Incitement against Muslims in the United States

In general, I do not think that Arabs and Muslims have problems on the streets of America. In addition, until recently, the American model was admired by not only Arabs and Muslims, but also by many others.

The problem lies with a number of advocates for hate, or with those who practice “intellectual terrorism.” They use their positions as heads of media, economic and political institutions to widen the gap between America and Muslims. They also work for the special interests of Israel and for electoral and political interests of the United States. Along with these “double agents” there are also a number of Christian fundamentalists or Neo-Christians. These groups are the reason for the collapse of the relationships between America and Muslims. Of course, the role of some Muslims who also, through their words and actions, seek to widen the gap between these two groups, cannot be ignored.

For example, Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the house in the U.S. Congress said, “the Israeli people are facing the threat of a nuclear Holocaust.”* He connected the fate of the American people to Israel by saying “the United States could lose a few million people or a number of cities to a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction.”* Could that be anything but a publicity stunt?

This former representative, who has a passion for Israel, states —in the first part of the above quote — that Israel is threatened by a possible nuclear attack. This is obvious incitement against the Shiite Muslims in Iran. Unfortunately some Iranian policies and press releases help the promoters of these lies. Notice the second part of his quote: that millions of Americans are threatened with annihilation and that a number of American cities are threatened with being wiped off the map by an al-Qaeda terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction. This is clear incitement against Sunni Muslims who are often times grouped together with al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda press releases only add fuel to Newt Gingrich’s fire. Gingrich rebukes President Obama because he is exposing Israel to danger due to his vision of establishing a Palestinian state. He is also is the one who once said that, “the Sharia (Islamic law) is fundamentally based on principles that are terrifying to the West.”*

Contrary to Gingrich, President Obama believes that the first line of defense in the ‘War on Terrorism’ is the Afghan front. Gingrich responded to this belief by simply stating “he is wrong.” He then added, “I believe there are three fronts in the war on terrorism: the first is here in the United States, the second is in Europe, and the third is in the Middle East.”* His objective here is clear, to connect the Middle East issue or the Israeli war against Arabs with the war on terrorism in America as the first front and the war on terrorism in Europe as the second. This war has come to mean, according to the Israeli apologists in Washington, “the War on Islam.” Daniel Pipes is one of those who vow to defend Israel. He said, in absolute confidence, during the American electoral campaigns, that if Obama wins, Bush will attack Iran during the remaining weeks of his presidency because he knows Obama will not do it. He said this based on security ideals rather than on any actual analysis.

The smear campaigns that some countries have been exposed to by supporters of Israel, for example, Saudi Arabia, are similar to some of what has been mentioned in this article. They use these campaign tactics in the name of women’s and worker’s rights. They also use them against deals for the sale of American weapons to arm the Saudi army with modern American arms and for calling for a boycott of Saudi Arabia and halting Saudi oil imports.

Turkey has also not been immune to the fire of Israeli interest groups in Washington and New York. Pipes says that Recep Tayyip Erdogan has a hidden agenda and that a number of those around him hold different beliefs than those who guard Turkey’s secularism, saying that they are members of “the military, judges, and public service officers”* in Turkish institutions. Pipes goes on to add that Erdogan seeks to dismantle the secular revolution of Ataturk and implement Sharia law in its place. The final result of the plans of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) is “the Islamic Republic of Turkey.”

It is strange that these apologetic elements are warning Europe of the growing role of Turkey in order to prohibit it from joining the “Christian Club”; at the same time, they are also warning of Turkey’s growing distance with the West and of the Turks leaning towards Arabs and Muslims. Supports of Israel in the United States have succeeded in convincing Americans that the fate of America is somehow linked to the fate of Israel. They contend that the Israeli front is the most important front for America’s war on terrorism and that the Israeli army pays its taxes in blood in order to provide Americans with the black liquor that is essential to their economy. They have also, to a certain extent, succeeded in concealing their real objectives of attacking American Arabs and Muslims for the interest of Israel. Additionally, they have succeeded in preventing American support for Israel’s accountability as well as limiting criticism of Israel in American media.

An official from CNN said that previously, in one day, the network received upwards of 6 thousand emails and text messages complaining that the broadcasts were anti-Israel. The biggest success of those in control of Congress is that it now seems that Congress is split into three parts instead of two: the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Knesset. Surprisingly, the Knesset seems to be the most moderate of these three bodies.

Despite attempts of researchers to appear loyal to America and American values, they sometimes let show their real goal of protecting the interests of Israel or Judaism in the United States and abroad. Daniel Pipes says, “The growing presence and increasing impact of Muslims in the United States will pose a real threat to American Jews.”* When Pipes was appointed to the board of the United States Institute for Peace, English-American journalist Christopher Hitchens wrote an article titled, “Pipes is Not a Man of Peace.” In reference to Pipes’ hostility towards the mission of the institute, namely promoting peace, he states, “When I read that Daniel Pipes had been nominated to the board of the United States Institute of Peace (a federally funded body whose members are proposed by the president and confirmed by the Senate), my first reaction was one of bafflement. Why did Pipes want the nomination? After all, USIP, a somewhat mild organization, is devoted to the peaceful resolution of conflict.” He goes on to mention that Pipes is hostile to promoting peace, the mission of the institute.

In spite of past success achieved by supporters of Israel, it seems that the Israeli lobby has begun to feel that while they are still the main players, they are no longer only ones on the field. The formation of an American academic movement that follows the Israeli lobby and its dealings poses a threat to it. This movement has reached its peak with the work of two American researchers, John Mearsheimer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard University. These two men have accurately unveiled the size of Israeli groups, their influence on American foreign policy and their counterproductivity in regard to American national interests. Also, this movement has called for a number of boycotts of Israel on both sides of the Atlantic.

Israel’s extreme policies, which embarrass its allies, form the main line of support for these anti-Israel movements in Washington while also strengthening the justification of Israel’s enemies.

*Editor’s Note: These quotations, while accurately translated, could not be verified