Saturday, January 24, 2015

Don't excuse Muslim antisemitism

 The Left avoids talking about Muslim antisemitism, preferring to focus on the antisemitism of the Right. If it did talk about Muslim antisemitism, it would also have to talk about Muslim colonialism, argues Daniel Greenfield in Rightside News.

 Benjamin Hattab at the funeral of his son Yoav: forced to praise how well Tunisia treats Jews

Muslim anti-Semitism predates the difficulties of integrating Algerians and Pakistanis into Europe by over a thousand years. In Islam, Jews represent both a subject race and a primal enemy. Israel infuriates Muslims so much not because they care a great deal about the Palestinian Arabs who have been expelled in huge numbers from Muslim countries within the last generation, but because Jews no longer know their place. Islam is supremacist. Allahu Akbar asserts Islamic supremacy over all other religions. As an historical subject race, Jews are a natural target for violence by Muslim immigrants with strong supremacist leanings. The disenfranchised Muslim isn’t looking for equality. He’s seeking supremacy. That is what the Islamic State and the Koran give him. He picks the same Jewish targets as Mohammed did because the Jews are a vulnerable minority. That is as true in Europe today as it was in Arabia then.

Unlike the Christian world, which was never fully subjugated by Islam, both the Jewish homeland and much of the Jewish diaspora population existed under Muslim rule long enough that non-submissive Jews became a particularly galling reminder of the fall of the Caliphate.

Muslims had taken Jewish submission for granted making the existence of non-submissive Jews, whether in Jerusalem or in Paris, that much more outrageous. The Algerian Muslim can more readily accept taking a back seat to a French Christian than to an Algerian Jew, whom he knows would have been considered inferior to him if they were both back in Algeria.

The left has become so mired in a post-colonial worldview that it refuses to understand that the struggle is not between Western European colonialism and a post-colonial Third World, but between different eras of colonialism. Arab Islamic domination is not post-colonial; it’s a colonialism that predates it.
When Western leftists make common cause with Arab and Islamic nationalists, they aren’t being post-colonial, they’re advocating an earlier form of colonialism that led and is once again leading to ethnic cleansing, genocide, mass slavery and the destruction of indigenous cultures; including that of the Jews.

Middle Eastern Jews, like other non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities, welcomed European colonialism as relief from Islamic and Arab colonialism. France is filled with Jews from North Africa because they received their rights for the first time under French rule. As French citizens, they could shed their mandatory black clothes and no longer fear being killed because of Islamic law, like Batto Sfez, a Tunisian Jew who was executed for blasphemy in an atrocity that triggered French intervention.

Yoav Hattab, one of the Jews murdered in the Kosher supermarket attack in Paris, was the son of the Chief Rabbi of Tunisia. While the Chief Rabbi was, in the unfortunate Dhimmi fashion of those who live under Islamic rule, forced to praise how well Tunisia treats Jews, his son was buried in Israel. Israel was also the place where most Tunisian Jews moved to escape Arab Muslim persecution.

The Western left can’t talk about Muslim anti-Semitism because it would also have to talk about Muslim colonialism. And then the entire basis of its approach to the Arab and Muslim world would collapse. If post-colonialism in the Middle East is just the replacement of one colonialism with another, then the left would have to admit that it has once again disgraced itself by supporting a totalitarian system.

Just as it replaced the czar with the commissar, it is replacing the protectorate with the caliphate.

Modern histories of the Middle East excuse the historical Muslim persecution of Jews for the same reason the media excuses modern Muslim attacks on Jews. This historical revisionism justifies Islamic colonialism in the service of post-colonialism with the myth of a golden age of benevolent tyranny.

The post-colonial narrative obligates academics and journalists to favorably contrast the Muslim treatment of Jews, then or now, with the European treatment of Jews. This obstructionism has endangered European Jews even more than Jihadist videos advocating violence because it makes it impossible to discuss an urgent violent threat for fear of violating the left’s post-colonial narrative.
Muslim anti-Semitism must be discussed. And it must be contextualized within the history of Muslim-Jewish relations, not European ones like the National Front or Jobbik. It must not be dismissed as some transient phenomenon caused by poverty or the latest Hamas clashes, but viewed within the context of Islamic colonialism and the treatment of non-Muslims in the Muslim world. The treatment of Yazidis in Iraq and Christians in Syria must also be placed within that same context.

Historical revisionism for Muslim anti-Semitism is as unacceptable as Holocaust denial or any other attempt to stick a smiley face on the oppression of Jews. And what is at stake here is not merely history, but the root cause that drives Muslim men and women born in Europe to attack and kill Jews.

Read article in full


Maphisto86 said...

I frankly see the Arab-Israeli conflict as a battle between two nationalist movements but with many different factions within both camps.

For example As'ad AbuKhalil of the "Angry Arab News Service" blog is a former Marxist-Leninist, now supposedly an anarchist but his views and the views of other activists like him are born more out a general Arab nationalism and human rights then a desire to become overlords over the "kaffir" like the members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, Daesh, etc.

bataween said...

They may not express their intolerance in the same way, but Arab nationalists have never had room for non-Arabs and non-Muslims, their parties standing for virulent totalitarianism. The Angry Arab cloaks his views in the language of human rights because that is what works best with his English-speaking audience.

Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

I agree with Bataween on this. We have had a lot of experience with Arab nationalists, pan-Arabists, and pan-Islamists, etc.

Just to give you an example from a non-Arab but Muslim context, look at the Turkish nationalist party usually called the Young Turks in the West. The party was the Committee for Unity and Progress. Wow, unity and progress, you can hardly beat a beautiful name like that.

Yet these unity and progress Komitadjis are the ones who carried out the Armenian genocide during WW One which murdered about 1 1/2 Armenians. So you have to be careful about taking labels like nationalist and pan-nationalist and socialist workers party too seriously. After all, the Nazi party was formally called the National Socialist German Workers Party. What could go wrong with a name like that?

Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

The Ottoman govt under the unity and progress komitadjis murdered about 1.5 million Armenians.

Maphisto86 said...

Have either of you ever read his blog? Or Ali Abunimah's "One Country"? Just curious if you did but in either case my point is that while the anti-Zionist movement is not a monolithic, anti-Semitic conspiracy even if many, many anti-semites and/or Islamists tend to hide behind the label.

Granted there is a lot of things wrong with the traditional "anti-Israel" narrative but I cannot shake the fact that there needs to be a reckoning with the events of 1947 - 48 and what actually occurred in Palestine that led to the refugee problem and Israel's post war nation building. As remarkable as it may seem a lot of people around the world and not just in the Muslim world do not agree with Zionism or how the modern state of Israel was founded.

bataween said...

Yes I have read his blog. Angry by name, angry by nature. The Palestinian refugee problem is a by-product of the decision of seven Arab states to go to war in 1948. They lost.Too bad. If they hadn't gone to war there would have been no Arab refugees. On the other hand, knowing what we know of the intolerance the Arab Muslims have shown towards non-Muslims, there WOULD have been a Jewish refugee problem EVEN IF ISRAEL HAD NEVER BEEN ESTABLISHED.

Maphisto86 said...

Betaween I have been meaning to ask you actually about the flight of Jews from Arab lands post-1948.

As far as I can tell there was little Zionist activism among those communities prior to expulsions (or might as well be called expulsions) of members of those communities. You mentioned there probably would have been an exodus anyway. Were there plans for such an event among the Arab elite or militant nationalist intellegensia prior to the war in Palestine?

bataween said...


Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

not only were there plans to dispossess Jews and expel them from Arab lands, plans made before the UN GA partition recommendation of 11/1947, but the first refugees in the Land of Israel after that UNGA vote were Jews driven from their homes by Arabs.

Maphisto should also take account of Arab collaboration in the Holocaust, especially but not only in the person of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the top leader of the palestinian Arabs, appointed by the British High Commissioner in 1921 or 1922.