Bernard Lewis (1976): The Return of Islam
From the foregoing, certain general conclusions emerge. Islam is still the most effective form of consensus in Muslim countries, the basic group identity among the masses. This will be increasingly effective as the regimes become more genuinely popular. One can already see the contrast between the present regimes and those of the small, alienated, Western-educated elite which governed until a few decades ago. As regimes come closer to the populace, even if their verbiage is left-wing and ideological, they become more Islamic. Under the Ba’thist regime in Syria, more mosques were built in the three years after the Jaysh al-Sha’b incident than in the previous thirty.Ben-Dror Yemini: The enlightened and the benighted
Islam is a very powerful but still an undirected force in politics. As a possible factor in international politics, the present prognosis is not very favorable. There have been many attempts at a pan-Islamic policy, none of which has made much progress. One reason for their lack of success is that those who have made the attempt have been so unconvincing. This still leaves the possibility of a more convincing leadership, and there is ample evidence in virtually all Muslim countries of the deep yearning for such a leadership and a readiness to respond to it. The lack of an educated modern leadership has so far restricted the scope of Islam and inhibited religious movements from being serious contenders for power. But it is already very effective as a limiting factor and may yet become a powerful domestic political force if the right kind of leadership emerges.
In the period immediately preceding the outbreak of the Six-Day War in 1967, an ominous phrase was sometimes heard, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.” The Saturday people have proved unexpectedly recalcitrant, and recent events in Lebanon indicate that the priorities may have been reversed. Fundamentally, the same issue arises in both Palestine and Lebanon, though the circumstances that complicate the two situations are very different. The basic question is this: Is a resurgent Islam prepared to tolerate a non-Islamic enclave, whether Jewish in Israel or Christian in Lebanon, in the heart of the Islamic world? The current fascination among Muslims with the history of the Crusades, the vast literature on the subject, both academic and popular, and the repeated inferences drawn from the final extinction of the Crusading principalities throw some light on attitudes in this matter. Islam from its inception is a religion of power, and in the Muslim world view it is right and proper that power should be wielded by Muslims and Muslims alone. Others may receive the tolerance, even the benevolence, of the Muslim state, provided that they clearly recognize Muslim supremacy. That Muslims should rule over non-Muslims is right and normal. That non-Muslims should rule over Muslims is an offense against the laws of God and nature, and this is true whether in Kashmir, Palestine, Lebanon, or Cyprus. Here again, it must be recalled that Islam is not conceived as a religion in the limited Western sense but as a community, a loyalty, and a way of life—and that the Islamic community is still recovering from the traumatic era when Muslim governments and empires were overthrown and Muslim peoples forcibly subjected to alien, infidel rule. Both the Saturday people and the Sunday people are now suffering the consequences.
Jewish terrorism encouraging Arab terrorism?BDS Discredits Itself
The video from the "wedding of hate" was aired on Wednesday's news broadcast. The very next morning, it was a political commentator on Israel Radio - public radio - who thought he still has a chance to spew out his political views. "In my humble opinion," he said, "Arab terrorism encourages Jewish terrorism." He is of course against Jewish terrorism. He's only explaining it and helping understand it. There's no need to provide explanations or to try to understand it, not the Jewish underground of the early 80s, Baruch Goldstein in the 90s, or the "price tag" hooligans in recent years. An understanding of this kind is more suitable for Baruch Marzel, not a political commentator on public radio.
The truth is that the commentator said something completely different: "Jewish terrorism encourages Arab terrorism." And that's interesting. Because support for Jewish terrorism is next to nonexistent. Yes, there are several hundreds of hooligans from the extreme right wing in Israel, and it's safe to assume they have several thousands of supporters, and if we exaggerate, we'll reach something that is less than one percent of the population. Compared to that, Palestinian support of the current wave of terrorism - meaning, slaughtering Jews with knives - is at 67 percent. Even Mahmoud Abbas stresses this is a "justified popular unrest." When a Jew is murdered in a terror attack, candy is being handed out on the Palestinian street. However, when a Palestinian child is murdered by a Jew, and this happens on average once every few years, 99 percent of Israelis are shocked, condemn it, and are feeling remorse. So saying Jewish terrorism encourages Arab terrorism is like saying an ant can carry an elephant.
But damn the facts. When the comment "Jewish terrorism encourages Arab terrorism" is said, it is seen as coming from among the enlightened, the thinkers, and the progressives. But when the opposite it said, that "Arab terrorism encourages Jewish terrorism," it is seen as coming from among the benighted. Both of these statements are benighted. Not just on the right, on the left as well.
The boycott, divestment, sanctions movement has taken a special interest in Malaysia.
That’s not surprising since Malaysia is an aggressive violator of rights. Its Sedition Law permits the government to intimidate its critics, and for this and other reasons it’s press is rated “not free” by Freedom House. Anwar Ibrahim, a leader of the opposition, is serving a jail term for sodomy, “a charge seen as politically motivated,” according to Freedom House. Anti-Semitism is rampant and has received official encouragement. Freedom House also reports discrimination against homosexuals (“same-sex sexual relations are punishable by up to twenty years in prison”), Shiite Muslims (last year 114 Shiites were arrested while attending a religious ceremony), and women. Since BDS is eager to distinguish its attacks on Israel from attacks on Jews, and to define itself as part of a human rights movement, it is refreshing that it has turned its attention to Malaysia.
Sorry, my mistake. The Palestinian BDS National Committee does mention Malaysia prominently in its list of seven major achievements for 2014. But it mentions Malaysia only because a BDS coalition has been established there, as well as in Egypt. The penetration of BDS into anti-Semitic countries with poor human rights records is, from the standpoint of the BDS movement, an exciting sign of its growing international reach.
This is no anomaly. Prominent BDS activists, Ali Abunimah and Anna Baltzer, showed up and spoke at the “BDS for Justice” conference in Kuala Lumpur in September 2015. In her thirty plus minute address, Baltzer had nothing to say about Malaysia’s repression of its own citizens but did have the poor taste to complain before her Malaysian audience of the “state repression” BDS activists supposedly encounter in the U.S. Of course, since Baltzer was speaking at a Malaysian university, and Malaysia, according to the U.S. State Department, restricts academic freedom, “particularly the expression of unapproved political views,” Baltzer couldn’t say anything without risking the punishment of her hosts. Did I mention that one of the reasons BDS deems Israel, whose universities remain centers of dissent, deserving of boycott is its supposed indifference to academic freedom?





















