Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's initially declared intention to continue payments to the Palestinians despite cartoon rage, and offers him a speech, free of charge:
Fogh Rasmussen: "We won't change our policies. It's now time to calm the waters, not cut funds. In the long-term, it would be in our own best interest to rebuild our good relationship with the Arab world." -- from this articleAnders Fogh Rasmussen, even he, who has been so steady, in this case is wrong. There is no "good relationship." Muslims are not taught to have "good relations" with Infidels but to regard them as the permanent enemy, their lands only in their possession temporarily, for everything belongs to Allah and to the best of people, the Believers. Infidels by right possess nothing. If, in Europe, Muslims are not paid the Jizyah, they may take -- by what the Infidels call stealing -- what they wish from those Infidels. So said an imam in Oslo not long ago, according to Bruce Bawer’s new book. It is a kind of informal Jizyah. They may help themselves to Western women, the Infidel women. So have said some of the Muslim rapists arrested in Europe and Australia. That is the theory that some imams have presented to justify acts which Infidels regard as criminal, but at least some Muslims do not -- for it fits in with their own carefully-inculcated view of the universe.
Fogh Rasmussen's assertion is that aid is legitimate to the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad: the one that began early in the last century, and was designed first to prevent the buying of land by Jews, and then to snuff out the life of the nascent Jewish state, and then when that failed, to conduct on every level and with every instrument -- military, economic, diplomatic, propagandistic -- the Jihad against Israel.
The Lesser Jihad continues, carefully disguised since 1967, with the invention of the "Palestinian people." Younger people may not realize that this phrase was never uttered or written by any Arab spokesman or leader prior to the Six-Day War. It took a few years for the phrase to enter general circulation; it was the most successful propaganda effort since Hitler pled with such feeling for the "legitimate rights of the Sudeteners" against those monstrous Czechs. This enabled Muslim Arabs (aided in prominent positions by a facade of islamochristians doing the Muslim bidding) to hide their inability ever to accept a permanent Infidel state of Israel. Now their jihad could be presented as a "nationalist" cause that would eventually be satisfied if Israel kept giving and giving and giving – although its demands always remained impossible for Israel to satisfy.
Fogh Rasmussen may feel betrayed by many in the Western world. But he fails to understand how Western Europe, and how his own statement, shows another, longer-lasting and even more troubling betrayal. For it is not hard to pierce the veil of Arab and Muslim propaganda. It is not hard to realize that there is a point at which Israel could become so shrunk as to be incapable of defending itself. No other country would have given up what Israel has already given up; would the United States, to "trade land for peace," have stationed enemy troops up and down the Mississippi River, and then in the Rockies, and the Appalachians -- and even that does not convey the danger that results form Israel's narrowness, and the Judean hills overlooking the coastal plain, and the hightest ratio of length-of-border to land-area of any country in the world, and of course the fantastic asymmetry in populations, and land area, and resources, that characterize this Lesser Jihad.It is not hard to realize that the easy assumption that there is a "two-state solution" has no basis, given the fact that there is no evidence that the Arabs and Muslims can conceivably give up their view, not only of Israel's non-right to exist, but more generally of the right to spread Islam and the rule of Muslims. They must spread Islam first to other lands once ruled by Muslims (for these stick in the craw) such as Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, and a large amount of central and southern Europe (Bulgaria, Rumania, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and even as far north as Hungary) and, of course, not only the Caucasus now possessed by Russia, but a large amount of Russia itself, and then extend the Islamic social order outward to other lands.
Fogh Rasmussen may not regard this "aid to the Palestinians" as Jizyah, but that is exactly what it is. It is not foreign aid, received by recipients who are filled with gratitude. Not at all. It is money that they believe the Infidels owe them, for they, those Infidels, are all connected. Any perceived wound to Muslims, or thwarting of their worldwide aims, is seen as linking all Infidels. Cartoon protestors in various countries have shouted “Death to Israel.” What does Israel have to do with the cartoons? Nothing – except that it is all, both Israel’s existence and the blasphemous cartoons, the work of the Infidel.
If Fogh Rasmussen or others think that they will buy any kind of goodwill, they are mistaken. He would have done far better, for Denmark, for the Infidels, and for moral and intellectual clarity all way round, if he had announced quite the opposite. He might have said something like:
We have been among the largest supporters of what has been called the "Palestinians." Yet we see that the fanaticism, the hatred, so quickly whipped up all over the Muslim world, and which includes death threats to Danish citizens, as well as the meretricious behavior of Muslims who have been offered refuge and support by Denmark, have caused us to rethink certain things. We have begun to realize that perhaps the war against us and the war against the Jews of Israel, are related -- related in certain ideas which we hope, but are not sure, are not immutable and essential to Islam. We await clarification from the O.I.C. on this: we wish to know, for Denmark and for the other countries of Western Europe, what precisely is the present view, and textual support for or against, for the notion of a permanent conflict between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. We wish to know, further, from Muslims, whether or not they will accept the permanence of Infidel states -- whether that Infidel state be the state of Israel, or Spain which was once under Muslim rule, or Bulgaria which was similarly under Muslim rule, or for that matter Denmark, France, Italy, and England, which never were.We need to clarify things.
We await that clarification.
We have chosen, given the attacks on Danish targets, and mob cries for further attacks on, and even the murder of, on Danish citizens in Gaza and the West Bank, not just to pull out our citizens. We are now announcing an end to the aid that for so many years, at such great cost to Danish taxpayers, with no evident sign of gratitude, has been received by the "Palestinian" authority. This is not being done because of the fantastic corruption in that authority and the disappearance of billions in the aid provided by Danes, and other Europeans, and Americans. No, it is being done as a sign of our displeasure, our dismay, and our anger.
Yes, we Danes can feel anger. When our flags our burned, when our embassies attacked, when Danes are shot, and others threatened with having their throats slit all over the Muslim world, when no Dane can now feel safe traveling to much of that world without having to disguise his country of origin, when we find that Muslims who have been offered so much help by Denmark, not least a home within Denmark, turn on us and try to whip others up against us, then we are angry.
Our anger is not of the fanatical kind. We are not out in a mob. We are not screaming. But we have taken it all in. We are beginning to study matters that we did not study before. We are beginning to understand that perhaps we were negligent in opening our free societies up to those who do not share, and cannot conceivably be made even to understand, our notions of free speech, of the free exercise of conscience, of the very idea of individual liberties.
No, we have heard, over the past few weeks, voices quite different from what we expected. And we are listening to those voices, and reacting accordingly and realistically.
Where is the Western leader who will speak this way? Is there none? Why not? How long will it be, how much more will we have to lose, before someone has the courage to deliver this kind of speech?
Great idea, bashing THE ONLY ONE who has had the courage to stand up against the muslims.
WAY TO TURN THINGS UPSIDE DOWN.
At least he has defended our values unlike every other statesman in every other country. Why don't you attack them instead? AFR has done more good than many others, but hey, let's knock him down, even though he is still defending our birthrights.
I'm a tad dissapointed in you Robert.
I wrote the piece above at the time Anders Fogh Rasmussen made the statement, an expression of et-tu-Anders disappointment. As far as I know he has not repeated either the words, or expressed in other words the same meaning as those words, that are taken issue with above. One can imagine how many people in Europe, and especially in the E.U., are suggesting the plausible-sounding but disastrous advice that "now, more than ever, Denmark has to prove itself by offering money to the 'Palestinians.'" One hopes that the opposite conclusion will be drawn: Now, more than ever, every sign of Western weakness and dhimmitude has to be effaced, and we should start by ending the Jizya-payments (Jizya disguised as foreign aid) to the "Palestinians" and proceed from therre. Let the fabulously rich Saudis, Kuwatis, Arabs of the Arab Emirates, give whatever they wish to the "Palestinians" or Egypt or Pakistan or any other Muslims.
Besides, the Infidels now have to spend tens or hundres of billions a year on paying for security at airports, train and bus and metro stations, at chemical plants and nuclear reactors, at churches and synagogues, at Christian and Jewish day-schools, and in monitoring a steadily more aggressive Muslim population, that far from being quick to distance itself from outrage after Muslim outrage against Infidels, appears to think it can march through the streets of the capitals of Europe demanding that Danish cartoonists be decapitated, and that Westerners throw out their own freedom of speech to accomodate Muslim demands, Muslim sensibilities. Incredible, but not seen by enough Infidels as incredible. They are, some of them, all too willing to deny the evidence of their senses, and what their brains tell them that evidence must mean, in order to live in a state of permanent denial and hope that somehow things will turn out alright -- without the slightest evidence for that hope.
Both title and tone may be a bit harsh in light of Rasmussen's subsequent (and overall) behavior. And compared to Chirac or Jack Straw or the Islamintern marionettes at the E.U. (Solana, et al) Rasmussen is a sturdy giant in the earth, like those Rolvaagian pioners. Or on the sea, if we may conflate our Scandinavians. He's Leif Ericsson. He's Eric the Red. His boat is even now landing at L'Anse-aux-meadows. Go out to welcome it.
Good one Hugh. If only Rasmussen and other Euro leaders would come to their senses and utter these truthful words. So far they are the perfect Eloi for the Muslim Morlocks
I'm sure it's "Cassandra" for US and/or Israel et al, has lots of politicians for chaos without consensus, and the enemy lives in your house and is eating your lunch. For some reason Liberal Israel still garners its leadership philosophy from 1923 Moscow and protects with Marxism's control program of Political Correctness, obfuscation and intimidation. There's more philosophy in common between Islam and Marxism with prayer rug, than there is difference. "...How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University..."The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
"It is the plain man who gets uncomfortable and says to himself, 'This may be the fashion of the moment, but I don't like it.'"
Hugh might know where that came from, but for those who don't, Hilaire Belloc wrote that in, I think, 1936, as part of his writing on the fourth Great Heresy, Mohamedanism. He also predicted a resurgence of Islam.
This awareness is not new, as Hugh has pointed out. But the awareness is growing. Our instinctual reaction to the Dubai ports deal is part of it.
"Islam and the Psycholgy of the Musselman" by Andre Servier, written in 1922, also mentioned by Hugh, is nearly as important a writing as Legacy of Jihad, by Bostom.
I was watching a cooking show yesterday, and it was mentioned the "paprika was introduced to Hungary by the Turks in the 1600's". I immediately knew of the historical perspective.
Regards,
Mr Jones
Paprika might well be a gift to Hungary from Turkey. Why not?
And the first printing press in Islamic world (the Hebrew press in Safed, the first in Asia, doesn't count) was in a way a gift from Hungary to Turkey, for the Hungarian (convert) who built it was Ibrahim Muteferrika (occupational name), whose overgrown tomb can be found in the hauntingly run-down cemetery of the Mevlevis, down the street from Istiqlal Caddesi.
Mr Fitzgerald,
Pardon my ignorance, but what is so fraudulent about Palestine and the Palestinian people? You repeatedly claim the Palestinians are a modern invention and imply the name is being used for the ulterior motive of Islamic conquest. Did they not just have elections in Palestine? Don't they have a flag and limited borders?
Can you clear up this confusion?
Thanks Hugh. I'm fully with you that we have to strike down hard on the Dhimmitude we see all around us and I comment you on your efforts.
You'll see us openly give money to Palestinians and other M.E. countries, while we behind the scenes are upping the support for alternative energy research. And one day it's bye bye M.E. That'll be our way of saying "don't mess with us, fools".
Something like this: http://www.amminex.com/index.htm all developed in Denmark
:)
I wish Hirsi Ali would paraphrase Thatcher and say:
"Don't go wobbly on me now, Ramussen."
You need to keep your eyes on the entirety of the invasion and its undermining of the free world.
Not blindly feed one head of the Muslo-hydra while putting a [thus temporary] muzzle on another.
The body of the beast is all one: Islamic Imperialism.
When you have allowed it to become powereful enough with sacrificial offerings (jizya), it will tear the muzzle off its brother head, and both will devour the fool that fed its single, tyrannical belly.
Blind. Blind. Blind.
Where is Heironymous Bosch when you need him?
AFR certainly isn't wobbly. His position has been the same throughout this crisis: That nothing in the Danish domestic or foreign policy is going to change as a result of this crisis. The reason for his attitude is clear, he wish to send out a signal of firmness to the countries who are putting pressure on us, to make them understand thet their attempts to make us give up our principles is bound to fail.
The payments to the Palestinians isn't something new, Denmark has been doing this for many years, so it's not like he suddenly woke up one day and decided to say: "I'll pay the palestinians some money and then maybe the muslims will stop their campaign against us", as a way to bribe them. Personally I don't believe in development aid but rather in free trade, but that's beside the point. Denmark has for many years been the biggest per capita contributor of development aid in the world. Noone here knows anything about what "jizya payments" are and of course do not see the aid to Palestine as a kind of extortion, for them it's just another third world country needing assistance.
odin, kog-
Didn't they notice in Denmark that a terrorist government has just been freely and gleefully elected by the "Palestinians"?
Doesn't that change things a teensy-weensy bit?
Looks wobbly as a drunken duck to me.
profitsbeard wrote:
"Didn't they notice in Denmark that a terrorist government has just been freely and gleefully elected by the "Palestinians"?"
Well, I'm sure they have but what has that got to do with the whole cartoon affair? It's two different issues. They are trying to contain the crisis, not expand it.
"Doesn't that change things a teensy-weensy bit?"
It doesn't change anything in the cartoon case, but maybe it will have an effect in the longer run. Right now it's not clear which policy the new Hamas government will have or who will win the Israeli election, so for the next few months, untill the situation is clarified, they will wait and see what happens.
"Looks wobbly as a drunken duck to me."
Nonsense. To be wobbly is to have a zigzag policy that changes all the time. The danish governments policy haven't changed in ANY WAY and as such it's the opposite of being wobbly. That you DISAGREE with it doesn't make it wobbly.
Odin is right. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a high principled politician, in generel and in this matter as well. Wobbly is not a word in his vocabulary.
He's point of view is this: The Cartoon War doesn't change a thing in Danish foreign policy. On the contrary it's vital to maintain business as usual - as anything else would be giving in (positive or negative) to the illegal pressure.
Danish foreign policy is not and should not be affected by someone trying to interfere illegally in Danish interior matters, i.e. printing of the cartoons.
The aid for the Palestinians is another matter, and I'm sure that he will address that issue some day - but in a context not related to the Cartoon War.
I think that he in his personal views is alligned with the overall statement of Hugh Fitzgerald.
If you remember his policies before Iraq you'll know that he stick to his line no matter what. And his line is not one appeasement. Not at all!
Keep an eye on him; he's a very shrewd politician, well connected internationally, and I guess we'll see some strategic moves from him soon.
chincheck asks about "palestinians." The Arabs themselves did not use the name "palestine" or "filastin" for the country called "palestine" in the Balfour Declaration, San Remo decision or League of Nations mandate for Palestine. The name "palestine" or "filastin" was used by the early Arab conquerors for a part of the Land of Israel called "Palaestina Prima" by the Romans/Byzantines [see Encyclopedia of Islam, "Filastin"]. After the Crusades, use of the name Filastin was NOT resumed by the Mamluk or Ottoman rulers. In fact, neither Mamluks nor Ottomans had any administrative district or region under any name that corresponded in its borders --even roughly-- to what became the Palestine mandate after the San Remo decision in 1920. The Arabs did not traditionally see the Land of Israel [palestine] as a separate country, but rather as an indistinct part of Syria or Greater Syria, what they called Bilad ash-Sham. The San Remo conference juridically erected the country that they called Palestine as the Jewish National Home [1920]. Arab spokesmen testifying before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 rejected the notion that there was any country called "Palestine." It was just part of Syria, they asserted.
Palaestina Prima, and later Filastin, referred not to the whole Land of Israel but only to southern Samaria and the area of the former kingdom of Judah and the northern Negev. The Roman empire had called the whole Land of Israel --Judea [IVDAEA]. They changed Judea to Syria Palaestina after suppressing the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt. The Arab conquerors often adopted Roman and Greek geographical names, such Iliya for Jerusalem, after the late Roman name Aelia, as in Aelia Capitolina.
Palaestina Secunda was northern Samaria, the Galilee, part of Transjordan. However, the Arab conquerors did not use this name; instead they called that district Jund Urdunn [Jordan military district]. There was also a Palaestina Tertia in Transjordan.
Eliyahu: I've ofte come across arabs who claim that the palestinians have a natural right to Palestine/Israel because they have been living there for thousands of years. Then other peopel have told me that most of those who today are known as palestinians are infact much more recent inhabitants in this area. What is your comment to that? Do you know the ethnographic history of the palestinians?
they are a mixture of people who came into the land at different times. Some have some Jewish ancestry. The Quran itself recognizes the Jews as the rightful people of the land [sura 5:20-22 in most editions] and also envisions a Jewish return to the Jews' land. The notion of an ancient palestinian people is a big lie. See historians like Michael Avi-Yonah and Moshe Gil.
See the earlier entries on my blog where I go into ancient history:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com
odin-
"...Right now it's not clear which policy the new Hamas government will have..."
Surely you jest?
Hamas' policy is as clear as the void. They declare it daily, from Russia, most recently.
Or can't Rasmussen read the papers?
Among their other absurd demands, "The right of return" would be instant demographic suicide for Israel.
The terroristic annihilation of the Jewish state is their stated goal.
You want to pay for that, feel free.
Thanks Eliyahu, I'll take a look at your blog.
profitsbeard wrote: "Surely you jest? Hamas' policy is as clear as the void. They declare it daily, from Russia, most recently. Or can't Rasmussen read the papers?"
I think the central problem here is that Hamas has a mandate from the palestinian peopel. The West always preaches moral to the muslim countries, saying that they must become more democratic, so we can't just come now and say to them "Yes Hamas was elected democratically, but we don't like them so we don't care if they were elected by the peopel, we will stop supporting Palestine".
So I think that most of the western countries will try to see if anything positive can be achieved with Hamas in charge of Palestine and give them a chance. In history there are many examples of extremists becoming more moderate out of necessity when they have come to power. Personally I think that Hamas will squander this opportunity though - I have no illusions about them.
"The terroristic annihilation of the Jewish state is their stated goal. You want to pay for that, feel free."
I dont want to pay for that, but peopel here see this a way of helping the Palestinians get a better life. However dont be surprised if the economic aid to them gets cut away one day, we have done this with countries we disagreed with before.