Fitzgerald: A cold peace

"Peace" cannot be achieved by forcing Israel to make further concessions, which is all that ever happens from all these negotiations and peace-processing.

Peace does not require a treaty. The Cold War was also a Cold Peace. A true and full "peace" is impossible as long as the texts of Islam inculcate in Muslims the idea that they have a duty to make sure that Islam spreads and everywhere dominates, and that any Infidel nation-state on land that was once possessed by Muslims must again be possessed by them, through whatever means necessary.

But even if Islam requires Muslims, as a central duty, either to participate directly, or to support those who do, in Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, it does not mean that they cannot recognize a situation where they have more to lose from attacking an Infidel power, and when that happens, they don't attack that power. In the 19th and for most of the 20th century, it was not a change in the ideology of Islam that accounts for the relative quiet of Muslim peoples, but rather their relative weakness as compared to the Western and other Infidel powers. That is what kept them from being aggressive.

However, over the past half-century, several things happened. Muslim states -- Pakistan, Indonesia, North African countries -- pushed out the European powers that had formerly dominated them. Then the fantastic oil bonanza began, and allowed Muslims who, because of inshallah-fatalism, were likely never to be able to create wealth on their own, to simply be the beneficiaries of an accident of geology. Since 1973 alone, Muslim members of OPEC have taken in more than ten trillion dollars. This is the largest transfer of wealth in human history. With that money they have bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms and have heavily invested in weapons projects, not all of which have been entirely in vain. They have, furthermore, spent vast sums (Saudi Arabia alone having spent nearly $100 billion) to pay for mosques and madrasas all over the world, and especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr. And they have bought up armies of Western hirelings, people of influence and connections, sometimes former diplomats, former intelligence agents, politicians, journalists, and of course those who, in academic life, have managed to monopolize the teaching of Islam and related subjects (see John Esposito, see "MESA Nostra").

And at the same time, heedlessly, the Western countries allowed into their midst millions of Muslim immigrants, assuming rather casually that such immigrants would be just like all others, at first assimilating with difficulty, but like Hindus or Chinese or Vietnamese Buddhists or black African Christians, would ultimately manage just fine. The very idea that Islam itself inculcated permanent hostility toward the legal and political institutions of Infidels, and their social arrangements, and toward Infidels themselves -- well, that was never looked into, never investigated, and in large part, it still hasn't been properly investigated, much less widely understood.

Finally, Muslims have appropriated Western technological advances, and have successfully made use of audiocassettes (think of what Khomeini in his French exile did with those tapes), and videocassettes, and websites on the Internet, and satellite television channels. All of these have been used to better spread Islamic propaganda, to True Believers, and to the economically and psychically marginal Infidels who provide the largest pool of potential targets for conversion.

Those three reasons explain why Islam is on the march, why Muslims everywhere -- especially in Western Europe -- see that their best hope of spreading Islam is through the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

And that, too, is why they smell blood when it comes to Israel, and that is a very dangerous situation that all Infidels everywhere should recognize as such. That is why Israel should use any means, or any excuse, to stop this nonsensical negotiating with those who, as followers of Muhammad's example in the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, have no intention of honoring any commitments that they make with an Infidel nation-state. From a Muslim point of view, this would be to betray Islam.

And that, of course, is not permissible.

Posted by Hugh at March 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us