“The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill,” says The Hill, but that isn’t strictly true: The Hill scrubbed my piece there in January 2017 after pressure from Leftists and Islamic supremacists, and since then has been strictly Sharia-compliant.
This piece by Huma Yasin will not be scrubbed. Yet it is tendentious from beginning to end, starting with its title, “Fear of Islam must not drive US foreign policy.” Had Yasin included some statistics about jihad terror attacks, such as the fact that there have been well over 30,000 of them worldwide since 9/11, concern about Islam might not appear to be simply gratuitous “Islamophobia,” as she suggests. Her use of the word “fear,” moreover, is of a piece with the common practice nowadays of regarding fear as a vice, as a kind of wrongdoing, rather than as a natural reaction to a genuine threat that must be met with prudent resistance.
Yasin also ignores the mountain of evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu produced, showing that Iran was not in compliance with the nuclear deal. She complains that the U.S. supports dictators in Muslim countries. That is indeed a shame, but we are talking about countries where there is no tradition of democratic rule at all. The real choice is between relatively secular dictators and Sharia dictators. The U.S. has preferred the former, albeit not during the Obama years.
The implication of Yasin’s article is that there is no jihad threat, and thus no need for U.S. officials to try to protect Americans from that threat. If her words were heeded, the global jihad would be able to advance unopposed and unimpeded. The Hill is extremely irresponsible to publish such an article, even with its hollow disclaimer. But we already knew about The Hill.
“Fear of Islam must not drive US foreign policy,” by Huma Yasin, The Hill, May 10, 2018:
Gina Haspel, the CIA officer known for overseeing torture and destroying videotape evidence of abuse in a black site in Thailand, faced the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings to lead the CIA. This comes just one day after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal.
Though the deal was carefully crafted during the Obama administration with global allies, and the U.S. withdrawal now criticized, the U.S. will instead institute nuclear sanctions independently on Iran. The evidence shows Iran has been in compliance with the deal.
This declaration comes two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether the Muslim ban 3.0, which indefinitely bans Iranian nationals from entering the United States, as well as several other Muslim countries, is constitutional.
This also comes a fortnight after the Senate confirmed Mike Pompeo as secretary of State. He is known for his ties to anti-Islam groups, hawkish policies and hostility toward the former Iran nuclear deal.
Earlier this spring, John Bolton was appointed head of the National Security Administration. In July of last year, Bolton proclaimed from the podium: “The declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran … The only solution is to change the regime itself.”
None of this is surprising for a president who stated unabashedly, “I think Islam hates us.”…
The common thread is that the United States is willing to engage in regime change or support of dictators with a horrendous human rights record if it means the U.S. will continue to maintain proxy hegemony in the oil rich Middle East.
The assumption is that Islamophobia is a tool of empire building.
In his 2018 book, “American Islamophobia,”Khaled Beydoun defines Islamophobia as the belief that “Islam is inherently violent, alien, and unassimilable, a presumption driven by the belief that expressions of Muslim identity correlate with a propensity of terrorism.”
Deepa Kumar, associate professor at Rutgers University, states in her 2012 book, “Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire”: [T]he history of ‘Islam and the West,’ as it is commonly termed, is a story not of religious conflict but rather of conflict born of political rivalries and competing imperial agendas … Religion became the screen behind which social and economic conflicts were played out.”….