Then there is Tzipi Livni. She has a Personal Story, a Story that she, and so many others, find fascinating.

Tzipi Livni's Personal Story goes like this.

Once there was a young girl. She was the daughter of people who had been supporters of the Irgun. That is, they were certifiably "right wing." And this young girl even allows herself to be described as a "former Mossad agent." Another presumed proof of her right-wing hard-headedness. Never mind that her duties as a "former Mossad agent" amounted to nothing more than renting, and living in, an apartment in Paris. And never mind that her parents did not raise her in the Jabotinsky mold -- and even that mold would not have been sufficient to make her aware of Islam.

No, the Personal Story of Tzipi Livni, her mental trajectory that she is so very self-conscious about, is one where she, by dint of "realism," comes to realize that Israel "can't remain democratic and Jewish" if it "holds onto the 'West Bank'" and so, it doth follow as the day the night, that the "West Bank" must be given up.

There are so many things wrong with this notion that one hardly knows where to begin. First, the main duty of the Israelis, and of their government, is to survive. Nothing else. Not to make the world "safe for democracy." Not to make sure that every Arab living in the "West Bank" necessarily is living where he feels himself to be a full citizen, and that of course would require, so the livnis of this world think, that he be given the vote. Nonsense. The local Arabs can be given what hundreds of billions of people all over the world possess, and that is simply local autonomy. There are many minorities -- and every single non-Muslim and non-Arab minority in the lands ruled by Muslim Arabs are in this position -- that do not inhabit a state that corresponds to their "group."

Will this "morally corrupt" Israel? There are those who seem to think it is more important for Israel to be morally superior to everyone in the world, that goddam Light Unto Nations stuff, that gets in the way of survival and common sense.

The "West Bank" -- as this ear-shaped bit of land is ludicrously called -- is necesary for Israel's survival. Without it, Israel is reduced to what even Abba Eban called "the lines of Auschwitz." The local Arabs, and the Arabs in Gaza, and the Arabs who surround Israel, will not find their appetites sated by an Israeli surrender of the "West Bank" but positively whetted. The strategists of the Slow Jihad, Mahmoud Abbas and the other no-one-here-but-us-accountants boys (yes, how impressed Tzipi Livni has been, in all her personal peace-processing, with Accountant Fayyad’s soft voice, and sober ways, forgetting what the primitive masses of Arabs are like, forgetting everything except Fayyad, and the hope that somehow there is a “solution” if only, if only….It’s a powerful drug, hope, and the desire not to have to face a most unpleasant, even if ultimately manageable, reality). Without the “West Bank” Israel returns to the eight-mile-wide waist at Qalqilya. Without the “West Bank” Israel no longer controls the invasion routes from the East. Without the “West Bank” Israel will no longer control the aquifers on which its life depends. Without the “West Bank” Israel has lost every single bit of strategic depth that has been left to it. Without the “West Bank,” as the Mediterranean rises, and parts of the Israeli littoral are under water, the Israelis will have no place to go. Without the “West Bank,” Israel will in yielding its moral, legal, historic claims, to what is utterly its right to posseess, by the Mandate itself, by all the rules of warfare that have hitherto been applied (and which Israel’s leaders, and many of its people, have convinced themselves they are not to be allowed to be applied), be thoroughly demoralized, and the hideous spectacle of uprooting Jewish villagers and cities, from lands that are theirs by right, because of the mediocrity and lack of imagination of an Olmert, followed by a Livni, neither of whom understands that Israel is not required to give up these territories, that it is not – as Olmert’s statements show him clearly to believe – that Israel “can do no other” because it is under such pressure, but rather can now assert what many more people in the outside world are willing to listen to, because they themselves now are victims or targets of the same Jihad that Israel, without properly recognizing it as such, has always had to endure, and always will endure.

Tzipi Livni has to be asked, again and again, what she makes of the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira? Does she think that Muslims are taught to “take only part of what the Infidels have” or to “recover from the Infidels part of what was once possessed by Muslims, and be happy”? Does she? Does she think that Majid Khadduri, in “War and Peace in the Law of Islam,” was mistaken in describing Muslim treaties with Infidel s as based on the model of Muhammad’s treaty with the Meccans at Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D., was lying or misinformed? Does she think that all the other learned scholars of Islam, when they say exactly the same thing as Khadduri, are all misinformed? Does she think what the great mass of Muslims thinks does not matter in the formation of policies designed to ensure Israel’s long-term survival, and not simply to adopt policies that will lighten or relieve the present burden of Tzipi Livni, who like Olmert regards as an impossible task that of making the case for Israel holding onto the “West Bank” – and giving chapter and verse as to why this is right, why this is morally, legally, historically justified? Is it not possible for Tzipi Livni, so proud of having come so far from her own parents and presumed background, so self-congratulatory about her “realism” – to discover that the only “realism” that really counts, that is real realism, is that which takes into full account the texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam. These may not be on the lips of Fayyad or Abbas. But they are there, and they do not go away, and they cannot be modified.

And given that, it is essential for Israel, and other Infidel nation-states, including the states of Western Europe now only in the early stages of beleagerment by Muslim forces that have deployed the Money Weapon, begun apparently unmonitored campaigns of Da’wa, and by constantly adding to their ranks through continued immigration and very large families, are engaged in a demographic conquest that will lead them, like Israel, to have to make some decisions about whether it is more important to survive than to be totally, completely, beyond-all-reason morally pure – with purity apparently defined in terms of vulgar head-counting -0 , which may mean giving up their lands, ultimately, to Muslim rule.

When one is not up to a job, doesn’t want to find out what is necessary to do that job adequately, but instead prefers to take the easiest immediate path – that is what the Israeli “realists” such as Livni want – then one should recognize one’s incapacity, and step aside. Tzipi Livni has not done that. Instead, she is in line to become the leader of Israel, at a time of maximum peril, and to work diligently for an outcome that can only increase, in the long run, that peril. She has won her little vote in the Kadima Party because of its 74,000 members, fewer than 40,000 voted, and of those, as many as 14,000 were Arabs. Thus does the nation of Israel, thus does the Jewish people who worked to re-establish, after two thousand years, a Jewish commonwealth, now allow its fate to be decided by the votes of several thousand Arabs.

Fantastic? Intolerable?

What, these days, in Israel and outside of Israel, isn’t fantastic, isn’t intolerable?

Posted by: Hugh at September 18, 2008 12:50 PM

Hugh, you may be the most erudite and articulate journalist writing in English today (and I think you are), but you've got some kind of a blind spot here.

You write:

"There are many minorities -- and every single non-Muslim and non-Arab minority in the lands ruled by Muslim Arabs are in this position -- that do not inhabit a state that corresponds to their "group."

Here's the problem with that statement: The Arabs and Muslims collectively in the West Bank and Israel will not be a minority. Should Israel annexe the West Bank, it will find itself with a Muslim majority. Naturally it will be compared to South Africa (before Mandela) where a minority ruled over a majority.

In such a scenario, Israel will hardly be a "light unto the nations." It will not even be an object of pride to Jews worldwide.

Oh, no! It will be a permanent boil, a permanent, pussing, oozing, incentive to Jihad, and sad to admit, will turn Islamic Jihad into a national liberation movement. Israel will also, needless to say, lose whatever support it currently has in the world at large.

If your gloomy, hopeless scenario is the true one, then one can only conclude that the vast majority of religiously observant Jews are right that Israel as a nation among nations is an idea who's time has not yet come because the Messiah (according to them) has not yet come. Not a popular idea on this website, but let's let history judge. So far it looks as if the Orthodox Jewish Zion-phobes are winning the argument.

Many great religious Jewish leaders use many of your gloomy prognostications to demonstrate that Israel is/was a colossal and world-destroying mistake. (As an aside: if the goal is to get Muslims to leave Islam, then Israel is counter-productive. But let's leave that alone for now.)

Read the Bible. The Jews (and I proudly identify with them) have been wrong in history, according to their narratives and punished for it.

For those reasons I hope you're wrong. But I believe you're right.

Posted by: thugulla at September 18, 2008 5:26 PM

To recognize reality is not to become gloomy. In fact, if the recognition of reality takes place --that there ere is no "solution" to the Jihad being waged against Israel, and any further surrenders of Israeli territory (tangible assets) which would now also involve a surrender of claims, by the Jewish people of Israel, claims that they should not under any conditions surrender because of the damage to national morale that would be ruthlessly exploited by those who, like Abbas and Fatah, are engaged in the Slow Jihad, only good can come.

For Israel can survive, if it holds onto the "West Bank." It need not extend rights of citizenship to local Arabs. If they find this intolerable, they can move. But very few will move; the Arabs in Israel know how good they have it, living in the only advanced, and secure, polity, anywhere in the Middle East, where even as non-citizens they would be far better off than Arab citizens under any Arab Muslim regime. It can survive, not only because of its military prowess (which requires, however, continued possession of the "West Bank" if a situation of intolerable and permanent peril is to be avoided), but because the Western world is changing. More and more people, despite their ruling elites, are coming to comprehend, dimly at first, what Islam is all about, and they are realizing that Islam is a threat to them, not far away, but in their own countries. And every terrorist outrage, and every demand by Muslims within the Bilad al-Kufr for changes in the legal and political institutions, and social arrangements, of the Infidel lands, every demand by Muslims for special accommodations, every outrageous example of behavior, every outrageous speech by an imam, leads more and more people who, five years ago, or ten, or twenty, might have had no sympathy for Israel (given the steady diet of anti-Israel propaganda they have endured, without anything like a capable and convincing response on the part of successive Israeli governments and diplomats, who keep prating of "peace" -- which wins over no one -- instead of discussing the real nature of the war being made on Israel), now are beginning to see things in a new light, beginning to see Islam, and Muslims, and Muslim Arabs, and what they are really intending to do with Israel, in a much more realistic light.

It is the government of Israel, the political and media elites in Israel, who have failed to recognize this change, this sea-change, and who have done nothing to help it along, nothing to show that indeed, the right definition of the war against Israel is a Jihad, one that has no end, and so must be met not with further surrenders, but with a relentless and unyielding poliyc of containment, of deterrence, of what I keep writing about as "Darura" (the "necessity" that Arab leaders will be able to invoke to explain their own reluctance to wage war on Israel).

That's the way to go. And it is the only way for Israel to go.

Posted by: Hugh at September 18, 2008 8:10 PM

Let us not forget, thugulla, that Israel's case is *not* unique.

The situation Jewish Israel is in, vis a vis Arab-occupied Muslim-occupied Judea and Samaria, is PRECISELY the same as that which Hindu-majority India is in, vis a vis Muslim-occupied Kashmir (which the Muslims have pretty much 'ethnically cleansed' of its original non-Muslim ancestral inhabitants, the Pandits, but which is originally, and ancestrally, NON-MUSLIM land, full of non-Muslim sacred sites and pilgrimage destinations both Hindu and Buddhist) and the situation that the Catholic-majority Philippines are in, vis a vis the large and aggressive Muslim population in the Southern Philippines, and the situation that Buddhist-majority Thailand is in, vis a vis the Muslims in Southern Thailand.

The Moros of the S Philippines are ethnically and linguistically Malayo-Polynesian, just like the animist and Catholic Filipinos against whom they are waging jihad (and does anyone believe they will stop, if they are given resource-rich Mindanao to dominate? of course not! they will use it as a stepping-stone from which to continue Jihad).

But although they may descend from non-Muslims who originally lived where they themselves live now, their primary allegiance is now to a destructive and violent ideology, namely, Islam, the Arab Imperial Religion, and as long as that is the case, they are a mortal danger to the lives, the basic human rights and the rich culture (arts, music, EVERYTHING!) of the Christian-majority Philippines. Sharia imposed on the Philippines would be an abomination of desolation.

In fact, if the Filipinos cannot by peaceful persuasion induce the Moros and other Islamised peoples to leave Islam - for Catholicism or secularism - the obviously prudent course of action, politically speaking, is to expel all Muslim inhabitants of the Philippines into Muslim Indonesia; and then, implacably, to defend the borders against any Muslim aggression from Malaysia or from Indonesia.

Now let's look at Thailand. The Muslim population of southern Thailand is ethnically Malay. Not so many centuries ago they were animists, Buddhists and Hindus, rubbing along with their neighbours in the usual way, fighting, doing deals, back and forth.

Then they got converted to Islam and became a jihad-minded Sultanate. The Sultanate tried jihad against neighbouring Siam (sneak attacking while Siam was in a fight with Burma/ Myanmar); but...whoops! the Thais turned round and beat them. Winner takes all: the Sultanate land, having been a jumping-off point for aggression against Thailand, became Thai territory.

Now, thanks to Arab oil money and renewed da'wa, the Muslims have their heads full of jihad and are setting out 'to dominate, and not be dominated', and are busily killing the less Islamic Muslims, and every Buddhist Thai infidel they can.

Thought experiment: if the Thais withdraw, and let the southern provinces become a new Muslim 'state' (which would probably join Muslim-dominated Malaysia), what will happen to the non-Muslim minority there? And: do you think that the Muslims there will stop attacking Thai Buddhists? Or do you think that they will go on waging jihad, with a view to gobbling up all the REST of Thailand and subjecting it to Islam by hook or by crook?

As for Kashmir: if India handed all of Kashmir over to Muslim Pakistan tomorrow, I do not believe for one second that jihad against India, from Pakistan, and by Muslims within India, would cease. A new pretext would quickly be found.

In all four cases - Israel, Thailand, India, Philippines - the simplest and most obvious way of securing the threatened non-Muslim polity (Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic Christian) against the Jihad, and thus creating a defensible Islam-free, civilisation-friendly zone, is to push back - HARD. That is: to expel all the identifying Muslims from the territory to which Muslims are currently laying vociferous and aggressive claim, and within which, and from which, violent jihad attacks are proceeding against non-Muslims.

The cession of any territory to Islam does NOT and NEVER has meant peace for kafir; it means that the Muslims, emboldened by their gains, proceed to new acts of aggression, new claims, new terror raids, from the edges of their newly expanded territory, into the kafir lands. The Nothing (to borrow a metaphor from Michael Ende's Neverending Story) continues to advance.

Look up Patrick Sookhdeo's book about Islam; it is called 'Power, Faith, and Territory'. Islam is all about temporal power, power grounded in physical control of people and territory.

And, to be quite frank, wherever Islam dominates, it destroys, destroys, destroys; so resistance to its dominion is an act of love for humanity and for the earth.

At the end of Martha Gellhorn's 1961 article, The Arabs of Palestine, she draws a very apposite comparison. In sum: as the Sudetendeutsch were to the Third Reich, vis a vis Czechoslovakia, so the 'Palestinian' Arabs to the Arabosphere, vis a vis the Jewish state of Israel.

Today that parallel might be put thus: as the Sudetendeutsch were to the Third Reich, vis a vis Czechoslovakia, so the Arab Muslims in Judea and Samaria (and within Israel proper) are to the Empire of Islam, over against the Jewish state of Israel. (The parallel *also* applies to India, Thailand, and the Philippines.)

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 18, 2008 10:53 PM

Thugulla
“ the problem with that statement: The Arabs and Muslims collectively in the West Bank and Israel will not be a minority. Should Israel annexe the West Bank, it will find itself with a Muslim majority. Naturally it will be compared to South Africa (before Mandela) where a minority ruled over a majority.”

This is precisely what motivates Olmert. He said, at the Annapolis Conference "If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished,” and why would he say Israel would be finished ? Because "….the Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us," Olmert said, "because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents."
The irony is that to avoid the charge of Apartheid, Israel will actually ‘birth’ an apartheid nation in the form of a newly created ‘judenrein’ Palestinian State. But let’s face it, to hold onto the West Bank in the face of “world opinion” would be insane. Firstly, because the West Bank is a demographic time bomb. And secondly, as Israel is essentially Western in nature, it would be unable to reconcile the contradiction of ‘inequality’ of this Arab majority within its control if a two State solution is not reached. The Arabs will eventually get some sort of power sharing, then power, and then it’s good night. But if the West Bank is spun off into a Palestinian State, separation is achieved. Of course this Palestinian State will fail , Israel will get the blame for it , Israel will fight a low level war for forever, it will have to maintain its war readiness forever …but what’s new? So Israel will certainly divest itself of the West Bank, this is inevitable ( for Olmert is right) but this is not to say that the mistakes of Oslo should be repeated , and defendable boundaries and enforceable conditions can be imposed so as to ensure Israel’s rights and security.

Posted by: David Xavier at September 19, 2008 9:51 AM

Thugulla wrote:

Many great religious Jewish leaders use many of your gloomy prognostications to demonstrate that Israel is/was a colossal and world-destroying mistake.
..................................

Yes--how could an astonishingly successful, scientifically and educationally and artistically advanced, democratic nation with gender and minority rights and a free press possibly be anything other than a "world-destroying mistake"?

Much better that the Jews scatter--to the US, to western Europe, to South America, or where ever else they may consider offering them visas--and leave it all to the local Arabs. After all, they've done so much with Gaza--from destroying the greenhouses left them by philanthropic Jews as a seed-bed for their future economy, to running programs like "Tomorrow's Pioneers" to teach their children hate and death, to violently and murderously expelling their political rivals (fellow Arabs and fellow Muslims), to threatening "immodest" women and music shop owners and driving out the last poor remnant of Christians.

Can anyone think of any course that would do more to rectify the Israeli's terrible and "world-destroying" mistake--that it exist at all? It certainly gives us something to look forward to.

Posted by: gravenimage at September 19, 2008 2:21 PM

@gravenimage

How would a "greater Israel" (Israel with the West Bank) be a democratic nation?

Oh, that's right, it would be a democratic nation for Jews only. Me bad!

Read Hugh's post. He advocates annexing the West Bank and deep-sixing democracy to save Israel.

Like I said: I hope he's wrong, but I believe he's right.

If the goal is to separate Muslims form Islam so they can join the human race, then, I'm sorry, but I can't see that Israel is a help. How about a greater Israel? Would that attenuate the grip that Jihadism has on the Ummah?

It's interesting to read the impassioned warnings of Orthodox Jewish rabbis regarding Zionism. I angrily disputed their views for many, many, many years. Now in the post 9-11 world, I am amazed, awed, shocked, stunned by their prescience.

Posted by: thugulla at September 19, 2008 3:35 PM

The entire thinking world should support Israel, and discount the whole business of "what, oh what" is to happen to the Arabs in the West Bank. They led lives far more secure, and more prosperous, under Israeli rule, than they do under the corrupt P.A., or under the Jordanians, or under any conceivable Arab Muslim rule. If they also want the right to decide Israel's politics, that's too bad -- they shouldn't be allowed to do so. If they want to live in a polity in which they can have full political rights, twenty-two Arab states, and indeed the rest of the known world, are available for that. But making a fetish of head-counting, making that more important than the survival, in the very long run, of Israel, so that everyone can feel good about things -- well, that's an idea that makes no sense.

Posted by: Hugh at September 19, 2008 5:19 PM

xavier

you spoke of 'defendable boundaries'.

The rugged hill country of Judea and Samaria comprises *the* military high ground in that part of the world. If a Muslim-dominated (and heavily sharia-influenced) state of 'Palestine' controls the military high ground - they can fire at will onto all the most heavily populated areas of Israel.

Likewise: Israel CANNOT hand the Golan Heights to Syria, because the Golan Heights are ALSO military high ground.

Without control of the Judean hills, and of the Golan Heights, Israel has NO truly defensible boundaries.

thugulla is also ignoring one simple possibility that would certainly require a much more hard-headed grasp of the reality and menace of Jihad (in all its forms, combat or stealth, force or fraud) than any modern kafir politician currently possesses - that all Muslims qua Muslims might simply be expelled from Israel and from that military high ground, and that high ground taken, inhabited, and held by Jews (and the local Christians, who *could*, I think, quite safely have full civil and political rights, if they renounced pan-Arabism and got over their dhimmitude), in order to prevent its ever again being used as a springboard and refuge for jihadists.

The point is: exactly identical action may have to be taken by India, by Thailand, by the Philippines, indeed, by the entire Western World, and by countries like Ethiopia or Kenya, as a matter of harsh political prudence, in order for all the kafir civilisations and polities to survive the assault from the Third Jihad.

thugulla is treating Israel as a special case. But step back and look at the entire sweep of the Third Jihad, and one sees that it is not. ALL kafir states with large and aggressive Muslim minorities (all of whom are actively conducting Jihad at some level), often with aggressive Muslim neighbours supporting and egging on those aggressive Muslim minorities, are caught in the same cleft stick as Israel.

Leave Israel aside. Let's discuss Thailand instead. Should Thailand surrender its southern provinces to the jihadis (who will then proceed to ideologically cleanse that region of any Buddhists currently living there, and then go right ahead with jihad against the rest of Thailand?). Or would Thailand be better off to harden its heart, evict all the Muslims from within its current borders (since they are the sea in which the jihadists swim and from which new jihadists perpetually emerge), and prepare to defend itself against jihad arising from Muslim Malaysia?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 19, 2008 7:28 PM

DDA,
I don’t think Israel can ever cede the Golan heights , and yes the final boundaries for a Palestinian State occupying some portion of the West Bank would will be decided with great difficulty as its not only the high ground and security , but water , transport corridors, Jerusalem etc. that are problematic. ..but it will happen , and it is necessary.

As for you Thailand analogy , which isn’t quite the same as the Israel /Palestinian situation , but I will simply state the obvious . If Thailand expelled its Muslim ‘ problem’ , that would be construed as ethnic cleansing by the ‘World’ and the Jihadists would then be placed on the side of justice and the oppressed and any atrocity committed by them would be justified by those “World” opinion makers as a fight for their human rights. The UN would condemn the Thailand, and fund the refugee camps until ‘justice’ is achieved by ‘right of return’. The World opinion makers are of course the MSM media , commentators , intellectuals , NGO’s , Western leaders ( like Bush) that Mr Fitzgerald routinely rips apart in his commentary.

Of course Thailand isn’t a Western country so it’s a footnote on the world news, look how newsworthy Sudan was or is! Now imagine what would happen if Israel said , we are keeping the West Bank . Imagine if Israel said .. “They ( our Arabs) led lives far more secure, and more prosperous, under Israeli rule, than they do under the corrupt P.A., or under the Jordanians, or under any conceivable Arab Muslim rule.” Jewish apartheid would become a reality.

In short , Olmert is right , a portion of Judea and Samaria must be sacrificed for a Palestinian State . Why , because not to would place Israel on the side of injustice , inequity , and oppression in the eyes of the world( well at least more so). And remember the peaceniks in Israel who petition the courts about the legality of the security barrier. Israel would be reviled as an obstructer to peace and a betrayer of its own values by not enabling Palestinian self determination. This is the political reality , and politics is the art of the possible. It is not possible to deny the Palestinians some sort of State. ..one hopes that the negotiations take a long long time and are done with hard heads.

Posted by: David Xavier at September 20, 2008 2:31 AM

For purposes of comparison, and to reflect on the destructive and crippling double standard that currently prevails (as adequately expressed by David Xavier in his posting above) - that is, that non-Muslim states MUST NOT be permitted to even consider evicting dangerous, aggressive and indeed actively treasonous bent-on-takeover Muslim populations from their midst, or from disputed territory such as the southern Philippines, or Judea and Samaria, but Muslim states (and also tyrannous states like China, vis a vis Tibet) are free to do whatever they damn well like, up to and including mass murder and displacement of targeted populations, and 'flood' immigration (Indonesia's 'transmigrations' of masses of Muslims into previously kafir-majority regions like West Papua, are totally typical) I would like to direct attention to an account of the situation in Cyprus, which I came across while reading the archives here, this very afternoon.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/46544?eng=y
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010542.php

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 20, 2008 5:28 AM

It seems to me that if free kafir polities currently under assault from the Third Jihad are going to survive, at all, there is going to have to be a major paradigm shift, fast.

Islam is not an ethnicity, though in some parts of the world it is loosely associated with ethnicities different from those of the kafir neighbours, or kafir majority, with which that given Muslim group is coming into conflict - so one has Malay Muslim vs Thai Buddhist, 'Arab' Muslim vs. Jew. Indian Muslims, however, are probably genetically indistinguishable from Indian Hindus - so the conflict between Pakistan and India, and the jihad insurrection within India, is basically a conflict of ideologies, not of ethnicities. As far as I know, the Moros in the Philippines are Malayo-Polynesian, just like the Filipinos; so again, the real problem is ideological.

The problem is not in Muslim genes, but in their memes - the potentially mass-murderous supremacist ideology inside their heads, which prevents them, considered generally, from ever genuinely and permanently living at peace with their non-Muslim fellow citizens across the fence (if they [the Muslims] are a minority in a non-Muslim polity) or with their non-Muslim neighbours across the border.

It is possible, with difficulty, to deprogram Muslims; but it takes a lot of time, and all the while, others in their gestalt are actively plotting mayhem, pushing, pushing, pushing for Power.

What does one do with a large mass of people, all belonging to a specific religio-political Cult, a significant percentage of whom are actively, consciously programming themselves to commit mass murder against the Other, as prescribed by the Cult, and the rest of whom appear to be either unwilling or unable to deal with that murderous element?

Think about those Muslim teenagers in Britain who were coolly plotting to assassinate the Royal Family and also contemplating spectacular mass murder of non-Muslim Britons - how many OTHERS are there, and why should such a community, that has produced a whole parade of would-be mass murderers, all of them not random serial killers but motivated by a specific ideology, the ideology openly professed by their cult, be permitted to live inside Britain, any longer?

A very high percentage of the Arab or Arabised Muslims both within Israel and in Judea and Samaria are working themselves up into precisely the same killer state of mind toward the Jews; many are already in it, and have been, all along. And if they control Judea and Samaria, they have a deadly headlock on Israel: there is no way they won't use it as such.

Yaacov Lozowick records the remark of a fellow Israeli during one of the Intifadas, when suicide assassins were blowing themselves up all over the place, mass murdering Jewish civilians - "it was like being locked up in a soundproof room with a homicidal maniac, while visitors peered in through the window and tut-tutted about the madmen".

Sooner or later, a whole string of kafir countries, all similarly threatened, are going to have to say World Opinion Be Damned, and do what they have to do, to defend themselves against the Fifth Column of the Third Jihad.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 20, 2008 5:57 AM

DDA ,

"Sooner or later, a whole string of kafir countries, all similarly threatened, are going to have to say World Opinion Be Damned, and do what they have to do, to defend themselves against the Fifth Column of the Third Jihad."

Waiting for the atrocity huh , waiting for the next 9/11 , you have no answers!

Posted by: David Xavier at September 20, 2008 8:26 AM

No, David Xavier.

I'm not waiting for any atrocity.

Didn't you read the posting? I said - 'paradigm shift'.

I am not waiting for some novel atrocity to trigger a change. Not at all.

I am waiting and watching and hoping - and trying, in my own small way, to help trigger - something else entirely.

Google 'Hugh Fitzgerald' and 'the history boys'. Then read Malcolm Gladwell's "Tipping Point". Then, for a poetic perspective, read J R R Tolkien's 'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers', the chapter entitled 'Treebeard'. I am listening to the Entmoot...I am taking part in it...and waiting for the moment when everything that needs to be said, has been said; and, suddenly, the forest boils over.

Here at this site, but also in many, many other places all over the West, and beyond it, the equivalent of Tolkien's 'Entmoot' is taking place. Some of us - Indians, Australians, Americans - are 'Quickbeam' in that chapter - we've made up our minds, as Oriana Fallaci made up her mind, and as Geert Wilders has made up his. Most others are thinking, arguing, debating, but working, slowly and steadily, toward a similar conclusion. When there are enough of us, the earth will shift beneath the Ummah's feet like a force 9 temblor.

Every new kafir who comes to this site, and to quite a few other sites, and learns what jihad and sharia are really all about, and learns about Islam's 1300 year unbroken track record of desolation and delusion and mass murder and mass enslavement, and learns about taqiyya and kitman and 'war is deception' and 'we smile at some people though our hearts hate them', and hudna, and begins to realize that Mohammedans smilingly keep a low profile when few but -always and everywhere - begin to attack and bully the kafir around them the moment that they feel strong enough or numerous enough to get away with it, takes us one step closer to the tipping point.

And when we reach that tipping point, in Israel or Australia or India or Denmark or Italy or the Netherlands, it will happen quite suddenly, and it will happen because enough kafir, finally, all together, have connected all the dots.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 24, 2008 1:55 AM