gutter tabloids and odious columnists suffering from envy, racism and xenophobia. The riots in London and Greece, coupled with the general debt crisis and the eurozone crisis, show that the West is facing a real threat from its economic model; it has created a dangerous situation by turning its banks, and industry (stocks and shares) into a casino for traders to play on. The unnatural fiat money system compounds this instability.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
Published on 28/09/2011
UK, London (www.radicalviews.org, http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com, http://twitter.com/#yaminzakaria)
No comments:
Post a Comment