The "Progressive" Two Step: Introduce Fear of the "Other" to Smother Jews' and Gays' Legitimate Concerns About Muslims

Bruce Bawer unpacks a typical mainstream media article--this one from the Christian Science Monitor--which can't bring itself to criticize any aspect of Islam or those who practice it (for to do so would be "Islamophobic"), preferring instead to chide Muslims' victims:

Now, any honest reporter faced with all of the above data would be obliged to acknowledge that, yes, Islam preaches the murder of gays and Jews and that members of those groups in Europe are aware of this fact and are acting out of sheer self-preservation. Period. 

But the mainstream media can't allow itself to admit these facts and leave it at that. So it muddies the waters. [CSM scribblers] Llana and Micner did so in a familiar way. The “far-right” parties, they charged, don't really believe in freedom and human rights, and don't really care about gays' or Jews' well-being, but are, on the contrary, nests of bigotry – including homophobia and anti-Semitism. Why, then, are these parties welcoming Jews and gays into their ranks? According to Llana and Micner, it all came down to two words: window dressing. They're taking in Jewish and gay members, you see, only because those groups' support for them allows the parties to pose as non-bigoted “[e]ven as they feed on” – wait for it – “the fear of the 'other.'”  

Ah yes, that useful concept: “fear of the 'other.'” Llana and Micner, as we've seen, had already made it perfectly clear that Jews and gays have a very good reason for fearing Islam. But by bringing in the postmodern concept of “fear of the 'other,'” they deftly swept all sense away and turned the whole thing around. For the entire concept of “the other” is tied up, in contemporary academic discourse, with what is meant to be regarded by all and sundry as the thoroughly ugly history of Western imperialism – the colonization of various non-Western corners of the earth, and the cruel subordination of the almost invariably dark-skinned natives of those places to their white European conquerors. Let it be understood, moreover, that for one of today's academics to reduce a social or political situation to a distrustful encounter between “self” and “other” is to suggest that the former view themselves as civilized and view the “other” as a bunch of savages.  

By introducing the notion of “fear of the 'other'” into their article, then, Llana and Micner were pulling a swift one, implying that these “far-right” parties' counter-jihadist positions are based not on a legitimate concern about Islamic prejudices but – presto change-o! – on Western prejudices against Muslims that are rooted in nothing other than Islam's alienness and unfamiliarity. Never mind that Llana and Micner had already established that Islam has long since ceased to be an alien or unfamiliar phenomenon in most of western Europe; that native Europeans have, in point of fact, been exposed to it for more than a generation now; that the overwhelming majority of them have had close encounters with a great number of Muslims; and that they have witnessed, with growing alarm, the dire impact of Islamization on almost every aspect of their lives, their communities, their cities, and their countries. Never mind, in sum, that their concerns are rooted in cold, harsh reality. 

Harsh reality? I have yet to meet a "progressive" who is willing to take that on. More often, those who purvey the "fear of the 'other'" bollocks prefer to dwell in the land of delusion, a place where there's no jihad, and Muslims and Jews can luxuriate in their collective sense of "otherness".

Update: This bit from the article linked above is a prime example of delusional--and suicidal--Jewish "progressive" thinking (my bolds):

The conference was “a gesture toward the possibility of a Jewish-Muslim relationship in this country better than the one we have,” Dr. Kurtzer said. 

“We’re trying to be at the frontlines of reimagining Jewish-Muslim relations in this country, and we’re doing so as an avowedly Zionist organization,” he continued. “That makes it hard for some in the Muslim community to participate; that’s no secret. In the paranoid culture we’re in, it makes some people think that we’re not serious about our Zionism. From our perspective, one can love the State of Israel and feel that we’re more effective in building the strength of the Jewish people, by building relationships with others who don’t share that commitment. 

“We are an anti-litmus-test institution,” he said. 

Mr. Kurtzer lamented the “tragedy” of bringing the conflict in Israel to America. “I believe it’s possible to have a serious relationship to Israel without becoming proxy warriors for a conflict seven thousand miles away,” he said. There’s no reason, he said, that arguments about Israel should blow up friendships between Muslim and Jewish high school students.

Not me. I'm a pro-litmus-test sort of person. And if you can't pass the litmus test of accepting Israel's right to exist, I have no interest in being your "friend."

And, yes, there are some Muslims who do pass the test--Professor Salim Mansur, for example.

He "gets" it. Mr. Kurtzer, alas, not so much.

And BTW, Mr. K., it wasn't "Zionists" who brought "the conflict in Israel" i.e. the war between the Jews and jihadis, to America. It was the jihadis. In NYC (site of your schmooze-a-thon) on 9/11/11. At Fort Hood. In Boston. In San Bernardino. In Orlando. You see, much as you and the other schmoozers would love to live in your American bubble, a place where you think you're safe, you can't: the jihad, which is global in scope, won't allow it.

And, no, that isn't me just being--now, what was that word you used again? oh, yeah--"paranoid."