Yesterday, our son returned to California for University. He and I sat on the porch one evening talking about the Iran deal, turmoil in the Middle East and growing Anti-Semitism across the world. We also discussed our approaches to dealing with individuals who have vastly different views to ourselves. In the past, I do not bring up political discussions that might lead to such sensitive topics related to the Middle East. However, it has been quite hard this summer with the Iran Nuclear Accord (JCPOA) signing and Daesh’s activities (aka ISIS/ ISIL).
The problem I have is most people who are in favor of the Iran Deal or who are Pro-Palestinian (often the same people), they like to use moral relativism as their primary argument. They reject that it falls apart when you take a couple of steps back and look at the entire region, Sharia Law application and rise of targeted violence against Jews in western society. They will respond with the Islamaphobia term as a catchall and try to downplay the impact Islamists are having throughout the world, and that it is really a small number of Muslims/ or they are not really Muslims. This type of discussion, as I understand from college students, is much worse and heated against Israel and Jews on campus. I feel it is time to switch tactics, not only on campus but across society, from a logical discussion to what the BDS movement aligns with, i.e. who they really benefit/ support, such as:
If you support BDS, then you align with ISIS, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and other fascist hate mongers. You are in alignment with them, just like you are with Hamas and Fatah and other Islamic groups that are religiously intolerant.
Being a supporter of BDS, means you advocate the beheading of journalists, the lashing of women, the throwing of gays off buildings. You support suicide bombing and the mass killings of minorities (Christians, Jews, Kurds, Yazidis…). You support the application of Sharia Law.
Even more to the point, BDS supporters must feel the Charlie Hebdo attack was justified and that the victims of other terror attacks, like the Boston Marathon bombing, deserved it. BDS supporters are also for honor killings and the killing of Muslim apostates, wherever they reside.
BDS supporters clearly feel freedom of expression or equality is not important.
Now some people may feel the above is a stretch, but what do they really think a state run by Hamas/ Fatah would look like? Would they want such a place in the United States or Europe, let’s say in Michigan or in France? So, why advocate against Israel and for the creation of such a state in place of Israel? And don’t give me the bullshit that you are in favor of a two state solution, because that doesn’t fly with the BDS chants/ rhetoric or intent of Hamas/ Fatah.
It is time for progressives/ liberals to wake up and recognize who they are in cahoots with.
Excellent blog posting by Kasim Hafeez, see:
http://www.israellycool.com/2015/10/05/guest-post-kasim-hafeez-get-over-the-victimology/
Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks on The Rubin Report about the “Regressive Left” and its applied double standard along misplaced understanding of Justice vs. Freedom, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9DOijyxTGk
We are now coming to the end of 2015. It is interesting to look back at this blog posting with the context of recent debates from both GOP and Democrat candidates. I found an excellent analysis of the current candidates in terms of their outlook internationally versus nationally, especially in the context of Israel. You can find it at:
http://fathomjournal.org/fathom-forum-jonathan-rynhold-what-does-the-us-presidential-election-mean-for-us-israel-relations/
I personally feel Senator Rubio is likely the best candidate in terms of US international policy. Secretary Clinton in my opinion talks a good talk, but her performance under President Obama lacked substance. Both Senator Cruz and Senator Sanders are isolationists, and Trump is a wild card.
I recently read a Commentary article by Dennis Ross, titled ‘Present for the Duration’, in relation to his new book called ‘Doomed to Succeed’. The article with link to the book, can be found at:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/present-for-the-duration/
What is interesting about the article is the learned successes and the repeated failures of past and current Whitehouse policies and their attitudes in regards to the Middle East. The section regarding President Obama is quite telling in regards to himself and his selected cabinet. It is not a rosy picture, except it does summarize the Palestinian Leadership “would not accept anything that suggested Palestinian recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people”, which is the premise of two states for two peoples solution. It is too early to determine if the Iran deal is a success or a grand failure.
Nevertheless, what seems to be lacking from this article is how the recent administration’s Islamophilia has completely backfired in terms of progressing Arab countries into modern democracy and stabilizing ethnic divisions across the Middle East. More importantly one could also conclude that such a policy has resulted in the expansion of Islamist support, specifically with shadow organizations like CAIR, SJP and MSA in our US colleges and universities.
With the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernadino, the pendulum is liking swinging away from Islamophilia to something more leveled and analytical.