Diana West is right again: "Krauthammer is correct to write that Hamas does not conceal its strategy. But far too few of us in the West are willing to articulate that strategy or even take note of it. This must change if we are to stop the jihad anywhere--and everywhere."
Supporters of Israel believe they have made their case on laying down the unequivocal fact that Hamas is unequivocally bent on the destruction of Israel. To take an example from today's papers, Charles Krauthammer writes robustly in defense of Israel, reminding readers what happened in Gaza after Israel surrendered the land to the Palestinians in 2005:Did the Palestinians begin building the state that is supposedly their great national aim? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There's only one grievance and Hamas is open about it. Israel's very existence.
Krauthammer continues:
Nor does Hamas conceal its strategy. Provoke conflict. Wait for the inevitable civilian casualties. Bring down the world's opprobrium on Israel. Force it into an untenable cease-fire -- exactly as happened in Lebanon. Then, as in Lebanon, rearm, rebuild and mobilize for the next round. Perpetual war. Since its raison d'etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel.
One grievance: Israel's very existence. One raison d'etre: the eradication of Israel. Such language would seem to bring a cauterizing light to the rot of moral equivalence heaped on Israel in its dire and just cause to survive amid genocidal neightbors.
But this explanation, like so many others like it, wholly omits the reason Hamas and its allies strive to destroy Israel. It omits the Islamic context.
Hamas is waging a classic, Islamic jihad against the Jews, a non-Islamic people who have returned to their native land not as dhimmi but as warriors equipped to defend themselves from the Muslim armies massed around them. Like children in a potentially fatal game of blind man's bluff, though, most people are intellectually, morally and/or intestinally unprepared to recognize this. As Robert Spencer noted a couple of days ago, Israeli President Shimon Peres is also clueless on this count, telling Haaretz on December 30: "Nobody in this world understands what are Hamas' goals and why it continues to fire missiles. This shooting has no point, no logic, and no chance." [...]
Krauthammer is correct to write that Hamas does not conceal its strategy. But far too few of us in the West are willing to articulate that strategy or even take note of it. This must change if we are to stop the jihad anywhere--and everywhere.
World Newsflash: It's the Jihad, Stupid!
Israel has the right to defend itself.
Christopher Hamilton
The Right Opinion, for the Right Wing
I'm not surprised that Shimon Peres is clueless about Islamic ideology. Just because he lives in close geographical proximity to the Mulims doesn't make him any more insightful or knowledgeable. Remember Sarah Palin's implication that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign affairs expertise? Tina Fey had a field day with that one.
Charles Krauthammer is George W.'s (how can I put this nicely?) lover and sycophant. Doesn't Diana know?
Professor Krauthammer is not going to say anything that might embarrass Mr. Bush in any way. Who was it that coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to demonize anyone that is in anyway critical of President Bush's apologies and excuses for Islamic jihad? After all, aren't the "terrorists" traitors to their own faith? Krathammer believes this. Limbaugh believes this. Sean Hannity believes this.
Why would Charles Krathammer embarrass Mr. Bush by talking jihad or any other such nonsense when George W. Bush deplores this kind of rhetoric?
Bush: "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.....The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself....I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. (Your) faith is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah."
Where is Charles Krathammer? Hello Charles. Anyone home?
I wrote the following not to Charles Krathammer, Washington Post fellow contributor, Michael Gerson:
Dear Mr. Gerson,
I'd like to comment on a couple of points in your Washington Post piece this morning, "Defining Victory for Israel."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101782.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
First, let me state, I am a 37 year registered (conservative) Republican -- former eight year Republican party activist who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 in large part because he claimed to be a Christian conservative.
1) You wrote: "(The) risks are considerable. A repeat of Israel's 2006 experience in Lebanon would be a massive blow to the Jewish state -- a demonstration of impotence in the face of mortal threats. The Lebanon campaign did not fail because of international pressure and criticism. It failed because Hezbollah terrorists could credibly claim the victory of survival -- confirmed by a cease-fire that allowed their rearmament. Syria and Iran were strengthened -- not because of Israel's attack on Hezbollah but because Israel didn't prevail."
While I entirely agree with you, a repeat of Israel's 2006 experience in Lebanon would be a massive blow to the Jewish state -- not to mention to Israel's American ally in this war -- I think it is not entirely correct to maintain international pressure -- specifically pressure from the Bush administration -- did not play some part in Israel's failure in the second Lebanon war. Unfortunately, Israel's leaders do not have the moral or the political courage to stand up to erroneous, even immoral American pressure:
Saturday, 12 August 2006, 04:44 GMT 05:44 UK
UN vote backs Lebanon ceasefire
The UN Security Council has unanimously approved a new resolution calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
Resolution 1701 calls for "a full cessation of hostilities", and UN and Lebanese troops to replace Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.....The US Secretary of State said the deal should "open a path to lasting peace between Lebanon and Israel".
While it is true, the Olmert government rightly came under heavy domestic criticism for its mishandling of the initial phases of the war, it is not clear how this war might have progressed / ended had Mr. Bush and Dr. Rice not placed inordinate pressure on Israel for a ceasefire. As you know, in all wars there are mistakes. Mistakes can be rectified however. The fact that Israel's leaders bowed to White House pressure does not exculpate Israel's weak leaders. Neither does it absolve the White House. There are rumblings that again, Mr. Bush is "urging (our) ally to settle on a timetable and exit strategy" from Gaza.
2) Gerson: "If Israel concludes the main phase of its Gaza operations by Inauguration Day -- as it seems to want to do -- this will allow Obama to renew a peace push with a fresh start and a large obstacle (hopefully) removed....The removal of this threat is not an obstacle to the peace process. It is the prerequisite for the resumption of the peace process...."
As bright and talented a man as you are, I am surprised you believe in this sham of a "peace process." You of all men, with your Christian background and experience, should know there is no peace process; there is no land for peace. This is simply a fantasy, largely embraced by the political left. Israel is in existential war for her very existence. This conflict is not about land -- the Arabs have plenty. As Professor Steven Plaut wrote in today's Frontpagemag, "The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about Israel refusing to share land and resources with Palestinians but about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East."
What kind of concessions might the U.S. make to Al Qaeda jihadists in order to achieve peace? After the 9/11 Muslim terror atrocities in New York and Washington, I devoted some effort to learn about Islam. Have you or the president you served?
I am curious, who wrote Mr. Bush's September 20, 2001 speech before a joint session of Congress and the American people?
In part: "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam....."
Do you know who wrote these words?
Gerson's response:
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 11:25 AM
> Thank you for your email. It is not possible for me to respond to each
> note, but I attempt to review them all, and I deeply appreciate your input.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael J. Gerson
Surprisingly, I have not seen any postings regarding the following, I guess other events have overshadowed this distressing legal action by Hamas and Iran. From my google search, it appears that Old Media and the press have ignored this, also.
Iran and Hamas legalize crucifixion and codify the standards whereby the crucifixion sentence should be performed. It appears that the legislation was approved on 12-25-08. Their way to say, Merry Christmas!
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1230111707087&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812283134/culture-wars/hamas-legalizes-the-crucifixion-of-christians-and-other-enemies.html
Follow up:
Note: New Sharia code is being worked on and will be announced soon. Will this include crucifixion, stoning or amputation or ?
However, it appears that the soon to be announced code (revision) will have the force of law in various countries. Iran, Gaza, West Bank, Sudan, Yemen, UAE, and parts or all of Indonesia.?
Here is a comment from the previous link provided.
"I think they only behead people because is easier and faster than crucifying them. (IsraelNN.com) Hamas leaders in Gaza have denied a report in the London-based Al-Hayyat according to which the group plans to institute an Islamic penal code including punishments such as crucifixion, lashes and amputations. However, according to the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) organization, the group is lying.
"Contrary to today's denials, official Hamas leaders have proudly announced in the Hamas-run media in the last two months that this Islamic penal code was being prepared,” PMW explained. “Indeed, senior Hamas leaders went so far as to say that when these laws are implemented, they will have force not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank [Judea and Samaria—ed.].” Heads of the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority in Gaza have specified that the new penal code will have “14 chapters and 220 clauses,” according to PMW. Despite their denials this week, Hamas leaders recently announced that the new code is almost ready. PMW gave specific examples of recent statements contradicting Hamas' denial of this week's report on its planned Islamic law system. While a statement published in Al Ayyam on Thursday said, “The [Legislative] Council did not discuss any article of the penal code,” Hamas' Minister of Justice said, “This [Islamic penal] code is being discussed at the sessions of the Legislative Council, for a second reading,” less than six weeks earlier.
In a separate statement, senior Hamas justice officials said, “Similar [Islamic penal codes] have already been implemented in a number of Arabic and Islamic states such as Sudan, Yemen, the [Arab] Emirates and Indonesia.”
Have the clueless ever read the Charter of Genocide?
So, for the convenience of the Clueless, courtesy of the Hamas Charter:
1st clue: opening line: "In The Name Of The Most Merciful Allah"
2nd clue. 2nd paragraph: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
3rd clue. Article Eight: "Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes."
4th clue. Article Eleven: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."
Really big clue. For the talkers & legitimizers. You too Obama:
Article Thirteen: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
36 Articles for the clueless actually.
Krauthammer: "... Perpetual war. Since its raison d'etre is the eradication of Israel, there are only two possible outcomes: the defeat of Hamas or the extinction of Israel."
Now where would he ever get that idea?. Must be an Islamophobe.
Remember Sarah Palin's implication that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign affairs expertise? Tina Fey had a field day with that one.
Posted by: jewdog
that is o/t, but in case you hold that against Sarah Palin, those words were taken out, and you did not hear the whole interview as it was quite taken out of context, to make her look bad. l dont trust the MSM anymore than an islamists Jewdog. Let me tell you that is Sarah Palin was elected, there would not stopping her against the islamists.
If Mr.Krauthammer can read the Hammas charter why cant Mr.Peres?
To Wild Jew,
You are absolutely correct in what you wrote to Gerson.
In fact, John Bolton, our Ambassador to the UN at the time, has described how Condi Rice took charge over the negotiating for the U.S. at the UNSC pertaining to a cease-fire.
He said Rice was quick to abandon the origional U.S. position for the much tougher chapter 7 Resolution with a mandate for disarming Hizbullah, and instead agreed to the weak 1701 Resolution with no teeth in it.
Rice was in the camp of those urging for a pre-mature immediate cease-fire.
We now know how that turned out.
Here's the link:
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948903.html
I am sorry, but there is a third option, the extinction of Hamas. If Hamas wants to kill every Jew, why shouldn't the same be applied to them?
Charles Krauthammer is a very smart guy and, contrary to what some may think, is not a lap dog for President Bush, having criticized him on Fox News several times for anything from southern border security, to too much spending on domestic programs, to Bush's recent signing on to the bailout nonsense, to a woeful capacity for PR. BUT, Krauthammer still is not prepared to publicly denounce the Islamic faith, anymore than Daniel Pipes or Bernard Lewis or many others are who nonetheless have no reservations about exterminating the corpus of Islamic radicals around the world (the Western Left doesn't even get this much). This constitutues the primary problem facing the non-Muslim world today-------the continuing disinclination to announce to all that Islam is evil and that there's no two ways about it.
We need another Reagan moment. Just as the Gipper referred to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire," so do we need a very prominent and very politically talented individual to call out Islam as the profoundly malevolent system of thought which it is. Still waiting.
I trust Israel learned a lesson. As long as Hamas keep launching rockets, as they will, Israel has no reason to stop untill it closes on the Egyptian border.
Israel should use the MSM to warn the "innocent" to distance themselves from Hamas, even family.
With the consern the press has for the innocent, you would think suggeting getting out of harms way would be a natural recomendation.
Wellington, Reagan is the last kind of guy we need. He caved to terrorists by pulling out of Lebanon, leaving Iran to overrun the only Christian nation in the Middle East. We've had enough Reagans. We need a Churchill.
Charles Krauthammer is a very smart guy and, contrary to what some may think, is not a lap dog for President Bush....
Posted by: Wellington
Thanks Wellington. You are more eloquent and fluent in the langauge than I am. This is the word I was searching for. "Lapdog." Krauthammer is George W.'s lapdog.
And they are jewish warriors with the Samson Option. If Israel dies, Islam dies.
Surrender is an option:
Bush pushes for monitored ceasefire pact
US president says his country working to reach meaningful truce in Gaza that includes monitoring mechanisms to halt weapons smuggling into territory. 'Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable," he adds in first public comments on fighting
Reuters Published: 01.03.09, 06:55 / Israel News