Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explores some of the implications of the recent meeting between an Israeli diplomat and one from Pakistan: implications which so far continue to be largely ignored by the intelligentsia, leaving us all that much more vulnerable.
The meeting between a single Pakistani diplomat, and a single Israeli diplomat -- both pushed to it, no doubt, by the American government (which allows itself to believe that this act "means something") should be seen as what it was -- nothing at all. The meeting was not "the start of something"; the Pakistanis feel they have earned a point from the Americans, and have no intention of recognizing Israel, ever, even if they now state that they will think about doing so but only once "the West Bank, Jerusalem, etc." are surrendered to the "Palestinian" Arabs -- i.e. to the shock troops of the Arab and Muslim jihad against Israel.As for the Israelis, they have never wished to, and have never been able to, recognize the nature of the opposition to them. This was true even of the clear-headed Jabotinsky, who recognized that only an "Iron Wall" of resistance would cause the Arabs, implacably opposed to a Jewish state, not to cease to oppose it but to cease to make violent war upon it.
But Jabotsinky wrote of "Arabs" and "Jews," not of "Muslims" opposed for perfectly comprehensible Muslim reasons, to an Infidel nation-state. And the European-born elite that ran Israel had no experience of, and failed to inquire into, the nature of Islam and the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. So many Israelis were busy fighting, or busy creating a state, or busy rescuing and integrating a gigantic in-gathering of completely wretched, dispossessed people from such Arab countries as Yemen -- quite primitive and illiterate refugees -- that they did not stop to study Islam.
And during the 1960s and 1970s, there were alliances of mutual interest and shared antipathies (to the Arabs) with Iran and then, a bit later, with Turkey. The Shah of Iran was willing to ignore the Shari'a stipulations on the treatment of non-Muslims. He was hardly influenced by Islam, being little more than a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, which helped to explain both his virtues, from our point of view, and his inability to recognize that in the villages, Khomeini's appeal was great. It was good that the Shah was secular, but unfortunate that he was also vain and weak. In the end, the monstrous Khomeini and his monstrous regime replaced him; while this was mainly an internal disaster, it also had its effects in foreign policy. The nascent alliance with Israel came to an abrupt end; an alliance with the PLO replaced it. (Arafat had been instrumental in putting Khomeini on the throne, and he was the first visitor to Khomeini welcomed in Teheran).
The "alliance" with Turkey, which was such a fixed idea just a few years ago, has also suffered as Islam itself reconquers Turkey -- reconquers because the army has been prevented from stepping in to smash it, and because Erdogan and his Justice Party have been clever in how they have gone about reversing or limiting the Kemalist measures undertaken to constrain Islam as a political and social force. And here too, while the main victims have been within Turkey, that "alliance" with Israel has been damaged, even ended -- by the new attitude of the Turkish government and, more surprisingly, the attitudes expressed all over the Turkish press: not only about Israel, but about the United States and Europe. Those who expected something better from secular Turks may be as shocked as was the Pentagon (which had no excuse, unlike the rest of us who are mere citizens) when the Turkish government refused to allow a fourth American division to enter Iraq from bases in Turkey.Thus, in its desire for alliances that came to naught, and out of the ignorance of its ruling elites, and out of the desperate desire to believe that the conflict with the "Palestinians" really is not about the religiously-inspired requirement that no Infidel sovereign state be permitted anywhere within dar al-Islam (or, ultimately, anywhere in the world), Israel has failed, and continues to fail, to analyze its own (permanent, but manageable) problem and the ill-considered policies that recognition of this Jihad, which might be called the Lesser Jihad (the Greater Jihad being that against the entire Infidel world), might have avoided.
And what is more, had the Israelis from the beginning, from the late 1940s and early 1950s, understood and articulated the reasons for Arab opposition to their country -- long before the "Palestinian" people were invented after 1967 -- they would have received far more sympathy. They would have been the permanent underdog facing an implacable enemy. Instead, the pressure on them to give up territory in an impossible attempt to placate their enemies has steadily increased to the current boiling point in Gaza. Yet the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira do NOT say "accept the Infidels and their states when they are willing to give up some territory," or anything like that.
And what is more, had the European elites and their press and television not forgotten that Israel was in the right, and had they not ignored the terms and purpose of the Mandate for Palestine, and had they not remained completely unaware of the mistreatment of all non-Muslims and especially the Jews (nearly a million of whom fled Arab lands from 1948-1960, with more coming from Iran after Khomeini's resistible rise), they might not only have refused to succumb so easily to the anti-Israel propaganda which is both supported by, and in turn helps to promote, antisemitism. Antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments are mutually reinforcing -- each helps promote the other. Just as important is the fact that had they not ignored all that, they would have been sufficiently alerted to the nature of Islam itself that they might have been careful not to permit (as they have for the last three decades) a virtually unopposed, undiscussed, uncontroversial migration to Western Europe of millions of Muslims. Now these Muslims, in their abundantly documented attitudes (which arise naturally out of the teachings of Islam), represent a clear, and permanent threat to the wellbeing of all Infidels in their own lands.
That could have been stopped. But the failure of the Israelis to grasp the nature of their enemy, and hence to articulate positions and policies based on a realistic assessment of Islam, has had terrible consequences for Israel, and for the rest of the Infidel world. Had the Lesser Jihad been properly identified as such, and the Western media become educated as to the nature of Islam in time, then the Greater Jihad, which is now funded by OPEC trillions, would not be advancing as quickly and confidently as it is: with millions of Muslims permitted to settle behind what they regard, and treat, as enemy lines, and with new technologies aiding the diffusion of Muslim tenets everywhere – while the Infidel remains largely, and blissfully, ignorant of all this.
Hugh,
This is another stage towards global Islam without the jihad.
As our world continues to shrink because of emerging markets, competition for natural resources and the global war on terror, it is inevitable that nations will cooperate with one another in order to get what is best for them. The West and in particular, the United States has on its agenda the enormous task of stopping and eliminating radical Islamic terrorists. This program necessarily demands a deep cooperation between the West and Islamic governments. This collaboration will accordingly bring about an exchange of ideas, both politically and culturally.
It is this exchange that may prompt some to consider September 1st, 2005 to be an historical day between Islam and the West. That day marked the first publicly acknowledged meeting between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Israel. Currently, Israel has diplomatic relations with only four Islamic nations. Turkey, being one of those states, played the mediating role in bringing together the two nations.
It is understandable why Israel desires formal relations with her Islamic neighbors. The Arabo-Islamic hostility towards Jews finds its root in Muhammad’s teachings and that acrimony predates the 1967 war by at least thirteen hundred years. Tiny Israel truly wishes to live in peace. Of course, political machinations are also at work. Israel’s sizing up of Pakistan, the only known Islamic nation to possess nuclear weapons, is political expediency and makes perfect sense.
The reason President Musharraf gives for such a meeting is his goal of moving Pakistan into the international arena. He wants to be a global player and his words stress that desire:
“We cannot live in isolation. Forward-looking countries perceive changes in advance. They formulate their policies according to the changing world scenario.”
This approach is in stark contrast to the rigid and abrasive style of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And, it appears that the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is also assuming Mr. Musharraf’s tactful approach towards the West. The fact that both leaders, Musharraf and Erdogan, have at the top of their list of priorities a desire to bridge the gap between the West and Islam is indicative that neither country is willing to accept any Western reproach concerning their religion. The West must accept Islam, not vice versa.
This is understandable considering both leaders have to contend with a seething population that has an Islamist agenda coursing through its veins. The standard Islamist rhetoric erupted because of the meeting and both leaders were thoroughly condemned:
"Sarfaraz Ahmed, spokesman for Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal — a coalition of Islamic parties — said: “We have declared Friday a Black Day. We condemn Islamabad’s first high-level diplomatic contact with Israel and we will launch nationwide protests.” "
An Islamic Jihad leader, Mohammad Al Hindi chimed in with the following:
"We are angry at Erdogan who sponsored the Pakistani-Zionist talks. We are angry with Musharraf. Musharraf is an agent of Jews. His agenda is to sell Pakistan and Pakistani Muslims to Jews and the Jews' ally. We will not allow General Musharraf to disgrace Islam. Every Muslim will resist General Musharraf's plan.”
How is this a disgrace to Islam and why should every Muslim resist? Islamists know that Islam must reign supreme. Their hatred of Musharraf and Erdogan has blinded them to the fact that both, as self-imposed leaders of enlightened Islam, are troweling out the first layer on to which the Islamists can build their Islamic foundation.
It is the West who should resist this bloodless Jihad. The interaction and cooperation between the West and leaders of Islamic countries does in no way demand a reciprocation of ideas and culture that are determined to subvert our own. For once Islam gets any semblance of a foothold the process of reverting moderate Islam back into historical Islam is made that much easier by traditional Islamists.
Can the West stem the tide of its cultural subversion? It is well known that the petrodollars of Saudi Arabia has enabled that country to spread her virulent form of Islam, Wahabisim, into the United States and Europe. Saudi Arabia has also purchased wings in the Louvre and the Asholean Museum of Oxford University in order to show the world the richness of exhibits from the Middle East and Islamic world. The entire Islamic world, with the exception of Iran, is doing everything possible to ingratiate themselves with the West and the USA.
Western societies, including Israel would be foolish to ignore overtures from the Islamic world. These conciliatory moves towards Western society must be scrutinized in all ways. Creative and unorthodox approaches must be a taken to examine all possible motives concerning advances made by leaders of Islamic nations. The wisest first step should be for Western politicians to brush up on the historicity of Islam. In Israel’s case, the Islamic concept of “hudna”- the tactical truce to regain strength - should never be forgotten. A focused vigilance on the war on terror may be the undoing of the West.
This meeting between Israel and Pakistan does have a significant meaning. That being the continuing bloodless jihad that has already made many inroads into Western societies.
Also, I forgot to mention the reason Islamic nations are engaged in the "bloodless jihad":
They realize that they cannot win militarily or economically and are resorting to subterfuge.
I also don't fully understand what Israel is doing. I don't claim to be a great military strategist, but I believe Israel is making the classic military mistake of allowing its enemies to define the nature of the conflict and the rules of engagement. Israel's enemies know, as was said above, that they cannot defeat Israel in a conventional war. So they instead have opted for a slow war of attrition, a never-ending campaign targeted at civilians that seeks to demoralize the population over time, create a sense of hopelessness and spur emigration. Then, Israel's enemies will move in for the kill. The Western world participates in this effort by always pressuring Israel to show "restraint" and "moderation" in the face relentless attacks on civilians. It is important, they always say, not to to anything to upset the "peace process." The promise of better relations with Islamic countries is an illusion Israel's enemies hold out to try and control Israel's behavior. At some point, Israel must take the initiative and fight the war using weapons, tactics and rules of engagement that suit it, not the enemy. At some point, it will have to destroy an enemy that regards "restraint" and "moderation" as weaknesses, not virtues. I hope this is what Ariel Sharon has in mind with his withdrawal from Gaza, I hope it puts Israel in a better position to fight the enemy without having to defend vulnerable outposts. But I'm afraid that by falling for initiatives like the one from Pakistan, Israel is undermining its own security.
Everywhere I look I see signs of the "bloodless jihad" to which Eschwapp refers. The naivete and stupidity of most is the West is astonishing: they believe that although the Islamists aren't throwing bombs or bullets, they aren't dangerous.
I just had an epiphany, prompted by Eschwapp's comments: whether or not the "silent Jihadists" (i.e., the Taqiyyists and Dawists) planned this all along or whether they are using the post-911 events to their advantage after the fact, it seems clear that the terrorist Jihadists perform a valuable function for the silent Jihadists: to wit, the terrorist Jihadists -- through their actions, and through the irrational ineptitude of Western response of getting 1) distracted by them and 2) isolating them as the only problem (an "extremist minority" who have nothing to do with Islam itself) -- are actually creating a great vacuum for the silent Jihadists to not only continue their work but to have increased freedom and protection from the West itself to continue their work, all in the name of "bridge-building" and anxiously & assiduously avoiding "Islamophobia".
It is a bizarre and grotesque phenomenon, and it seems to be only mushrooming: the more the terrorist Jihadists attack, the worse their attacks are, the MORE the West refuses to acknowledge the problem that is Islam itself.
This could hit a threshhold beyond which it would no longer be effective: only several major, horrific attacks on several Western cities would wake up the West to rationality. If the Silent Jihadists are smart enough and have sufficient control over their shock-troop terrorist brethren, they will rein them in just short of that. There is always the possibility that they won't be able to rein in their more volatile lunatic brethren: but neither the West nor the Silent Jihadists want to see such a failure, for entirely different reasons.
Either way, it's a sickening dynamic we are caught in. And it will be our fault for not waking up sooner, rather than later.
OT
Brutal murder of Arafat's cousin endangers Gaza peace pact
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=PLO1RHJZBTHCXQFIQMGCNAGAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/09/08/wmid08.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/08/ixportal.html
For a glimpse into the Muslim mentality on Israel and the Jews:
"...a dominant discourse emerged [in Egyptian society] and was shared by the governmental and oppositional, liberal and conservative press alike. Depending on partial and/or invented information, it negatively located what was conceived as the global phenomenon of Satanism in four different contexts ...
Firstly, it identified the history and geography of the religious and cultural Other, this time defined as the secular, Jewish dominated West. The 'story' is as follows: Modern Satanism started in central Europe in the 18th century and was led by rich Jewish families (Rothschild was often mentioned) which aimed at undermining Christian dominance and achieving political power. The first Satanist societies were discovered by the German authorities in 1784 and their members had to flee to Switzerland.
Later on, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Satanists immigrated to the United States where they benefited from the secular atmosphere of the country and managed to reorganize themselves. In recent times, several of these satanic organizations were claimed to have close contacts with international Zionism and the state of Israel. This is the second context. From Israel and through Israeli Intelligence, the Egyptian satanic organization was initiated and sponsored.
The third context is found in the realm of global economic, technological and communication networks which are supposed to be dominated by the West, and again, by international Zionism. It seems to me that a very interesting model of how these networks function was developed and put forward as an explanatory framework. It reads as follows: The Internet and international television channels were disseminating cultural commodities (electronic information, music video-clips, documentaries, movies, etc.) which contain the specific repertoire of Satanism... The Satanists held their black masses and practiced their abnormal sexual activities at international restaurants and hotels in Cairo, such as MacDonalds and the Hilton hotels which were considered to be material extensions of the cultural-religious Other on local soil.
...The state was accused, especially by Islamic oriented journalists, of indirectly promoting Satanists by its Westernized attitude and by reducing the time and space given to religious topics in the media as well as in the educational system...
I will extend my argument to say that the [Egyptian] journalistic portrayal of Egyptian Satanists reflected the analyzed map of global-local interaction. Hence, the majority of them have in addition to their Egyptian nationality a Western one. All of them studied in Europe or the States for a while or were victims of the secular educational system of Egypt. All of them were in Sinai where they met satanic Israeli female secret service agents.[!!!!!] All of them had access to the Internet and international television channels. All of them belonged to rich, secular, Westernized families.
Amr Hamzawy
Free University of Berlin
The fourth Nordic conference on Middle Eastern Studies
http://www.hf.uib.no/smi/pao/hamzawy.html
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/about/
Good post, Hugh. However, I would take issue with the idea that the late Shah Muhammad Reza was Muslim in name only. He took seriously his role as "defender of the faith" for Ithna'ashariyya Shi'ism; and it is significant that during his years in power, the Shi'ites of southern Lebanon tended to ally with rather than against Israel. The Shah's willingness to ally with Israel was largely a function of the latter's being the target of Soviet hostility--and Iran back then had some bad memories of the Soviet occupation of Iranian Azerbaijan and other northern regions after WWII.
In short, politics can make some pretty strange bedfellows.
As for Pakistan, it was a lways a frail reed for anyone to lean on.
Anyone allying with Musharaff is a fool. Hear that USA? He is just a bump in the road on the journey of Islamic conquest. When he is gone, Pakistan will become a much more extreme Islamic state, like Iran. The economy will collapse; it is already in terrible shape. The ignorant and illiterate masses more bitter and more hateful. Think about it, what kind of education has its standard that you memorized the Qur'an in Arabic although you do not understand Arabic.
Pakistan's allies will have to face the facts, all that aid, wasted, all that military armament, now in the hands of the most extreme jihadists. And the Islamists have the bomb.
Until our leaders realize that creating internecine conflict, cutting off aid and commercial and military technology, severely curbing cultural exchange, immigation and access to our education systems, we are just making the inevitable war worse. It's going to be a war alright. WIth Islam, it always ends up that way. There is 1400 years of precedence and no exceptions.