Benghazi, Cairo and who knows what's next.

Now if Teddy Roosevelt were POTUS the shores of the Mediterranean would soon be darkened by carriers and the city of Benghazi would cease to exist. But I'm just crazy, right?

Some headlines from our dear friends on the Left.
Let's start with the Huffington Post.

1. Mitt Romney Attacks President Obama Over Libya Crisis by Ryan Grim & Joshua Hersh

2. Mitt Romney Response To Libya, Egypt Attacks Called 'Irresponsible,' 'Craven,' 'Ham-Handed' by Jack Mirkinson

3. Libyan Consulate Attack: Who's to Blame? by Kristen Brietweiser

4. Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement. by Ben Smith

5. No More Benghazis by Dr. Joseph Blady

6. Libya's Lesson: Extremism Begets Extremism by Ahmed Shihab-Eldin

7.Sam Bacile, Anti-Islam Filmmaker, In Hiding After Protests by Sahya Tayefee Mohajar

Over at Common Dreams

8.The Tragic Consulate Killings in Libya and America's Hierarchy of Human Life

The murder of American staff over a hate film is an unmitigated wrong. But so are deaths caused by the US that go unremarked by Glenn Greenwald

So as usual the Left will blame us in their continuing attempt to bring down the country in the face of murderous rage. In the NY Post today one of their movie critics called for the burning of the offending film because it was so badly done. What excuse does he have for how Salman Rushdie was treated by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his fatwa calling for Rushdie's murder. He was driven into hiding with armed guards, one of his translators stabbed to death, another gravelly wounded. Was Rushdie's book badly written, or is Islam a 1500 year old death cult. Like I said at the beginning, level the damn place, let God sort them out.

JimG33  

On the Tenth Anniversary

Some musings on the condition of our thought ten years after 9/11.

While passing through a series of writings on the anniversary of 9/11, either the entire piece or just the headline I was stuck by one consistency, whether conservative or progressive we seldom look at Islam. We have a series of euphemisms ranging from Islamist to the now discredited Islamo-faschist to fundamentalist to “man caused disaster,” now all shoveled under the rubric of Islamaphobia. For ten years now we have been calling Islam the religion of peace, or saying that the Abrahamic religions have so much in common that all must be guilty of violence in the past, therefore all must be searching for peace in the present. Yet the differences between the three monotheisms are not in the person of the patriarch Abraham, but in their approach to, or lack of theological thinking.

To start maybe I should try to find a useful definition of theology. In Webster’s New Collegiate (1975) the definition given is The study of God and his relation to the world esp. by analysis of the origins and teachings of an organized religious community (as the Christian Church). It is interesting that the dictionary uses the Christian Church as its standard, since if we are going to study all of the Monotheisms and their various theologies Christianity is the easiest one for Americans, with our natural bias toward the Protestant churches even among our atheists. For Christians the questions of theology are what is the nature of Christ’s divinity, how much is human, how much divine? Also what is the individual worshiper’s relation to Jesus? These questions go back to the beginning of Christianity in all its forms, those that still exist and those that don’t. These questions still haunt us in our post Christian world.

In Judaism, if a non believer may be so bold as to present an argument, theological questions are those that define the relationship between God and his people and how this relationship may manifest it self in the world. The history of this relationship is presented in the Bible and the commentary on the history of that relationship is at the center of the Talmud.

What is the theology of Islam? I don’t think there is one, or at least that the relationship between the believer and Allah is one of such distance that the believer is left without any personal relation to the deity beyond that of Master and Slave. The profession of the faith, La Illah Illa Allah, or There is no God but God, known as the Shahadah, is not only impersonal but ahistorical as well, in the sense that this phrase exits out side of history. Allah or God is simply there, he gives you a law which must be followed, and judges you at the end of your life. For the simple Muslim this profession, plus the other pillars of the faith are enough. Those pillars are the daily regimen of prayer, the Ramadan fast, the paying of the Zagat to aid the poor, and the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his lifetime. However if this is all that is needed then why a lifetime devoted to study?

Islam is a religion based on writings, the foundation being the Quran. The Quran is a book on a table in Paradise and is perfect in form and content. It is not written by Allah, though it speaks of Him. It is not written by Muhammad, though it speaks to him. Through a series of revelations the Surahs, or verses, of the Quran were dictated by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) to Muhammad from 610 until his death in 632. It is through these revelations and his subsequent teaching that Muhammad gained his reputation of Prophet. It is the perfection of the Quran that proves that Muhammad is the final prophet. Though Muhammad preached these Surahs they were only written down and codified during the reign of the third Caliph Uthman (650-651). The profession of the faith may be the start of Islam for the average Muslim but depth of understanding requires guided study of the Quran based in the works of credentialed scholars and the first step on the road to understanding the religious sciences is the memorization of the Quran in the language of God, Arabic.

 The Hadith is also an important part of this road; it is the collected sayings and acts of Muhammad, his Companions and Helpers and gives much aid in finding the way that the true Muslim should live. Since Muhammad was the perfect man he must have led the perfect life.

Over the centuries these two sets of writings have been studied and commented on resulting in the Shari’a, or God’s Law. This is the job of the ulama, the community of the trained and credentialed scholars. Through the process known as fiqh these men will study any new ruling in the light of precedent and metaphor, the use of reason having been abolished with the crushing of the Mu’tazilisites in the ninth century by the Hanballi school, to find if that new ruling can be added to the corpus of the law. Since there is no Pope in Islam, and four schools of jurisprudence, this area of study can be contentious.

With the importation of the Shari’a into our courtrooms our politicians, state and local judges increasingly feel they must make exceptions to our local laws, in favor of Shari’a rulings when they pertain to marital and property cases involving Muslims even when local law is plain. In a recent example, a judge in New Jersey acquitted a man on charges of spousal abuse when he presented into evidence the Shari’a passages that justified his actions. Another developing problem is the Abumattalab underwear bomber case. Since he is acting as his own council he demands to be tried as a Muslim warrior under the rules of Shari’a as they pertain to the conduct of Jihad. He therefore feels that he stands above the laws of the United States, these laws being Jahiliyyah, or the equivalent to the laws of medieval Arabia before the cleansing of the Kabba at Mecca and are therefore beneath the Law of God.

Another real problem, however, is what is, or what is not, Jihad. For most of our intellectuals the problem can simply be written off as a personal struggle to become a better Muslim, or relegated to the time of the great conquests of the seventh century. Until we return to the position of the average Muslim. This person has only the most rudimentary understanding of the religion the Five Pillars being enough for him. For our pundits desperately searching for a way out of this war all that is necessary for a true definition of jihad more to their liking is for some group of scholars, or just a clutch of average Muslims to write that Jihad does not mean war or any other type of violence; except Islam don’t work like that.

Jihad is worked through the warp and woof of the Quran so deeply that the five pillars are irrelevant to its definition. Although there is some dispute as to the number there are about 164 Quran verses dedicated to Jihad; how it is be fought by Muhammad and his community against their enemies, how Allah requires it against unbelievers and those that don’t submit to his worship, how the booty taken (valuables, land and slaves) is to be distributed, how those Muslims that shrink from the field of battle face the fires of hell, and those who die in the way of Allah will be seen as martyrs as the gates of Paradise are opened by their swords. Therefore no one who is not a member of the ulama has anything relevant to say about the concept that can hold any sway with the community of scholars, and it is this community that defines the life of a good Muslim. Thus the aspiring Mujihadeen, the soldier for Allah, has many verses to refer to that justify any type of violence. Here is just one of the many references in the Quran on the subject:

            

Surah 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Surah 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 

Surah 2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Surah 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Surah 2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil). [From the Pickthal translation of the Quran.]

Certainly doesn’t sound like the Sermon on the Mount with its admonition to turn the other cheek does it. What it also means is that there is no rational way to end this war, as if there was ever any rational way to end any war. If the war is to go on till all “religion is for Allah” then all the world is a battle field, and everyone in the world is on a side, whether he knows it or not.

            Even when the war is won and the Shari’a is imposed over the defeated people it doesn’t end there. Those People of the Book, Christians and Jews, are degraded to the status of dhimmis, those who are disarmed and protected by the Muslims. In this degraded state they must pay a poll tax known as the jizya. Under some Muslim rulers the tax was on the community, under others it was on the individual and it was never standardized. The Quran verse that calls for this tax is 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (The Bible in other words, Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The feeling of submission took may forms from the wearing of certain clothes, never riding horses, giving up parts of their houses of worship, and stepping into the gutter when a Muslim walked by. For worshippers of the old religion, the polytheists, it was simpler, convert or die. For apostates from the religion of Allah the same choice is given, reconvert or die. So began Islam’s march across the world. Considering its lack of theology, but richness in writings the more interesting area of study might be why it was quiescent for the last three centuries rather then why it is expansive now.

It doesn’t seem to matter who makes the statement George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, Michael Scheuer or Sally Quinn that we are not at war with Islam. The question is whether Islam is at war with us, and until we answer that question satisfactorily none of this is going to make much sense.


JimG33

Some musings on the condition of our thought ten years after 9/11.

While passing through a series of writings on the anniversary of 9/11, either the entire piece or just the headline I was stuck by one consistency, whether conservative or progressive we seldom look at Islam. We have a series of euphemisms ranging from Islamist to the now discredited Islamo-fascist to fundamentalist to “man caused disaster,” now all shoveled under the rubric of Islamaphobia. For ten years now we have been calling Islam the religion of peace, or saying that the Abrahamic religions have so much in common that all must be guilty of violence in the past, therefore all must be searching for peace in the present. Yet the differences between the three monotheisms are not in the person of the patriarch Abraham, but in their approach to, or lack of theological thinking

To start maybe I should try to find a useful definition of theology. In Webster’s New Collegiate (1975) the definition given is; The study of God and his relation to the world esp. by analysis of the origins and teachings of an organized religious community (as the Christian Church). It is interesting that the dictionary uses the Christian Church as its standard, since if we are going to study all of the Monotheisms and their various theologies Christianity is the easiest one for Americans, with our natural bias toward the Protestant churches even among our atheists. For Christians the questions of theology are what is the nature of Christ’s divinity, how much is human, how much divine? Also what is the individual worshiper’s relation to Jesus? These questions go back to the beginning of Christianity in all its forms, those that still exist and those that don’t. These questions still haunt us in our post Christian world.

In Judaism, if a non believer may be so bold as to present an argument, theological questions are those that define the relationship between God and his people and how this relationship may manifest it self in the world. The history of this relationship is presented in the Bible and the commentary on the history of that relationship is at the center of the Talmud.

What is the theology of Islam? I don’t think there is one, or at least that the relationship between the believer and Allah is one of such distance that the believer is left without any personal relation to the deity beyond that of Master and Slave. The profession of the faith, La Illah Illa Allah, or There is no God but God, known as the Shahadah, is not only impersonal but ahistorical as well, in the sense that this phrase exits out side of history. Allah or God is simply there, he gives you a law which must be followed, and judges you at the end of your life. For the simple Muslim this profession, plus the other pillars of the faith are enough. Those pillars are the daily regimen of prayer, the Ramadan fast, the paying of the Zagat to aid poor Muslims, and the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his lifetime. However if this is all that is needed then why a lifetime devoted to study?

Islam is a religion based on writings, the foundation being the Quran. The Quran is a book on a table in Paradise and is perfect in form and content, and has existed outside of time. It is not written by Allah, though it speaks of Him. It is not written by Muhammad, though it speaks to him. Through a series of revelations the Surahs, or verses, of the Quran were dictated by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) to Muhammad from 610 until his death in 632. It is through these revelations and his subsequent teaching that Muhammad gained his reputation of Prophet. It is the perfection of the Quran that proves that Muhammad is the final prophet. Though Muhammad preached these Surahs they were only written down and codified during the reign of the third Caliph Uthman (650-651). The profession of the faith may be the start of Islam for the average Muslim but depth of understanding requires guided study of the Quran based in the works of credentialed scholars and the first step on the road to understanding the religious sciences is the memorization of the Quran in the language of God, Arabic.

The Hadith is also an important part of this road; it is the collected sayings and acts of Muhammad, his Companions and Helpers and gives much aid in finding the way that the true Muslim should live. Since Muhammad was the perfect man he must have led the perfect life.

Over the centuries these two sets of writings have been studied and commented on resulting in the Shari’a, or God’s Law. This is the job of the ulama, the community of the trained and credentialed scholars. Through the process known as fiqh these men will study any new ruling in the light of precedent and metaphor, the use of reason and any philosophy outside of the basic writings having been abolished with the crushing of the Mu’tazilisites in the ninth century by the Hanballi school. The ulama, literally “Those who know”, will then find if a new ruling can be added to the corpus of the law. Since there is no Pope in Islam, and four schools of jurisprudence, this area of study can be contentious.

With the importation of the Shari’a into our courtrooms our politicians, state and local judges increasingly feel they must make exceptions to our local laws, in favor of Shari’a rulings when they pertain to marital and property cases involving Muslims even when local law is plain. In a recent example, a judge in New Jersey acquitted a man on charges of spousal abuse when he presented into evidence the Shari’a passages that justified his actions. Another developing problem is the Abumattalab underwear bomber case. Since he is acting as his own council he demands to be tried as a Muslim warrior under the rules of Shari’a as they pertain to the conduct of Jihad. He therefore feels that he stands above the laws of the United States, these laws being Jahiliyyah, or the equivalent to the laws of medieval Arabia before the cleansing of the Kabba at Mecca and are therefore beneath the Law of God.

Another real problem, however, is what is, or what is not, Jihad. For most of our intellectuals the problem can simply be written off as a personal struggle to become a better Muslim, or relegated to the time of the great conquests of the seventh century. Until we return to the position of the average Muslim. This person has only the most rudimentary understanding of the religion, the Five Pillars being enough for him. For our pundits desperately searching for a way out of this war all that is necessary for a true definition of jihad more to their liking is for some group of scholars, or just a clutch of average Muslims to write that Jihad does not mean war or any other type of violence; except Islam don’t work like that.

Jihad is worked through the warp and woof of the Quran so deeply that the five pillars are irrelevant to its definition. Although there is some dispute as to the number there are about 164 Quran verses dedicated to Jihad; how it is be fought by Muhammad and his community against their enemies, how Allah requires it against unbelievers and those that don’t submit to his worship, how the booty taken (valuables, land and slaves) is to be distributed, how those Muslims that shrink from the field of battle face the fires of hell, and those who die in the way of Allah will be seen as martyrs as the gates of Paradise are opened by their swords. Therefore no one who is not a member of the ulama has anything relevant to say about the concept that can hold any sway with the community of scholars, and it is this community that defines the life of a good Muslim. Thus the aspiring Mujihadeen, the soldier for Allah, has many verses to refer to that justify any type of violence. Here are some of the many references in the Quran on the subject from one Surah, Number 2, The Cow:

Surah 2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Surah 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Surah 2:192 But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Surah 2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Surah 2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil). [From the Pickthal translation of the Quran.]

Certainly doesn’t sound like the Sermon on the Mount with its admonition to turn the other cheek does it. What it also means is that there is no rational way to end this war, as if there was ever any rational way to end any war. If the war is to go on till all “religion is for Allah” then the entire world is a battle field, and everyone in the world is on a side, whether he knows it or not.

Even when the war is won and the Shari’a is imposed over the defeated people it doesn’t end there. Those People of the Book, Christians and Jews, are degraded to the status of dhimmis, those who are disarmed and protected by the Muslims. In this degraded state they must pay a poll tax known as the jizya. Under some Muslim rulers the tax was on the community, under others it was on the individual and it was never standardized. The Quran verse that calls for this tax is 9:29:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (The Bible in other words, Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The feeling of submission took may forms from the wearing of certain clothes, never riding horses, giving up parts of their houses of worship and not being allowed to repair older ones or build new ones, and stepping into the gutter when a Muslim walked by. For worshippers of the old religion, the polytheists, it was simpler, convert or die. For apostates from the religion of Allah the same choice is given, reconvert or die. So began Islam’s march across the world. Considering its lack of theology, but richness in writings the more interesting area of study might be why it was quiescent for the last three centuries rather then why it is expansive now.

It doesn’t seem to matter who makes the statement George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, Michael Scheuer or Sally Quinn that we are not at war with Islam. The question is whether Islam is at war with us, and until we answer that question satisfactorily none of this is going to make much sense.


JimG33

How the last great slave traders get to cry racism is beyond me.

I don't read Mr. Steele as much as I should. As always he turns the fantasy of oppression on its head by asking how can a basically tribal society tied to rules of honor/shame and power sharing can ever look it self in the face. When it does this war will start to be over. But too many make their living off the status quo.
JimG33

The Narrative of Perpetual Palestinian Victimhood

by Shelby Steele
November 14, 2011 at 5:00 am

Shelby Steele, Robert J and Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute, member of the Working Group on Islamism and the International Order.

The following is excerpted from a speech delivered September 22, 2011 in New York City at the conference "The Perils of Global Intolerance: The UN and Durban III," sponsored by the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and the Hudson Institute.

The Arab-Israeli conflict, is not really a conflict, it is a war – a war of the Arabs against the Jews. In many ways, this conflict has been a conflict between narratives. We who strongly support Israel have done a poor job in formulating a narrative which will combat the story spun by the other side. We can do better.

The Durban conferences, the request for UN recognition of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, and the general animus in the Middle East and elsewhere toward Israel and toward the Jews, what are they really about? Is the Durban conference and the claim that Israel is a racist nation really about reforming the people of Israel and curing them of their racism?

I think their real interest is to situate the Palestinian people within a narrative of victimization. This is their ulterior goal: to see themselves and to have others see them as victims of colonialism, as victims of white supremacy.

Listen to their language; it is the language of colonial oppression. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas claims that Palestinians have been occupied for 63 years. The word oppressed is constant, exploited. In this, there is a poetic truth; like poetic license, in a poetic truth a writer will bend the rules in order to be more effective.

I will give you one example of a poetic truth that comes from my group, black Americans. We make the following claims: America is a deeply, intractably racist society. It may not be as conspicuous today as it was before. Nevertheless, it is still there today structurally and systemically, and it still holds us back and keeps us from achieving the American dream.

To contradict this claim, one can come forward with evidence to suggest that racism in America today is about 25^th on the list of problems facing black Americans. One can recount one of the great untold stories of America, namely, the moral growth and evolution away from that problem. This is not to say that racism is completely extinguished, but that it no longer prevents the forward progress of any black in the United States. There is no evidence to suggest that it does. Yet, this claim is still the centerpiece of black American identity – this idea that we are victimized by a fundamentally, incurably racist society.

Poetic truths like that are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth. We keep hitting it with all the facts. We keep hitting it with obvious logic and reason. And we are so obvious and conspicuously right that we assume it is going to have an impact and it never does.

Why not? These narratives, these poetic truths, are the source of their power. Focusing on the case of the Palestinians, who would they be if they were not victims of white supremacy? They would just be poor people in the Middle East. They would be backwards. They would be behind Israel in every way. So this narrative is the source of their power. It is the source of their money. Money comes from around the world. It is the source of their self-esteem. Without it, would they be able to compete with Israeli society? They would have to confront in themselves a certain inferiority with regard to Israel – as most other Arab nations would have to confront an inferiority in themselves and be responsible for it.

The idea that the problem is Israel, that the problem is the Jews, protects Palestinians from having to confront that inferiority or do anything about it or overcome it. The idea among Palestinians that they are victims means more to them than anything else. It is everything. It is the centerpiece of their very identity and it is the way they define themselves as human beings in the world. It is not an idle thing. Our facts and our reason are not going to penetrate easily that definition or make any progress.

The question is, how do they get away with a poetic truth, based on such an obvious series of falsehoods? [And how do they use it as an excuse for perpetual war, a war they continue to lose?] One reason why they get away with it in the Middle East is that the Western world lacks the moral authority to call them on it. The Western world has not said "your real problem is inferiority. Your real problem is underdevelopment." That has not been said, nor will ever be said – because the Western world was once colonial, was once racist, did practice white supremacy, and is so ashamed of itself and so vulnerable to those charges, that they are not going to say a word. They are not going to say what they really think and feel about what is so obvious about the circumstances among the Palestinians. So the poetic truth that Palestinians live by carries on. [As they guilt trip the West, they strut as mighty warriors among themselves. For example, a contingent from Hamas has returned from Iran after being trained on Russian handheld anti-tank missiles. The range of these missiles is four kilometers. What is their first target in Israel, a school bus.]

International media also do not feel that they have the moral authority to report what they see. On the contrary, they feed this poetic truth and give it a kind of gravitas that it would never otherwise have.

Consequently, we need to develop a narrative that is not poetic, but literal and that is based on the truth. 

What would such a narrative look like?

It would begin with the presumption that the problem in the Middle East is not white supremacy but the end of white supremacy. After World War II, the empires began to contract, Britain went home, France went home, and the Arab world was left almost abandoned, and in a state of much greater freedom than they had ever known before.

Freedom is, however, a dicey thing to experience. When you come into freedom, you see yourself more accurately in the world. This is not unique to the Middle East. It was also the black American experience, when the Civil Rights bill was passed in 1964 and we came into much greater freedom. If you were a janitor in 1963 and you are still a janitor in 1965, you have all these freedoms and they are supported by the rule of law, then your actual experience of freedom is one of humiliation and one of shame. You see how far you have to go, how far behind you are, how little social capital you have with which to struggle forward. Even in freedom you see you are likely to be behind for a long time. In light of your inability to compete and your underdevelopment, freedom becomes something that you are very likely going to hate – because it carries this humiliation.

At that point formerly oppressed groups develop what I call bad faith. Bad faith is when you come into freedom, you are humiliated and you say, "Well you know the real truth is I am not free. Racism still exists. Zionism is my problem. The State of Israel is my problem. That is why I am so far behind and that is why I cannot get ahead."

You develop a culture grounded in bad faith where you insist that you are less free than you really are. Islamic extremism is the stunning example of this phenomenon. "I have to go on jihad because I am fighting for my freedom." Well you already have your freedom. You could stay home and study. You could do something constructive. But "No, I cannot do that because that makes me feel bad about myself." So I live in a world of extremism and dictators. [That is not the classical reason to take the path of Jihad, but it is good enough for now. I'm sure I'll take up this in the future.]

This is not unique to the Middle East. In black America we had exactly the same thing. After we got the civil rights bill and this greater degree of freedom, then all of a sudden we hear the words "black power." Then all of a sudden we have the Black Panthers. Then we have this militancy, this picking up of the gun because we feel bad about ourselves. We feel uncompetitive and this becomes our compensation. It is a common pattern among groups that felt abandoned when they became free.

This is the real story of the Palestinians and of the Middle East. They will never be reached by reason until they are somehow able to get beyond bad faith, to get beyond this sort of poetic truth that they are the perennial victims of an aggressive and racist Israeli nation.

Challenging their narrative with this explanation will enable us to be more effective. Until now, we have constantly used facts and reason and have not progressed.

Durban is a perfect example of bad faith because Durban is way of saying Israelis are racist and they are our problem. Durban really is a way of saying I am not free. I am still a victim. That is the real purpose of Durban. The Palestinian unilateral claim for recognition from the UN is also a perfect example of bad faith. If Palestinians proceed to the Security Council, they will very likely be turned down, and will respond by saying: "I told you we were victims. I told you the West is racist," and so on. It refuels the same sad identity.

The irony and the tragedy of all this is that it keeps these groups in a bubble where they never encounter or deal with the truth. This becomes a second oppression for all these groups. They have been oppressed once, now they are free and yet they create a poetic truth that then oppresses them all over again.

How are you going to have good faith if you are raised being told that the society in which you are trying to compete is against you, is racist? It is always the Palestinians who suffer, and will continue to suffer, because all of their energy is going into the avoidance of their situation rather than into being challenged by it and facing into it.

The strength of our argument is that it gives the Palestinians a way out. Development is the way out. The West can help you to compete. It may take a little while. But the alternative is a cycle of violence and hatred and poetic truths about constant victimhood.

The pattern of bad faith in certain places comes to embrace a kind of ethic of death. As Osama bin Laden claimed: in the West, you are all afraid of death, but we love death. Why would you love death? If you are not afraid of death then you are aggrandized; all of a sudden you are a big man. You are not a little, recently freed, inferior. Instead, you are somebody who manages, who conquers his world, who has power. For terrorism is power, the power of the gun. This poetic truth leads to a terrible, inconceivable fascination with death and violence and guns and bombs. [It turns them into fetish objects.] It consumes a whole part of the world every single day – rather than the boring things that good faith requires, like going to school, raising your children, inventing software for instance, making money.

This is the way the narrative must be retold.