PA releases Islamic Jihad fighters

If Abbas was serious, he would have arrested the Islamic Jihad representatives at the meeting, rather than make deals with them. Releasing these prisoners will not help the cause of peace in the area.

The Americans are allowing Sharon to practice not democracy but contemptible, and contemptuous, autocracy. He was elected by his party NOT to withdraw even further from Gaza (the Israeli forces long ago withdrew from Gaza, though to read the world press one would hardly know it -- some military are there only to guard the villages, and preserve the lives, of those Jews who have lived there, in some cases in villages that predate even the period of Mandatory Palestine). Yet he refuses, this obstinate and foolish man, to hold a referendum on what, in the United States, would be equivalent to handing over to Communist China a swath of territory form the Rockies to the Mississippi. It is madness; it will achieve nothing but confirm the Jihadists in their belief that time is on their side, and that the other side, if steady pressure continues, will collapse. And they may be right -- but in any case, the likelihood of war, and of war that might require Israel to use every weapon in its arsenal, thereby is heightened rather than lessened.

The "two-state solution" is not merely absurd: it is obviously absurd, to anyone who has thoroughly studied Islam, and made sense of what he has studied, rather than allow himself to be affected by personal ties or professional ties, to winning Muslims (see the case of Bernard Lewis, whose examples of half-truths, omissions, and absurdities becomes more and more evident, and embarrassing, and tragic for his reputation in posterity). The failure of the Israelis to stop their mad ruler (for that is what, in his imperiousness, he has become -- a foolish old man, and one without any of the appeal of King Lear because the lands Sharon is dividing do not, as they did with Lear, belong to him to divide) is being aided and abetted by all sorts of people in the administration, including many who devoutly think of themselves as "pro-Israel" but do not realize that they have failed to study Islam, and the immutable, and profound teachings that make their short-term hopes not a recipe for peace but for inevitable subsequent disaster for a small Infidel polity that does not deserve this -- not even if it happens to have a muddy-thinking and exhausted leader who betrays everyone of his own principles, and for all I know, may possibly be suffering from the kind of near-dementia that makes it impossible for him to consider the evidence, having tied himself to the back of the Juggernaut he himself set in motion, and not quite knowing how to untie himself, and preferring to be dragged along so as not to admit to the gravity of his folly. It is a sickening spectacle.

There is no "solution" to the relentless Arab Jihad against Israel. So what? There was no "solution" to Soviet aggression except that of maintaining steady countervailing power, and containing the Soviets. And the policy worked, because ultimately enough people in the Soviet Union, who ran the Soviet Union (and often their children were instrumental in changing their views) realized that even in Communist terms, the Soviet Union was a failure. It had failed. And so the Western world, which has a thousand ways to contain Islam, has only to do the same -- to educate its own leaders, and then an important part of its own population, on the real tenets of Islam (and here the defectors from Islam, such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and thousands of others) become indispensable -- and Washington, official and unofficial, should stop ignoring them, stop giving them the back of the hand, and instead give them every possible means of support and publicity. It is absurd, for example, that the "non-Muslim" Muslim -- the one with the wine columnn who no more believes in Islam than you or I -- is nonetheless elevated to prate about Islam, but not brave enough to openly declare himself an apostate, and not brave enough, or even perhaps knowledgeable enough, about the theory and practice of Islam, gives the illusion of what a "moderate Muslim" can be when in fact he is not a Believer -- hence those views which, in turn, are mistakenly attributed to "moderate" Muslims. Is Fareed Zakaria a Muslim? Why? What is it about Islam that he believes, or is he merely exhibiting filial piety or fear? Is Amir Taheri still a Muslim? Why? What does he believe, exactly (see how Ali Sina rakes Taheri over the coals at www.faithfreedom.org, Taheri, whose articles on Iran especially often tell much of the truth, but Taheri always draws back in the end, and finally presents a filial-piety defense of Islam that is false, and easily shown to be false, and that makes one wince for him.

Whether it is fear or filial-piety that made Taheri write the kind of things he wrote about Oriana Fallaci (who here and there makes factual errors or possibly her editors did not catch typos, and sometimes is too shrill in her presentation -- shrill, but not wrong), it is Al Sina who consistently bests him. It must infuriate Ali Sina that it is not he writing regularly in The New York Post and The Weekly Standard (the coverage of Islam in this magazine is fatally vitiated, above all, by the apparent and absurd respect of some of its personnel for the misguide-to-Islam Stephen Schwartz -- an error for which all those who put their faith in him will ultimately have egg on their faces).

There is possibility of a "two-state" or any other kind of "solution" (unless "solution" merely means: a temporary respite from conflict, in which Israel's security is endangered, or Israel thrown to the wolves, because we in the Western world are too damn stupid at this point to really figure things out, and we need a decade to read up and find out -- so bye, catch ya later). Islamic texts are immutable, and those who tell us they can be "reformed" never tell us what can be changed, and how. At some point very soon, they'd better.
We've been waiting for more than a millennium and we have a right to be getting, what with all the attacks over that millennium on Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and others, from armies and from raiding parties and from Muslim neighbors down the street who think that their Christian neighbors in Indonesia or Pakistan or Nigeria just have no right to act and believe as Christians, and need to have a little lesson imparted.

Let's get it straight one mo' time: Islam uncompromisingly divides the world between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and imposes on Muslimsthe duty to expand dar al-Islam, by whatever instruments are available and effective, until it includes all of dar al-Harb, or the lands now ruled by Infidels). But even within that structure, it is important to regain early on those lands once possessed by Islam -- al-Andalus, and of course Israel (there never was a "Palestine" in Muslim history -- but the name, first invented by the Romans to efface the Jewish connection to the land, has now been appropriated, as always happens with Islam, by Muslim propagandists intent on rewriting history).

Not the "two-state" solution which heartens the Muslm side, and weakens and demoralizes the Infidel side, but rather the intelligent comprehension that will result in a policy of making the Infidel side so overwhelmingly powerful and unwilling to engage in further surrender on any front, that the Muslim Arab side will have to invoke, and perhaps some on that side will be secretly grateful to invoke, the doctrine of "Darura" or "necessity."

What is "Darura" (it has been discussed at Jihadwatch several dozen times, though nowhere else, apparently -- one still waits for the White House advisors to begin their day by clicking onto Jihadwatch)? It is the doctrine which says: while you are obligated to go to war, where you can, against an Infidel who stands as an obstacle to the spread of Islam (and Infidels will do that, won't they?), you may -- if that Infidel remains so obviously stronger that such a war or combat would result in greater harm to Islam, then you are absolved, as long as that Infidel power remains much stronger, not to attack.

Egypt's "peace" with Israel is kept not because Egypt keeps its promises to Infidel enemies. It doesn't. Egypt has in fact violated every one of its solemn commitments under the Camp David Accords -- the commitments to end hostile propaganda (Egypt is now the world center for antisemitic propaganda). Egypt's "peace" is kept because Egypt is afraid of Israel's military power, and the possible loss of the Sinai, and of American money. That is the only thing that keeps the "peace" -- the same thing that keeps the peace with Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Jordan.

The troll spews words like vomit,
like mohammed,
like the evil moon god,
there is no good here,
only a rancid, rotting,
mind that raves on due to fear.

How can anyone expect this administration to finally get it when its ranks are infiltrated by moles and spies...i.e. Grover al Norquisling.
Doomed. We are so. Doomed.

Speaking of prisoners, here's what's under discussion online about solidifying Islam through the U.S. prison system:

http://whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3708&get=last#59576

Aux armes!