The Convenient Racism of the Anti-Imperial Left
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Arabs living in the USA were quick to plead that the actions of a couple of dozen terrorists were not a true reflection of the beliefs of over a billion of the world’s Muslims. Racial profiling at airports was loudly condemned, and anyone who suggested that Muslims were inherently blood thirsty and savage was denounced as a racist. And yet, when it suits them, the intellectually bankrupt Left have no problem whatsoever, if it serves the purpose of “anti-imperialism”, in painting Muslims from Libya, to Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria with the same brush, as lunatic-extremist Jihadists who live to murder Americans.
Case in point, the always disgraceful Ass’ad Abu Khalil (aka Angry Arab), and his latest article in the Hizbollah newspaper, Al-Akhbar, where the angry comrade who fled to the USA in 1983, once again betrays his contempt and disdain for the society that has sheltered him for the past 29 years. In his article, Abu Khalil claims that the West has only itself to blame for the savage attacks on the American embassies in Libya and Cairo, and that the same brand of militant Islam is the norm in Libya, Egypt and Syria, an outrageous case of stereotyping entire populations.
The Left all too casually employs racism and gross stereotyping when it serves its “anti-imperial” cause. To make the ridiculous claim that Ali Ferzat, Najati Tayara, Ghaith Mattar, Malik Jandali and the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and displaced, are all Jihadist fanatics dreaming of a sharia state, is to expose the complete and utter intellectual bankruptcy of the “anti-imperial” Leftists. To characterize, as the Left do, such diverse cultures and societies from Libya, Egypt, Syria and Afghanistan as all sharing one bloody and extremist mindset, is a more revolting outlook on the region than anything uttered on Fox News or any of the numerous right-wing radio talk shows (which the Comrade Angryski mentions in his Al-Akhbar article).
When you take into consideration the current weakness of the Libyan state, it is astonishing that more such attacks aren’t common in Libya. The fact that they aren’t, is due entirely to the fair minded, moderate and practical mindset of the Libyan people, who have defied the world’s expectations and actually turned away from extremism, as proven by their recent successful elections. Someone should explain to the Left and Abu Khalil, that a man fighting to protect his family against brutal tyrannies, and who happens to be sporting a beard, is no more a Jihadist, than a young American who serves in the American military and happens to wear a cross, is a “Crusader”.
Contrary to what the “anti-imperial” Left likes to believe, the people of the Middle East are not fighting and dying to replace the restrictions of totalitarian rule with that of hard line religious fundamentalist. That privilege is reserved for the Iranians, of whom the Left are (in typically ‘anti-imperialist” hypocritical fashion) so enamored of.
Abu Khalil’s claim that the same people who attacked the US consulate in Benghazi and murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens (whose name is not deemed worthy enough of mention by Abu Khalil in his entire article) were armed by NATO in the revolution against Ghadafi. On what does Abu Khalil base this very tall claim? In typical Leftist fashion, Abu Khalil builds an entire article out of nothing more than speculation, with no evidence whatsoever to back up his statements, which he then goes on to treat as written in stone. And even more outrageous example is this ridiculous line;
“Saudi Arabia’s government has been silent, probably because its alliance with Israel prevents it from attacking a film produced by an Israeli citizen.”
Typically preposterous “analysis” by the Lebanese pseudo-intellect. By the time Comrade Angryskis’ article appeared, everyone knew that the name, Sam Bacile, was a fake identity. Such a person does not exist. The person behind the film was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian, and a man convicted on bank fraud. There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel was behind the film in question.
For Abu Khalil to claim in all seriousness, that there exists some sort of Saudi-Israeli alliance that bars Saudi Arabia from criticizing Israeli films, is the typical ludicrous tin-foil-hat absurdities that are the bread and butter of the “anti-imperial” Left. Under normal circumstances, writers who make such ridiculous claims are laughed off the Internet, but apparently this is what passes for “analysis” in Hizbollah media.
And what of Saudi silence on the film? The Saudis are to be applauded and congratulated for giving the film exactly the attention it deserves; zero. So damned if they go ape and burn flags, but damned if they take the high road? It is the typical twisted logic that is all too common in the hateful world of the Leftist camp.
But of course, Ass’ad Abu Khalil doesn’t stop there. He writes;
“However, there is a degree of responsibility that lies in the US. Since September 11, bigotry against Islam and Muslims has been sponsored by mainstream groups….Some political groups and personalities (like Rep. Peter King and Newt Gingrich) derive political benefit from spewing hate and ignorance about Muslims and Islam….It is rather difficult, after watching no more than two hours of Fox News, not be exposed to anti-Islam rhetoric”
Well actually, no. Angry Arab sees the world through the lenses of an inflated sense of aggrieved self entitlement. Watch Fox News for two hours, and you’ll know that most of its time and programing is spent focused on Barack Obama and prominent liberal figures, and in promoting conservative issues. Is Fox News biased? Without a doubt.
Do they hide their one-sided bias? Not in the least bit.
Do they screw up their facts and take things out of context in their zeal to promote right-wing issues? Definitely.
But to characterize them as an assembly line factory of anti-Islamic propaganda and hate material is absurd. Nothing ever said on Fox News about Muslims ever went outside the bounds of acceptable free speech, a concept that needs explaining to a Marxist like Ass’ad Abu Khalil (who of course doesn’t allow comments on his website). Indeed, nothing ever uttered on Fox News or any ring-wing radio commentator could justify the murder of embassy staff.
Without question, to be employed in the American diplomatic corp is to undertake some of the riskiest work in the world. It takes a rare kind of bravery and courage to be an American ambassador or part of an American embassy, especially in the Middle East.
When the matter is viewed impartialy and without the hysterics usually associated with the subject, the West has been astonishingly considerate, generous and accommodating with regards to the Islamic taboo on depictions of Mohamed. Since the Danish cartoons of 2006, not a single depiction of Mohamed has appeared anywhere in the mainstream media. Western media have always taken into consideration Muslim sensitivities on the issue. In a society where anything is fair game for comedy, where depictions of Jesus, Moses and Buddah are common on Saturday Night Live and South Park, Comedy Central wouldn’t even let the creators of South Park depict Mohamed in a bear suit.
Stand up comedians in particular are not well known for their good taste. Indeed, some comedy acts rely on the “inappropriate, sexist, white middle age male bigot” routine, and exploit it to good effect. And yet in all the comedy bars from LA to NY, not a single act has ever impersonated Mohamed.
And yet Abu Khalil has the nerve to say that the West bought it on themselves. The Syrian cartoonist Ali Ferzat was blasted numerous times by Abu Khalil on his blog for the former’s outspoken remarks on regime supporters. Ferzat was beaten almost to death by Abu Khalil’s shabiha friends, his fingers broken, and left for dead by the side of the Damascus airport road. It is very natural for Ferzat to feel bitterness and anger towards those who caused him to flee his country. But apparently, the Leftist understanding and comprehension of other people’s “pain” is limited only to those who ransack American embassies and murder American diplomatic staff.