Error: Unable to create directory uploads/2019/02. Is its parent directory writable by the server?

Horowitz Vs Marshall: Why is the “Center-Left” AWOL in the War with Islamofascism?

Posted on June 9 2010 6:45 am
David Swindle is the Managing Editor of NewsReal Blog and the Associate Editor of FrontPage Magazine. Follow him on Twitter here
Be Sociable, Share!
Print This Post Print This Post

It’s more than interesting that while there have been over 470,000 views of the exchange between David Horowitz and the Muslim Students Association officer at UC San Diego which revealed an appalling support for a genocide of the Jews, and it has been featured on many, many websites as chilling evidence of the jihadists among us, not a single “liberal” website has posted it, including Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo. And while Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have both played the video, not a single “liberal” cable news show has mentioned it. Not Keith Olbermann, not Rachel Maddow, and not Chris Matthews who are too busy skewering inept Republican candidates who want to argue the fine points of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964-5. Not Anderson Cooper nor Larry King. Nor is this just a passive denial of the jihadist threat at home.

Joshua Micah Marshall, the editor of Talking Points Memo went out of his way three years ago to attack Horowitz when he spoke at Columbia about the oppression of women in Islam as part of the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Islamo-Fascism was evidently a problem less pressing than the threat posed by Horowitz’s attempt to raise campus awareness of the widespread campus support for Islamo-Fascism. Although Islamo-Fascism Awareness week was supported by conservative students on 100 campuses — a fact noteworthy in itself – not a single article appeared on liberal/left websites to engage the issues that it raised. Instead, the event was greeted with ridicule and smears in a concerted attempt by the Left to discredit and dismiss it, and not incidentally lend support to the jihadist forces at home and abroad.

Recently Horowitz emailed Marshall expressing curiosity about his intentions, and specifically an interest should he be planning another effort around the San Diego incident to ridicule the idea that it might indicate a serious problem with which all Americans should be concerned. Marshall responded in high dudgeon at the thought that anyone might suspect the center-left of not taking the jihadist threat seriously. So Horowitz asked him for evidence of his own website’s concern. Marshall retorted the very idea that there was not such concern was preposterous, then ended the exchange.

This is the headline at the lead story from May 28 at Talking Points Memo, Marshall’s journal and one of the leading online publications of the center-left:

Planned Muslim Cultural Center Near Ground Zero Prompts Massive Right-Wing Freakout

The  article then goes on to defend the construction of a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero and infer that its opponents (like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer) are racist Islamophobes. Cover is given to the project’s leader Feisal Abdul Rauf who is cast as a moderate antidote to Al Qaeda:

The effort is being spearheaded by a longtime local imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has said the center would “bridge and heal a divide” and has said it’s his mission to fight radicalism.

But this is a fantasy. At Pajamas Media Walid Shoebat revealed that the reality is that Rauf actually does not believe in inter-faith dialogue, supports Shariah law, and argues that America brought 9/11 on itself.

But perhaps this is an anomaly among Talking Points Memo’s coverage of the war with genocidal, Islamic fascists. With the events of last week – the attempt by Hamas’ “humanitarian wing” to break the legal blockade which keeps rockets from killing Israeli children – the ultimate test of TPM’s allegiances was presented.

At TPM Café on June 1:

Here is a better analogy from the civil rights era, offered by a young friend and colleague.

“Israel’s defenders,” he says, “are arguing that Israel had the right to attack the people on the ships because the flotillas’ goal was not really to supply the Gazans but to break the blockade. Supplying the Gazans was only a pretense for their larger political goal.

He continues:

“So does that mean it was okay to beat and brutalize kids who were sitting-in at Woolworth counters throughout the south in the 1950’s and 1960’s because their real goal was not being served lunch but ending segregation.”


In other words: the flotilla Nazis seeking to break a naval blockade for a terrorist army whose official goal is the “obliteration” of the Jewish state are akin to Civil Rights activists fighting against racist policies.

TPM Café on June 2:

The bottom line is that the men and women of the flotilla had every right to attempt to destroy an illegal blockade that Israel had no legal standing to impose and which was designed to inflict collective punishment on the people of Gaza. (There is no truth to the story that Israel would have delivered the goods on the ships to Gaza if asked; the Israelis never made that offer and, judging by years of precedent, would have blocked any delivery).

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

In other words: Israel is a criminal state. The IDF was attacked because of the “illegal action” it engaged in.

Continue reading on page 2 here.

Be Sociable, Share!
8 Responses leave one →

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Copyright 2019 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry