Top Menu

Brigitte Gabriel: Multi-Cultural Jihad

Brigitte Gabriel

As most researchers of Islamophobia know, Brigitte Gabriel is a prominent figure within the Islamophobia Industry. She is the founder of the right-wing organization, ACT For America, author of two hateful books demonizing Muslims, and a regular speaker at anti-Islam/Arab conferences. While “native informants” like Tarek Fatah and Irshad Manji tend to placate the Center-Right with their “nuanced” commentary about the supposed backwardness of their own people, Brigitte Gabriel and her band of misfits are the extreme Right – the type that really believe Obama is a one person sleeper cell who is going to implement Shariah Law as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood activates him.

Gabriel recently did an interview with Roger Aronoff’s “Take AIM” (I’m sure that’s just a “metaphor”) program for (In)Accuracy in Media. Honestly, if you’ve heard one interview of hers, you have heard them all. But what she said in the very beginning of this interview was so full of anti-Muslim immigrant code-language, it would take a book to refute all of it. She begins her diatribe by telling her faux life-story of being attacked by Muslims because she was Christian, and that this is when she learned that all Muslims, every last one of them, is evil and will try to kill you for being an “infidel.”

As a child, I was born and raised in Lebanon, which used to be the majority Christian country in the Middle East—the only majority Christian country in the Middle East. We were open-minded. We were fair. We were tolerant. We were multi-cultural—we prided ourselves on our multi-culturalism. We had open border policy—we welcomed everyone to our country from the Arabic countries surrounding us because we wanted to share with them the Westernization which we had created in the heart of the Middle East. Muslims used to send their children to study in our universities from all the surrounding Arabic countries because we had built the best universities in the Middle East. We built the best economy—they graduated, then worked in our economy…

Unfortunately, Roger, all that began to change after 20, 30 years of our independence. By that time, the minority Islamic population in the country became the majority simply because of the way they multiplied, compared to people like us, who come from a Judeo-Christian background—they have multiple marriages, they have many children out of each wife. We had the situation contained until the 1970s, when Lebanon accepted a third wave of Palestinian refugees. The majority of them were Muslims, they put their heads together with the Muslims in Lebanon, declared war on the Christians— and that’s when my 9/11 happened to me, and my life turned upside-down.” (emphasis added)

Lets put aside the fact that this screed completely erases Muslim contribution to Lebanon and its culture, denying a historic Muslim and Arab presence dating back over a millennium. The whole point of this rant, in case it isn’t clear enough, is; “DON’T LET THE MUSLIMS IMMIGRATE TO YOUR COUNTRIES! BE VERY SCARED! THEY WILL OUT-BREED YOU! THEY WILL KILL YOU! THEY WILL OUT- SMART YOU! MULTI-CULTURALISM IS BAD! OPEN BORDERS ARE BAD! ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS MARCH!”

She also weds this ahistorical account with a bizarre but familiar type of pro-Israeli propaganda, claiming that “the Israelis” were so kind and compassionate to their enemies, and in return “the Palestinians” tried to drive the Jews into the sea. This is simply wrong. While there may be an occasional case of an Israeli soldier giving a Palestinian kid a candy bar once every ten years, there are many documented incidents of utter cruelty committed by various soldiers in the IDF. An occasional Butterfinger for one lone kid doesn’t make up for that. Going by Gabriel’s logic of the supposed cruelty of all Palestinians (whom she paints as being all Muslims even though there are also Palestinian Christians), then the following remark from an Israeli squad leader describing a sniper’s attitude toward killing a Palestinian mother and her children must be demonstrative of “all” Israeli soldiers?

… I don’t know how to describe it …. The lives of Palestinians, let’s say, is something very, very less important than the lives of our soldiers. So as far as they are concerned they can justify it that way…”

When asked about the “distinction” between Islam and the “Judeo-Christian” tradition, Gabriel did what all good Islamophobes do: she obfuscated. “Hey! That’s the Old Testament, man!”

There is a huge difference, because we Christians and Jews have reformed our religion. In the Old Testament we have violent verses—you know, “A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye”—yet you do not see any Jews today strapping bombs on their bodies, going to mosques, and blowing themselves up in order to kill other human beings in revenge for suicide bombings in Israel, for example…

So we as Christians and Jews have reformed our religion. We know that we live in a different world today. We value human life. There is nothing in the Bible, in Christianity, that sanctions the killing of another human being…

So the “God of the Bible” doesn’t command Moses to commit genocide against the Canaanites and other nations already inhabiting historic Palestine; or that Jesus won’t return to earth and “destroy” the unbelievers?

If all Christians and Jews have “reformed” their religion, then why are there a growing number of American Christians who advocate replacing the Constitution with “Biblical Law?” Jason “Molotov” Mitchell, a “cool” right-wing Christian, teaches young people that Christianity is meant to be “masculine” and not “effeminate”, and that Christians who decry classical Shariah Law because it allows polygamy and executes adulterers should shut up because, “hey! It’s in the Bible!”

If the Bible doesn’t condemn something but you do, that’s not a biblical position, that’s man-made religion,

He’s not even one of the most well-known “Christian” bigots this country has to offer. Bryan Fischer, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, just to name a few, all believe that this country’s political structure should “return” to either “Biblical principles” or “Biblical Law” altogether. But of course it is “different” when the tables are turned. I’m positive that these Christians “don’t represent mainstream Christianity”, yet these are the same type of people who Brigitte Gabriel associates with! You can’t have it both ways.

Gabriel continues in true Orwellian fashion,

Under Islam, killing of infidels, or non-Muslims, not only justified, but encouraged, but praised under the Qur’an. A Muslim is only guaranteed an entrance into heaven when they commit to martyrdom fi sabilillah—in the cause of Allah. While Christians and Jews can do good deeds or good work and buy themselves forgiveness that will enable them to get into heaven, in Islam it does not exist…

This is a wonderful demonstration of inverted reality. “Doing good deeds” and “working for forgiveness” is one of the main themes of Islam. While many Evangelical Christians furiously deny that one can “work their way to Heaven”, many Muslims view performing good deeds and living a decent life as a prerequisite to entering Paradise, while also maintaining that God is the “Most Merciful” and can grant or withhold Paradise to anyone He wishes regardless of how many “good” or “bad” deeds they have committed.

One would think that such a “slip of the tongue” would get her into hot water with some of her Evangelical friends, because they are adamant in the belief that only through professing belief in Jesus Christ as one’s “Lord and Savior”, can a person be “guaranteed” a place in Heaven; and no amount of “good deeds” will grant an unbeliever Heaven, while no amount of “bad deeds” can damn a believer to Hell. Gabriel once again proves why Islampohobes are the chief dissemblers and practitioners of “double speak,” i.e. what they project onto Muslims as taqiyya.

Most importantly, the Qur’an categorically condemns the killing of innocent people; it is a blatant, enormous and dangerous falsity to claim that a Quran following Muslim has no recourse but to kill an “infidel” to enter Paradise. Such a warped statement is what feeds ignorance and hatred, increasing suspicion of the Muslim “other,” and reads like something out of a sultry, 19th century Orientalist screed about the “fanatical Mohammedans.”

Not even sparing “liberal” and “progressive Muslims,” Gabriel goes for the jugular,

This is why when we see the radicals come up against the moderates in a debate, when the moderates say, “Islam is a peaceful religion, Islam does not call for the killing of others,” the radicals begin quoting chapter after chapter and verse after verse—because the law is on their side. That’s why they leave the moderates silenced, unable to come back with a response: Islam in itself, as a religion, approves and encourages the killings of infidels.” (emphasis added.)

If there is any doubt left that Brigitte Gabriel is a militant Islamophobe, this one quotation from a quite lengthy interview should dispel any skepticism one might still have. She has proven herself to be a bigot of the worst kind, even surpassing Robert Spencer in some ways, for while Spencer (sometimes) tries to pass off his Pink Floyd and bong water induced drivel as the musings of a serious scholar, Gabriel just lets all of her hate pour through her like a perpetual well of hostility.

Managing to transform from a right-wing bigot to a stand-up comedian, Gabriel finally adds this bit of hilarity while describing the bias of the mainstream (codeword for liberal) media;

“…But at least with Fox News, you get fair and balanced debate…”

But doesn’t a Saudi Arabian Muslim dude own like 7% of News Corp., the parent company of Fox News? Sounds like Gabriel is practicing taqiyya.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Benjamin Taghiov

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78836.html

    Michele Bachman’s fearmongering is not a joke. It has consquences for real people in the real world.

  • Pingback: Brigitte Gabriel: Multi-Cultural Jihad | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • Sir david

    I wonder if the whole decolonial process was set up just to create these dependant unstable entities, Africa and the middle east is full of them .
    Where some of them stable nation states before colonialised ?
    I have my doubts

    Sir David

  • Absolutely. I think next to Bermuda, which voted to remain in the British Commonwealth, there is no other country that so pathetically loves its colonial status (I’m purely talking on the elite/bourgeoisie level). Just as a followup, what I resent most among this type of person with this type of mentality is the idea that the “bon vivant” social scene of Beirut equates to freedom; that there is historically no “modernity” within the Arabo-Muslim world; that speaking a dead version of schoolbook French makes one “learned”. The Lebanese equivalent of the “house slave”/comprador/Uncle Tom/hybrid/border-crosser is the absolute most vile creature walking the planet.

  • Sir david

    Daniel
    Is not the problem also that Lebanon was created post WW1 as a colony not to be independent but to be dependant .

    Sir David

  • The real “between the lines” is the coded classism of what she is saying. It’s really pointless if you ask me to try and parse out the built-in religious sectarianism of this place created out of a colonialist’s map to be an economic enclave for every outsider entity that wants to niik this country with the willful collaboration of those like this woman. Similar to how race is a cover for classism in the U.S., religion is a cover for classism in Lebanon. She’s basically saying that the “white” people created everything, and the “black” people have ruined that creation. There’s no point in trying to convince these people otherwise, or show up the lies of what they are saying. They know they are lying; they are living in a completely mediated reality with no connection to the street, and see themselves as fighting a much bigger battle. Yet I’m curious, for example, how she would explain current alignments that link Muslims and Christians in political alliances that do not make any sense based on her description, but make total sense when we think of who has been and continues to be marginalized traditionally and currently here.

    Some further clarifications: She claims that the influx of Palestinians changed the demographics of the country. Given that Palestinians cannot hold jobs, own property, or marry into the population, this is patently false and she knows it. She also knows that the practice of multiple wives for all intents and purposes does not exist here, although this trope is widely recounted within elite Christian circles—I heard it the other week at a talk at AUB from a man in the audience. She doesn’t care that her idea of “open borders” is a euphemism for the most heinous forms of human trafficking and slave labor in the southwest-asian region, including sex trafficking, domestic and industrial slave labor, as well as my “adoption”. She also knows that the majority of Christians have left of their own accord, to such an extent that the Maronite Patriarch at one pointed wanted to forbid such egress. She probably doesn’t know for her internalized propaganda that the civil war was fundamentally a secular leftist uprising aiming to change the classism that she invokes so proudly. With U.S. and Israeli support, this was undone in a long, drawn out, and painful way that I maintain still persists despite claims of the war having ended. Finally, I doubt she sees herself as Arab. The single most racist trope of this place is the idea that there was a Phoenician race “tainted” by Arabs.

    To examine the historic role of Arabic language use in Lebanon, I used this book in my classes at AUB: The Arabic Language and National Identity, by Yasir Suleiman; it points out that Arabic is fundamental to Maronite religious rites and communication, dismantling the the idea that there is a national language to be found in the idiotic pidgin French that I dread hearing from students here.

    To look at Lebanon through an economic lens, I recommend the book A Modern History of Lebanon by Fawaz Traboulsi.

  • @Stephen G. Parker

    Thank you for your extremely important comment. Needless to say, I appreciate your sense of justice and fairness.

  • Haddock

    @Just Stopping By,

    “Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate your efforts in explaining your reasoning to me. I think we just disagree over how to read various things Gabriel says; I take a more literal approach while you look for what coded phrases.”

    Thanks for commenting. There’s nothing wrong with being literal, but I think it is okay to sometimes “read between the lines” of what someone is saying. For example, if a white person said, “I want to abolish the welfare system because only lazy, rap-listening, red kool-aid drinking, uppity boys who only care about putting new rims on their ghetto blasters benefit from the system”, I think it would be safe to assume that said person is referring to Black people by employing stereotypes that many people have about Black people. Thus, I don’t think a person always needs to be literal to say what is on their mind in order to be understood.

    Code-language among bigots does exist. There can be a danger in only seeking out that tactic among them, but they certainly do utilize it.

    “In the article, you say, “Lets put aside the fact that this screed completely erases Muslim contribution to Lebanon and its culture, denying a historic Muslim and Arab presence dating back over a millennium.”

    In my view, she does that in a cultural sense. She claims that Muslims have caused no cultural advancements anywhere in the world, including the Middle-East, and specifically her home country. She has also said that “Arabs” “have no soul”, yet she herself is an Arab. I don’t think she intended to include herself in the “no soul” remark.

    “The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause]…. this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL !, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe….[applause] because our God is the God of love.”

    This is why I find the strictly literal approach to be problematic. Considering that Gabriel herself is an Arab, I find it difficult to believe that she was implicating all Arabs, irrespective of their religious (or lack thereof) heritage in her diatribes against Muslims. Since she is an Arab Christian, and claims that Arab Christianity and Westernization was the reason for Lebanon’s initial economic and cultural success, I find it difficult to believe that she also intended Arab Christians to be thrown into her “Arabs have no soul” comment. Unless she is a “self-hating” Arab…but she does not appear to be opposed to her Arab identity; just am Arab Muslim identity, and a Muslim identity period.

    This is further accentuated by her “Allah” remark, since many Arab Christians have no problem referring to the Creator as “Allah”, because Allah is Arabic for “The God.” The fact that she made an issue out of “Allah” means that she was implying that Allah is the “Muslim God”, not the God of “the Jews and Christians.” But if we were to go the completely literal route in understanding this quote, it would mean that all Arabs, even Christian Arabs (of which she is a proud member), are evil and barbaric, even though she has credited Arab Christianity (in another instance) to the success of her home country. Thus, when Gabriel sometimes says “Arabs” or “the Palestinians”, she is not referring to all Arabs or Palestinians as barbaric, but only the Muslim ones.

    Peace

  • Just Stopping By

    @Haddock: Thanks for your reply. I do appreciate your efforts in explaining your reasoning to me. I think we just disagree over how to read various things Gabriel says; I take a more literal approach while you look for what coded phrases.

    You say in your last reply, “I never said that she denied an Arab presence in Lebanon…” That’s again where I got tripped up by reading literally. In the article, you say, “Lets put aside the fact that this screed completely erases Muslim contribution to Lebanon and its culture, denying a historic Muslim and Arab presence dating back over a millennium.” On its face, your article seems to claim that Gabriel was “denying a historic Muslim and Arab presence.” Again, perhaps it is my fault for taking your statement that Gabriel was “denying a[n] … Arab presence” literally, and thus to be inconsistent with your statement in your last reply that you “never said that she denied an Arab presence.”

    Anyway, I guess I just don’t follow all the code words and nuances here. But I still think that it is a bad idea to claim that somebody meant X when they say the exact opposite. I would rather say they are being disingenuous or point to where they contradict themselves. Otherwise you confuse readers like me who don’t know the nuances and code words you have in mind.

  • Haddock

    @Just Stopping By

    “And, what do we find in Gabriel’s screed? “We were multi-cultural—we prided ourselves on our multi-culturalism.” How can one say that Gabriel was denying a Muslim and Arab presence if she says that Lebanon was multi-cultural? Let’s go further; in your reply to me, you say that Gabriel was proud of being an Arab Christian — where do you find her denying an Arab presence in Lebanon in that screed?”

    Thanks for commenting. I think she was saying “We were multi-cultural” to make her point that multi-culturalism is bad. If you follow the context of what she is saying in that paragraph, she is basically saying, “we were so open minded and tolerant, and let those Muslims live in our country, and then they killed us because they believed we were infidels.” That’s barely a paraphrase of what she actually said. She is saying that for the benefit of her right-wing audience, to drive home the point that the U.S. should stop Muslim immigration, and profile Muslims in the U.S. because “you never know who could be a terrorist.” That is an assumption on my part, yes, but after studying what Islamophobes have been saying for the past ten years, it becomes pretty easy to follow the narrative.

    “How can one say that Gabriel was denying a Muslim and Arab presence if she says that Lebanon was multi-cultural? Let’s go further; in your reply to me, you say that Gabriel was proud of being an Arab Christian — where do you find her denying an Arab presence in Lebanon in that screed?”

    I never said that she denied an Arab presence in Lebanon, but when Gabriel says “we were multi-cultural”, she is referring to Arab Christians, as if to say, “WE made Lebanon great and multi-cultural. Us CHRISTIANS let those Muslims come in and have a taste of the greatness that WE created.” I never said that she denied a physical presence of Muslims in Lebanon, but it is clear to me that she is attributing all Lebanese cultural advancements to 1.) Christianity, and 2.) “Westernization”, and if you look at the Islamophobic narrative (from the Right’s angle), Muslims and Islam are mocked for being “anti-Christian”, and “anti-Western.” So it is clear to me what she means behind these coded phrases of hers.

    “You also say in reply to me: “Later in the article she says that ‘the Palestinians’ (which she most likely means Muslims) are barbaric and don’t treat their enemies with compassion, whereas ‘the Israelis’ are practically saints who love their enemies with extreme mercy.” Again, you rely on an assumption that “she most likely means Muslims.” Relying on assumptions is a bad way to defeat the actual fact that she said that “the majority” of Palestinian refugees were Muslim.”

    But that’s just it. Gabriel contradicts herself all the time. She said “the majority” of Palestinian refugees were Muslims in the beginning of the interview, but later on says “the Palestinians” are evil and barbaric. If her overall agenda is Islamophobia, and she is a “devout” Christian, then why would she suddenly take a nuanced approach and mean “both Christian and Muslim” when she refers to “the Palestinians” as being barbaric. When people say “the Palestinians” in the West, it evokes images of suicide bombers and Hamas because the mainstream media depicts the conflict as being mostly the fault of Palestinians not willing to recognize Israel’s “right to exist.”

    “Also, if Gabriel’s stories here are true, then it also shows your claim of one kind Israeli act every of a candy bar every ten years is an exaggeration that further undercuts the objectivity of your arguments.”

    I made that exaggeration to make a point. If “the Palestinians” (every last one of them) are evil because of one suicide bombing attack, then by that logic “the Israelis” (every last one of them) is guilty because there are numerous incidents of Israeli soldiers being cruel to Palestinians. Of course I am not saying that all Israeli soldiers are bad, but if Israel is allowed to be treated with that kind of nuanced understanding, then I think Palestinians are also allowed that same right.

    Peace

  • AJ

    Hanah Kahwagi (Brigitte Gabriel’s real name) runs a third class production company, Tudor Productions (www.tudorproductions.com) with her camera man husband Charles Tudor. She makes more money with her Islamophobia stints such as she took $178,441 in 2009 with her ACT assignments and with the American Congress for Truth. Islamophobia sells and brings cash for Kahwagi – Tudor.

    http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110710/NEWS/307100058/Anti-Islam-group-finds-fertile-ground-Nashville

    No wonder there is so much resistance to that mosque in TN. We should perhaps have Bob Smietana from The Tennessean (or other people who expose Islamophobia) do a guest author piece for Loonwatch, sometime.

    Here’s the SPLC report on her.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2011/fall/acting-out

  • AJ

    Gabriel says, “There is a huge difference, because we Christians and Jews have reformed our religion”. That says it all.

    I agree with Haddock where Haddock said, “I think the confusion you are feeling has more to do with Brigitte Gabriel, than myself.” Although, I wouldn’t say Gabriel is confused – she wants to paint Palestinian Muslims and all the other Muslims e.g. Lebanese, Egyptians, etc. etc., (hence the term “Palestinians and Muslims”) as EVIL.

  • AJ

    Haddock,

    Great article!

  • Just Stopping By

    @Haddock says, “If Gabriel didn’t mean ‘Muslims’ when she said ‘Palestinians’ in this context, is it safe to say that she was condemning Arab Christians, an identity of which she is very proud of?”

    Actually, I think Gabriel was describing three groups, “Muslims” meaning “Lebanese Muslims”; “Christians” meaning “Lebanese Christians”; and “Palestinians” meaning both “Palestinian Muslims and Christians”.

    –”So we Christians, and the town, were faced with either being slaughtered at the hands of the radical Muslims and Palestinians”
    –”Israel came physically into Lebanon, established the Security Zone, kicked the Muslims and Palestinians away from our area”
    –”Syria had come to Lebanon at that time as a peacekeeping force, supposedly to keep the Christians and Muslims and Palestinians from killing each other”
    –”It made the Israelis realize that they needed to partner together with the Christians in the south and create a buffer zone which would keep the Palestinians and Muslims from basically entering Israel illegally”

    Let’s put aside whatever view Gabriel has on history. Still, it seems safe to say that she was talking about Palestinians as a group that was different from what she often meant by talking about Christians or Muslims. And she explicitly says that a majority of the Palestinians were Muslim. (“The majority of them were Muslim.”) I can’t see how one can fairly say that she says that they were all Muslim given that quote.

    @Haddock, I feel your passion here, but I think that the article does Loonwatch a disservice when it makes claims about what Gabriel was saying that are flatly refuted by her statements. Want another example? The article says, “Lets put aside the fact that this screed completely erases Muslim contribution to Lebanon and its culture, denying a historic Muslim and Arab presence dating back over a millennium.” And, what do we find in Gabriel’s screed? “We were multi-cultural—we prided ourselves on our multi-culturalism.” How can one say that Gabriel was denying a Muslim and Arab presence if she says that Lebanon was multi-cultural? Let’s go further; in your reply to me, you say that Gabriel was proud of being an Arab Christian — where do you find her denying an Arab presence in Lebanon in that screed?

    There is nothing wrong with attacking Gabriel for things she actually says, and there are many things she says that are clearly bigoted, so it should be easy. But when you attack her for thing that are the opposite of what she says, you cast doubt on the objectivity and accuracy of all of your arguments, and by extension, this site.

    You also say in reply to me: “Later in the article she says that ‘the Palestinians’ (which she most likely means Muslims) are barbaric and don’t treat their enemies with compassion, whereas ‘the Israelis’ are practically saints who love their enemies with extreme mercy.” Again, you rely on an assumption that “she most likely means Muslims.” Relying on assumptions is a bad way to defeat the actual fact that she said that “the majority” of Palestinian refugees were Muslim. Also, if Gabriel’s stories here are true, then it also shows your claim of one kind Israeli act every of a candy bar every ten years is an exaggeration that further undercuts the objectivity of your arguments.

    @Géji: I agree that it is possible that Gabriel could have conflicting views, but there is no evidence that she does here.

  • “There is a huge difference, because we Christians and Jews have reformed our religion. In the Old Testament we have violent verses—you know, “A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye”—yet you do not see any Jews today strapping bombs on their bodies, going to mosques, and blowing themselves up in order to kill other human beings in revenge for suicide bombings in Israel, for example…”

    Really? That assertion is both sickening and laughable at the same time. I don’t know about bombing mosques – unless, as I believe, many if not most of the mosque bombings attributed to ‘Muslim extremists’ are actually carried out by U.S./British/Israeli agents. Of course, there was the infamous case of Baruch Goldstein in 1994, who killed 29 Muslim worshipers, and wounded another 125, in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. His grave was a popular pilgrimage spot for supporters who consider him a hero. He still has large numbers of such supporters.

    But what about the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946? Jewish agents disguised as Arabs did the bombing, killing many Jews as well as British. Or how about the Lavon affair in Egypt in 1954? Egyptian Jewish agents of Mossad attempted to bomb American, British, and Egyptian buildings (again intending that Muslim terrorists would be blamed). Fortunately they failed in that attempted bombing.

    Again, how about the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967? They knowingly and intentionally attempted to kill everyone on the ship and sink it, intending that the attack would be blamed on Egypt resulting in a U.S. ‘retaliation’ against Egypt.

    Or how about the vicious attacks on Gaza? Wasn’t it about 1400 Palestinians murdered – mostly civilians, and a large percentage of those being women and children? Of course, in Israeli thinking, there is no such thing as a ‘Gentile’ civilian in wartime. Even those ‘Gentile’ babies will probably grow up to be a danger to Israel, so it’s better to kill them now and not give them an opportunity to grow up and bring harm to the ‘righteous’ Israelites!

    Or how about those two Israeli men who – disguised as Arabs and carrying false Arab passports, of course – were caught carrying weapons and explosives into an embassy in Mexico a few days after 9/11/2001? Had they not been caught, there would have been another terrorist act blamed on ‘al-Qaeda’!

    And of course, although I’ll be mocked as a ‘stupid conspiracy theorist’ for mentioning this one, there is the infamous event of 9/11/2001 itself – carried out by a cooperative effort of U.S. and Israeli agents but blamed on ‘Muslim terrorists’ through easily debunked false evidence.

    Yeah, Jewish and Christian people sure have ‘reformed’ their religion! By the way, I know very well that many ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘evangelical’ Christians still strongly defend the ‘Old Testament’ accounts of Jewish genocide. God Himself (supposedly) ordered those genocides; and of course, God can’t be wrong. Back when I was an ‘Evangelical and Reformed’ Christian, I myself defended those ‘Old Testament’ atrocities. I still have many in-laws of such persuasion. When asked how he would react today if a “Christian” or “Jew” claimed God Himself had commanded him to carry out such an atrocious act, an in-law who even has a ‘Doctor of Theology’ degree asserted that he does not have any difficulty believing God might command someone (or some group) to do the same sort of thing today! How’s that for ‘reformed’ religion?

  • And so she seems to be blaming Palestinian refugees for her sad outcome of fear and hatred.
    She appears to lack any understanding as to why Palestinians would be refugees in the first place.
    Or perhaps she chooses to be not so blissfully ignorant.

  • Géji

    @Just Stopping By … For just one example of several in the text, the piece itself quotes Gabriel as saying, “…Palestinian refugees. The majority of them were Muslims,” and then says just two paragraphs later the piece states, “…Palestinians (whom she paints as being all Muslims even though there are also Palestinian Christians)”. Huh?

    I think both possibilities are warrant of her, no doubt she can make both the first statement while at the same time in same breath quite well “paint” the second picture. I think bigotry is based on impulse, uncontrollable, it never has any consistency whatsoever, thats why it easily detectable.

  • Haddock

    @Just Stopping By

    “For just one example of several in the text, the piece itself quotes Gabriel as saying, “…Palestinian refugees. The majority of them were Muslims,” and then says just two paragraphs later the piece states, “…Palestinians (whom she paints as being all Muslims even though there are also Palestinian Christians)”. Huh?”

    Thanks for commenting on the article. I think the confusion you are feeling has more to do with Brigitte Gabriel, than myself. Later in the article she says that “the Palestinians” (which she most likely means Muslims) are barbaric and don’t treat their enemies with compassion, whereas “the Israelis” are practically saints who love their enemies with extreme mercy. If Gabriel didn’t mean “Muslims” when she said “Palestinians” in this context, is it safe to say that she was condemning Arab Christians, an identity of which she is very proud of?

  • MC

    Gah, putting that picture there should be a felony itself.

  • @Haddock

    You guys might also want to consider doing something on Jason “Molotov” Mitchell down the road. He’s probably not as Islamophobic as Gabriel, but he’s spouted Islamophobic garbage as well as homophobic garbage on at least a few occasions. Someone should also ask gay and atheists Islamophobes what they think about him. If any of the people they admire support him, there’s a small chance it might get them to rethink things.

  • Just Stopping By

    I don’t think anyone should listen to Gabriel (except to refute her), but this piece is so over the top that I think it is self-defeating.

    For just one example of several in the text, the piece itself quotes Gabriel as saying, “…Palestinian refugees. The majority of them were Muslims,” and then says just two paragraphs later the piece states, “…Palestinians (whom she paints as being all Muslims even though there are also Palestinian Christians)”. Huh?

    It is sad and painful when I agree with the ultimate point an author is trying to make but they seem to do so much to undercut themselves through hyperbole.

  • Globe Trot

    Now that’s what I call a HIDEOUS HYPOCRITE!

  • mindy1

    Gah that face-feels like she is trying to steal my soul D: Regarding what she said, WTF is wrong with her?? I read a book called from Beirut to Jerusalem, and the problems of Lebanon are much more complicated than Christian vs Muslim-by simplifying this history, she is doing nothing to help things.

Powered by Loon Watchers