The peoples of Western Europe have, as members of the oil-consuming nations, had to pay a very large share, over the past third-of-a-century, of the ten trillion dollars that has been transferred from oil-consumers to the oil (and gas) producers of the Arab and Muslim nations of OPEC. They are now paying, on top of those amounts, huge sums for security to protect themselves against the acts of their local Muslim populations. This includes the cost of monitoring such populations, and the cost of police, lawyers, judges, and then of course prisons for all those Muslims who are caught engaged in the kind of activities, from robbery to rape of Infidels, that are not seen as criminal, but rather what the Infidels deserve, what they have coming to them, by presuming to lord it over Muslims, presuming to think that Infidel laws and institutions and social arrangements have any value and should be protected from Muslim demands.
And then there are, in addition, the vast sums transferred through all the benefits offered by the sometimes absurdly generous welfare states that have been set up by, and with the money of, Infidels. Those Infidel welfare systems are now being milked for everything they can be milked for by the burgeoning Muslim populations of France, of Spain, of Great Britain, of Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy.
And if all those ways of transferring Infidel wealth to the Camp of Islam, both in Dar al-Islam and the territory that the Muslims now settled deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines were not enough, European governments, and for that matter North American ones, persist in thinking it is they, their Infidel taxpayers, who should be transferring still further billions (billions siphoned off so often in corruption) to Egypt, to Pakistan, to Jordan, and to the local Arabs, renamed post-1967 as the “Palestinians,” who are merely the shock troops of the Arab Muslim siege. That siege is without end but can be managed through the principle of Darura. This involves ensuring that Israel is not only stronger, but is perceived as overwhelmingly stronger. In that case, the principle of necessity, or “darura,” will permit or even require Arab states not to go in for the kill through military means, but to merely continue to wage war through economic, diplomatic, and demographic pressure. An aroused Israel, with a government and people properly informed and with the rest of the Infidel world (alarmed about its own prospects for withstanding the menace of Jihad) not quite as cruelly miscomprehending and hostile to Israel than it has been, will be able to handle that.
The “Palestinian” Arab “refugees” — the Arabs of Gaza are not “refugees” nor are those of the “West Bank” — didn’t leave anywhere. Those who did leave in 1948 ended up in Lebanon, Syria, and other countries, mostly in Arab lands where they lived among those who, in the main, shared the same language, religion, culture, worldview, and deadly dreams. And those countries refused citizenship to the Arab “refugees” — those who for the past forty years have engaged in a deliberate campaign to disguise the Lesser Jihad against Israel as a clash of two “nationalisms.”
Thee Two Tiny Peoples Argument, with one people being called not the Jews but the “Israelis” and the other “people” being called the “Palestinians” rather than the Arabs, has had a long run. Notice, however, that in Iraq we all speak about Arabs and Kurds. And we speak about Darfur, and Arabs and black Africans. And we speak about Morocco, or Algeria, and in those countries, about Arabs and Berbers. Why then, why only in the case of Israel, do we speak not of Arabs but of something called the “Palestinian people”? Are they special in a way that the Arabs of Iraq (as in “Arabs and Kurds”) or Arabs of Algeria and Morocco (as in “Arabs and Berbers”) or as Arabs in the Sudan (as in “Arabs and black Africans”) are not?
Could that way simply be correctly identified as a political campaign, a campaign designed to re-present the war on Israel? This is an endless siege by hundreds of millions of Muslim Arabs, supported by hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Arabs, because Islam does not permit a non-Muslim sovereignty on land that was once controlled by Muslims. While ultimately the whole world must be subjugated to Islam (“Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated”), in the Muslim view those lands that were, for whatever length of time, under Muslim rule — not only Israel, but also Spain, Sicily, Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria and Rumania, even southern Hungary, much of Russia, and almost all of India — have a certain priority. But that does not mean that if a territory never controlled by Islam — such as the Netherlands or Great Britain or France (at least above Poitiers) — were through demographic conquest to be dominated by, hence ruled by, Muslims, that the world’s Muslims would refuse this dominance because it had been achieved before other areas on the To-Do list above had succumbed.
A great deal of attention has been given at this website to the two most obvious fissures in the Camp of Islam that can be seen and exploited in Iraq. These are the ethnic fissures between Arab and Kurd, and the sectarian fissures between Shi’a Arab and Sunni Arab. Both kinds of fissures are not limited to Iraq, and their widening within Iraq would almost certainly have effects — from our point of view good, from the point of view of Muslims bad — on other countries where there are clashes between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, and on those Muslim lands where Sunnis and Shi’a live, and with both sects large enough so that they will fight back rather than simply fearfully endure the dominance of the other side. Shi’a may make up only 10-15% of the world’s Muslims, but in Bahrain they are 70-75%; in Saudi Arabia they dominate the Eastern Province, with the oilfields; in Yemen they make up 45%; in Lebanon they are now the largest sect, having outbred the Christians, the Druse, and even the Sunni Muslims; in Pakistan they may be persecuted, but there are tens of millions of Shi’a, and they are capable of fighting back; in Afghanistan, the Hazara, whom the Taliban tried to wipe out, still exist and may now be better prepared, or better supplied with arms, to resist.
On the other hand, in Iran there is a Sunni minority, especially in Baluchistan. If that simmering revolt were to be encouraged by the example of restive Kurds (who would have responded to the existence of an independent Kurdistan) in the north, and Arabs in Khuzistan, and possibly even by the restive Azeris who might not wish to remain under the control of their Persian masters in Teheran, then it is possible that the Shi’a would repress the Sunnis — purely as a defensive measure in light of the Sunni-Shi’a clashes next door in Iraq.
But there is a third fissure within the Camp of Islam that has not been discussed as much, because it does not present itself in Iraq for the purposes of exploitation. That fissure is the economic divide between the rich Muslim states — i.e., those with oil — and the poor ones, that is, those without oil. (Tunisia and Turkey, having managed to tame or constrain Islam, have managed to make economic progress, certainly far more than one sees in those countries such as Egypt, or Jordan, or Pakistan, or certainly more than the apparently permanent recipient of Infidel manna, the “Palestinians.”)
The Western countries have fallen into the habit of keeping up payments to these Muslim states and peoples, no matter how obviously stupid or unhelpful to the West those payments may be, because the classic psychological stance of non-Muslims forced to pay the Jizyah under Muslim rule, has come to be exhibited by Western governments. They are afraid to cut their aid to Muslims for fear of what the Muslim reaction might be. In other words, that Western aid to Muslims has become a kind of “protection money.” And if that were not bad enough, the Muslim recipients are not one whit grateful, but demand that aid as of right. Just look at how the “Palestinians” appear to believe that they have a right to Western aid. Look at their rage at the brief denial of that aid that came about because of some temporary attempt to demonstrate, however pitifully, that Western states would not give financial aid to a terrorist group, Hamas, that runs the “Palestinian” Authority. The fiction is maintained by these governments that Hamas and Fatah are quite different. In fact, Fatah is for the Slow Jihad and Hamas for the Fast Jihad, and they agree completely on the ultimate goal — that of erasing Israel as a Jewish, i.e., Infidel state. They differ only on matters of tactics and timing.
Just look at how the Arabs, especially the “Palestinians,” describe the suspension of foreign aid from Infidels. They call it an “economic embargo” or a “boycott.” They are genuinely indignant. They regard Infidel taxpayers not coming through with more billions as denying them their basic rights. This continues even though many of the previous billions simply disappeared into the private coffers of Arafat and his “wife,” and of course into the pockets of the PLO leaders, who bought themselves villas and have large bank accounts in France and elsewhere in the Western world. This money comes from ordinary Infidel taxpayers who were not consulted on where their money should go.
It is not an “embargo” nor a “boycott” to cease to support the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel. All Western transfers of wealth to Muslims other than those of necessity (oil and gas purchases) should cease. And again and again, publicly, Western governments should say that those rich Muslim countries, the ones that have “received ten trillion dollars in oil revenues” (this figure should be on every politician’s lips in the Western world, until everyone else knows what the rich Arabs have taken in), should be “sharing their wealth” with “fellow members of the Muslim community.” Keep embarrassing them. Force the “Palestinians” and others to go hat in hand to Riyadh, or to the Emirates. Or perhaps not hat in hand — perhaps a little more threateningly. It doesn’t matter.
Then one of two things will happen. Either the rich Arabs and Muslims will give money to the poor ones, or they won’t. Either way, resentments will naturally follow. For if they don’t give the aid, the poorer Arabs will be enraged and begin to talk about “the Arab wealth” that “must be shared.” And that can only make the Saudis and the people in the Emirates and Kuwait and Qatar nervous. And if some money is forthcoming, then it will never be enough, and there will be constant demands for more, and inevitably there will be resentments on the side both of those who give, and those who take. And those resentments will grow. Why should not the Arabs generally, the poor ones will think, have equal shares “in Arab wealth” which is merely manna from Allah?
And from that realization, and those resentments, the economic fissure within the Arab and Muslim world can have a spotlight placed on it by intelligent Infidels, and the trouble it will cause within the Camp of Islam will be, or could be, considerable.
Meanwhile, just stop the Jizyah to the “Palestinians.” And if Europeans wish to feel guilty, they should be more intelligent in their choice of whom to feel guilty toward. In the Middle East, it is not the Arabs and Muslims who should be the recipients of their support of any kind. But there is one tiny country in the Middle East that is under permanent assault, with whatever weapons come to hand, by far more powerful, richer, more numerous fanatical enemies. That country is one that the countries of Western Europe have not only a right, but a duty, to feel guilty about. Yet that is the very country they have been maligning (or allowing others in the media to freely malign and misreport about), and slowly abandoning, for the past forty years. And that tiny country, of course, is Israel.