Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Tuesday, May 22, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
Spinning at The Globe By: FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, November 06, 2007


Given the opportunity to accurately report on the gravest threats facing America today or smear its political opponents, The Boston Globe will choose the latter.

Exhibit A is an editorial from the Globe’s Sunday edition entitled, “A Lazy, Simplistic Analogy.” The feckless feature condemns David Horowitz by name for employing the term “Islamofascism.”

According to the Globe, our “transparent” aim in holding the recent, successful Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week events on college campuses across the nation “was to discredit scholars who insist on making careful distinctions among the various movements and ideologies that are grouped under the rubric of political Islam.” The editors worry, “If all Islamists are carelessly labeled Islamofascists, it becomes practically impossible to distinguish” the Sunni-led Taliban from “the Lebanese Shi’ite movement Hezbollah…Palestinian Hamas or…Al Qaeda.” Real fascists, its editors state, were godless nationalists. Today’s Islamist threat, the Globe spins, consists merely of “stateless fanatics with a purist nostalgia for a seventh-century political and social order. Their primary goal is to overthrow regimes in the Muslim world they disdain as insufficiently Islamic…bin Laden has no panzer divisions.” Besides, “Loose talk about Islamofascism or Islamic terrorism also carries noxious undertones. Such labels intimate that there is something inherently dangerous about all Muslims,” and a violent war against worldwide Islam is “inevitable.”

Becoming overtly political, the Globe claims however obnoxious David Horowitz’s use of the term, “the Republican candidates’ use of ‘Islamofascism’” was “cruder still.” As examples of multiple GOP hopefuls who have used the term, the editorial cites Sam Brownback, who spake the I-word before bowing out of the race; Norman Podhoretz, now a Giuliani advisor, who used the term “Islamic terrorism”; and Mitt Romney, who dared to issue an ad condemning “Jihad,” which he called “a military threat unlike anything we've known before.” In this, the editors see a nascent call to Islamic genocide.

The Globe ends by calling on its readers “not to allow the threat from bin Laden and similar fringe groups to be blown out of proportion.”

Idiocy this rich must be broken into small chunks.

The editors’ Pollyanna belief that Sunnis and Shi’ites could never collaborate is a 9/10 sentiment as dangerous as it is dishonest. Separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda was so difficult, even the Taliban could not do it when George W. Bush offered its leadership the option of surrendering Osama bin Laden before invading their country and toppling their regime. Further, the 9/11 Commission concluded, “The relationship between al-Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shi’a divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations.” In fact, the panel found, “Al-Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah.”T he Commission reported Islamic terrorist conferences, where bin Laden’s Sunni warriors mingled with representatives of the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Elsewhere, Hamas leaders have acknowledged that Hezbollah provided training and “needed funds” to establish the first Hamas cell on the West Bank; according to U.S. and Israeli officials, the groups also coordinate attacks on Israel.

Islamic terrorists understand the maxim, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” while The Boston Globe cannot understand that our enemy is our enemy.

For all the assertion that terrorists were “stateless,” one word was curiously absent from this editorial on “Islamofascism”: Iran. Iran is a totalitarian Islamic state, founded on one charismatic leader’s cult of personality. Its Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah, bends every aspect of his subjects’ earthly lives to Allah’s will, until the Mahdi returns. This violent, repressive, theocratic, misogynistic, and fascist nation is now seeking to acquire weapons far more destructive than “panzer divisions.”

Its terrorist cat’s paw, Hezbollah (“The Party of God”), yearns to establish a second Iran, ruled by Shari’a law, somewhere in the Middle East. The opening of its charter echoes the classical strains of fascism: “We obey the orders of one leader, wise and just, that of our tutor and faqih (jurist) who fulfills all the necessary conditions: Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini. God save him!” Seig, heil!

Al-Qaeda, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, made clear it is “stateless” only for the present. The intercepted letter Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote to the late al-Zarqawi (whom bin Laden appointed ruler of Iraq apart from a democratic vote) featured a detailed plan of action:

  • Drive Americans out of Iraq;
  • Establish a Taliban-like state inside portions of Iraq before gaining control of the whole nation;
  • Topple its secular Islamic neighbors;
  • Re-launch the Islamic caliphate; and
  • Attack the Great Satan.

Had the Democratic Congress passed John Murtha’s withdrawal plan, Zarqawi would be busily launching phase three of this plan.

The fact that these totalitarians are motivated by religion makes them no less totalitarian. Pointing out the fact that Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist Party had been explicitly modeled on the Nazis won us no plaudits from the Left before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Al-Zawahiri’s memo targets Iraqi and Middle Eastern Muslims for subjection first, but the Globe’s assertion that these were his only enemies overlooks Islamists’ peculiar interest in American skyscrapers, embassies, barracks, and naval deployments. As James Woolsey told the audience at the 2004 Restoration Weekend, more than a dozen years ago “bin Laden turned his attention from what he calls the near enemy, such as the Mubarak regime of Egypt, toward the far enemy, or us, whom he calls the Crusaders and the Jews.” To say so would validate the War on Terror, so the editorial elided ten years of terrorist attacks on American targets.

The editors’ PC caterwauling that the term “Islamofascism” portends an impending holocaust ignores the fact that the term originated with moderate Muslims subjugated by Islamofascists, and that the key speakers during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week were Muslim women victimized by such extremists. Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas revealed the term Islamofascism was “initially coined by Algerian people struggling for democracy, against armed fundamentalist forces decimating people in our country, then later operating in Europe, where a number of us had taken refuge.” Others have attributed this term to Khalid Duran, a Moroccan Muslim scholar who once taught at the University of Islamabad. Duran has written that his work “sought to persuade Jews that Islam should not be blamed for its malpractice by certain contemporary Muslims.” He is a member of the Congress of Muslim Americans (CMA), which exists “to organize non-Islamist Muslims.”

Making the connection between hate-filled totalitarians and their fascist forebears of old is not an incitement but an intellectual distinction made by scholars, the very thing the Globe’s editors claim they are safeguarding. Matthias Kuentzel, a onetime advisor to the German Green Party, has written a book on the ideological ties of radical Islam to Nazism entitled, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islam, Nazism, and the Roots of 9/11. Dr. Klaus-Michael Mallman and Martin Cuppers likewise authored the book, Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine (Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina)

Nor is this academic term is not a new one. Princeton professor Manfred Halpern wrote in his 1963 textbook, Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa:

The neo-Islamic totalitarian movements are essentially fascist movements…Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence…An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself. Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

Most importantly, the tie between Islamofacists and European fascists is more than a theoretical matter. The Islamists’ connection to Nazism is well attested by history:

  • During WWII, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem organized the Nazis’ all-Arab unit.

  • Simultaneously, the Muslim Brotherhood provided intelligence to the Nazis and agreed to kill U.S. and UK soldiers alongside Field Marshall Erwin Rommel – who did in fact command divisions of Panzers.

  • The Hamas Charter makes clear it is “one of the wings of” the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Ayman al-Zawahiri brought this ethos into al-Qaeda.

  • Participants in Mohammed Atta’s study group said he propounded a “National Socialist way of thinking.”

With all the Islamic terrorists’ historical/political ties to totalitarianism and active history of collaboration to kill a common enemy – us – The Boston Globe worries about the “subtext” of a term that accurately describes their genesis, methods, and goals.

Curiously, the media have not been overly concerned with “careful distinctions” when it comes to other religions. When Chris Hedges – a former Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times who won a Pulitzer for that newspaper’s coverage of the War on Terror – branded conservative American evangelicals “Christian fascists,” the media did not object, although a Google search for Christian fascism nets 650,000 more results than Islamofascism. Hedges told “Democracy Now!” hostess Amy Goodman that Christians want to exterminate those who disagree with them, preferably thousands at a time. (Watch the video here.) Yet Rick Perlstein opened his Sunday New York Times Book Review of Hedges’ treatise with the sentence, “Of course there are Christian fascists in America.”

No one objected when members of the Revolutionary Communist Party accosted David Horowitz at his speaking engagements, calling him a “Christian fascist.” (He’s neither.) When David Horowitz accurately describes a worldwide movement that once collaborated with Hitler and seeks by violence to establish a universal caliphate, ruled by one theocratic mullah, over all of humanity, it is “hate speech”; when Chris Hedges smears the entire Republican Party as incipient Hiterlites, it’s Pulitzer-worthy.

Or mini-series worthy. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour labored mightily to present Jews and Christians as the equal counterparts of Islamofascists.

And the Center for American Progress’ campus wing, Campus Progress, denounced the term Islamofascism, but its comment board features the term “Judeofascist” numerous times. CAP has yet to delete these references.

Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week’s speakers could never get away with painting Islamists with as broad a brush as Hedges paints Southern Baptists. And what truly separates us from his ilk is that we do not want to. All IFAW speakers noted a minority of the world’s Muslim population accepts “Islamofascistm” and longed for them to accept a moderate, pluralistic Islam in its place. None felt there was anything “inevitable” about a clash between all Muslims and all others.

However, since Islamofascists are the perpetrators of the War on Terror and Western “infidels” are their targets, only Islamofascists can end this war – and they won’t. A clear assessment of these organization’s goals and theology are necessary to strengthen American resolve to protect her own freedoms and continue fighting the terrorists in their chosen battleground: Iraq.

And that is precisely why The Boston Globe’s editors denounced our efforts.



We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com