FrontPageMag.com By Robert Spencer By Hugh Fitzgerald Books Dhimmi Watch Robert Spencer Islam 101 Qur'an Blog
 
« Turkish prosecutors say ruling party seeks Islamic state | Main | Indonesian President: "Islam has unjustly been associated with violence" »

March 15, 2008

Fitzgerald: The OIC's rebranding game

“…the world's biggest Islamic body is seeking to rebrand itself this week as a forum for settling conflicts peacefully and for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states." -- from this news article

"Rebrand itself"? Just the way the Lesser Jihad against Israel conducted, in various ways and with various degrees of sacrifice, by Arab and other Muslim states, was "rebranded" after the defeat in the Six-Day War. The first step was to "rebrand," or rather, rename, the local Arab shock troops of that Jihad as the "Palestinian people." The second step was to steadily, relentlessly, develop the theme of the "two peoples" sharing "the same land." And one of those "peoples" no longer consisted of Arabs, defined geographically as "Palestinian" Arabs, but rather as a people who apparently had always been there, though Arab leaders and diplomats had never, before 1967, ever used that phrase "Palestinian people" and had always referred -- accurately -- to the "Arabs of Palestine" (meaning Mandatory Palestine). A little historical back-dating was in order, as the "project" of the "construction of the 'Palestinian' identity gained steam.

And in that rebranding project, one of those peoples, "the Palestinians," of course had to have their "national rights recognized" and "a Palestinian state" set up on the very land that Israel had won in that war, with the promise of nothing but more demands to come. Those demands would be made to an Israel that would become ever more vulnerable, its population ever-more imperiled and under constant pressure that, the Arabs hoped, would become in time intolerable, and lead to the final victory, the destruction of Israel altogether. That has remained the unwavering goal, even if some Arabs differ on the matters of tactics and timing, just as those local Arabs, those "Palestinians," are divided between the Slow Jihadists of Fatah and the Fast Jihadists of Hamas -- a division that gets exaggerated attention, when what counts is that they share, and will always share, the same ultimate goal.

The O.I.C. is planning to do what? To "rebrand" itself as a cross between the World Court and the U.N., a place for "settling disputes peacefully"? Which disputes? The dozens, all over the world, which involve Muslims fighting or making impossible demands on non-Muslims of every kind? Are non-Muslims expected to show up at the O.I.C., expected to expect fair treatment, and to give the O.I.C. any conceivable jurisdiction, when the basis of Islam is the loyalty of Muslims only to each other, with no hint of a Golden Rule observed in the treatment of non-Muslims, with whom Muslims are expected to be in a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of open warfare, until such time as all obstacles, all over the world, to the spread, and dominance, of Islam, are removed?

And the other part of that is perhaps even more comical. So the O.I.C. sees itself as a forum "for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states." From whom? I presume from the rich West, as it is still seen. But the richest countries, per capita, in the world are those small sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf, and next come Saudi Arabia, and Libya, and a few other Muslim oil states. And since those oil states have been the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and since those Muslim oil states have received, since 1973 alone, more than ten trillion dollars, and continue to receive, currently, about a trillion dollars a year, and since the greatest economic weight, and drag, on the world's poorest countries is the price that those countries must pay for oil and gas, and the price rises, especially for oil, have done away with all the economic progress such countries have managed to make over many decades, it is obvious that Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, and Qatar, and Libya, with relatively small populations and vast unearned wealth from an accident of geology, are the countries that ought to be transferring, by the hundreds of billions of dollars, some of that entirely unmerited wealth to the poorer countries.

Somehow I doubt that that is anything like what the O.I.C. had in mind, when it decided to seek -- if it did indeed decide to seek -- "to rebrand itself this week as a forum for...redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states."

Whenever there has been a natural disaster, it is the West that has rushed to help. After that earthquake in Istanbul years ago, Western aid, including aid from Israel, came promptly and was so important, while the Arabs did nothing. After the tsunami in Indonesia, Western aid, especially American aid, was critical, especially in Aceh, that most militantly Muslim of Indonesian islands. After the earthquake in Pakistan a few years ago, the only aid that meant anything came from the United States and a few other Western countries, and those American army hospitals remained in Pakistan to treat Pakistani Muslims -- a vocation of charity, like all those Catholic schools in Muslim countries, that are taken advantage of by Muslims. But for some reason so many are never grateful, never willing to abandon their inculcated hostility, no matter what benefits they receive from Infidel schools or hospitals, or emergency help in time of disasters, or of course, the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid that has, during the same period in which Muslim members of OPEC took in ten trillion dollars, flowed as disguised Jizyah from the Infidels of the West to the Muslims of Dar al-Islam, not to mention the Infidel-to-Muslim transfers that are equally large within the countries of Western Europe.

Yes, we'll see what the O.I.C. has in mind soon enough. It has nothing to do with fabulously rich Muslim states, many with populations of less than a million, actually sharing any of their wealth. And don't think for a minute that, even if they decided to share some of it with poorer Muslims, they would ever contemplate large-scale aid to any of the poor non-Muslims in this world -- not a chance, unless there were a firm promise to accept Islam, or to allow mosque-and-madrasa building, and Muslim campaigns of Da'wa, unhindered and on a large scale.

Posted by Hugh at March 15, 2008 11:51 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)

Damn it! Who told you about the TOP SECRET plans of the Palestinians to 'pretend' to want a nation state and peace with Israel while secretly pursuing an agenda of total annihilation and conquest?

Some day our fiendishly brilliant CIA and state department will accomplish a near-impossible feat of intelligence and figure out how to Google MEMRI.

Posted by: poetcomic1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 1:46 PM

Mmmm, this whole idea that the OIC will become a forum "for redistributing wealth to the world's poorest states."

I once read, in the London Observer, that infant mortality was actually higher in Saudi Arabia than in the Palestinian territories.
Saudi Arabia, I think, has actually the highest income-per-capita in the world.
Whereas Palestinians are officially classified as refugees.
Which speaks volumes about the Saudi elite, how much they care about their countries poor, how fairly the wealth is distributed etc.

Posted by: Odyessus [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 1:49 PM

"The world's biggest Islamic body is [...] for redistributing wealth to the poorest states." -OIC

Most hearing this will assume "redistributing wealth" is typical Marxist rhetoric heard far and wide, but is it?

Muslims are adept at parasitising the rhetoric of the left to cloak themselves and their intentions in language that we will find familiar. Finding it familiar, we are disarmed, even if they espouse ideas some of us don't particularly like. Those are the points -- conceal your intentions, and pose as something you're not -- war is deception.

The Muslims appear very reluctant to share or "redistribute" any of their vast unearned wealth. Sure they're happy to "redistibute" wealth" when it comes to funding and subsidizing terror across the globe -- they're also fond of paying for unlimited numbers of Korans, for paying the expenses associated with Imams in mosques, mosques which they've also "liberally" payed for across the globe. But Muslims are missing in action when it comes to those more typical redistributions of wealth we might find familiar.

A tsunami wipes out a quarter million poor Muslims in Indonesia, private citizens in the US send over 2 billion dollars within days. Compare that to Saudi Arabia and the other Muslim states of the gulf - to date.thet've pledged a mere few million, and some reports indicate they don't actually cough up the dough in any event. The exact same pattern is repeated in recent earthquakes in Turkey and Iran. We send genuine aid, without I might add attaching too many preconditions, we in essence, redistribute some of our vast wealth, while the Muslims talk a good game, and then don't deliver the goods.


So how much money is flowing from the Islamic world for debt relief? Clean drinking water? How much have they spent in the last decade for AIDS reduction in Africa? Malaria reduction in Africa and South America? Food distribution in any number of hard hit areas?

The answer: little to none.

Now ask how much money from Muslims is diverted for the spreading of Islam? Hundreds of billions. For terrer operations from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe? Tens of billions.

Ask how much money Muslims ever give to non-Muslims for their needs? Nearly none.

So the redistribution of wealth mentioned by the OIC has one intention only, and that is the relentless spread of Islam.

If that isn't cynical enough for your tastes, then ponder what is meant by mention of the "poorest states" in the OIC's rebranding scheme. As we now are learning, Muslims consider the ground underneath their feet to be "the house of Islam", "Dar ul Islam". In infidel territories, these are miniature "poorest states", where Jihad must be waged until Islam dominates. Just see the Paris banlieus, the mosque in Hamtramck, Brussels, Beirut, London, or Lodi California.

That's what they mean when they talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Posted by: jsla [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 2:11 PM

"Damn it! Who told you about the TOP SECRET plans of the Palestinians to 'pretend' to want a nation state and peace with Israel..."
-- from a posting above

Yes, it was so well hidden, wasn't it? No wonder people of the calibre of Scheuer are terminally confused about everything -- and he was, amazingly, for a brief period in charge of something called the "Bin Laden desk" and still has no idea what Islam is all about, still thinks it is all a matter of an (impliedly understandable) response to American foreign policy, which leaves out, of course, what happens in southern Sudan, southern Thailand, southern Philipines, Kashmir and the rest of India, and in Amsterdam, Beslan, Madrid, London, and so on. That's the level, isn't it?

And how amazing it is, what one not in the CIA or the State Department can ferret out just by a few clicks on-line, and by spending an hour or so in rapt attention listening to MEMRI.

But first you have to make the mental decision to take Islam seriously, and to find out about such things as the Law of War and Peace in Islam. And that would require reading a book. Even two.

Please. Life is short. There are dinner parties to attend. Movies to see. Don't bother me with Islam. I'm in the CIA. I'm in the State Department. We have "experts." We are the "experts." If we weren't the "experts" and the "seasoned diplomats" we wouldn't be called -- see the newspapers, see the press releases, see how we are described when we deliver little talks at conferences -- "experts" and "seasoned diplomats" with "long experience in the Arab and Muslim world" -- would we?

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 2:14 PM

Is there a sura on rebranding?

Posted by: joeblough [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 2:59 PM

Hugh-
I wonder sometimes you don't go mad from the insanity of it all.

Posted by: poetcomic1 [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 4:40 PM

The doctors tell me in a few months -- maybe five, maybe six, depending on how I respond to further therapy and of course the drugs -- I should be ready to be out on my own.

Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 15, 2008 9:13 PM

In the words of the cartoonist:

"And I say that we declare ignorance to be a form of intelligence!"

Posted by: profitsbeard [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 16, 2008 6:42 PM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.