In “Obama Can Remove Jihad From the National Security Strategy Document, But Can He Remove It From Islam?” at Big Journalism, April 7, Pamela Geller discusses the latest in a string of disastrous decisions in Obama’s policies toward the Islamic world and the global jihad:
Of all the subversive acts ever in the history of the United States of America, and even during this post-American Administration, this one is the killer: Barack Obama plans to remove all discussion of Islam and jihad from the central document of our national security strategy. Under Bush, the National Security Strategy document declared:
The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.
Now it won’t say anything about “militant Islamic radicalism” at all.
According to the Associated Press, Obama is trying to “change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.” Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer says that this shift “reflects Obama’s core assumption that the jihad against the United States is our fault, and can be quelled by our overtures of good will to the Islamic world.” In other words, if we would just be nice to Muslim countries and talk to them about health care and education instead of fighting against jihad terrorism, they will stop hating us. Spencer adds:
This is based on the further assumption that there is no Islamic imperative to jihad against unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers.
But there is. And the jihad president can’t wish it away.
This is hardly the only way that Obama is playing into the hands of the jihadis who want to destroy the United States. Benny Avni reported today in the New York Post that “that Hamas officials say Obama is different from all his predecessors.” They can say that again. Avni quotes the Hamas deputy foreign minister, Ahmed Yussuf, crowing: “We believe Hamas’ message is reaching its destination” – that is, the Obama White House.
That boast came after a senior Palestinian Authority official claimed, according to Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily, that the Obama administration encouraged violent Palestinian protests against Israel so as to force the Israelis to concede East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. And it was reported in late March at ForeignPolicy.com that General David Petraeus, head of United States Central Command, wanted to place American troops in the West Bank and Gaza – to protect the Palestinians.
Petraeus denied this, but the whole thing was suspicious. Why did these stories, if false, all go in the same direction? No one was leaking stories about Obama secretly helping Israel. So is anyone really advancing this outrageous idea – the invasion of an ally – in the Obama White House? Obama’s adviser Samantha Power suggested this same thing years ago, so why would it be beyond the realm of possibility that the idea could come up again now, in a White House more hostile to Israel than any since the Jewish State was founded?