Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s initially declared intention to continue payments to the Palestinians despite cartoon rage, and offers him a speech, free of charge:
Fogh Rasmussen: “We won’t change our policies. It’s now time to calm the waters, not cut funds. In the long-term, it would be in our own best interest to rebuild our good relationship with the Arab world.” — from this article
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, even he, who has been so steady, in this case is wrong. There is no “good relationship.” Muslims are not taught to have “good relations” with Infidels but to regard them as the permanent enemy, their lands only in their possession temporarily, for everything belongs to Allah and to the best of people, the Believers. Infidels by right possess nothing. If, in Europe, Muslims are not paid the Jizyah, they may take — by what the Infidels call stealing — what they wish from those Infidels. So said an imam in Oslo not long ago, according to Bruce Bawer’s new book. It is a kind of informal Jizyah. They may help themselves to Western women, the Infidel women. So have said some of the Muslim rapists arrested in Europe and Australia. That is the theory that some imams have presented to justify acts which Infidels regard as criminal, but at least some Muslims do not — for it fits in with their own carefully-inculcated view of the universe.
Fogh Rasmussen’s assertion is that aid is legitimate to the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad: the one that began early in the last century, and was designed first to prevent the buying of land by Jews, and then to snuff out the life of the nascent Jewish state, and then when that failed, to conduct on every level and with every instrument — military, economic, diplomatic, propagandistic — the Jihad against Israel.
The Lesser Jihad continues, carefully disguised since 1967, with the invention of the “Palestinian people.” Younger people may not realize that this phrase was never uttered or written by any Arab spokesman or leader prior to the Six-Day War. It took a few years for the phrase to enter general circulation; it was the most successful propaganda effort since Hitler pled with such feeling for the “legitimate rights of the Sudeteners” against those monstrous Czechs. This enabled Muslim Arabs (aided in prominent positions by a facade of islamochristians doing the Muslim bidding) to hide their inability ever to accept a permanent Infidel state of Israel. Now their jihad could be presented as a “nationalist” cause that would eventually be satisfied if Israel kept giving and giving and giving — although its demands always remained impossible for Israel to satisfy.
Fogh Rasmussen may feel betrayed by many in the Western world. But he fails to understand how Western Europe, and how his own statement, shows another, longer-lasting and even more troubling betrayal. For it is not hard to pierce the veil of Arab and Muslim propaganda. It is not hard to realize that there is a point at which Israel could become so shrunk as to be incapable of defending itself. No other country would have given up what Israel has already given up; would the United States, to “trade land for peace,” have stationed enemy troops up and down the Mississippi River, and then in the Rockies, and the Appalachians — and even that does not convey the danger that results form Israel’s narrowness, and the Judean hills overlooking the coastal plain, and the hightest ratio of length-of-border to land-area of any country in the world, and of course the fantastic asymmetry in populations, and land area, and resources, that characterize this Lesser Jihad.
It is not hard to realize that the easy assumption that there is a “two-state solution” has no basis, given the fact that there is no evidence that the Arabs and Muslims can conceivably give up their view, not only of Israel’s non-right to exist, but more generally of the right to spread Islam and the rule of Muslims. They must spread Islam first to other lands once ruled by Muslims (for these stick in the craw) such as Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, and a large amount of central and southern Europe (Bulgaria, Rumania, Greece, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and even as far north as Hungary) and, of course, not only the Caucasus now possessed by Russia, but a large amount of Russia itself, and then extend the Islamic social order outward to other lands.
Fogh Rasmussen may not regard this “aid to the Palestinians” as Jizyah, but that is exactly what it is. It is not foreign aid, received by recipients who are filled with gratitude. Not at all. It is money that they believe the Infidels owe them, for they, those Infidels, are all connected. Any perceived wound to Muslims, or thwarting of their worldwide aims, is seen as linking all Infidels. Cartoon protestors in various countries have shouted “Death to Israel.” What does Israel have to do with the cartoons? Nothing — except that it is all, both Israel’s existence and the blasphemous cartoons, the work of the Infidel.
If Fogh Rasmussen or others think that they will buy any kind of goodwill, they are mistaken. He would have done far better, for Denmark, for the Infidels, and for moral and intellectual clarity all way round, if he had announced quite the opposite. He might have said something like:
We have been among the largest supporters of what has been called the “Palestinians.” Yet we see that the fanaticism, the hatred, so quickly whipped up all over the Muslim world, and which includes death threats to Danish citizens, as well as the meretricious behavior of Muslims who have been offered refuge and support by Denmark, have caused us to rethink certain things. We have begun to realize that perhaps the war against us and the war against the Jews of Israel, are related — related in certain ideas which we hope, but are not sure, are not immutable and essential to Islam. We await clarification from the O.I.C. on this: we wish to know, for Denmark and for the other countries of Western Europe, what precisely is the present view, and textual support for or against, for the notion of a permanent conflict between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. We wish to know, further, from Muslims, whether or not they will accept the permanence of Infidel states — whether that Infidel state be the state of Israel, or Spain which was once under Muslim rule, or Bulgaria which was similarly under Muslim rule, or for that matter Denmark, France, Italy, and England, which never were.
We need to clarify things.
We await that clarification.
We have chosen, given the attacks on Danish targets, and mob cries for further attacks on, and even the murder of, on Danish citizens in Gaza and the West Bank, not just to pull out our citizens. We are now announcing an end to the aid that for so many years, at such great cost to Danish taxpayers, with no evident sign of gratitude, has been received by the “Palestinian” authority. This is not being done because of the fantastic corruption in that authority and the disappearance of billions in the aid provided by Danes, and other Europeans, and Americans. No, it is being done as a sign of our displeasure, our dismay, and our anger.
Yes, we Danes can feel anger. When our flags our burned, when our embassies attacked, when Danes are shot, and others threatened with having their throats slit all over the Muslim world, when no Dane can now feel safe traveling to much of that world without having to disguise his country of origin, when we find that Muslims who have been offered so much help by Denmark, not least a home within Denmark, turn on us and try to whip others up against us, then we are angry.
Our anger is not of the fanatical kind. We are not out in a mob. We are not screaming. But we have taken it all in. We are beginning to study matters that we did not study before. We are beginning to understand that perhaps we were negligent in opening our free societies up to those who do not share, and cannot conceivably be made even to understand, our notions of free speech, of the free exercise of conscience, of the very idea of individual liberties.
No, we have heard, over the past few weeks, voices quite different from what we expected. And we are listening to those voices, and reacting accordingly and realistically.
Where is the Western leader who will speak this way? Is there none? Why not? How long will it be, how much more will we have to lose, before someone has the courage to deliver this kind of speech?