Why the Muslim World is not so Fond of the West

A phenomenon unlike any other has flourished extensively over the past decades, coagulating ever so rapidly in many parts of the world: general distaste towards the west. And as educated and thoughtful individuals, it is our absolute duty to investigate the cause of such a situation for treatment and prevention of its further cancer-like metastasis. Before any of that can be properly addressed, the root cause of the problem must be thoroughly investigated (although the full reasons need more than a few compendiums to be completely analyzed). To understand this horrid phenomenon, it is imperative to look at its state of being in the Islamic World, particularly the Middle East. Over many years, there has been an expanding, self-created ocean of hate towards the west, particularly the United States and Britain by many Muslims. Although many neo-cons and their proxies would like the world to believe that this attitude came into being solely unprovoked, completely gratuitous in nature as they say, the reality is unfortunately the opposite. This feeling, shared by millions of individuals, was created by the political policies of the west, unjust, antagonizing and utterly contemptible. Now, this is neither a rationalization nor a defense for the atrocities committed by some extremists, whom it is a misnomer to call Muslims. On the other hand, this is an attempt to understand this serious problem, a political pathological view to a disease with a potentially terrible prognosis.

Britain, the imperialistic supremacist empire at the beginning of the 20th century, created the first ingredient for this rancid mixture of hateful emotions. At first, it was the sending of Thomas Edward Lawrence, later popularized as Lawrence of Arabia, to internally destabilize the Ottoman Empire, inciting revolts in the Islamic world. While masquerading under a veneer of lies during WWI, Britain then occupied and oppressed the inhabitants of modern day Jordan, Palestine, Iraq as well as many non-Muslim countries, like India and China. Making agreements such as Sykes-Pico (Where the French were involved as well) after the fall of the Ottoman empire, the British then went on to make the atrociously unwarranted Balfour Declaration in 1917. This promise guaranteed members of the Jewish faith a homeland on the territory of others. It promised, out of some non-existent authority, a land where already Palestinians live to someone else. So disgustingly obsessed were the British with their power that they even considered offering the Jews Uganda or Argentina as an alternative homeland. This unwavering, self-given right over the land of others is what first led to a feeling of injustice and absolute betrayal by the Arab and Muslim people.

The second and most impacting reason for this hate is the evident, completely vociferous support of the west to the illegal and certainly criminal occupation of Palestinian lands. The unremitting backing of the west, namely the United States and Britain, to Israel in all its endeavors, no matter how unwarranted, led to the view held by most Muslims that the international community is against them. Of course, this can be analyzed historically. While Churchill was ringing his anaphoric speeches all over the world, his country backed the illegal declaration in 1948, almost twenty years after the Balfour Declaration, of Israel as a state. In fact, even Churchill himself, the epitomic example of the chauvinistic view towards Muslims, after being asked regarding the issue of Palestine, said ?I don?t believe the dog has the right to the manger, no matter how long it?s lain there.? That was the mentality then and many might argue that countries, after almost seventy years, have recovered from the atrocities committed by the British and that enmity should no longer be prevalent. Alas, that might be true had the British ceased to exercise their self-given, self professed, almost godly providence over the lands of others. In other words, the hold of the British, ostensibly removed after the abolition of the British Mandate, still persisted. They continued to supply arms, weaponry and financially and politically endorsed the augmenting amount of illegal settlements of Palestinian lands. Not only that, but the British, despite the presence of the UN council, also failed to react to the atrocities committed by the various Zionist gangs, including the Irgun, Hagana and many of Manachem Bagens genocidal organizations, operating under Theodore Herzl?s plan of separation and transfer of Palestinians, tantamount to the Nazi holocaust. The entire world has been properly educated about the repugnant acts of the holocaust, but none know about Deir Yaseen, Qana, Gineen, Sabra and Shatila. These were, just like the holocaust, acts of mass murder, only this time it was not Jews being killed, but Palestinians, slaughtered in cold-blood and forced to flee by the Israeli war machine. The victim became the aggressor and all of these acts were neglected and blatantly condoned. Not only that, but the west continued to support its new ally in the Middle East. A prime example is when Israel, the UK and France attacked nearby Egypt in the Tripartite Aggression in 1959. This unconcealed and deliberate invasion, this breach of international law was yet another injustice against the Islamic world. One might think, that after such acts of violence, no more would?ve followed. Yet still, the perverse desire for bloodshed, and the evident hostility of Israel and the west continued and in 1967, when Sinai was occupied. This Six-day war, as it came to be known, fashioned as some sort of self-defense, resulted in the occupation of the neighboring countries? territories (Sinai, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights) to fulfill the Jewish dream of a state from the Nile to Euphrates. This invasion was backed by the US, which supplied continuous intelligence to the Israeli Generals, including the warmonger Ariel Sharon. Eventually, some territories were regained, in exchange for some Arab subservience promised by the marionette rulers of the time (such as Hafiz Al Asad and Sadat). Indeed, the stage was now being set for yet another act of belligerence towards an already internally and externally oppressed Muslim world. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, once again hiding behind the repeated excuse of retaliation rather than clear aggression. Thousands were killed, Beirut reduced to ruble and concentration camp-like residences established for the many refugees and the victimized families. The reaction of the U.S. and Britain, if there was any, was extremely tepid, and the perpetual breach of Israeli-backed infringements of so-called international law continued.

The early and mid 20th century support of the west towards Israel continued and continues to this day. One prime example of the dog-like devotion of U.S. presidents towards Israel can be proven by the means by which they get elected. Living in the ?democracy? they live in, any U.S. president desiring to reside in the White House must be the spaniel of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Bush Jr. and Sr. were tied to the leash, even Barrack Obama, vice president Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton and many more submit and continue to submit to the Israeli Lobby. It is no wonder then, to hear President Bush referring to Israel as America?s closest ally and to witness his frequent visits to the lobby. And certainly, it is no surprise either that in every UN vote, the United States, represented by crazed conservatives like John Bolton, votes pro-Israel and vetoes any fair or just resolution towards Muslims. Indeed, apartheid has been and is being established in Israel, and the U.S., Britain and many others condone it. Whether it?s the building of the West Bank Wall to separate Palestinians from society, or the starving of innocent civilians in Gaza by the orders of current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his posies, the west remains silent. The uninhibitedly mild responses mean nothing and did nothing as this pandemonium of violence continues. Another example is the summer 2006 invasion, a 33 day war and a second invasion of Lebanon. In their usually cyclical manner, western governments declared the war to be an act of self-defense, asserting that the killing of hundreds of civilians and the kidnapping of hundreds was a totally justifiable reaction to the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, who were illegally in Lebanese land at the time of their kidnapping. Qana, which was the place where the now almost-dead Ariel Sharon massacred hundreds, was once again a subject to Israeli genocide when a building, full of children and innocent families, was bombed. And all we have are futile condemnations and suppression of international outcries. All of this injustice, committed over the decades we are so often encouraged to forget, is only one reason to the ?swamp of hatred? as George Galloway put it, was created.

The United States further replenished the feeling of contempt by Muslims when it invaded Iraq in the 1990 Gulf War. Justifying it as some sort of American act of liberating generosity, the war on Iraq was in reality a callous attempt to control the financial resources of one of the richest states in the Muslim Arab world. In fact, Donald Rumsfeld, whom many consider as much as war criminal as the recently captured Karadzic, visited Saddam Hussein and supplied him with weapons and maps to invade Kuwait. With this encouragement, Sadam invaded Kuwait and then the U.S. had succeeded in creating a rationalization for the invasion of Iraq. This traitorous, unscrupulous and illegal act not only generated blood-shed in the Middle East, but allowed the kleptomaniac of a ruler George Bush Sr. to lay his hands on the tons of oil in the Middle East. Having killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and plunged the country into an abyss of economic and humanitarian depression, the U.S. secured its economic gains and left only to be revisited by the moronic ignoramus George Bush Jr. a few years later. Using the emotionally charged world after the horrible, non-tolerable acts of 9/11, which no Muslim would ever support nor excuse, Bush and his doll Blair, despite international opposition to the war, invaded Iraq illegally once again. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result, sectarian conflicts flourished, billions of dollars were looted and crimes like Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were tortured and humiliated for the perverse entertainment of soldiers and Falujah, where thousands of innocent civilians were killed, were committed. All of this was due to the fabrication of facts by Colin Powel and many more as well as the United States’ refusal to listen to its own intelligence agencies that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that it had as much ties with Al Qaeda as Mother Teresa did. But that was not enough to satisfy George Bushes abhorrent lust for blood. After invading Afghanistan, Mr. Bush then went on to create torture prisons like Guantanamo Bay where prisoners were taken, water boarded and starved to give information they did not even have about Bin Laden. And who is Bin Laden? Is he not the man who was sent by the United States itself to combat the Soviet Union in the 1980s? Is he not the man who was supplied by the U.S. with weapons and money to do their dirty work in the region? Is he not the criminal the U.S. had created? All of this, and yet the question persists, why does the world, not only Muslims, hate the west?

So great is the negative and obscene influence of the west in the Muslim world that they have succeeded in recruiting every collaborator, every disloyal, unscrupulous individual to be their marionette ruler of the subdivided Muslim World. Recently, Omar Al Bashir, the president of Sudan was accused of crimes against humanity in the Darfour Region. Before, Sadam was accused of the same thing. Yet, it is impossible to find the same accusations lain rightfully against the late King Hussein of Jordan, his son King Abdullah, the kings of Saudi Arabia, Hafiz Al Asad of Syria or Hussni Mubarak, the ?president? of Egypt. Is King Hussein, who bombed his own capital city in 1970 and installed his own son as King after his death and acted was a servant for the Israeli Mossad not a criminal? Is King Abdullah, who gambles with the public?s money and lives in a palace while his citizens starve from inflation and high oil price not a repugnant criminal? Is Hussni Mubarak, who has been president for over 20 years, somnolently squandering the country?s money not a criminal? Are the corrupt kings of the kleptomonarchy Saudi Arabia, uneducated and illiterate, enforcing laws of subjugation and oppression while presiding over the largest oil supply not criminals? In the eyes of western governments they are not because they economically sustain their country, yet in the eyes of every commonsensical, educated and humanitarian individual, they are. When Muslims see King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia dancing with Bush while the American Armies kill Muslim civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and supply Israelis with Apaches and F-16s, what will they think? What should they think? Shackled and chained in a figurative prison, the Muslim world knows that all the corrupt leaders are politically supported by United States in return for economic gain. And this, this is what contributes to hatred.

The latest of the west?s attempt to irrationally punish Islamic countries is the attempt to disallow Iran from owning nuclear power. Constant utterances, made by western administrations, stress that Iran has no right to have nuclear power. Yet one cannot help but wonder why? Why can the U.S., India, and Israel, who according to its own agent Mordechai Vanunu, announced to the world in 1986 that it has hundreds of nuclear weapons capable of reaching every Muslim country, be allowed nuclear weapons? Pleading that they are responsible to own such terrible devices, one must also wonder why they, as the British had done before them, should be allowed to decide who is responsible and who is not responsible to own nuclear weapons let alone nuclear power? In fact, Iran, just like Iraq, had and has no nuclear weapons. It does however plan to own nuclear power as a source of energy. Is that not its legal right? In addition, the United States seems to have fallen under the delusion that they can selectively choose which countries can and cannot have them. Pakistan, which is ruled by yet another despot, the tyrannical General Musharaf, was actually encouraged to have nuclear weapons and rewarded for developing them by the United States. Yet Iran, just because it is against the abominable policies of the United States and Britain and just because it is against the illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel cannot have them. Such preposterous selectivity is what leads to further fury in the Islamic world.

The last ingredient to this m?lange of self created contempt is the deleterious media bias, shown everyday in all western news channels. To begin with, Rupert Murdoch, a man whose loyalties are known to have shifted according to the location of his business ventures, owns the most biased news channels, characterized by nothing more or less than great mendacity and absolute aptitude to produce half-truths and balderdash. Sky News, Fox Channel and many more, with reporters like Bill O?Reilly, Michelle Malkin and Anna Botting, show every tendency to be elusive when faced with truths and arrogant about their inexcusable bias. But not only that, CNN and BBC, masked as some sort of two-sided news channels, also equate Islam with terrorism and insinuate indecent and immoral characters to the Muslim faith. Indubitably, this kind of reporting is what has lead to the growing two-sided hatred, where it is now popular for Americans to discriminate against Muslims for wearing the hijab and where great animosity and mistrust towards Americans has now formed. What the Taliban did, in violation of Islam, is now being reported as Islamic tradition and the hijab, worn by choice and considered a sign of modesty and devotion is now fashioned as some sort of oppression. Criminal acts, such as the slaughtering of members of a Palestinian family by an Israeli warship have not even been shown, and Israeli apartheid is now regularly justified as either self-defense or a condemned mistake. This, along with further selective quotation and constant implication of Islam as an evil doctrine is discriminatory and every discerning member of society must take all measures to prevent it from thriving any further.

On must now also recognize that it?s not only Muslims, but people from all over the world sharing these ill-fated yet real sentiments towards the west. In Vietnam, where children are still being born with congenital defects and deformations as a result of the inexcusable invasion in the 1960s, citizens hold the U.S. in disrespect for their horrible deeds. Even in China, excessive western interference and a bias media have incited disapproval and in many more countries, this also holds true. One must understand, that this is not an unfounded hate of people, but a hate of subtle western autocracy and hegemony. The excessive and unrestrained support of Israeli policies, the unending killing and invasion of Muslims, the selective political support of tyranny and the bottomless media bias are just some of the reasons to this. Often, we are told that the west is working towards the amelioration of lives as validation of its blood shed. Yet rightly so, no one should believe this constant instilment of delusions as to the benevolence of west and its policies. It is time for a change. It is time for the west to recognize its faults and deal fairly with an area in a chasm of despair, poverty and despotism. It is time to halt our policies that create hundreds of Bin Ladens and Zarqawis everyday.

By B.B.J.

?

?

?

?