« John Kerry off to Pakistan to "calm" diplomatic tensions |
Blog Home Page
| Inflation on the way? Or another false alarm? »
February 15, 2011
Revelations in Gaddafi's Double-Speak
In efforts to appeal to Western sensibilities, Muammar Gaddafi has just called for Palestinians to "amass peacefully along Israel's borders until it gives in to their demands."
For the West to believe his suggestion is a call to "peaceful" protest, it would take unbelievable naiveté. First of all, Gaddafi has long been unwaveringly anti-Israel, so if these "peaceful" protests adopt the direction of his ideology, they will be calling for a dissolving of Israel. And demanding that a country cease existing is not a "peaceful" aim.
In the best-case scenario, Palestinians will simply be protesting to allow new settlements within Israel's borders. But as a sovereign state, isn't it the prerogative of Israel to dictate its own policy regarding the allowance of foreign settlement? To illustrate this point, consider how the international community might view Israel if its citizens amassed on the borders of Arabian countries, and demanded that Jewish settlements be constructed in spite of sovereign rule. Would that be an act of "peaceful" protest? If not, why? It is an absolute fact that far more Jews were displaced from Arabia than the number of Arabs displaced from the area Israel occupies. Don't they have the right to demand that Arab states allow settlement and rights to displaced Jews?
Of course they don't, nor should they. But with Western liberalism currently dictating international sentiment, being an indistinct victim supersedes any logic in the notion of "sovereignty." And that is exactly what the Palestinian-Arab is: an indistinct victim.
Muammar Gaddafi knows this, and he is using the Palestinian's victim status and this "call for peace" to manipulate Western liberals. But in that very same breath, he tells the people in the Middle East something far, far different. And what he tells them essentially verifies what we hear from those zany right-wing conspiracy theorists that throw around all those scary terms.
Let's take Glenn Beck, for example. He has been panned by the left as a fear-monger for recognizing the role fundamental Islam plays in Egyptian reformation, and for his recurring use of the term "caliphate." David Corn of PoliticsDaily.com derogatorily suggests that Beck "claims that the rebellion is not about the people, not about democracy. Instead, he says, it's a move by radical Islamists to take over Egypt, as part of a larger plan to install a caliphate."
David Corn may blindly scoff at Beck's claim that a caliphate is the aim of some elements in these rebellions, but Gaddafi certainly wouldn't. Why does Muammar think these rebellions have formed? He believes it is a "response to American arrogance toward the Islamic nation and in response to its hegemony of the Islamic world... It was a response to ... the submission of rulers in the Islamic world, the subservience of rulers in the Islamic world to this arrogance from Europe and the United States."
Maybe David Corn is unaware of what the term "caliphate" means, but as a simple definition, it is exactly what Gaddafi suggests that the Islamic world wants but Americans oppose: a "hegemonic Islamic empire." Muammar Gaddafi is an influential leader of the region who is deeply intimate with Middle Eastern affairs, and even he has suggested that the current revolts are meant to defy the West by continuing to strive toward hegemonic and Islamic governance, or a "caliphate."
Apparently, Beck's not so crazy after all. Perhaps Mr. Corn should apologize to Glenn, though I'd wager he's as blind to the concept of humility as he is to fundamental Islam's demand for "hegemony." (Quran, Surah 8:39)
But Gaddafi doesn't stop there. He gives the Muslim world a call to action in order to achieve those ends. According to a report by Ali Shuaib and Salah Sarrar:
This is nothing less than an attempt to consolidate power in anticipation of a conflict, not an effort to perpetuate "peace." And for the "green" countries, this conflict is not to be against the enemies of human rights, or freedom, or democracy. According to Gaddafi, it is to be a conflict pitting Islam against the enemies of Islam.
Maybe someone can preemptively grab a dictionary of Islamic terms for Mr. David Corn, and let him know that this is called "jihad," and that it's not just an ugly word used to scare people, either.
The purpose of Gaddafi's double-speak is two-fold. His call to peacefully protest is meant to continue the international victimization of Palestinians, thereby legitimizing Middle Eastern opposition to Israel and the West. And his call to unification in the Muslim world is meant to seize the rising tide of fundamental Islamic values in the region, which he knows can, and likely will, naturally catch on in dominantly Islamic countries. And when it does, the people can easily transition from "peaceful protest" to "jihad," and strive toward Islamic hegemony.
It seems that Muammar clearly understands the way much of the Islamic world sees these revolutions. I'd feel much better if our president had an ounce of that understanding. I think that recognizing the significant and dangerous role that fundamentalist Islam plays in Middle Eastern politics would be a good start.
William Sullivan blogs at: politicalpalaverblog.blogspot.com