The answer is simple: truth, properly applied, requires individual action which has a cost. If the person perceiving the truth does not want to pay the cost, it is cheaper/easier to deny the truth, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Unless the truth threatens my personal peace, it is easier in the short run to deny it than to deal with it.

So it is with Islam.

Until the tenets of Islam come home to roost on a person's front porch, most people will turn a blind eye. Until Sharia law takes away the beer of the average sports fan, executes intellectuals and free thinkers at the local university, stones high school kids down the street for fornication, and eliminates television, most people will not care one iota. Because it doesn't cost them personally.

Posted by: OolongChung at March 22, 2008 8:52 AM

The politicians are living on another planet. When they start to talk about the "art of the possi-possible", then you know we are all in trouble since they refuse to face facts and choose to bury problems instead of solving them. Well written Hugh. Thank you.

Posted by: lonewolf at March 22, 2008 9:34 AM

Dear Hugh

God bless you. And although you're an agnostic, I hope someone is giving you a basket of chocolate eggs. I have just come home from the Easter Vigil service, which was celebrated with LOUD singing and lots of music and followed by a most haraam supper (no pork - lamb, of course, it being Easter - but plenty of red wine).

While scrupulously keeping away from intellectually-addictive jihadwatch/dhimmiwatch during Lent, I did keep up with events in Israel by visiting jpost. I had a great deal of fun contributing to the talkbacks to certain news items, and on certain blogs. I actually managed to condense one of your splendid paragraphs on the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, and why it is so important, into the narrow compass of the 600 characters or less permitted on those talkbacks, without losing any of the essential points of the argument.

And as I have read through the talkbacks, and the various blogs, of all sorts, I have seen what you refer to when you say "the Israelis, or most of them, now understand this" (about the Jihad).

It is fascinating to watch a paradigm shift happening before one's eyes. Israel is small. Small - like Denmark - and probably much more strongly interconnected. Ideas can spread fast in small societies. A mini minor can turn a lot faster than a stretch limousine.

When one of the most intelligent cultural groups on the planet - the Jews, who have pretty much cornered psychology/ psychiatry - finally collectively 'get' what Islam is about, REALLY about, then the 'Palestinian' Arab Muslims with the rest of the Ummah for good measure, and their dhimmi fellow travellers and Useful Idiots, simply will not know what hit them. The Jews are like the one whom they worship - slow to anger. But when that anger does come it will be an avalanche. And after 1400 years Safiyya and Juwariyya and Rayhana and so many, many others will be avenged. I hope and I pray it may be so.

PS - re voting at the UN. I wrote to my Prime Minister, when I heard he was going to move a motion in Australia's Federal Parliament congratulating Israel upon its 60th birthday, and told him a few things I thought he needed to know.

I told him that the chief thing about the previous government that I approved of (there was plenty, mostly domestic, that I DISAPPROVED of) was its instructing our UN ambassador to vote NO to the grossly unfair 'let's hate Israel' resolutions pushed through by the Muslim bloc (I used precisely that phrase 'the Muslim bloc').

I suggested that the best Happy Birthday gift he could give Israel (and I described Israel as having withstood 'a pitiless jihad' for 60 years) would be a. to steadfastly reject Muslim-bloc UN resolutions that symbolically lynch Israel and b. to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move our embassy thither, forthwith.

Although both Rudd's and Nelson's speeches that day in the Australian parliament left something to be desired - neither, it appears, truly understands the nature of the rock on which the dream of 'Partition', like the 'two state solution' its modern equivalent, foundered - the fact is: both did recognise Israel as a nation that could be praised, and congratulated, and they did so in the teeth of opposition from certain MPs within their own parties.

I think both men are educable. I urge all my fellow Aussies who post and lurk here to keep on hammering both Mr Rudd and Mr Nelson and every sitting MP - for we want this to be bipartisan.

As the Jew among men, so now, Israel among the nations.

But that means there is a niche open for the Righteous Gentile. Which nation or tribe, perhaps not great, or powerful, or highly regarded, will find the moral courage to step forward and place itself between Israel and her enemies? To stand, as Oriana Fallaci declared, with Israel?

If we Australians could muster the courage to do so - we, with Islamising Indonesia on our back doorstep - then we would finally earn the name that a Portuguese dreamer gave us: Terra Incognita del Espiritu Santo.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 22, 2008 9:49 AM

"although you are an agnostic..."

No, an atheist. There is a difference.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2008 10:17 AM

It never ceases to amaze me why this little postage stamp of a country (Israel) is the object of never ending hate among middle east Muslims. Also 20 pct. of the residents living in Israel are Arabic, and Muslim as well. The recognized estimate of Jewish people in the world is a little over 14 million in comparison to the Islamic population of 1 billion,225 million. That represents around one Jew for every 90 Muslims and yet they hate this little group of people non stop.

Posted by: Mackie at March 22, 2008 10:44 AM

Happy Easter, Mr. Fitzgerald. Keep up your great work of educating and mobilizing us to stand firm for universal freedom.

Posted by: John C at March 22, 2008 10:54 AM

And Happy Easter to you.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2008 11:14 AM

I was thinking the same thing when I was visiting Israel two weeks ago. The Israeli's are a great people fighting for their existence and our pathetic liberal left throughout the world are increasingly bent on giving Islam their most desired prize. It is then they figure that Islam will be content?

It makes me physically sick to listen to those in the Catholic Church and the main stream Protestant clergy, ie. the World Council of Churches tell Israel how to handle their affairs when it obviously will mean the destruction of the country.

I never wanted to be an Evangelical, I don't believe in trying to convert Jews to Christianity, but I am a Christian that believes in preserving the State of Israel and to not give one more centimeter of it away to try to appease the voraceous Islamics. So it is a partial conversion. And I can't wait to get back there to support Israel in any way I can.

Posted by: CLL1709 at March 22, 2008 11:54 AM

When a minority population of European Jewish Zionists claims it has the right to wipe an Arab territory off the map without any meaningful regard for the differing sentiments of the territory's vast majority of inhabitants, creates official population transfer committes in complete obliviousness to what had been done to Jews themselves in the past, and proceeds to effectively mistreat, uproot, and dispossess over half a million innocent people, then, yes, Mr. Fitzgerald, I have every right to critique and lecture Israel on its moral transgressions, especially given that I am a person of Jewish heritage for whose purported benefit these actions were supposedly undertaken for.

I think a conflict should be carefully and objectively evaluated based on the moral merits, universal Natural Law, and the actual facts of the matter, instead of folks engaging subjectively in what appears to be a case of trying to find the Muslim in the situation and oppose him reflexively.

Here's a simple test. If the Israel/Palestinian conflict were exactly the same as it is, only the roles of the two warring parties were exactly reversed, would you then switch allegiances to the Palestinian side? Or would Israel supporters still find a way to engage in all sorts of creative, pretzel-like, casuistric, intellectual acrobatics to find a way to support Zionist Jewry nonetheless?

I used to support Israel in the past, and would have no problem supporting Zionist Jewry if the roles were reversed from what they actually are.

As for nearly all Israel supporters, I think its fair to surmise the hypothetical speaks for itself: namely that the facts and moral merits are next to meaningless.

Posted by: fairuzfan at March 22, 2008 11:56 AM

It is fair to say that none of the three individuals who are most likely to be elected to the U.S. presidency at this point has a very clear understanding of Israel's peril Indeed, more than a few of the people advising Obama would happily throw the Jews under the bus altogether, as if that would, in any way, help America. Someone in Israel, ANYONE in Israel, a Geert Wilders kind of person (maybe Moshe Feiglin?)who can capture the attention of the Israeli people, and speak clearly and plainly about the implacable nature of her mortal enemy,could help save not only Israel, but the rest of civilization, too. Israel needs to form stronger alliances with Denmark, with India, and with non-governmental organizations in the U.S, and needs to cut through all the arab-funded fog and propaganda, and bypass both the State Dept and President, and get her message directly to the American people.

Posted by: Infidel33 at March 22, 2008 12:45 PM

'If the Israel/Palestinian conflict were exactly the same as it is, only the roles of the two warring parties were exactly reversed, would you then switch allegiances to the Palestinian side?"
- hypothetical opposed by a poster above

Let's see.

If there were 22 Jewish states, and only one tiny Arab state, if in those 22 Jewish states every other group was denied anything like equality (see the various groups of Christians all over the Muslim Arab world, or for that matter see the various groups of non-Arab Muslims -- such as Kurds, Berbers, and black Africans in Darfur), if those 22 Jewish states also possessed fantastic oil reserves and the one tiny Arab state possessed nothing but the intelligence of its populace, if those 22 Jewish states were the size of the 22 members of the Arab Leauge, with 14,000,000 square miles of territory, and the one tiny Arab state had less than 1/1,000th of that, or about 10,0000 square miles, if those 22 Jewish states were possessed of an ideology that required them to move heaven and earth -- oh, and did I forget to mention all the other "not-quite Jewish states" that would be the correct analogue to the non-Arab Muslim states that the Arabs (and Islam) have convinced that they, too, have a stake in opposing (see those frenzied mobs in Iran, or Pakistan) and in wishing to see destroyed, and if furthermore I knew that if those 22 Jewish states were intent on rewriting, or destroying, or utterly effacing, the history of those Arabs in their one tiny "Arab" state, because the rewriting of other peoples' history was what, for 1350 years, those Jews had been doing, and if there were a figure in Judaism akin to Muhammad, who was held up as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, as the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and if that Perfect Man in Judaism was not like any figure known to me in Judaism, or in Christianity, but was remarkably like Muhammad, as described in the Sira as teased out of the words and deeds attributed to him in the Hadith, and if, furthermore, I knew that if those 22 Jewish states, with their 14,000,000 square miles, and their fantastic unmerited oil wealth, and their unbelievable fixation on destroying a sliver of territory that was less than 1/1,000th of the territory they controlled, ever managed to destroy that tiny Arab state in the area bounded to the east by the River Jordan and on the west by the Mediterranean, a place so small one could not find it on the map, were ever to succeed that would not satisfy them, but make them ever more eager to recover other lands that had once been in their possession, and indeed to work, with a sense of triumph, for the final acceptance, all over the world, of Judaism as the dominant faith, and with Jews assuming the role that Muslims look forward to assuming themselves, then yes, I would of course be on the side of that tiny Arab state.

Oh, I forgot to mention that to make your little hypothetical complete, one would also have to posit that the Jews had long ago conquered that little area, and many of the Arabs had fled to Europe, or elsewhere in the "Jewish lands," and in both places had had to endure different kinds of difficulties, and suffering, and recently, in Europe, had endured what the Jews endured under the Nazis. And those Arabs, who had in the last century come to realize that in order to deal with the entrenched prejudice, complicated in its origins, against them, that it made sense for them to return to that little sliver, which under Jewish rule had fallen, by all accounts, into ruin and desoluation, and they had done so, buying up land, at exorbitant prices, and managing to have their right to establish the Arab National Home, on this little territory, recognized by the civilized world, even if those Jews, in their vast territories and many -- 22 by now -- states, were determined never to let those Arabs have their tiny country -- why, yes, if all of that, and all the rest that I haven't bothered to give here were offered, with Arabs in place of Jews, and vice-versa, I would have not the slightest difficulty being on the side of the Arabs in that case.

The reality, of course, is that Israel is the tiny besieged state, whose people are threatened by a permanent Jihad, the tiny state where, against all odds, the fantastic achievement of Israel came to be, the resurrectin of the ancient Jewish commonwealth. The great Italian journalist Indro Montanelli once wrote, toward the end of his long life (he died at the age of 90) that the greatest thing to have happened during the twentieth century, through which he had lived and during which he had experienced, and observed, and studied, so much, was the establishment of the State of Israel. And then, he added, "and possibly the only good thing to come out of the twentieth century."

Moral idiots will not share this view. I invite you to think clearly about how I have taken your invited hypothetical, and worked it out, and ask yourself if you wish to remain a moral idiot, or care to embrace what is just, what is right. Many people born into Islam, by the way, once they have jettisoned Islam, have had no trouble recognizing what Israel faces. See Ibn Warraq, see Wafa Sultan, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all of whom were subject to environments where anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments were their daily fare.

As they have managed to retain their intellectual and moral clarity, and to develop mentally in the freedom of the West, they have come to certain conclusions about Islam. And they have also reached certain conclusions about much-maligned Israel, the conclusions that I too have come to, and you, I'm afraid, have not.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2008 12:52 PM

I am a Christian, and therefore, from a Biblical perspective, it is exciting and a fulfillment of Biblical prophesy for the Jews to be back in their homeland.

Looking at it from another angle: It is very refreshing to see a group of dhimmis plant their flag in a corner of the muslim-occupied lands, and be dhimmis no more.

This is why free people everywhere should be applauding and supporting Israel.

And we should work round the clock to come up with alternate fuels, so that the day will soon come when we no longer have to give one cent to the Muslim Mafia!

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 22, 2008 12:54 PM

How does the above poster fairuzfan explain the 84 percent?. According to the poll by Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, reported in the New York Times Wednesday, of 1,270 Palestinians in face-to-face interviews, 84 percent supported the March 6 attack on the Mercaz Harav yeshiva.

I sent this to several people. No one responded. I wonder why? It is an expected position, this incredible support for murder among the Palestinians, yet it is still so puzzling and alien to our culture that we do not know how to react and what to say. We wish it were not so, but we cannot tolerate that it is so, so we try not to think about it, just as we could not continue thinking about the Iranian nuclear threat every day. Life could become intolerable.

The Palestinian explanation is that "recent action by Israel especially attacks on Gaza that killed nearly 130 people … have led to despair and rage among the average Palestinians who thirst for revenge". But the vast majority of the 130 people killed in Gaza were of course Hamas and Jihad operatives launching rockets at Sderot and Ashkelon. Despair and rage should be felt by the citizens of Sderot, not the other way round. How many Israelis would support the deliberate killing of Palestinian civilians studying in a school? Almost none . Without the attacks on Sderot there would have been no action by the IDF and then the target are those who launch rockets at Israeli civilians. The logic is simple, but in the twisted world of the Middle East it takes layers to peel off to get to the elementary truth. Hardly anybody is willing to discuss the essence, which is how can the Palestinians do it? How can 84 percent of a population approve of the deliberate killing of non-combatants?

The truth is that what makes this possible is the jihadist ideology which condones and encourages it. To the jihadists all non-believers are by definition guilty and no distinction is made about non-combatants. The normal mechanism of humanity present in all of us as human beings is just swept aside. It is this incredible failure of the media and the politicians in pointing out what is it in the Palestinian mindset that makes them capable of such atrocities that is most troubling.

Posted by: Mladen at March 22, 2008 12:59 PM

When a minority population of European Jewish Zionists claims it has the right to wipe an Arab territory off the map without any meaningful regard for the differing sentiments of the territory's vast majority of inhabitants.

Posted by: fairuzfan at March 22, 2008 11:56 AM

Hey, Fairuzfan, when did "palestine" become Arab territory? Answer: in the 7th century, when muslim invaders stole it from the Jews and Christians who lived there.

Same thing for Egypt: The muslim invaders stole Egypt from the Coptic Christians who were the vast majority of Egyptians at the time of the invasion. Somehow the Copts have survived all these centuries, but even today they are second class citizens in their own country, subject to the whims of the muslim mobs, and receiving no protection from the police.

What about Lebanon? About 20 years ago, the muslims of Lebanon decided that they should forcefully steal all of Lebanon from the Christians.

I could go on and on. All of the so-called muslim countries are in actuality muslim-occupied countries, countries which muslims stole from someone else.

So, getting back to your original statement, if you reversed the names, it would then become a true statement:

When a minority population of muslims claims it has the right to wipe a Jewish or Christian territory off the map without any meaningful regard for the differing sentiments of the territory's vast majority of inhabitants.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 22, 2008 1:07 PM

I think our muslim buddy has popped up again. This time, he goes by the name of fairuzfan.

Hey fairuzfan, if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it sure ain't a Jew!

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at March 22, 2008 1:14 PM

WTF?

"universal Natural Law"- what is that? The sharia? The law of gravity?

Never heard of it.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 22, 2008 1:37 PM

Hugh,

Has it ever occurred to you that the one-sided, excessive nature of your essay title might repel those very people most in need of reading what you have to say, i.e., those still on the fence and groping to find the truth....(the essay itself is fine).

For the record, I suffer from the same malady (absent of course your prolific abilities as a writer). I was recently shot down by a Liberal interlocutor because of my rhetorical excess (he couldn't effectively counter the substance of my assertions, so he went after the form)...and after reflection, I had to agree with the criticism.

We all love your personality and enthusiasm...(even if some of us don't agree with you over certain issues). But please consider just the possibility that your zeal can sometimes undermine your effectiveness in the art of disputation.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2008 1:40 PM

fairuzfan,
Check out this visual presentation to understand how the refounding of Israel took place. You´ll also better understand the reaction to that refounding.

For a more detailed account, with arguments often sourced in a scholar very critical of Israel, see The Case for Israel, the book by Alan Dershowitz.

Posted by: traeh at March 22, 2008 2:38 PM

fairuzfan,
Your pals sided with the Nazis, hate the Jews like the Nazis, tried to destroy Israel from the start, and when the Jew hating Arab scum failed to destroy Israel, engaged in terror attacks on civilians. When I see Arabs celebrating 9/11 or death of school childred in Jerusalem by dancing and rejoicing in the streets, I see barbarians who lost any claim to membership in the human race, as well as any claim to create another nation of barbarians.
Here's a reversal for you, if the people running Israel were just another bunch of Muslim Arabs, they could have exterminated every last Palestinian and that would be a foot note in the your history books. You hate Israel cause you hate Jews. Look at the Sudan, they have killed millions of people because the barbarians running the country, Muslim Arabs, want to impose ugly sharia'h law on better people there. Did any of your Arab pals come out and condemn them for that? Yet you cry victim adn point your wicked Jew hating fingers at israel everytime she kills one of the complicit human shields your cowardly killers uses to hide behind as they launch rockets.

Posted by: Dumbo at March 22, 2008 2:53 PM

"and after reflection,I had to agree with the criticism."

Cornelius,

You are under no obligation to do so. The party in question is certainly free to bring such vociferousness to the attention of those present,but it's up to you to note(in a condensed form which is often best for those who find themselves drawn into the black hole of linguistic excess) the fact that the pillars of your argument have not even been scratched. Then highlight the "interlocutor's" pitiful attempt to save his ass by falling back on the old "too many words" argument.(didn't they say that about Mozart:"too many notes")

This is not to say that condensing points is not critical in our current age of drive-by instant gratification and attention spans. Just don't be despaired by the harmony which is delightful speech. Especially when essaying to smite those arguments which are loud and vain and attempt to drown out all else on nothing but the merits of their sheer volume.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at March 22, 2008 3:39 PM

"Has it ever occurred to you that the one-sided, excessive nature of your essay title might repel those very people most in need of reading what you have to say..."
--- from a posting above

The title was chosen by Robert from the original posting.

Posted by: Hugh at March 22, 2008 4:20 PM

"But please consider just the possibility that your zeal can sometimes undermine your effectiveness in the art of disputation."

If this were a high school debate meet you might have a point. If this were a court of law you might have a point. If this were an academic seminar etc

But this is the comments section of a Web log. Does the comments section of a Web log have a referee?

Posted by: non-croyant at March 22, 2008 4:59 PM

HUGH: "The title was chosen by Robert from the original posting."

Didn't realize. My apologies (though I still object to the title).

WE NEED GC SCOTT,

By rhetorical excess, I wasn't referring to volume, but rather tone. My propensity for hyperbole is a short-coming I've been trying to overcome for years...and is directly correlative to the passion I feel about the issues, my love for human freedom, and my contempt for the apologists of totalitarian beliefs and creeds.

I figure to be a much more effective advocate for the cause of freedom when I learn to convey my arguments a little more dispassionately.

NON-CROYANT: "But this is the comments section of a Web log. Does the comments section of a Web log have a referee?"

Not trying to referee at all, simply expressing my two cents, as is my right...and my two-cents referred not to the comments section, but the title of an essay posted by the directors of this web-site.

One of Robert Spencer's great assets is the equanimity in his use of language. It belies the contemptible arguments of those who try and brand him as a purveyor of hate. While the essay title above is essentially harmless, in my humble opinion it is a juvenile expression that detracts from the over-all message of the essay, a message in its essentials that I couldn't agree more with.

For the record, in case it appears to anyone I'm attempting to sow discord here, I'm merely just trying to do my small part in looking after this fine institution.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2008 5:32 PM

"Has it ever occurred to you that the one-sided, excessive nature of your essay title might repel those very people most in need of reading what you have to say..."
--- from a posting above by Cornelius

Actually Mr. Fitzgerald, I thought it was thought provoking. Perhaps the islamic chap actually read some of it before beginning his essay on intellectual juxtaposition and roll reversal. You certainly do a nice job of defending Robert's title and your theses. I have always wondered about those that attack the style and or verbiage of a subject rather than the subject. I think it tends to antagonize others reading and appreciating the piece and makes Cornelius come across as a pseudo-intellectual attempting to trivialize the argument.

Or he has just too much time on his hands and comes across as a stupid jerk.

Posted by: CLL1709 at March 22, 2008 5:35 PM

CLL1709,

Thanks for the constructive input.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2008 5:38 PM

fairuzfan,

I agree with most of the posters here who suggest your historical focus is somewhat selective. If the Palestinians really wanted peace they could have it easily. All it would take is to agree to live like civilized human beings. The Israelis have bent over backwards to find ways to live in peace, but it appears nothing they can do short of agreeing to commit suicide will satisfy the Muslims.

The Muslim proclivity for loudly proclaiming the importance and superiority of their religion and culture and their incessant whining about the Jews is becoming truly wearisome. In point of fact, the relatively small number of Jews who have ever lived have contributed immeasurably more to the common good of humanity, by orders of magnitude and by whatever measure you choose, than the Islam ever has.

Posted by: Eastview at March 22, 2008 5:40 PM

Sheik yer'mami,

Natural law is universal to all men, because it is the moral law written upon men's hearts by their Creator. The U.S. Declaration of Independence contains an argument that appeals to natural law. As another illustration, "crimes against humanitity" violate natural law, because they violate inherent human rights, not just statutes, treaties, or international conventions.

Natural law is also a Christian concept. The Decalogue--the Ten Comandments--can be considered a codification of the natural law, of the universal moral law.

Posted by: John C at March 22, 2008 9:14 PM

"Humanity," thus.

Posted by: John C at March 23, 2008 12:08 AM

The Israelis, or a majority of them, know their true situation. It is their government, from which so many Israelis are now so obviously disaffected, that refuses to know.

If that is the case, how did most Israelis - the last time they voted - either support Labor or Kadima - both parties under Peres and Sharon/Olmert? What exactly changed between then and now that makes the current situation one that Israelis have a right to be disaffected with? I could understand if they had elected a Likud led coalition, which then went on to do exactly the opposite of what it had been elected to do. But both Labor and Kadima had promised to 'more seriously follow the peace process' and did exactly what they said they would.

It's like somebody putting one's hand into the fire, and then getting angry at the fire for burning him despite knowing that that's exactly what a flame would do.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 23, 2008 1:28 AM

John C,

If that (humanity) is indeed what it means I can assure you from the bottom of my heart that the Muhammadan poster has a completely different understanding of it.

For him, if it doesn't comply with sharia, its worthless. The word 'humanity' applies only to Muslims, infidels are the 'vilest of creatures' and must be killed or forcibly converted.

Ain't that right, fairuzfan?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 23, 2008 1:43 AM

I wonder what 'fairuzfan' makes of the Egyptian Magdi Allam - who, having for some time publicly criticised many things about Islam, and having publicly declared himself FOR Israel - has now, in the most public manner conceivably possible, in St Peter's in Rome, in the presence of Pope Benedict XVI, apostasised from Islam and embraced the Christian faith.

Curiously enough, it was Allam's falling in love with Israel that seems to have helped precipitate his falling in love with Jesus.

He saw in Israel the principle of Life. He saw Death in those Muslims so malevolently attacking Israel. And he seems to have then recognised in Jesus - Yeshua of Nazareth - the very same active principle of Life that he saw in the people and nation of Israel.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at March 23, 2008 6:36 AM

"'The Israelis, or a majority of them, know their true situation. It is their government, from which so many Israelis are now so obviously disaffected, that refuses to know.'[HF]

If that is the case, how did most Israelis - the last time they voted - either support Labor or Kadima - both parties under Peres and Sharon/Olmert? What exactly changed between then and now that makes the current situation one that Israelis have a right to be disaffected with? I could understand if they had elected a Likud led coalition, which then went on to do exactly the opposite of what it had been elected to do. But both Labor and Kadima had promised to 'more seriously follow the peace process' and did exactly what they said they would."
-- comment on my remark by a poster above

You are right that the legacy left by Ariel Sharon -- Ehud Olmert -- should have long ago been understood. And the mass media in Israel is still controlled by people of the David-Landau sort (whom I was careful to add to the list of the political lame and the halt aobve). I was writing about Israel not six months ago, and not a year ago, and not two years ago, but right now, after the rockets raining on Sderot, where the Gaza fiasco is there for all to see, and where Qassems are now supplemented by Grads, and the obvious conclusions are being silently drawn by people outside the government -- to wit, that as Gaza goes, so goes the "West Bank" if the Israelis ever give it up. The wretched and dangerous mediocrity of Israeli politicians, the ways in which even the good ones, or the better ones, still have had trouble on analyziing the problem -- and even now you can read articles, as in the Middle East Forum, where the "change" in the "Palestinian movement" from a "nationalist" to an "Islamist" identity is solemnly described, when Islam, Islam, Islam was always underneath, always the thing that mattered, just as it was always the thing that mattered, underneath the supposedly secular, because "Ba'athist," rule in Syria (where it disguised an Alawite despotism), and Iraq (where it disguised a Sunni Arab despotism).

I think many more people in Israel are coming to their senses, in their understanding of things, but only because those Qassems and Grads, and the behavior of Mahmoud Abbas (his statements in Arabic, made to those he claims to lead, not those made to the visiting Infidel firemen from America) have had the effect of shaking them, not all, but many, out of their stupor.

Whether they can get rid of the government in time, a government that must surely be the worst in Israel's history, before it makes terrible concessions for which Israeli lives will be paid, and much misery result, is a different matter.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 8:55 AM

Hear, hear!

Posted by: joeblough at March 23, 2008 2:27 PM

Hugh, what do you suggest Israel do in the long term, given the long term demographic conquest? They cannot simply depend on something to happen and hope.
Would you ever accept Israel's expelling part of its Muslim population to Jordan or elsewhere, because there would be no other option of dealing with them?

Posted by: whatwemaybe at March 23, 2008 8:23 PM

whatwemaybe

I can't speak for Hugh, but I support those in Israel who advocate a 'transfer' solution, which would be their equivalent of Benes decree i.e. expel all Mohammedans in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper out of the country, period - to any place of their chosing - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, wherever... You are right - the Israelis (Jews, Christians and others) can't just allow themselves to be simply outbred into defeat. They need to do what's necessary to save themselves, and not worry about Western perceptions of their actions.

Whether they have the cajunes to do it is another story. I read the point Hugh made above, but my original implicit point was that most Israelis are not where we Jihadwatchers are in terms of recognizing what threatens them. This is not a unique criticism of Israelis - one could replace 'Israelis' with Europeans, Americans, Thai, Indians, and any number of other peoples, and that would still be a valid observation.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 23, 2008 9:12 PM

Had Israel swiftly annexed the "West Bank" in 1967, by now, and long before now, it would have simply been accepted by the world. It would not have been accepted by the Arabs, but they have no intention of accepting Israel's permanent existence no matter what its size. The important thing is to distinguish between the short and the longer term. In many ways it makes life temporarily more pleasant for this or that Israeli government to negotiate, to yield to pressure, to modify one's formerly unmodifiable position, to win appearances at the Rose Garden and a week, or even three, without being denounced by the General Assembly or the Security Council, and even perhaps to allow oneself to believe that a "new Middle East" is being created. But those same concessions add up, and step by step Israel has weakened itself, quite unnecessarily, through all of the concessions it has made since its victory in the Six-Day War.

The Israelis forgot that they were in the right. They stopped teaching, in their schools, the history of the conflict, and they never bothered to study Islam without which that "history" is incomplete, and indeed can hardly be understood. And now they teach, in Israeli schools, a version that takes into account the "Arab Muslim perspective." This is not laudable, as some think, but foolish.

If Israel were to make clear that it is never gonig to relinquish possession of the "West Bank," that Gaza would have to become part of Egypt, and receive whatever goods and services it needed through its border with Egypt, and that the sell-by date for this "Palestinian" state, this "two-state-solution" state, had passed, and it has passed, because Islam itself as the true prompt can no longer be hidden, and it may be that outside of the area, in Western Europe and North America, the realization of what Islam means, and why it explains the futility, from the viewpoint of Infidels, of all this peace-processing, will arrive just as soon as it does to Israel's government. The Israelis must study this new, and growing, understanding of Islam, and turn it to their advantage They need to start explaining to others, as well, that the pressures put on Israel merely delay the day when the Arabs give up both on this peace-processing as a way to to push Israel back (and eventually overwhelm it, after steadily weakening it from within and from without), and also give up on the alternative -- force and the threat of force, because Israel's response will be too damaging. The way to maintain the peace in the future remains what it has been: deterrence by an Israel that is seen as overwhelmingly more powerful.

Israel's government and people need to accept, not as a kind of doomsday, the fact that most Muslims will never, ever, accept the permanence of Israel. That's okay. That is not the end of the world, and it need not be avoided or evaded. It means only that Israel to survive will always have to maintain the borders it currently possesses, always have to retain control of the Judean heights, always have to control the aquifers under the "West Bank," always have to work to maintain its nuclear arsenal and to prevent Muslim states from acquiring, or being able to deliver, a similar arsenal. It may seem like a tall, even impossible order, but it is not, especially as both internecine warfare within the Camp of Islam, and growing dismay about Islam among certain Muslim populations, chiefly non-Arab, will help to weaken the enemy.

What will keep the peace in the future is exactly what kept the peace in the past: the realization that the Arabs and Muslims would suffer too much if they tried an assault. This lessen has to be re-learned, from time to time, and there will always be occasions for such refresher courses (the bombing of that mysterious Syrian site was one such refresher course). The principle of Necessity, or Darura, can be invoked by Arab rulers to explain their own failure to attack Israel, or even their failure to maintain other measures short of miltiary attack. If it clear that Israel is there to stay, that it will not offer any further concessions beyond what has already, at this point, been conceded.

Then, if Israeli leaders and the people of Israel can undo the damage they have done themselves over the past few decades, by accepting that construct the "Palestinian people," and instead talk carefuly about "Palestinian Arabs" or "Gazan Arabs" or "'West Bank' Arabs" that would certainly be a signal, and they could go much further in educating others about the "nationalist" veil that can be pierced to reveal Islam, and the claims not of soi-disant "Palestinian" nationalism, but of old-fashioned Islam, with its ideology of Jihad.

When I have mentioned the Benes Decree it is always to point out that the most advanced and civiilized country in Central or Eastern Europe, Czechoslovakia, in 1946, made a decision that its people should never again have to endure the risk to their security that the Sudeten Germans had shown they posed, back in 1938, and 1939, and then during the Second World War. No one of sense objected to the Benes Decree, by which three million ethnic Germans were expelled -- no one of sense then, and no one of sense since then.

This is adduced simply to get people thinking, instead of thinking that "there are certain things that are unthinkable." Nonsense. Was Eduard Benes, was Jan Masaryk, monstrous? Not at all. Did what they did seem, under the circumstances, reasonable because of the German threat? Of course. The attempt of many to stifle discussion of measures of self-defense once deemed appropriate, and unremarkable, should not be quietly submitted to, but ignored.

That's by way not of an answer, but of the attitudes and atmospherics necessary to arrive at an answer.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2008 10:37 PM

Dumbledore's army, I salute you!

Brilliantly written, and a fine example.

Posted by: carpediadem at March 24, 2008 6:02 AM

"Moral idiots will not share this view."

Like a certain sot going by the name of bob Ellis, in Australia. A vain, limp, mean-spirited, ex-speechwriter, a writer/journalist type who regards Israel's rebirth as one of the disasters of the 20th century.

Irony plus...

Regarding your prose style, Hugh.

I enjoy its Wodehousian flow, but do find that slightly trimmed sentences would help your meanings stay crystal clear. Very occasionally there are a couple too many subjects in the one clause-heavy sentence to keep straight.

Just for the record, I have no objection to the title of the piece. If someone finds it partisan, so be it. It indicates the matter discussed and the body of the text substantiates it. What else is a title for?

Posted by: carpediadem at March 24, 2008 6:27 AM

"Moral idiots will not share this view."

Like a certain sot going by the name of bob Ellis, in Australia. A vain, limp, mean-spirited, ex-speechwriter, a writer/journalist type who regards Israel's rebirth as one of the disasters of the 20th century.

Irony plus...

Regarding your prose style, Hugh.

I enjoy its Wodehousian flow, but do find that slightly trimmed sentences would help your meanings stay crystal clear. Very occasionally there are a couple too many subjects in the one clause-heavy sentence to keep straight.

Just for the record, I have no objection to the title of the piece. If someone finds it partisan, so be it. It indicates the matter discussed and the body of the text substantiates it. What else is a title for?

Posted by: carpediadem at March 24, 2008 6:28 AM

Hugh

If you don't like this title or any other, there is a simple solution: change it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at March 24, 2008 8:11 AM

I like the title just fine. Had I not liked it just fine, I would have changed it. After all, why shouldn't I like it? It's my sentence, plucked from the piece and elevated by Robert to the title role, and them's my sentiments exactly.

I should probably have made that clear in my original response. I didn't think it necessary but I now see that my reply to "Cornelius" might have been misinterpreted by him, especially since he has in the past, more than once, tried to find, and elevate i his own way, some difference in my views and those of Spencer, especially on Iraq. And even a difference over a title might do. But if I had objected to the title, I would have changed it, and I didn't. End of story.

Though the title may, as Cornelius thinks, be too off-puttingly dismissive for the taste of some -- the same objection has been made to Oriana Fallaci's fury, that she refused to tone down), perhaps it is those very some who need a little off-putting.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2008 9:39 AM

Haven't you both learned something from the Clinton/Obama debacle? "A House Divided," you know. Now, put yourselves together and stop squabbling with yourself!

Posted by: John C at March 24, 2008 6:50 PM

HUGH: "I didn't think it necessary but I now see that my reply to "Cornelius" might have been misinterpreted by him, especially since he has in the past, more than once, tried to find, and elevate i his own way, some difference in my views and those of Spencer, especially on Iraq."

For the record Hugh, after Robert had taken me out to the woodshed, I went back and listened to his speech, and immediately after the quote I had used to highlight what I perceived to be a difference between him and yourself, he went on to say that he believed in a "third way" in Iraq...he wasn't explicit, but it was apparent to me he was rejecting both the Liberal 'cut-and-runners' and the Administration's 'stick-it-out' policy.

In other words, there was no basis whatsoever for me to make the claim I made. I heard a quote from Robert that could be interpreted as a difference with you, ignored the quote that followed, and then brushed aside Robert's own patient efforts to explain things to me.

Robert Spencer is doing daily battle with prominent people who slander his name and misrepresent his efforts. He sure as hell doesn't need back-sniping by his supporters.

As my wife would surely testify, I'm a man fraught with human imperfection. My only defense is that I give enough of a damn that I sometimes get carried away.

Robert, I hope all is forgiven.

Hugh, in spite of everything, I know deep down on some level you're quite fond of me. Maybe it's my entertainment value.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 24, 2008 11:19 PM

Israel should simply annex Gaza. It is too small to exist as a viable state, and in any case is incapable of responsibly managing its own affairs, so why do we pretend that it can? Israel should then formally annex the West Bank and the Golan Heights, take whatever hits would surely follow from the Islamic world, and be done with it. The "Palestinians" presently living in these areas could be given a choice, agree to live in peace as Israeli citizens or move to the Islamic paradise of their choice.

Israel and the U.S. could also undertake to help Lebanon get back on its feet as a democratic country, with the aim of Israel and Lebanon eventually forming a confederation and entering into a mutual self-defense pact.

The point here is that Israel needs to continue to be proactive in defending its own interests, and the U.S. should be prepared to help in any way we can.

Posted by: Eastview at March 24, 2008 11:42 PM

"Hugh, in spite of everything, I know deep down on some level you're quite fond of me."
-- from a poster above

That's what they all say.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2008 11:45 PM

No one has the moral right to lecture or hector Israel about anything. No one has the moral right to pressure it about anything, to belabor it about anything, to dare to condemn it for anything, as it fights, and will have permanently to fight, for its life.

No one has the right to condemn Israel for *anything*? You mean, that if Israel were to decide that following the advice of this clown-- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/968729.html -- was necessary for Israel's survival and were therefore to "hang[] the children of the terrorist who carried out the attack in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva from a tree," that none of us would have any right to say that was morally wrong?

Posted by: Seamus at March 27, 2008 2:06 PM

Don't be absurd, Seamus, with that absurd hypothetical. You know exactly what I mean.

You and I go way back, don't we -- all the way back to my mention of the Benes Decree, and my discussion of which so offended you.

Posted by: Hugh at March 27, 2008 8:37 PM

Don't be absurd, Seamus, with that absurd hypothetical. You know exactly what I mean.

If your words mean anything, they mean that no one has the right to sit in moral judgment on anything Israel does to protect itself. And the only way that makes sense is (1) if its self-evident that Israel is so morally pure that applying moral standards to Israel is a waste of time; (2) everyone else is so morally corrupt that they have no standing to judge Israel (or anyone else) by any moral standards; or (3) there are no universal moral laws that apply to Israel the same way they apply to everyone else. All three are absurd. In fact, Israel (like Czechoslovakia) *is* subject to the same moral laws that bind the rest of us, and can fairly be judged according to them. And self-preservation does *not* justify anything deemed necessary to that end; even if it did, others have the right to judge whether the means taken were truly necessary to the end of self-preservation.

Posted by: Seamus at March 28, 2008 10:31 AM