Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the dire consequences that ignoring the contents of the jihad ideology has had and continues to have for Israel:
Many in Israel do not want to investigate Islam. They do not want to find out why there is such a relentless Jihad against them. That Lesser Jihad, which is only one front of the Greater Jihad against the entire non-Muslim world (chiefly the United States), is itself divided into the proponents of a Fast Jihad (nonstop warfare and terrorism) and those who favor (because they are more patient and realistic) the Slow Jihad of diplomatic pressure. That Slow Jihad features noises about seeming acceptance of compromise, accompanied by every conceivable kind of pressure from Arab Muslim states on Israel's few supporters, and constant agitation for one concession after another, each of which in turn whet rather than sate the Muslim appetite.The division of the world between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb does not have some kind of special exemption that reads: "And if the Infidels give up much of what they possess they will be allowed to keep the rest." No, there is no such clause. Whatever Israel gives up, it will still be required to give up more and more and more. Ultimately the entire world, by all that is right and all that is just, must be ruled by Islam and Muslims. And on the To-Do list of Islam are all those Infidel polities that were created on land once possessed by Islam, whether a century ago or five centuries or a thousand years ago. Israel, the Balkan Greece, much of the Caucasus and southern Russia, Sicily, Sardinia, of course Spain and much of India head the list. But France, England, Italy, Germany, Spain, and all the rest of Europe, and of course black Africa and North America and South America and China and Korea and Japan and Australia -- ultimately, all of Dar al-Harb must be incorporated into Dar al-Islam.
What part of this don't the Israelis understand? The same part that is also misunderstood by all the other Infidels who cannot be bothered to investigate the tenets and history of Islam, or who are fearful of what they might find out and could no longer deny. But Israel is immediately threatened. The asymmetry of money and power here make that threat ever more immediate. Think of those trillions flowing from that accident of geology, year by year, think of those billion Muslims, think of the vast campaigns of propaganda, think of the fellow-travelers and arabisant sympathizers, think of the irreducible percentage of any Western population suffering, at any one time, from the pathological condition known as antisemitism (which, in the counter-Jihad, makes antisemites a security risk to the West, as they were during the period 1935-1945).Infidels outside Israel can learn a lot from the Infidels in Israel -- a lot about what not to do, how not to act, how not to negotiate with Muslims (or, in the absence of negotiation, to give them what they want anyway -- "we'll show them"). Not everyone in Israel is as foolish as the deplorable Olmert. (Olmert is an Israeli Carter, but without the holier-than-thou attitude, and probably more corrupt -- Olmert's financial status as indicated by the several million dollars he received from the sale of his house, considering the salary he has received over the past several decades, suggests that something is very wrong.) But in Israel's press, television, and government, a great many people are. They are harming their own country -- and they are harming Infidels everywhere.
Among the Infidels who are most immediately threatened are the Christians of the Middle East. Many Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern Christians may wish to remain in their countries, but not under Muslim rule. Assyrians in Iraq, some Maronites and other Christians in Syria, and Copts who are fed up with the Egyptian Muslims and the government's failure to protect them and use of hostility against them as one more tactic to divert attention away from the Mubarak regime's corruption, might be willing to move. At the same time, Israel (perhaps not openly supported, but at least not opposed, by other Western governments) should keep up the pressure that will encourage local Arabs ("Palestinians") to leave. For if it is made clear that never again will that outside Infidel Jizyah be arriving -- whether or not the Hamas government either cosmetically changes views, or whether the master cosmetician Abbas regains real power should be irrelevant. Without any resources, and without a population that is wiling to work but instead has relied during its decades of pseudo-existence on the absurd support of first the U.N. (where the rolls of the "refugees" continually swell, as all kinds of local Arabs have signed on, and where no one ever seems to die and be removed from those UNRWA rolls), the local mujahedin might as well leave. Keep up the pressure for another few years, move in those who have suffered most immediately from Islam, and who will not be inclined to forget it, and that could do wonders -- for Israel and for other Infidels, whether Christian or post-Christian, who need to understand why denying Muslim control of the Holy Land is so important to the survival of the West as an idea, as a reality.
Some may not understand that -- well, too bad. Most will.
"Whatever Israel gives up, it will still be required to give up more and more and more."
This is exactly the experience of Second Amendment advocates when dealing with gun control advocates.
A certain mystification has occurred over the MANY years, indeed, the decades that Israelis have in one way or another participated in the "peace process." A generation of Israelis has grown to maturity against the constant backdrop of the ongoing "peace process." This longstanding "process" has become something of a rut, almost a habit, a default mode for Israeli policy.
Moreover, Israel's public relations position in the world has never been lower. She is constantly deemed the prime factor for middle east "unrest." And her existence and policies are seen as contributors to a wider poverty across the world. The plight of the 3d world is often laid at her doorstep, as if her existence somehow impedes economic progress in Zambia. Of course, those attitudes are irrational, but nonetheless, they exist. And thus they hold a certain restraining influence over the formulation and execution of Israeli foreign policy.
Israel doesn't think that it has the ability to simply break out of the diplomatic straitjacket, otherwise known as the "peace process."
Even Netanyahu never deemed Israel strong enough to simply step away from the "process" entirely.
In addition, there is an advantage latent in going through the "process," though that advantage will not come without cost. Since '67, Palestinian's have adorned themselves in the trappings of the dispossessed, and have displayed themselves before the West as if the only claim they make is one of right and justice, a return of their native land. When Israel grants them control of the West Bank, Gaza, and offers them partial control of Jerusalem itself, AND YET THAT IS NOT ENOUGH to satisfy the demands of the Palestinians, that begins to obliterate the falsehoods that have attended discussion of the Israeli/Palestinian drama ever since '67.
There is a reason that Israel's position has turned decidedly south since '67, and that is because the Palestinians have been able to portray themselves as victims, especially as non-Caucasian victims, {there are few things as enticing to Western academics}. BUT ONCE THEIR POLICIES AND AGENDA moves BEYOND the victim status, to that of a supremacist, or one that is openly genocidal, THE PALESTINIAN position will become increasingly problematic.
Take a look at the approval ratings that Palestinians currently hold with Americans. The American people have NEVER held so dim a view of the Palestinians and their cause, as they have since 9/11, AND since the rejection of the deal that Barak and Clinton tendered Arafat.
Americans know that a good deal was put before Arafat, YET IT WAS REJECTED. Even Clinton told Arafat such a rejection WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES....
To sum up, at the end of the failed "peace process," after the demonstrated failure of the "Oslo Agreements," Israel will reacquire a free hand in their dealings with the Palestinians.
Though that will take some time.
To sum up, at the end of the failed "peace process," after the demonstrated failure of the "Oslo Agreements," Israel will reacquire a free hand in their dealings with the Palestinians.
Though that will take some time.
Posted by: Dan at May 7, 2006 02:30 PM
Given the horrific hostility of Muslims against Israel, it is even a wonder Israel survives. Ofcourse, the credit goes to the Israeli reslilience, not to American support.
This is an amazing and appalling situation. One would expect that the Israelis would have the expertise and resources to understand what the hell jihad is all about. They of all people should know. If the people on the front lines don't get it, how can we expect ordinary Americans and our dhimmi leaders to understand? When I think about it, Jews in America are the first ones to side with the gun control advocates (confiscation advocates)(Liberman, Schumer et al). So, all that means is that I really,really do not understand modern Jews.
Perhaps I should have left Joe Lieberman out of the previous post - Mr Lieberman is not in the the same category as Schumer.
Israelis seem to be so tired that they have even thought of surrendering Jerusalem to the Arabs. This indicates either a severe case of dhimmitis or more probably - fatigue.
The Arabs and their muslim allies will not rest until Israel is destroyed. Surrendering territory and specially Jerusalem is a recipe for disaster for Israel.
Israel need to apply the same policy that Arabs apply to Israel. No negotiation or peace until the Arabs surrender territory. It will not lead to peace but at the least it will counter the ceaseless demands of the Arabs.
Alert, I never said it was an optimum situation, nor did I suggest that it's the kind of policy I would pursue. I just said that Israel is trying to garner some advantage out of a very difficult diplomatic position.
Pelayo, why do you think that the Israelis "would have the expertise and resources" to understand the jihad offensive against them? Contrary to popular belief, they're no smarter than anybody else out there.
Take a good look at their situation. Southern Lebanon is wholly occupied by a fanatic and deadly terror organization entirely devoted to destroying them, and sucking their blood. To their northeast, Syria stands supplying terror groups all along their perimeter, and has rockets and missiles tipped with chemicals that can kill hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens. Jordan, though not presently belligerent, is over 60% Palestinian, and the Hashemites in control might be overthrown if their King is successfully assassinated. Saudi Arabia funds every group that wants to kill Jews wherever, whenever. And Saudi Arabia is POURING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS into the United States, in an attempt to sever the one friendship that Israel has with any power on this planet. Egypt is a cultural and political hot bed, fermenting terror like Miller Breweries ferments beer.
So for all Israeli purported "cleverness," they're barely holding on, and they've allowed a diplomatic situation to arise where literally the whole world is against them.
And they're on the verge of delivering the West Bank and East Jerusalem over to a society of pathology.
And that's nothing but a very cursory overview of their situation.
Excellent analysis, Hugh!
You should actually be much stronger on this point: "Among the Infidels who are most immediately threatened are the Christians of the Middle East. Many Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern Christians may wish to remain in their countries, but not under Muslim rule."
A tragedy of Israeli policy (I would actually call it a crime) was the failure of Israel to distinguish between Palestinian Christians, who are indigenous to the land, ant the so-called "Palestinian Muslims" who are actually Arab interlopers and invaders.
By adopting identical policies towards both groups, the Christians were driven into the arms of the Muslims and often were forced to out-militant the Muslims in their "anti-Zionism". This was worse than a crime, it was a mistake. Fortunately, a new situation has arisen and almost all the Christians, those few remaining and those in diaspora, are now willing to re-assess their relationship with Israel in order to survive.
The question is: will Israel have the wisdom to take this opportunity and form a broad united front against Islam or will she continue on the path of dhimmitude and self-destruction?
"will Israel have the wisdom to take this opportunity and form a broad united front against Islam or will she continue on the path of dhimmitude and self-destruction?"
-- from a posting above
Only if the media, and the governments, of the Western world re-learn the real nature of the Arab siege against Israel, cease to believe this whole ficiton of "two tiny peoples" and the "nationalist struggle" of the recently-invented "Palestinian people," and show the kind of support and solidarity that the Israelis need desperately if they are to come to grips with their own situation, and realize that they do not have to surrender, and surrender, and surrender, either more territory, or their own claims, legal, moral, and historic. But they need to hear other voices, outside Israel, making that case for them, and telling them to make that case themselves. It is, after all, an overwhelming case -- but you have to tell it, and you have to force your audience to educate itself about a good many matters (ideological, demographic, cadastral) that they in many cases are just too lazy to do. Well, make them.
In the last resort, other than by an intervention of the Almighty, the fate of Israel wholly depends upon the United States of America, leader of the Free World, Champion in Arms of the West. It's up to us.
At perhaps no time in our glorious past have we ever needed an articulate and passionate leader, steeped in history, as we do today, and we're saddled with a decent fella who also happens to be a verbal cripple, possessed of a bad habit of allowing himself to become the servant of events, instead of their master.
Olmert strikes me as a man who will prove himself unequal to the supreme existential danger to his state, and his people.
It would have been far better had Netanyahu won. But for some bizarre reason, the Israelis deem Netanyahu too flashy, in a word, too "American." The only worthwhile friend they have across the four winds is America, yet the Israelis deem a man who knows us as well as we know ourselves, to somehow be a liability. It's bizarre, and perhaps attributable to their flirtation with socialism. How a man who speaks English with an American idiom, how a man educated in our finest universities, how a man capable of making the case for Israel and for her policies on American television networks better than any other Israeli, how a man totally familiar and conversant with the leadership of the GOP, how the Israelis might turn against such a man, how they might prefer another, when they face such dire threats, is but more evidence that the myth of universal Jewish intelligence is just that, a myth.
Their rejection of Netanyahu was brain dead, flat our brain dead.
The policy of containment, combined with the posture of a Mexican standoff, somehow saw us through the Cold War. It was not without its moments of high drama, but somehow we got through.
Those that think the world will escape a nuclear exchange, even if the mideast experiences nuclear hyperproliferation, will live to see horrors that no generation of humans ever witnessed before.
Either President George Walker Bush will rise to the moment, be equal to his words, follow the logic of his policies, make good on preemption, or there is going to be a nightmare, an utter nightmare.
Dan
With all due respect, I don't think you understand anything about Israel. I consider myself far from an expert, but...
Olmert is close to a criminal. He has been indicted for several very shady activities and somehow these indictments are on hold while he pursues his political career.
Sharon hijacked the Knesset and really strangled the government by a series of illegal and quasi-legal acts which were not called down by the judiciary, culminating in the Gaza disaster, in which thousands of people, who had been encouraged to go to Gaza and set up towns and businesses...and encouraged officially by the likes of Sharon...and these were among the best and most productive people in Israel...loyal and hardworking even when rockets whistled around them...were driven out of their homes, which were flattened, and...not only do most of them not have new homes or work but would you believe that they are still expected to pay mortgages on homes that do not exist any more? Israelis are in general loyal to their leaders, I think because it is ingrained in Jews to be so. Sharon was so conniving, twisted, low and destructive that the Israeli people are still reeling from his betrayal. This is on top of all the other sellouts by israeli leaders and the continuation of the terrorist bombings. Do you know how many are thwarted compared to the ones that are pulled off? A lot. Imagine living with that for years.
I cannot think of anything in American history that parallels this kind of betrayal of one's own people. Sharon took the Likud party and tore off a hunk to make his own party (with the worst of the Likud) plus defectors from Labor. They assumed unwarranted and n0t actually legal leadership as Kadima. Netanyahu did not openly object to Sharon until the Gaza expulsion had almost begun, so he has lost his credibility as a leader.
This situation is bad, because it affects military and well as civilian leaders. Your view of Israeli candidates is very superficial.
The fact is that the Jews occupy a very very small country and can count realistically on little help. The US is Israel's biggest and almost only ally, but the US has its own agenda which is often directly contrary to Israel's interests, if not seriously hostile, spurred by entities like the US State Department and James Baker.
As for American Jews, many are paralyzed by their fear of antiSemitism or their unrealistic expectation that if only they keep their heads low, they will not be singled out for trouble. The Jews have had 2000 years of moving from country to country and we are keenly aware of our spiritual and physical burden.
You know, I think this is kind of funny. Not ha ha but oh well. Hugh, I address this to you as well as to Dan and others. The Jews have been massacred and/or driven out of almost every country they have settled in, and vilified or treated very roughly by countless religious groups. So the threat of Islam, while a sizeable one, has had to stand in line for the Jews, as to us, they are simply a bigger and uglier version of what we have had to suffer for years. After all, is there such a difference between Chmielnicki the Polish pogrom expert slitting open pregnant women's bellies and sewing cats inside--indeed--and the "warriors" of the Jihad with their rusty scimitars and drills? Hugh, with all due respect, go back to your history books and take another, deep look.
HaMalach,
I've never claimed perfect understanding of Israeli politics, or their strategic problems.
Politics in Israel has never been pristine, so I don't understand why, at this particular moment in the state of Israel, the Israelis have made an issue of sordid business contracts. THE issue is the mullahs and their nukes, not which politician got preferential deals, or enriched himself through inside information.
The PRIME issue right now, is the survivability of the state of Israel, and the citizens of the state of Israel. What Iran is doing is the greatest threat, probably, since 1948 itself. In '67, your training and tactical flair provided an answer to the armies massing around you. In '73, though you sustained casualties, and the situation in the North could have turned dire, you swiftly displayed your tactical flair, and imposed your will on the battlefied.
But the issue of the mullahs with nukes, is an existential threat unknown since Hitler.
The best person to deal with that threat is Netanyahu.
As for Gaza, the fate of Israel didn't depend upon the fate of 5,000 settlers within Gaza. I'm an American, and don't see the wisdom of retaining control of Gaza. It's not like the position of the Golan Heights for instance. But there are Jews and Israelis who get emotional about Gaza. I can understand that. I never thought that the Oslo deal was a good idea, but Israel did sign the thing. And your governments have tried to make it a go. Demonstrating good faith in your efforts for peace with the Palestinians stands you in good stead with the American people. And that's worth its weight in gold.
You seem to be awfully harsh on the Sharon government, you need to be mindful that Sharon was trying to navigate his way through a very difficult diplomatic landscape. Gaza wasn't worth it. And Sharon saw it. Not to mention, there is something of a demographic time bomb ticking within Israel. Israel couldn't remain a distinctly Jewish state if the state encompassed the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank combined.
Sooner or later, that would've become a huge problem.
It's true, sadly true, that the State Department is dominated by Arabists, from the Near East Bureau. But Israel has always had a friend in Congress.
And lastly, HuMalach, I hope that Israelis con't simply lump the threat of the mullahs and the nukes, with the threats that they've had to face in their long history. That might lead to a dangerous complacency.
We just have to hope that the President meant it when he said the mullahs wouldn't get the bomb.
"Chmielnicki the Polish pogrom.."
"Hugh, with all due respect, go back to your history books "
-- from the same posting above
Bogdan Khmelnitsky was a Cossack in the Ukraine, and the "Polish pogrom" of 1648 and years following actually took place in the Ukraine. To write his name as "Chmielnicki" further misleads, making the unwary assume he was Polish, and his pogromshchiki were operating in Poland as we think of it (even if, at times, the western Ukraine was under Polish rule). For an example in reverse, imagine someone referring to a certain scholar and critic as "Vaslav Lednitsky," incorrectly russifying the name of the Polish scholar Waslaw Lednicki, whose "Bits of Table-Talk on Pushkin, Goethe, Mickiewicz, etc." entranced me long ago, because in it an educated gentleman of the old school discussed writers and their works without forcing either to bear a burden that they were never made to bear -- a lesson lost on many now engaged in the too-professional study of literature, by those often prompted by ruthless careerist considerations (for how else to explain that intolerable heaviness, everything lourd when it should fizzle, the cork "priamo v potolok" which is a useful phrase from a famous writer who needs no introduction (hint: not Polish, and not Ukrainian, but close).
I do not need to "go back" to my "history books." I've never left them.
HaMalach, as a Pole I have to strongly protest - Bohdan Chmielnicki was not Polish! He was Ukrainian and it was precisely the alliance of Polish aristocracy and Jews that caused Chmielnicki's uprising and slaughter of BOTH - Plish aristocrats and their Jewish "employees" (Polish noblemen routinely employed Jews as administrators of their lands).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chmielnicki_uprising
Pogroms mostly took place in the Ukraine, and it was only in the 18th century when the good relations between Poles and Jews deteriorated due to increasing economic competition.
HaMalach, pogrom is a Russian word and there were no porgroms perpetrated by Poles until the beginning of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom
Please do not forget where Jews escaping pogroms in the West found refuge in the 12/13th century - in Poland ruled at that time by wise kings, kings capable of appreciating Jewish skills and intelligence, kings only too eager to put Jewish talents to Polish (and mutual advantage. In fact Jews in Poland enjoyed more rights than Polish peasantry for many centuries (until the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
Just one example of a very enlightened behaviour of Polish kings:
"Boleslaw V Wstydliwy (the Modest), ruled 1243 - 1279, and married the Blessed Kinga (Hungarian: Cunegunda; 1224 - 1292), daughter of Bela IV of Hungary, credited with founding the salt mines of Wieliczka and named Patroness of Poland and Lithuania by Pope Clement XI (1715). It is during this period that the first Jewish settlers came to Poland where they were treated with more tolerance than in the rest of Europe, so-much-so that the Polish Synod was berated by the Papal Legate, in 1266, for allowing Jews to dress like anyone else and being able to live without restrictions in Poland, and for a royal charter, the Kalisz Statute, having been granted them by Boleslaw in 1264. This statute placed the Jews, as servi camerae (“bondsmen of the prince’s treasury”), under Boleslaw’s direct jurisdiction, granting them economic and religious freedom, protection of life and property, and the right to follow their customs within their communities."
Dan, I preferred Netanyahu. But you have to realize that the politicians who want to make concessions to the Arabs do not usually present themselves that way to the public. They always have substitute issues that they wave about. Usually these issues are "social demagoguery." You know that Samuel Johnson said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. But social demagoguery can be a refuge for a scoundrel just as much. By the way, in the last election [January 2003, I recall], Mitsna` of the Labor Party called for unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Sharon opposed this and called it irresponsible and dangerous. Sharon's party, the Likud, won 38 out of 120 seats, plus 2 or 3 for Sharansky's party which merged with Likud plus another twenty-five or so seats for other national camp and religious parties [while Labor went down to 19 seats, with 3 seats for Peretz' splinter from Labor which came back before the most recent election]. Then Sharon did his about-face, and succeeded in demoralizing much of the people, especially the youth, who abstained at a high rate in the most recent election [March 2006], while other youth voted for the Pensioners' party as a seemingly innocuous joke.
Very interesting comments, all!
One theme here is that Gaza was not strategically important enough to retain, so Sharon gave it away. I couldn't disagree with this more. If you look at pre-retreat maps of Gaza, you will see carefully planned communities that create "fingers" of civilian and military presence that bisect Gaza in several places. This was by design. After 1967, when Egypt used Gaza as a staging ground for a planned thrust into Southern Israel, Israel decided to establish an Israeli presence there that would discourage a united Arab community in Gaza, which would aid any Arab invaders seeking to attack Israel. In spite of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, I feel that the need to protect Gaza from again becoming a launch-pad for Arab armies remains important enough to justify its retention. That peace treaty is very fragile, with Egyptian military excersizes and official media rhetoric that points to another war of aggression on Israel at some point.
Why most Israeli leaders win on hawkish platforms, only to waffle completely is the $64,000 question. I would place much of the blame at the feet of State, who never hesitates to go beyond working for peace and moves on quickly to threating Israel's financial aid and arms supplies. In this respect, Netanyahu offered the only true path to real security: Economic independence from America. If Israelis had allowed him to continue to dismantle the socialist economy, Israel could realize its incredible economic potential. This could enable Israel to stand up to State Department threats and do what is right for its citizens.
Unfortunately, among other problems, Israelis are too addicted to "craddle-to-grave" socialism, and Netanyahu's economic reforms were likely the biggest cause of his defeat. These reforms are a big pill to swallow for the majority of Israelis, who I would classify as working class poor ,by U.S. standards. Bibi failed to make the case for his reforms to Israelis. Perhaps even a campaign like that would have angered Condi & Company enough to bring more threats of diminished U.S. support.
Someone has to change culture at State. I thought Bush would do it, Bush thought Condi would do it. We were both wrong. Secretary of State Bolton, anyone?