Tuesday, January 17, 2012

A Response to Kane


Who writes:

The Egyptian people have validated the Muslim Brotherhood, not Obama or the US administration...

Kane is wrong.

The Obama administration has not only sabotaged the peace process, but it has validated the Muslim Brotherhood, an anti-Semitic, genocidal organization that has an historical provenance that goes to Nazi Germany.

Say "hello" to Sayyid Qutb.

The mustache was considered snazzy in Cairo at the time.  Sayyid was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and the author of a small essay called "Our Struggle with the Jews" wherein he writes:

The Jews also conspired against Islam by inciting its enemies against it throughout the world...This has brought the Jews of the latest era to being the chiefs of the struggle with Islam, on every foot of the face of the earth...The Jews are (also) the ones who utilize Christianity and idolatry in this comprehensive war ...... And they attack every foundation of this religion (Islam), in a Crusader-Zionist war!! How right was Allah, the most Mighty, in saying: "You will surely find the worst enemies of the Muslims to be the Jews and the polytheists."

At the center of Brotherhood ideology is the Jew as cosmic enemy, yet Kane writes:

It does appear that they will have significant influence in the new Egyptian government. Opening lines of communication with them is a recognition of political realities. They are, just as Hamas is.

This might be true if the administration was merely opening lines of communication, as if we need to talk with fascists, but it goes much farther than that. The administration validates an anti-Semitic genocidal movement when, as Barack Obama said, it compares the rise of the Jihad throughout the Middle East to some ridiculous combination of the Revolution of '76 and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s.

This is what Barack Obama said directly after the fall of Tunisia:

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia...

This does not demonstrate a sober understanding of the nature of this movement, but is an endorsement of it.

Barack Obama endorses the rise of the Jihad and progressives tell us that it is mere pragmatism on the part of the administration. I think it is the inappropriately blasé response to the rise of the Jihad, on the part of Obama's apologists, that is perhaps most disconcerting. Since Obama has come to office, political Islam has taken over country after country in the Middle East, yet his supporters merely shrug their shoulders.

This blasé attitude is reflected in Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta's attitude.

I understand the view that this is not the time to pursue peace, and that the Arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure, Jewish and democratic Israel. But I disagree with that view... The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table, to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.

The "Arab awakening"? It is obvious that officer after officer in the Obama administration considers the rise of political Islam as something positive and something to be encouraged. But to continue to talk as if the Arab uprisings represent "democracy" as we understand it in the West is to ignore the Islamist nature of this movement.

And that is just unconscionable, irresponsible, and, in truth, none too bright. Whether coming from the administration, or from well-meaning "progressives," pretending that the rise of political Islam is a good thing is highly delusional and quite dangerous.

It is long past time that we pulled our heads from the sand.

I am again reminded of how progressives told us that the Jihadis aboard the Mavi Marmara were "peace activists." Knife and pipe-wielding "peace activists."

All of this taken together, by the way, represents just why the progressive-left, as a movement, is dangerous to Jewish people the world over. They honestly believe that the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East is a good thing despite its anti-Semitic and genocidal nature.

Is it therefore any wonder that the Democratic Party is bleeding Jewish support?



  1. If one assumes that Obama is a smart man then surely his comparison of the tea party and Rosa Parks to the rise of Political Islam can not be just some dumb mistake. Ergo, he meant it. That makes him as dangerous as them.

  2. There are basically two major points that I want to continue driving home as we go forward toward the election.

    The first is that by accepting anti-Zionism into the larger movement, the progressive-left has betrayed their Jewish constituency.

    The other, of course, is that the Obama administration ruined whatever possibility there may have been for a near-term negotiated settlement between the Arabs and the Jews in the Middle East.

    These two points are key, it seems to me, plus they are both entirely true.

    That the progressive-left has accepted anti-Zionism as part of the movement is verified daily in places like Daily Kos and the other large, progressive venues.

    That Obama screwed up any possibility for a near-term conclusion of hostilities is proven by the fact that his "total settlement freeze" resulted in the Palestinians refusing to negotiate.

    For the life of me, I see no reason why Jewish people should therefore support either the movement or the man.

    I say that we don't.

  3. I think that goes too far. He is well intentioned, but I have the feeling he thinks that by extending friendship, he can control them and help them mature into a more civilized approach. Rather than learning from the mistakes of the Europeans, Obama seems, so far, to be falling into that same pattern.

    Luckily, there are enough Americans that will prevent the Europeanization of American policy.

    Then again, when his new friends show their true colors and screw him in the end, he may have the same transformation that many do, and embrace an approach that shines light on who these people are and what their intention is.

  4. Well intentioned does not preclude dangerous. Leaders of the free world should not fall into traps. Certainly not more than once.

  5. Y'know, the funny thing, guys, is that I've never really been one to scream my bloody head off about Radical Islam. 
    Prior to 9/11 I basically thought of Osama bin Laden as the equivalent of Emmanual Goldstein.

    You can imagine horror to discover that, no, bin Laden is real and that his movement is genuinely bloody and genocidal.

    After Bush came into office, tho, I didn't much worry about terrorism in part because the Bush administration seemed to be using the trademarked "War on Terrorism" for personally political gain and to move funds into various corporations, like Haliburton.

    But now we are actually seeing political Islam flourishing under the label "Arab Spring" as progressives, including the president, cheer it on.

    It just amazes me that people who claim to stand for liberalism, for secular democracy, for women's rights and Gay rights, are at best indifferent to the rise of political Islam and at worst act as cheerleaders for a violent, anti-Jewish, anti-Gay, anti-Women, anti-West, and anti-Secular political movement that is covering the entire Middle East.

    It's horrific and shocking.

    Christians are being driven out of Arab lands and even their fellow Christians in Europe do not care.

    Sad, really.

  6. Danger is a relative concept. Obama is not out to kill. But like I mentioned elsewhere, I believe that even friends can do harm, and I believe Obama is not immune. 

  7. Yes, I meant danger in that sense.

  8. Ultimately, it will be new boss same or worse than the old boss in the Middle East. That much seems clear. It's all pretty retrogressive as far as I can see. The rise of Islamism will also see the fall of secularism, freedom, etc. The few who existed will be minimized.

  9. So, if we can see this, how come the former president of the Harvard Law Review cannot?