Fwd: +United in Hate+

John blueoval at 1SMARTISP.NET
Mon Aug 22 12:55:04 MDT 2005

 In reading the NYTimes' oped piece by Frank Rich, today -
I had to come back and re-read this item in the UK's
Spectator.  Rich is a strange bird; a 'theatre critic' turned
political-critic (and proving to be second only to Mo' Dowd in
nastiness) who tells us that Cindy Sheehan is 'winning' her
battle against Bush. Of course, Rich is speaking the desired
outcome for many journalists/critics/editors/newswriters of 
American (and Western) mainstream media. They live in a
fantasy of time: 75% of them are liberal-democrats.

These folks, for some strange reason, find it difficult to see 
America defending itself against the enemies of 9-11; you know, 
wearing battle-gear, training for war, sending troops abroad, the 
whole 9-yards. They find it hard to accept even though 9-11 was 
right in
their backyard. Why do they find it so hard to accept that America 
must defend itself?  I don't know; yet, my guessing as to why
requires that I 'go back' in time to when the mainstream media
liked America. It wasn't that long ago.

When did they stop liking America? Probably when they drove 
Richard Nixon from office and elected Jimmy Carter - and
found they supported abortion, and discovered Carter to be an
inept leader. Up until that time (the 70s) the NYTimes was
definitely pro-life, and very red, white, and blue. (Read the
editorials of WWII and the Cold War, up until the election of 
it once was a fine paper. But no more.)

When the NYTimes saw that "America and Americans" found
Ronald Reagan to be the "one" who best spoke to their interests, 
it decided it must re-study its political agenda. Perhaps without 
knowing it, it was then that the mainstream media became a 
political party. But it soon discovered that it was the "new" 
they were aligned to - a party that really did not like America, 
party that decided to change America.

By the way, the editor of the NYTimes recently placed a letter in
his own paper attacking a critic who had the audacity to claim
that the mainstream press had a political agenda - and a very
'liberal' political agenda. Well. He's defending his own moat.

The attached item, "United in hate" - is another warning to
the likes of the NYTimes and the mainstream press. Either
they choose to support the U.S.A., and its first amendment
freedoms, or they go down with the rest of us. The enemies
are at the gates: 9-11 is proof enough. (Note: enemies -
not enemy.). Do share please. Allen.  alod at huntel.net

United in hate
Douglas Davis

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Stranger still when the odd 
couple are fundamentalist Islam and the secular Left. The evolving 
Black–Red alliance is growing in France, Germany and Belgium. But, 
based on the successful British model, it is now going global to 
declare war on the war on terror.

No fewer than three international conferences have been convened 
in Cairo, presided over by the former president of Algeria, Ahmed 
Ben Bella, under the auspices of the International Campaign 
Against US and Zionist Occupations. One outcome is ‘The Cairo 
Declaration Against US Hegemony, War on Iraq and Solidarity with 
Palestine.’ British signatories included Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn 
and, of course, the indefatigable George Galloway, whose ‘fiery’ 
participation won honourable mention in Egypt’s semi-official 
newspaper, Al-Ahram.

If Iraq was the catalyst for the Black–Red alliance, the Stop the 
War coalition provided the cauldron in which the union was 
consummated. The result is a pure gestalt: the coalition allows 
its constituent parts to pack a far greater collective punch than 
they could have dreamt of on their own. Putting a million people 
on to the streets of London is not, after all, small potatoes. The 
steering committee of the Marxist–Islamist alliance consists of 33 
members — 18 from myriad hard-Left groups, three from the radical 
wing of the Labour party, eight from the ranks of the radical 
Islamists and four leftist ecologists (also known as ‘Watermelons’ 
—green outside, red inside). The chairman is Andrew Murray, a 
leading light in the British Communist party; co-chair is Muhammad 
Aslam Ijaz, of the London Council of Mosques. Among the major 
players from the Left are Lindsey German, who resigned as editor 
of the Socialist Workers’ party newspaper to become convenor of 
the Stop the War coalition; John Rees, also of the SWP, and, of 
course, George Galloway. Indeed, the first proud progeny of the 
alliance is Galloway’s Respect party, which fought and won the 
London seat of Bethnal Green and Bow, with its substantial Muslim 

Points of potential disagreement between the hard Left and radical 
Islam — democracy, human rights, xenophobia, free-expression, 
feminism, homosexuality, abortion, among many others — would seem 
to pose insuperable barriers to the union. Not so. The hurdles 
have been neatly vaulted in the interest of mutual hatreds: 
America, Israel, globalisation, capitalism and imperialism. 
Anti-Semitism is never far from the surface. True, there is some 
squeamishness within the ‘house of horrors’. Dissent is evident in 
the Socialist Workers’ party but not in the Muslim Association of 
Britain, which was inspired by the fundamentalist Muslim 
Brotherhood and now shelters under the umbrella of Sir Iqbal 
Sacranie’s Muslim Council of Britain (it was, let it not be 
forgotten, the good Sir Iqbal who, before being scrubbed up and 
knighted, declared that ‘death is perhaps too easy’ for the 
allegedly blasphemous Salman Rushdie; it was Sir Iqbal, too, who 
refused to participate in this year’s Holocaust memorial events 
because they did not refer to the supposed genocide of the 

Those on the Left who support the alliance have found not only a 
revitalising cause but also an unexpected and deep hinterland from 
which to draw support. ‘The practical benefits of working together 
are enough to compensate for the differences,’ I was told. ‘And 
success tends to win the argument.’ Such opportunism exposes a 
strain of pernicious racism that allows the Left to indulge 
outrageous bigotry as long as it is espoused by brown people. ‘The 
far Left will always support Third World peoples against what they 
view as an imperialist West,’ notes one analyst who has closely 
followed the phenomenon. Another says, ‘Islamists in the West have 
skilfully used the tools of intellectual intimidation to build an 
inviolate wall around Islam, giving it a sacred status that brooks 
no criticism.’ The French Leftist leader Olivier Besançonneau 
added political piquancy when explaining his inclusivist approach 
to the Islamists: ‘Are these not the new slaves? Is it not natural 
they should unite with the working class to destroy the capitalist 

But there are small voices of doubt. To some within Britain’s 
Trotskyite Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, the unholy marriage is 
outright heresy. One Trot describes SWP advocates of the Black–Red 
alliance as ‘demoralised Guardian readers with headscarves’, a 
withering allusion to the SWP organiser who ordered secular, 
socialist women to cover their heads while demonstrating with 
their Muslim sisters outside the Israeli embassy in London. And he 
is scathing of SWP monitors who enforced gender segregation to 
mollify Muslim sensibilities at a demonstration in Trafalgar 
Square. ‘Marxists are secular or they are not Marxists,’ said the 
Trot with principled purity.

Dogma runs deep. The Islamists accentuate the positive, noting 
Galloway’s opposition to abortion and his professed religious 
faith, which, according to one, ‘will surely be welcomed by 
British Muslims who see Respect as a real alternative’. And why 
complain when the Left is so obligingly on message? Take Spark, 
the organ of Arthur Scargill’s Socialist Labour party, which 
hailed Asif Mohammed Hanif, the British suicide-bomber who 
attacked a beachfront bar in Tel Aviv, as a ‘hero of the 
revolutionary youth’. Hanif, declared the paper, had carried out 
his mission ‘in the spirit of internationalism’.

The fact is the coalition has been a godsend to both sides. The 
Left, a once-dwindling band of communists, Trotskyites, Maoists 
and Castroists, had been clinging to the dregs of a clapped-out 
cause; the Islamists could deliver numbers and passion, but they 
needed a vehicle to give them purchase on the political terrain. A 
tactical alliance became an operational imperative. Indeed, the 
first to advocate the Black–Red alliance was none other than Ayman 
al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden and ideologue of al-Qa’eda. 
In a message delivered in August 2002, he called on sympathisers 
to seek allies among ‘any movement that opposes America, even 
atheists’. This sentiment was refined in London by Abu Hamza 
al-Masri, the hook-handed Islamist from Central Casting who is 
currently fighting extradition to the United States on terrorism 
charges. ‘We say to anyone who hates the Americans and wants to 
throw the Jews out of Palestine — Ahlan wa Sahlan (welcome). The 
Prophet teaches that we could ally ourselves even with the 
atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy.’

But the Tora Bora Award for Chutzpah goes to George Galloway, 
veteran champion of Arab and Islamist causes. Appearing on 
al-Jazeera television last month, he attacked the West while 
extolling Islamic virtue. ‘It’s not the Muslims who are the 
terrorists,’ he declared. ‘The biggest terrorists are Bush and 
Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar.... We believe in the Prophets, peace 
be upon them. [Bush] believes in the profits, and how to get a 
piece of them. That’s his god.’ Marx meets Mohammed. High theatre 
meets low farce. The savvy Galloway, now more godly than gorgeous, 
has created a conduit through which Islamofascism pumps its poison 
into Britain’s political bloodstream. It would be quite funny were 
it not so serious.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list