On the eve of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world from Cairo University, we should remember the dangers of speaking to the Muslim world. I will be blogging more about this, but I think this column remains relevant.
Barack Obama made an unwise commitment during his campaign.
Actually he made quite a number of them, but this column will have to settle for dealing with just one:
Candidate Obama promised to deliver a major speech to the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. On June 4, President Obama will make good on that promise in Cairo.
What could go wrong with this heartwarming outreach? Begin with this question: Does the president regard Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as belonging to the Muslim world, yes or no?
If yes – if “the Muslim world” includes everyone who happens to be born to a family of Muslim origin regardless of his or her own personal belief, and if it includes liberals of Muslim origin, secularists of Muslim origin, atheists of Muslim origin – then it seems almost pointless to speak to them all as a distinctive group.
The more likely answer however is no – Rushdie and Ali are not intended. Almost inevitably, the President’s speech will address the most anti-Western, the most militant, the most radical Muslims. The decision to speak “to” the Muslim world is a decision to speak “to” these rejectionists.
Look at the choice of venue. The President could have spoken from Indonesia or Bangladesh – each of them home to more Muslims than live in the Arab Middle East. In Indonesia and Bangladesh, the prevailing forms of Islam are moderate and tolerant. Each of these countries is working to build a more democratic society, more connected to the global economy.
Instead the President chose Egypt. True, Egypt is an important US ally. Egypt is also the intellectual centre of the most radical forms of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood originated in Egypt, as did Sayyid Qutb, the ideologist of modern jihad. This is the country of Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Ayman Zawahiri. It would be extremely odd to speak from Egypt and not take such men and their ideas into account.
But to do so has an ironic side effect: The very fact that an American president talks about these extremist Muslims — and tries to talk through them to reach their sympathizers – validates them as the most important and significant of Muslim individuals. It risks conceding that these men are somehow the most “authentic” of Muslims, and that their anger and alienation somehow matters more than the desire of other Muslims to live in a more secular society or to participate more fully in the global economy.
Radical Muslims have constructed a narrative in which Islam is oppressed and colonized by the West, Muslims have real and reasonable grievances against the West and any acrimony between Muslims and the West is due to the actions of the West.
Perhaps the President will dispute this narrative. But can he really go to Cairo and dismiss the narrative altogether? Can he say that the problems of Muslim majority countries have little if anything to do with the West — that if they are victimized it is by their own leaders, if they are backward it is due to their own rejection of modern ways of life?
The very act of speaking to individuals of Muslim origin as Muslims concedes a point that an American president should be wary of conceding. No president would ever give a speech to “the Christian world.” He’d take for granted that Christian identity is personal and private, not collective and public. He’d remember that Christian-majority countries contain non-Christian minorities, entitled to equal respect. He’d understand that many in the Christian majority define their identity in terms other than religion; and that the freedom to choose how to define oneself is one of the fundamental principles of a free society.
Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood insist that Islam is inescapably public and political. But why would an American president agree? Yet if he speaks to “the Muslim world” how can he avoid agreeing?
The Pakistani scholar who wants to be free to study the origins of the Koran without fear of violence if he reaches an unorthodox conclusion – isn’t he part of the Muslim world too? The Saudi woman who would like to wear jeans in public? The Iranian youth who would like to convert to the Bahai faith? The Senegalese merchant who prefers the movies to the mosque? The French student who celebrates Ramadan with his parents and Christmas with his girlfriend? Or his boyfriend?
Will the President talk to them? If not – it would be better to stay home.
43 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:29 am
David – did you disregard the handful of comments from the first time you posted this?
In particular, I’m curious whether you still believe that it would have been better to have held the speech in a country like Indonesia or Bangladesh which does not extend diplomatic relationships to Israel, instead of in Egypt, the one democratic Muslim-majority state which does have relationships with Israel?
2 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 8:36 am
David – did you disregard the handful of comments from the first time you posted this?
In particular, I’m curious whether you still believe that it would have been better to have held the speech in a country like Indonesia or Bangladesh which does not extend diplomatic relationships to Israel, instead of in Egypt, the one democratic Muslim-majority state which does have relationships with Israel?
3 midcon // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:05 am
David, Radical muslims have already been validated. They run governments and enforce sharia law. We have a whole war against them. We have spent and are spending billions of dollars to combat them. They’ve been validated. The question is, what do you do about them? We can’t win a war against them in direct combat. So we must use other means. Hearts and minds is not just a military strategy, it needs to be a foreign policy strategy. Ther reason many conservatives are against that type of strategy is the same reason why they refuse to moderate their positions, discourse, and platform – because they live and die by their principles regardless of the cost of the principles. Those are great values when you are providing for your family and defending your country. But in dealing with the rest of the world it is a losing strategy.
I am reminded of an African proverb that found favor with Teddy Roosevelt “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far” If you want to reduce producing guns so that you can produce more butter, perhaps a different approach is worth a try.
When he is talking to the Muslim world, he is talking directly to the radicals and to those who would be influenced by the radicals. Of course is not talking to the entire Muslim world and I doubt seriously if any Muslim believes that.
4 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:13 am
Oh My! Heaven help us if Diplomacy works ROTFLMAO…that’s really the main concern isn’t it David? What’s best for this country and the world taks a back seat to politics in your little world once agan.
IF Obama can make headway that helps this country without going to war? MORE POWER TO HIM.
Now we will see how many Conservatives at this site try to run this moderate Republican off! LOL won’t work but hey you guys waste all the breath you want.
5 Realist // Jun 3, 2009 at 11:28 am
Very risky indeed. The problem lies in the various sensibilities of a particular religious group you are addressing. One cannot assume that Muslims are some sort of homogeneous group that would accept any message delivered in the same way. Think about it: Muslim extremists absolutely LOATHE Muslim governmental organizations, who they feel have sold them out for political and monetary control.
For example, remember that Bin Laden enthusiastically offered his support in fighting against Saddam in Gulf War I, but was turned down by the Saudi Arabian government who wanted nothing to do with him.
You can’t just assume that all Muslims will bite on what the president is selling. His plan seems to be to start with the most loyal Muslim governments first, get some momentum, and ulitimately work his way out to Iran.
If Obama is able to normalize relations with that Iran the way Nixon did with China, it should go a long way in decreasing support for terrorist groups in the middle east. It’s sad that Nixon’s paranoia diluted appreciation for that momentous accomplishment.
6 MFarmer // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:17 pm
This is a political show which will cost a lot of money and change nothing.
7 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I am impressed by how some have a newfound concern for monies spend by the executive branch, be it on a diplomatic engagement or on a night on the town.
It is reminiscent of the flap over the cost of Obama’s inauguration – when it turned out that on an apples to apples comparison (eg, with security costs incorporated in both) it cost almost exactly what Bush’s 2000 inauguration cost.
There are legit reasons to kvetch about various diplomatic efforts by Obama – but “cost a lot of money”? Really? Compared to, say, a tomahawk missle or two?
8 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 12:47 pm
No interaction with the muslim world says David. After all there’s only about 1.4 billion of them worldwide and about 350 million of them in the middle east which is an area of major strategic interest to the US having has it has the major share of proven world oil reserves. It is also therefore an area of major strategic interest to both Russia and China who would be happy to enlarge the rift that has opened up between the muslim middle east and the USA as a consequence of the diplomatic and military blunders of the previous admin. Of course to necons like David the strategic interests of the US in the middle east count for nothing when stacked up against the interests of Israel. The president is making a long overdue effort at out reach that is in the interests of this country. It’s to be applauded.
9 Mike K // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm
You might try reading a bit about the Arab mind, how conciliatory gestures are seen as weakness. Private diplomacy is one thing; public apology tours are quite another.
Iran is run by men who will see his speech as one more green light, like the one he gave when he supported Iran’s quest for nuclear technology. He is deeply naive and that is combined with otherworldly confidence in himself that has no basis in reality.
What could go wrong ? Only nuclear war. He is Chamberlain in 1938 and cannot see it.
10 sinz54 // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I don’t have a problem with Obama speaking, provided he never loses sight of the fact that these Islamist governments, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, are NOT our “friends,” they will never be our friends. At best they can be allies with a common (though probably not permanent) geopolitical interest.
Reagan negotiated with the USSR throughout his Administration. But he correctly labeled them an “evil empire” too.
11 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:32 pm
“You might try reading a bit about the Arab mind, how conciliatory gestures are seen as weakness. “
This sounds like the flip side of the record I was hearing back in 2002/2003 – the Arabs only understand force, and if we hit them hard, they’ll fall in line behind our agenda because they’ll respect us.
Forgive us if we don’t exactly accept the proposition that the right wing has a clue how Arabs really think, or what they really want.
12 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“I don’t have a problem with Obama speaking, provided he never loses sight of the fact that these Islamist governments, like Iran and Saudi Arabia, are NOT our “friends,” “
I agree with you there, Sinz. Completely. We don’t need to be looking into the eyes of our opponents and reading their souls. We need more “trust but verify”.
Let’s face it, though – when Obama talks respectfully about how Cheney was only doing what he believed best for America’s security … do you think that Obama really believes that? When he meets with conservative pundits, or the Republican legislative quorum, do you think he harbors any illusions that as soon as he turns his back the knives won’t come out?
I assume that he’ll act the same way with the nations of the Middle East. As you say – find places where there can be common interests and alliances, but be aware that their overall goals and worldview will not in the near term coincide perfectly with ours. To that extent, he’s a big improvement over an administration that simply believed that by extending the vote to people they’d immediately vote the way you wanted.
13 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Mike K
wrote 15 minutes ago
“You might try reading a bit about the Arab mind, how conciliatory gestures are seen as weakness.”
…….And what exactly is your personal knowledge of the “Arab mind”…..leaving aside btw that the Iranians aren’t Arabs. Having spent a fair time in the oil business I’ve actually had quite a lot of interaction with them, not to mention some when I was in the military, and you couldn’t be more wrong. “Face” is certainly important but public conciliatory gestures are seen as a sign of both self confidence and mutual respect. On Iran, of course the Bush admin were enormously succesful. You claim to be a student of history and yet you trot out the usual banal and completely inapposite comparisons with Chamberlain in 1938. There isn’t the remotest comparison between the head of a grossly overextended imperial power that was perilously weak militarily negotiating with dictator of country that was the foremost military power at the time and had a gnp that was twice the size of Britain’s, and the president of the world’s major superpower with a military whose capability dwarfs that of all others. The fact you can’t understand this simple fact tell us all we need to know about your historical perspective.
14 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:09 pm
balconesfault
“Let’s face it, though – when Obama talks respectfully about how Cheney was only doing what he believed best for America’s security … do you think that Obama really believes that? When he meets with conservative pundits, or the Republican legislative quorum, do you think he harbors any illusions that as soon as he turns his back the knives won’t come out?”
Here you admit two things. First, Obama is lying or pretending. Second, that you believe partisanship is a one way street directed at your guy. My, you are sooo sophisticated!
“This sounds like the flip side of the record I was hearing back in 2002/2003 – the Arabs only understand force, and if we hit them hard, they’ll fall in line behind our agenda because they’ll respect us”
No one ever said that they ALL, or even most, would fall in line behind our agenda. Never was this fight, the fight that continues as we speak under a new administration, portrayed as something that could be solved overnight or even in a decade. So after a few years and a lot of success. IE Iraq, Afghanistan and no new terror attacks on US soil you say:
“Forgive us if we don’t exactly accept the proposition that the right wing has a clue how Arabs really think, or what they really want.”
This is more disingenuous drivel, and you clearly DON’T have a clue into the Muslim mind.
They are laughing at Obama! They are calling him a “house slave”. Wait till you hear what they say about his speech. Obama isn’t going to be heard by peasants. They will get the Arab MSM treatment and spin. They will get the spin that it is conciliatory and that he is weak and desperately lying.
Unlike in the US where he has friend in the high places of the media, he is wading into treacherous territory and I believe he is naive in some ways and cynical in others. He also wants to gain Muslims PERSONAL trust. He wants them to like HIM, not necessarily America. That does us no good whatsoever. In fact it does us harm.
Why don’t you take a trip to Syria or Yemen and talk to the locals in the cafes? Tell them how great Obama is and that everything is different now that Obama is here and Bush is gone and try not to get yourself decapitated.
Do it AFTER the speech when they like Americans though, be sure to tell them you voted for Obama that should help a little..
15 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Frum understands Muslims better than he understands Democrats. He is 100% right on this.
16 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I find it fascinating that Obama was all about how he was a christian during the campaign and anyone who used his middle name (Milhous) was playing dirty, But now he is a proud decedent of a Muslim father, who he in the campaign trail claimed was agnostic and he didn’t know him.
And this is also reckless, because Muslims believe if you were born of a muslim father and then convert to another faith you are an apostate. This is a serious offense. They hate apostates even more than infidels.
It is all coming out how Obama is a liar and plays his advantages as though Americans are idiots. This is the President you elected. By 2012 he’ll be gone.
17 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Hey, maybe Obama can talk to the Christian World from say, Mexico, and tell us how America doesn’t want to abort babies and that we should have a dialogue and that we should stop demonizing abortionists – they are really good people once you get to know them and that Obama himself is a Christian. This would help keep the attacks from coming from Christians down to less than one per decade.
18 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Hey, Barry, don’t say anything about “clinging to guns and religion” in Cairo, okay?
19 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 2:56 pm
“They are laughing at Obama! They are calling him a “house slave”. “
The extremists are … because they fear his success.
Another point in common with right wing extremists over here, I might add.
20 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm
In sha’ Allah, Obama will be a smashing success. Hope and Change. We are home free. All he needs to do is connect with them like he did Democrats. Can’t wait.
They feared Bush’s success too, didn’t they? Which the left wing helped thwart and blunt in EVERY way.
I hope they don’t do to Obama what they did to Sadat. Biden will get us all killed. He’ll blurt out the secret codes for the “football”.
21 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Here are the first two words the Muslims want to hear from Obama: Allah Akbar! Otherwise he’s not going to get very far.
22 MFarmer // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:14 pm
“I am impressed by how some have a newfound concern for monies spend by the executive branch, be it on a diplomatic engagement or on a night on the town.
It is reminiscent of the flap over the cost of Obama’s inauguration – when it turned out that on an apples to apples comparison (eg, with security costs incorporated in both) it cost almost exactly what Bush’s 2000 inauguration cost.
There are legit reasons to kvetch about various diplomatic efforts by Obama – but “cost a lot of money”? Really? Compared to, say, a tomahawk missle or two?”
There’s nothing newfound about my concern for government wasting money. I’m non-partisan, so your spiel is empty. I’m just as much against Republican presidents wasting money as I am Democrat presidents wasting money, even if it’s peanuts compared to the real waste of their grand schemes — plus, I believe in non-intervention, so i think we could save some money on those Tomahawk missiles, too. I have to say, I’m unimpressed with your response.
23 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Obama and Axelrod crafting his Cairo speech.
Scene: the Oval Office
Obama: My fellow Muslims…. no, that won’t work…
Obama: Dear Muslim friends,
Axelrod: er, no we want to reach out to those who hate us, they’ll be insulted if we call them friends.
Obama: Ok, how ’bout, “those of you Muslims who can hear let him or her, hear..
Axelrod: No Barry not “him or her” only him this is Egypt not San Fransisco
Obama: But Michelle won’t like that at all.
Axelrod: Well she’s gonna have to live with it – send her off on a shopping trip I’ll make sure Andrea Michell invites her out
Obama: Good thinking..
Obama: Allah u Akbar!
Axelrod: Works for me. You don’t have to mean it..
Obama: Since when has that had to do with anything?
Both: (Laughter)
24 balconesfault // Jun 3, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I apologize then for lumping you with the many who enjoyed Bushian pagentry and suddenly are appalled at Obama spending money. The cost of the Bush visit to Great Britian, for example, was staggering if I recall correctly.
Personally, I’ll agree that we spend way too much money in foreign entanglements – and I believe that those entanglements help make us a target. I’m not sure how much “bang for the buck” we get out of most Presidential junkets … phones seem to work great, and why should they have 250 staffers along? But in this case, I differ in opinion from you, and think that we could get significant payback from this trip, particularly when you consider the burn rate we’re still maintaining in the Middle East conflicts.
25 ottovbvs // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Franco
wrote 24 minutes ago
After six or seven postings full of ranting Franco turns to fantasy…..his natural metier……Rant away Franco it’s not making a dimes worth of difference, the president is dominating the scene and is obviously going to make a big push for some sort of middle east settlement early in his term……not that you’re interested in a middle east settlement however beneficial it is for the US.
26 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I’m having fun. You otto are here…. for what?
27 ChristianMiller // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:13 pm
“…the president is dominating the scene and is obviously going to make a big push for some sort of middle east settlement early in his term……not that you’re interested in a middle east settlement however beneficial it is for the US.’
I have to admit, that is funnier than anything I have come up with on this thread. A middle east settlement? LOL And I’M in a fantasy world? HAhahahah
28 MFarmer // Jun 3, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“But in this case, I differ in opinion from you, and think that we could get significant payback from this trip, particularly when you consider the burn rate we’re still maintaining in the Middle East conflicts.”
What do you see as the significant benefits of this trip?
29 Mike K // Jun 3, 2009 at 9:53 pm
“Forgive us if we don’t exactly accept the proposition that the right wing has a clue how Arabs really think, or what they really want”
Forgive us if we think the left wing hasn’t a clue about real life and economics. That certainly was an exchange of views, wasn’t it? You consistently show a juvenile attitude to others who don’t agree.
I’m afraid this site has attracted its share of moonbats. No arguments; just abuse and bluster.
Good night.
30 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:32 am
I know that the far right doesn’t even think that moderates have a clue about economics or real life or all the threats that are out there … much less “the left wing”.
31 ChristianMiller // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:50 am
Evidence Iranian leaders are smarter than 53% of US voters:
“Even if they give sweet and beautiful talks to the Muslim nation … that will not create a change,” said Khamenei, Iran’s most powerful figure with the final say on all matters of state. “Nothing will change with speeches and slogans.”
Obama: Unclench your fist… Please?….pretty please???….pretty please with sugar on top???
32 ottovbvs // Jun 4, 2009 at 5:55 am
Franco
4:10 PMI’m having fun. You otto are here…. for what?
….Amusement, masochism, a mission for sanity, an argumentative streak, insights into the far right mind, schadenfreude…..hard to say…..however he’s made the speech and I checked….the sky is still up there.
33 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:03 am
More fear mongering from David…..try to bump those hits on this site David! Walk faster buddy!
Imagine the total egg on the faces of these people if diplomacy works! LOL I can hear Cheney and the band of monkey spanking reprobates turning it around to sound like they supported it! You David? They will hang out to dry……
34 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:14 am
“Even if they give sweet and beautiful talks to the Muslim nation … that will not create a change,” said Khamenei, Iran’s most powerful figure with the final say on all matters of state. “Nothing will change with speeches and slogans.”
And those, my friends, are the words of a man who is seriously scared that in fact his people WILL begin to listen to Obama … and will compare what Khamenei and his clerics offer, and what Obama offers … and choose Obama.
It is no coincidence, methinks, that this speech came right in the run-up to the Iranian elections.
35 ChristianMiller // Jun 4, 2009 at 6:50 am
balconesfault,Bulldoglover100,
Haha Dream on. Oh, he’s quaking in his galabaya. You obviously know nothing of Iran, the Iranian people and Iranian media and politics.
“…if diplomacy works! LOL” Really dreaming here. My God you people are deluded! Do you really believe Bush, Clinton going back to 1992 or even Carter who brokered a peace (only because Sadat decided to try it, with the help of massive bribes to all parties) haven’t tried everything already? Do you have any idea how complex these issues are? How entrenched the beliefs and hatred? That even if Obama worked diplomatic miracles, any leaders signing on to the deal would be assassinated like Anwar Sadat? Arafat turned down the best deal he could ever have gotten from Clinton Why? Because he wanted to live to see another year. Furthermore, if the Palestinian/Israel problem were to magically go away tomorrow, they would invent more reasons to hate Israel and America.
The level of naivete about this is staggering. Nothing wrong with not knowing things, but the fact that you think you know enough about this is embarrassing. You both are showing yourselves to be clueless dreamers.
36 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:03 am
“Do you have any idea how complex these issues are?”
Yep. But we’re encouraged that someone from the far right acknowledges it. That’s a huge step from “they’re all evil, we’re all good”, and therefore commendable progress.
37 balconesfault // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:08 am
“Do you have any idea how complex these issues are?”
Yep. But we’re encouraged that someone from the far right acknowledges it. That’s a huge step from “they’re all evil, we’re all good”, and therefore commendable progress.
38 ChristianMiller // Jun 4, 2009 at 7:21 am
balconesfault Well you just put more of your ignorance on display. The “far right” is not the same as the stereotype you have in your brain.
39 RLHotchkiss // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:09 pm
I have to say that I am pretty blown away by Frum’s cultural ignorance. It is a truly quite stunning. Am I oppressed because most employers wouldn’t let me wear a mini-skirt or shorts to work? Why can’t I wear knee length shorts to work when ladies can wear knee length skirts. Is it because we are obsessed male shins? Is it because our women overlords think of us as soul less half human beast?
Am I crushed by christian oppression because I can’t walk around in penis cap, for which the weather in San Diego is perfect. If you are you are going to degrade the choices of Muslim women from your own shallow understanding of Islam and Arabic culture than you are the one that it is putting the wind pipe on women liberty in Islamic states.
Must orthodox Jewish women throw away their wigs in public and show their own hair. Are the orthodox women who attend services separated from men right across the street from the apartment where I am writing oppressed? Must I barge in and tear down that screen to liberate them.
What about the Jewish men does covering their heads represent some strange head fetish. If we allow Jewish students to attend class so dressed are damning them to inequality.
There is discrimination in Islamic countries against women. The head coverings are sometimes used as a means of controlling women. But forcing them to forgoe them doesn’t free them. It just shows Muslim men that we don’t respect their women either.
Islam like all religions has complicated issues with gender and sexuality. But it is not a Gordian knot that can be cut by stripping of the veil.
40 RLHotchkiss // Jun 4, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Fundamentally republicans lost because of their incompetence in foreign policy. It is amazing how many otherwise intelligent people seem to have drunk the kool aid. Islam may be many things but it isn’t an unusually violent or oppressive religion.
Only by Ignoring sub Saharan Africa, South America, Northern Ireland, the Former republics of the Soviet Union, The Sikhs, the Tamil people, Hindus and countless other people can you paint Islam as unique source of violence.
Islam has its problems but a foreign policy based on the sins of Islam will be of no use as the world turns its attention from oil to the mineral riches of sub Saharan Africa and the Lithium mines of Bolivia.
What has changed is not that Islam is not a threat but that the Middle East is no longer the focus of our most pressing problems. Republicans like to say that relations with Islam can’t be focused on the Israel Peace deal. But the real truth is we can’t continue to base our dealings with Muslims on Israel when we have thousands of troops in Afghanistan a deteriorating situation in Pakistan a country with actual operational nukes and far more dangerous radicals than those in Iran.
The world has moved on Frum. Americas balance of interest if not our hearts has shifted east. Israel will have to make what peace it can. And anyone who tells them the America is going to be there for them like in the past should talk to some Vietnamese, some Koreans, some Czechs, some Cubans, and some Taiwanese. I remember in high school a Vietnamese girl spit out with such bitterness the promises that were made to her parents.
Those who utter such promises to the Israelis are just doing the same.
We love Israel, but strategically we have moved on. To pretend different will be to lead Israel to its ruin.
41 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 12:33 pm
RLHotchkiss asks: “Am I oppressed because most employers wouldn’t let me wear a mini-skirt or shorts to work?”
No. But you would be oppressed if your husband beat you with a stick for daring to wear clothing he disapproved of. And if the courts always sided with him against you.
Surveys have found that wife-beating is endemic in the Muslim world. In Pakistan, an amazing 85% of wives report being beaten by their husbands.
42 sinz54 // Jun 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
RLHotchkiss claims: “Islam may be many things but it isn’t an unusually violent or oppressive religion.”
Yes it is.
Because the Quran specifically calls out the adherents of the other two great Western religions (Judaism and Christianity). And it gives them an ultimatum. They must either:
1. Convert to Islam; or
2. Be willing to be second-class citizens within an Islamic country, paying a special tax; or
3. Flee; or
4. Die.
The peaceful parts of the Quran were written during Mohammed’s stay at Mecca. He journeyed to Medina, trying out his stuff on the local Jews. They said no thanks. He got very angry. And when he got to Medina, that’s when he wrote all that angry stuff in the Quran about convert-or-submit-or-flee-or-die.
And it’s still in there.
If you want specific quotes, I’ll be happy to supply them.
43 RLHotchkiss // Jun 5, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I could give you equal quotes from the bible. One of the primary religious text of Hinduism involves Arjuna being instructed to set aside his moral qualms about leading an apocalyptic war.
Islam certainly wouldn’t be a religion that I am attracted to. But the reality is that even during the recent heights of terrorism there were equally horrific acts of terror being committed in the name of Christ. Just because we chose to ignore Sub Saharan Africa, doesn’t mean that it does not in fact exist.
There have been any number of murderous terrorist organizations waging mayhem in the name of Christ and the ten commandments. Religion is a tool like a gun. The problem is how it is use.
I am not saying that there is not differences between religions. I certainly am not attracted to Islam. But religious terror would still exist without Islam and it is quite possible to use Christianity and even Hinduism for that purpose.
You must log in to post a comment.