Post Gaza Plan Part VII – Deepening Israel-UAE’s “Abrahamic” Authoritarianism in the UK

This is the final article in a special series which began in the blessed month of Ramadan. The series aims to uncover the ideological component to the post-Gaza plan based on UAE’s approach to deforming Islam and forcing an Israel-friendly secularism through the patriarchal figure of Abraham. This concluding piece examines the policy-level implementation of this plan in the UK.

• Read Part I – “Denazification” and the UAE Blueprint
• Read Part II – The CVE-driven, Pro-Israeli, “Abrahamic Family House”
• Read Part III – The Christian-Zionist Beneficiaries of the “Abrahamic Family House” Project
• Read Part IV – The Secular Anti-Islam Foundations of the “Abrahamic Family House”
• Read Part V – Defending the Anti-Palestinians “Abrahamic Family House” Supra-Religion
• Read Part VI – “Interfaith Mark II” and the “Religion of Abraham” in the West

---

It is no coincidence that the “Goebbels of Gaza”, Eylon Levy, who was embarrassingly suspended as the official Israeli spokesman after his propaganda caught up with him, invoked Abraham this Ramadan. In a post on ‘X’, he said,

“We are all destined to live side by side in peace and tolerance, the sons and daughters of Abraham.”

Coming from someone who has done everything to deflect the Israeli genocide of Palestinians, the abuse of Abraham and the “peace and tolerance” rhetoric is indicative.

British neocons are rolling out several measures to protect Israel and its image by silencing pro-Palestine activism.

In this concluding piece, we will outline how Israel’s neocon proxies are drawing on the UAE’s de-Islamisation project to implement Netanyahu’s post-Gaza plan at the policy level.

Unpacking the Bloom Review Part 2- PREVENT as Faith Sensitivity and Literacy

In the first of this two-part series examining Colin Bloom’s “independent review into how government engages with faith”, we saw how Bloom is tied to organisations marked by anti-Islam fingerprints that lead to the darkest corners of the global Islamophobia industry.

We also witnessed the most blatant manifestation of this group’s agenda to single out and exert control over Islam without affecting Christianity in the form of authoritarian madrassa proposals.

In this part, we will explore how Bloom’s differential treatment of Islam and Muslims becomes apparent in his concepts of “faith sensitivity” and “faith literacy”. We will examine how these terms and the proposals related to them serve as a continuation of the neoconservative assault on Islam and Muslims.

Additionally, we will raise concerns regarding the report’s emphasis on “Sikh extremism” while neglecting to address Hindutva fascism, neoconservative hate, and “Christianist extremism”.

Legitimising Authoritarianism: A Look at Policy Exchange’s Report Delegitimising Counter-Terrorism (1) – The Authors

This is a series breakdown Policy Exchange’s report “Delegitimising Counter-Terrorism”. You are currently reading Part 1. Part 2, which details the tactics used to construct hyperbolic smears against Muslim organisations, can be read here. The final part, which looks at the neocon attempt to refute criticisms of of PREVENT, can be read here.

---

Policy Exchange launched a report titled “Delegitimising Counter-Terrorism” last month in a bid to push back against PREVENT in what amounts to an exercise that can be captured in various English idioms: lipstick on a pig; beating a dead horse; water off a duck’s back; and spitting in the wind.

The Spectrum of Repression: A look at the Methodology Underpinning the Tony Blair Report

In the previous piece, I established an intertwining set of connections between PR companies involved in the Iraq war, the Islamophobia industry, the comical Commission for Countering Extremism and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (“Institute”).

Whilst the Institute’s report – “Narratives of Division – The Spectrum of Islamist Worldviews in the UK” – should not be taken seriously on account of it being advocated by the degenerate Blair, the issue remains that the framework outlined in the report will most likely influence the evolution of the “extremism” discourse. The report’s method is not disconnected from PREVENT. It is in fact a consistent set of ideas employed by neocons and followed by some Muslim organisations also.

It is important, therefore to critique the proposed methodology and outline its draconian trajectory.

The “Independent and Impartial” Thought-Policing Counter Extremism Commission

Twitter talk and feverish Facebook frenzy over the newly announced Commission for Counter Extremism (CCE) has continued for the past few days, but perhaps disproportionately for the wrong reasons.  The government’s announcement of the Commission came alongside the announcement of the lead commissioner Sara Khan of Inspire, a self-styled feminist who counters “extremism” has triggered vociferous responses in the media. MEND led a petition against her appointment and whilst it opens with a question as to why the Commission is necessary, it goes onto attack Khan on the condition of it existing, rendering the opening statement somewhat incidental. Mend CEO Shazad Amin also centred on Khan, reinforcing this perception.

There are certainly problems with Khan (these will be elaborated upon in a subsequent, detailed piece), however, they are an extension of far more important concerns that need to be raised.

Joining the Army? Qari Asim’s Support for Violence

“Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? ~Muhammad Ali on his opposition to the 1967 US military induction for Vietnam.

“If you look close enough at these medals, you can see the reflections of dead Iraqis. You can see the embers of Libya. And you can see the faces of the men and women of the British armed forces who didn’t return and also those who did with lost limbs and shattered souls. I no longer require these medals.” ~ Daniel Denham, Former RAF, 2015

There has been a concerted effort to militarise Muslims.  This has ranged from cultivating a militarist, state-worshipping mind-set in schools where the pupils are predominantly Muslim, to parading the Army in mosques, and now, using religion to encourage Muslims to join the army.

Times-assigned “leading Islamic scholars and imams” attended a conference with the military at Sandhurst to encourage Muslims to join the British Armed Forces. The article quotes Qari Asim, the Imam at Makkah Mosque in Leeds, as reportedly saying,

“The armed forces are seen as a noble profession and it follows there are no inherent tensions.”

The report further adds that he said scholars were agreed that Islam does not prohibit Muslims from serving in the British Army.

To better understand the validity of Qari Asim’s reported blanket proclamation, there is a need to understand the idea of violence from the perspective of a neocon state and its political domain.

Analysing the Imam Shakeel Begg Judgment Exploited by Neocons

Sara Khan in her contribution to the Hope Not Hate report, State of Hate 2017, dedicates a whole page for Imam Shakeel Begg to prove both “Islamist extremism” and her subservient utility before neocons. Imam Shakeel Begg of Lewisham Islamic Centre took the BBC to court after Andrew Neil labelled the Imam an “extremist”. Against numerous positive character references, the court held that the Imam was a “Jekyll and Hyde” character who was in reality an “extremist”.

Scrutinising the case is important.  Like PREVENT, a bogus theoretical model to determine whether Islamic beliefs are “extreme” is used to label the Imam an “extremist”. Such cases enable an ideological state to pick and choose “extremist” beliefs based on the prevailing climate of prejudice against the Muslim minority.

The judgment is already being paraded in the neocon media and think-tanks run by hate preachers.  It is being used in an McCarthyistic fashion to bully charities that choose to share a platform with the Imam. This sets a dangerous precedent for Islamic scholars of all mainstream persuasions.

Controlling Muslim Discourse: The Neoconservative Epistemology in Sara Khan’s Hope not Hate Piece

 The last piece analysing Hope not Hate’s (HnH) report State of Hate 2017, engaged the question of Sara Khan’s circles of influence.  Her links to notorious members of the counter-Jihad movement would, at the very least, cast doubt on what was produced in the report. One of the structural flaws noted in my last piece was that Khan’s operating framework was the highly discredited PREVENT policy. The policy is based on neoconservative assumptions and promoted by those who intermingle with the worst of the far-right counter-Jihad movements.

This piece will take an epistemological account of Khan’s writing and elaborate the way in which destructive neoconservative assumptions permeate it, leading to the perpetuation of structural prejudice against the Muslim minority and control of Muslim discourse.

A Review of the Casey Review (6) – PREVENT and the Blueprint for a Neocon Closed Society

 

Part 1 (Introduction): A Review of the Casey review (1)

Part 2: A Review of the Louise Casey Review (2) – A Paper Influenced by the Transatlantic Neocon Hate-network

Part 3: A Supremacist Far-Right, Neoconservative Screed of Double Standards and Muslim Minority Stigmatisation

Part 4: The Deformation of Islam and Muslim Minority Rights

Part 5: The Conveyor-Belt Theory, PREVENT and Project Spin

---

In this final piece in the series reviewing the Casey Review, the elements of PREVENT, thought assimilation and nationalism will be brought together and the totalitarian implications of Casey’s statements and comments determined.

Reconstituting “Integration”

Whilst noting the variations on the definition of integration such as sharing common values, respect and allowing diverse people to attach to Britain in their own way, Casey homes in on a reconstituted, highly ideological, and profoundly neoconservative understanding of integration “based on the benefits that the United Kingdom has to offer”, echoing neocon David Goodhart’s “mental integration”.  These include:[1]

“our values of democracy, fairness, the rule of law, freedom of speech, inclusiveness, tolerance and equality between citizens regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or sexuality.”

A Review of the Louise Casey Review (5) – The Conveyor-Belt Theory, PREVENT and Project Spin

Part 1 (Introduction): A Review of the Casey review (1)

Part 2: A Review of the Louise Casey Review (2) – A Paper Influenced by the Transatlantic Neocon Hate-network

Part 3: A Supremacist Far-Right, Neoconservative Screed of Double Standards and Muslim Minority Stigmatisation

Part 4: The Deformation of Islam and Muslim Minority Rights

---

The ideological slant of the Casey Review is manifest in its discourse on PREVENT. In this part, the interlinking between social cohesion, extremism and terrorism will be analysed, along with the Review’s determined agenda to manage the negative perceptions of the crisis-stricken PREVENT policy.

Conveyor Belt theory in all but Name

The Casey Review extends the notion of controlling ideas (a topic thoroughly explored in the next part) from potential threats to the state to whole communities which are “not integrated”, by leveraging PREVENT-based “British values” from the Counter Extremism Strategy: