So far, in examining the Muslim hijacking of the Holocaust for Jihad, we have introduced two related phenomena: Muslims pretending to commemorate the Holocaust along with Jews, and non-Muslims duped by such deceit (both in the Knesset and in the “interfaith” world), especially around commemoration events such as the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel. We also looked at popular Israeli misconceptions about Muslim Arabs in Israel. We examined more specifically the Jewish responses to MK Mansour Abbas’ Holocaust Remembrance Day speech in the Knesset, which is critiqued, along with the significance of Yahya Sinwar’s obscene reference to the Holocaust. The foundations of Islam in the political economy of barbarism, as well as the Islamic imperative to exterminate the Jews, were laid out. Part 3 introduces the fraught question of the identity of Muslim Arabs in Israel against the background of Jewish delusions and wishful thinking concerning “Israeli Arab” allegiances. We explore some of the ideological and cultural aspects of Islam based on its barbarous political economy, forensically interrogate Muslim speeches made at Auschwitz, introduce the role of so-called “interfaith” dialogue in advancing jihad, and return afresh to some of the themes introduced earlier in order to critique them further.
VI
Of course, on the one hand, Mansour Abbas’ deceitful speech in the Knesset could point towards what one has come to expect of “Arab-Palestinians” when it comes to the distinction between truth and lies, and at the same time, that an “Arab-Palestinian” deserves praise for elevating himself from the realm of lies to the realm of truth. Do we hold anyone else to such abysmal standards?
On the other hand, it is certainly an indicator of a much more disturbing phenomenon: a desperation so intense on the part of a significant section of Israel’s Jewish population that they would do anything, ignore anything and believe anything for the chimera of peace with a people whose religion expressly forbids them to make peace with Jews. What’s more, Islam instructs Muslims to wage war on the Jews until there are no Jews left in the world. How come, after more than seven decades of cheek-by-jowl existence with such demonstrably hateful people, so many Israelis still remain so blissfully unaware of something that was crystal clear to Maimonides?
And what of the Israeli Arabs? Will they ever become Arab Israelis? Mansour Abbas insists, even brazenly as a public official elected to the Israeli Knesset, that he is an “Arab Palestinian.” Has seventy years’ exposure of Israeli Arabs to the most accomplished people in the Middle East, even in the world, Israel’s Jews, surrounded by the region’s most corrupt, disorganised, cruel and backward people, the Arabs, effected an Arab Spring in Israel? This, we will show, depends on the Arab’s religion, and also upon whether or not that Arab is a Muslim.
When it is said that Israel’s Arab population is “conflicted,” one must acknowledge that even this internal conflict is progress of a sort. They were not always conflicted; their rejection of Israel, their being “Palestinian,” was once unequivocal. Some today see a new kind of Muslim Arab emerging “between the river and the sea,” one who feels more connected to Israel than to “Palestine” and is prepared to say so publicly. While such optimism might be premature, the development that gives rise to it is long overdue.
It was interesting to note the reaction of many Israeli Arabs to the President Trump’s Peace to Prosperity plan, the so-called “Deal of the Century.” Israeli Arab residents, many of whom insist, as does Mansour Abbas, that they are “Palestinian” rather than Israeli, nonetheless were out on the streets opposing a rumour that they would be transferred to the plan’s envisaged Palestinian state, proclaiming their wish to remain under Israeli sovereignty. It is possible that some of their placards might have read, “We are Israelis!” It is possible. But it is far more likely that such a sentiment was written on the hearts of many of those protesters rather than on their placards. It is also possible, of course, that they are a ready-made fifth column and are not about to retreat. The Arabs of Jerusalem’s Old City rejected Israeli citizenship when it was offered them and are, by their own choice, residents of Jerusalem without being citizens of Israel. Be this as it may, underlying it all lurks another unaddressed assumption. Earlier, we quoted this tweet from Rabbi Fire:
An Israeli Mk, Israeli citizen and official Israel elected is referring to himself as “Arab-palestinian”, not as Israeli. Anywhere else in the world this would raise questions of dualities and loyalties. Only in Israel can an elected official identify as an enemy of the state…
If not to Israel, then to whom or what does the “Arab-Palestinian” owe allegiance? Non-Muslims assume that such “Palestinians” owe allegiance to a future Palestinian state, an idea encouraged by both the PA and Hamas’ demands for such a state. As we have argued elsewhere, the “Palestinians” are not in the least interested in a state. That being so, the question of their allegiance remains to be answered, and the widespread popularity of both the Islamic Movement in Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) point to the answer.
“Palestinian,” i.e., Muslim Arab, allegiance is perhaps more easily understood by first considering the Muslim response to apostasy. To do so, we will expand on the political economy of barbarism, in which Islam is rooted, that we touched on earlier. The evolved form of economy of the earliest Islamic societies is typical of barbarian societies, i.e., tribal societies surviving by a combination of reaving to plunder (usually agricultural produce during harvest season), raiding to pillage (usually caravans or frontier outposts for gold and slaves), extortion (usually tribute from vassals, poll tax, kidnapping nobles, etc.), piracy (usually gold and slaves) and slavery. They were thoroughly militarised societies whose cultures held violence, fighting and killing as the highest virtues. As such, they were strictly hierarchical with only one individual, the chieftain, with whom all freedom rested.
The chieftain, usually a male, but in notable exceptions, female, “owned” everyone beneath him in the sense that he could command of them to die for him, which they did without question. Their only pride lay in their ability to serve and please their chieftain, towards which every single detail of their lives was directed. The world in which they lived was precarious, out of which another barbarian people could descend upon them at any moment to kill or enslave all their men, plunder all their gold, produce and livestock, and enslave all their women and children.
Their code of ethics was therefore necessarily one of unquestioning obedience to the chieftain, unquestioning support to all belonging to the same chieftain, extreme suspicion of and hostility towards outsiders and secrecy about their communal affairs. The chieftain’s word was law and the punishment for transgression, however slight, was always brutal. There was no compassion, except for the chieftain, and no love, except for the chieftain. It is important to understand that except for the chieftain, no one made any choices about anything, and it disturbed the people of such a society to be in any way different to the people around them. For someone to freely break away from such a social order was to draw the entire universe, such as they knew it, into question. The reader familiar with Islam will have no difficulty recognising within it the outline of this barbarian template.
It is from such a social order that the apostate walks away, an action as inconceivable to the Muslim as it was to the barbarian of yore. To the Muslim, the apostate has not simply chosen to leave Islam, he has drawn the Muslim’s entire universe into question. The death penalty for apostasy is, of course, about deterring it, but more important than that, it is a fitting punishment for the grossest betrayal, treason and insult. This does not mean that every Muslim, upon learning of another’s apostasy, is overcome with the urge to commit murder, though many are. The point is that for those with a vested interest in the preservation of Islam, apostasy is a crystal clear matter of either Islam dies or the apostate dies. For the Muslim to show allegiance to, say, France, the UK, Egypt, Russia, the US, or even Saudi Arabia, over allegiance to Islam, is a similar, if lesser, betrayal of and treason towards Islam. None has jurisdiction over the Muslims but Islam, and the apostate has no right to reduce the jurisdiction of Islam over Muslims, not even by one.
Apostasy is the most serious blow to jihad, for it issues from within Islam itself. The apostate has successfully deceived Allah, Muhammad and the entire ummah; a Muslim has driven Muslims out, even if only from one heart; even if only from one house. Letting him get away with it is unthinkable. “Drive them out from where they drove you out,” (Qur’an 2:191). For the insult to Islam, and the humiliation of the ummah, the apostate’s life must be set below that of all other life: anyone, even a Jew, is free to kill an apostate; there is no punishment. For Islam to recognise apostasy is for Islam to accept a curtailment in the reach of the law of Allah. Islam exists to convert or kill infidels, not add to their number. The same logic prohibits marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man. How much more so Muslims paying allegiance to a formerly Islamic land ruled by formerly dhimmi Jews, “the descendants of apes and pigs?” It is unthinkable.
When Yahya Sinwar “demands” that Israel hands over medical equipment, or else, “We’ll take them by force …and stop the breathing of six million Israelis,” his words might strike the non-Muslim as deluded posturing. Hamas is not in any position to force Israel to do anything. The only reason Gaza even exists is because Israel has not decided to abolish it. Yahya Sinwar and his terrorists exist because Israel has not decided to liquidate them. But to think that way would be to misunderstand the monstrous workings of this barbarian’s mind. In any case, Hamas’ confidence that they will prevail against Israel rests not on their possession of advanced weaponry, but on their Allah having decreed so.
Apart from abusing the sacred memory of the Holocaust, Yahya Sinwar was reminding Muslim Arabs of three things: one, we, Muslims, are higher than these dhimmi sons of apes and pigs — we do not accept offers from them; we demand and they surrender whatever we demand (jizya by other means); two, no matter if their doctors and medicines are saving our lives, never forget that our duty to Allah is to exterminate them; and three, rest assured, our jihad against Israel continues as usual.
The Muslim Arab rejection of belonging to Israel, even of Israeli citizenship, is the tip of an apocalyptic iceberg that does not faze the Jewish “inclusiveness” lobby. They ignore that such Arabs reject Israeli citizenship and pretend, instead, that they are being denied citizeenship, or at the very least, being denied the full benefit of citizenship. Such Jews insist that Israel’s Arab residents are officially Israeli citizens, even if most of those in East Jerusalem are not, and demand that they all be brought into the Israeli government through their political parties. Many Jews who labour under this delusion even go so far as to vote for the Arab parties — it’s apparently all about not being racist. Thus do Jews themselves provide cover and more for the Muslim Brotherhood to entrench itself in the political fabric of yet another proud democracy. The price for such folly will be high.
Those Jews who seek peace with Muslim Arabs, seek peace with a people whose only conceivable peace is peace without any Jews anywhere “between the river and the sea,” and who reject with contempt anything that keeps anything of either Israel or its Jews in place. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is nothing less than the slogan of the next Holocaust. Yet such Jews hold themselves responsible for there being no peace; it is they who are never doing enough. They will even gloss over the highly-contentious Holocaust Remembrance Day speech of a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamic Movement, to clutch at anything vaguely resembling a peace straw.
The “peace camp’s” intentions are unquestionably noble and good, but fatally misguided. They refuse to learn anything about Islam and Muslims, for that way lies another truth at least as disturbing as the Holocaust itself: that the prophet of the Muslims, Muhammad, in the notorious genocide hadith, calls for the extermination of the Jews; that every religious Muslim knows this hadith; and that Islam expects of every Muslim that they obey the Qur’an and that they emulate Muhammad. This is the programme of the Islamic Movement, and the man at the head of that movement has just addressed the Knesset. The only peace that an “Arab-Palestinian religious Muslim,” will ever concede — can ever concede — is the peace of a Jew-free “Palestine.” From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free of Jews.
A realistic Israeli Jew will be the one who demands very directly of Mansour Abbas, a self-proclaimed religious Muslim, that he clarifies what he means by, “I stand here to show solidarity with the Jewish people now and forever.” Does his declared eternal solidarity with the Jewish people mean that Abbas repudiates his prophet Muhammad’s genocide hadith? Does he repudiate the more than sixty verses in the Qur’an calling on him, as it does on every Muslim, to harm Jews in one way or another? Do Abbas and his fellow Muslim Members of Knesset repudiate the Qur’anic commandment that they “Drive them [Jews] out from where they drove you [Muslims] out,” (2:191)? MK Abbas’ fellow “Arab Palestinian and religious Muslim,” fellow Muslim Brotherhood operative and counterpart lawmaker in the Hamas Parliament, MP Yunis Al-Astal, declared,
“The solution is to add to [the parliament’s] recommendations that Jews should be treated according to Allah’s decree about them. Allah decrees [in the Quran]: ‘Kill them wherever you may find them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away.’ Allah also says: ‘Fight them until there is no fitnah, and until religion is all for Allah.”
Can Mansour Abbas, an MK for the Islamic Movement, seriously be expected to repudiate Yunis Al-Astal, an MP for the Islamic Resistance Movement? Whom, exactly, do these lawmakers represent? Neither of them represents an electorate of autonomous individuals; they represent Islam, exactly as their constituents expect them to. Again, when they make noises about representing the interests of their people, they are being perfectly truthful, but they do not mean what non-Muslims assume them to mean. Muslim deceit, including especially what they mean by “peace”, many in Israeli are well aware of, especially after the disastrous Oslo experience, but the Israeli public at large, including even the occasional Prime Minister, is not. Such questions, vital to Jewish survival, Jews do not ask. Knowledge of the Qur’an, vital to Jewish survival, Jews do not study. The life of Muhammad, vital to Jewish survival, Jews do not examine.
VII
Instead, many Jews think it is really important to hear a Muslim repudiate Holocaust denial and are gushingly impressed when they witness this. At Auschwitz, in February 2011, Grand Mufti Mustafa Cerić, made a commemoration speech with the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, Yisrael Meir Lau, in the audience. The Chief Rabbi responded,
“When a leader, a spiritual leader of the Islamic world, comes here [Auschwitz] to see in (sic) his eyes, and to know and to feel the atmosphere here, this greatest cemetery of mankind during history, this will help to deny those who deny the Holocaust. Report that.”
“Report that,” — an emphatic punctuation to what counted most for the Chief Rabbi: the preservation of the memory of the Holocaust, which is also his personal memory. Respect for this personal memory is the least that the rest of us, who have not experienced the horrors of their lives, can grant the survivors of the Holocaust. Mustafa Cerić, however, could not get away from that memory fast enough, and what the good Rabbi perhaps did not hear in that speech, is this:
“I am here also to send a message to Europe especially, and to the whole world, that it is not enough, occasionally, that we sympathise with the victims of Holocaust and genocide. But we have to teach the young children: they don’t hate. And we have to wonder not only about those who committed the genocide, but those who were standing by and not taking any action to prevent such an event and also failed to keep the promise of never again.”
Let us unpack this carefully. Grand Mufti Mustafa Cerić claims the moral high ground by declaring, “it is not enough …that we sympathise with the victims of Holocaust and genocide.” Would this declaration be any less clear without the words “and genocide?” It would not. The sentiment was already fully conveyed by the utterance of Holocaust. There is, however, a reason for the appendage of the two superfluous words “and genocide.” Mustafa Cerić has no interest in either the Holocaust or its victims. He attended the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz to stir up guilt over Srebrenica, guilt that he will tap into to advance jihad.
To accomplish this, Cerić had to first diminish the Holocaust to genocide so he could then elevate the Srebrenica massacre to genocide, thereby closing the gap between these two tragedies. He can then continue with, “those who committed the genocide,” and his non-Muslim audience, including the good Chief Rabbi Lau, would hear him speak of Auschwitz, except that he will already have abandoned Auschwitz, and be talking only of Srebrenica, the “genocide” that counts. When Cerić gets to, “standing by and not taking any action to prevent such an event,” it might strike the critical non-Muslim that the Holocaust could hardly be described as “an event,” and in the spirit of the occasion, give the Grand Mufti the benefit of the doubt. But by the time Cerić finally gets to, “failed to keep the promise of never again,” there is no longer room for doubt. He is talking about something that occurred after Auschwitz.
Very few will go back over Cerić speech to locate the point at which he stopped talking about Auschwitz and started talking about something else. All they will know is that the emotion that was stirred for Auschwitz ended up attached to Srebrenica. An empathy that had been stirred for Jews somehow ended up as an empathy for Muslims. Everything that the world feels about the Holocaust and towards it victims, Mustafa Cerić appropriated for Muslims without anyone even noticing.
The Grand Mufti of Bosnia had, right there in Auschwitz, on its most solemn occasion, hijacked the Holocaust and on its back rode the Srebrenica massacre further along his jihad road. This, as we have seen, is exactly what Mansour Abbas did to the Holocaust in the Knesset. Oh, and the bit about children and hatred is pure bunkum. The Qur’an drips with hatred for the Jews. It is just sad the Jews in Israel do not seem to grasp the significance of jubilant Palestinians turning out on the streets of Gaza and the PA, and indeed, Jordan, every time a terrorist perpetrates mass-murder on Jews. They dance for joy not because they are Arabs, they dance because they are Muslims.
Mustafa Cerić, though, was not alone in bleeding jihad capital out of Auschwitz that day. British Imam Abduljalil Sajid, a second-rate propagandist engaged in third-rate historical revisionism and first-rate whining, was not going to pass up on such a lucrative opportunity. “Muslims have to stand up with Jewish friends because in Europe, anti-Semitism is rising – and where there is anti-Semitism, Islamophobia is not far away.” Great. So now a real social evil, anti-Semitism, that most attendees were there to reflect on and to commemorate the defeat of, gets a tawdry, fraudulent, non-concept like “Islamophobia” tagged to its tail. What’s Jews got to do with it, hey? “Where there is anti-Semitism, Islamophobia is not far away.” Really? Where was the “Islamophobia” in 1945?
In late January 2020, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Deutche Welle described the joint visit to the site by “a high-ranking 54-year-old Islamic scholar,” Sheikh Mohammed al-Issa, Secretary General of the Muslim World League, and “a 70-year-old descendant of Holocaust survivors,” David Harris, the director of the American Jewish Committee, as “nothing short of remarkable.”
Was the Muslim-Jewish joint visit to Auschwitz “nothing short of remarkable” because Muslims and Jews are forever fighting in Israel, or was it because Muslims from Palestine had a direct hand in the Holocaust? Was it nothing short of remarkable because a Jew and a Muslim visited a Nazi death camp together, or was it because Muslims and Nazis sent Jews to the death camps together? It is not clear what had impressed Deutsche Welle so much. Vagueness, woolly sentimentality, ambiguity, arbitrariness; this is the ether of totalitarianism, the kind of environment in which such nonsensical notions as “Islamophobia” are sustained to become effective instruments of thought-control.
“To be here,” intoned Al-Issa, “Among the children of Holocaust survivors and members of the Jewish and Islamic communities, is both a sacred duty and a profound honour.” He continued. “The unconscionable crimes to which we bear witness today are truly crimes again humanity, that is to say, a violation of us all, an affront to all of God’s children.” Really? Is Sheikh Al-Issa contradicting the Qur’an and Muhammad? The average non-Muslims will feel all warm and fuzzy hearing a sheikh speak like this. But those familiar with Islam will know that “all of God’s children” is a sop that works very well with infidels. Muslims are Allah’s slaves and Allah is most definitely not their father. What is “an affront to all of God’s children” is not necessarily an affront to Muslims, who are most definitely not God’s children. So the Holocaust is not necessarily “a violation of us all,” not necessarily “a crime against humanity,” and not necessarily “unconscionable.” The only “sacred duty and …profound honour,” of which the sheikh speaks is the sacred duty of jihad and the profound honour to be engaging in it at that very moment.
VIII
It might surprise the reader to come across such unyielding rejection of what must, surely, be Muslim readiness to bury the hatchet of jihad and embrace our common humanity. Surely it cannot be as this essay insists, that Muslim overtures can never be trusted. Surely, peace must be given every chance, no matter how slim.
To such objection the present author offers a few responses: firstly, examine every Muslim peace gesture through the lens of the Islamic doctrine of lying and deceit, Taqiyya, in all its subtle complexity. Islamic doctrine requires Muslims to lie to protect or advance Islam. It is true that many Muslims are ignorant of this doctrine, even though they have culturally imbibed the habit of deceit. But when a Muslim is or describes himself or herself as “religious,” then they will be fully familiar with this doctrine and its requirements. Secondly, there is a Muslim equivalent to the Christian caution: what would Jesus have done? It is: what did Muhammad do? Everything that a Muslim says and does, especially in the context of jihad, must be looked at against the backdrop of the life of Muhammad, as it is incumbent on the Muslim to emulate Muhammad in all things. It is absolutely critical that the Muslim’s integrity be put to the test and robustly so, not just once, but time and time again. For the non-Muslim it might be peace, but for the Muslim it is war, and war is deceit. And the enemies of Israel sit in the Knesset unchallenged.
When for instance a Muslim claims, as Al-Issa does, that, “Examples from the Holy Scriptures abound of the importance of respecting Jews,” one would naturally assume him to be referring to, or at least including, the Muslim Holy Scriptures. But is he? A Muslim making such a claim has to be asked very explicitly in terms that leave no room for doubt or interpretation, to repudiate the following Qur’anic verses: 1:6-7, 2:55, 2:61, 2:62, 2:63-66, 2:74, 2:79, 2:87, 2:100-101, 2:109, 2: 191, 2:217, 2:191; 3:56, 3:75, 3:78, 3:110, 3:112, 3:120, 3:181, 4:160, 4:161, 4:46, 4:53, 5:18; 5:33, 5:41, 5:51, 5:59-60, 5:63-64, 5:78-79, 5:82, 6:146, 6:91, 7:166, 7:179, 8:55, 9:29, 9:30, 33:21, 59:13-14, 98:6. These verses are all about cursing Jews, vilifying Jews, suppressing Jews, hounding Jews, fighting Jews, expelling Jews, killing Jews and of course, exterminating Jews, but apparently, “There is a false narrative out there that Muslims are inveterately hostile to Jews,” according to Marc Schneier, about whom the less said, the better.
No Muslim can repudiate what Allah has ordained. Al-Issa himself would deal very swiftly with any Muslim who as much as even thought of doing so. It would never occur to a non-Muslim unfamiliar with Muslim wiles that the “Holy Scriptures” Al-Issa is referring to cannot include the Qur’an, but his “interfaith” credentials will be all that matters, and these are now glowing all the more.
How about the Hadith? Perhaps Al-Issa means those. After all, he let us know that, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, stood solemnly at the funeral of a Jew.” What the prophet might have been so solemnly contemplating beside the grave of a Jew is anyone’s guess, but given that it was this same prophet, Muhammad, who prophesied that the Day of Judgment will not come until the Muslims have killed every last Jew on earth (Sahih Muslim 6985) and given that Muslims are required by their religion to emulate Muhammad as the perfect human being, those who smell the Islamic doctrine of deceit at work in Muslim “denials of Holocaust denial” and sanctimonious Muslim expressions of solidarity with Jews, are likely to be a lot closer the truth.
The third response this author would offer to those who clutch at the straws of Muslim peace overtures is that the situation is not without hope. Hope lies in the resoluteness of non-Muslim authorities to forcefully confront jihad, whether it takes the form of mass-murder, rape, sex-slavery, loudspeaker adhans, public hijabs, halal slaughter, shari’a enforcement, polygamous marriages, Muslim ghettos or, indeed, lying about Islam. Hope lies in children not yet hardwired for Islam and its barbaric ethics, such as demonstrated by a Berlin Muslim boy visiting Auschwitz, whose teacher, also a Muslim, is quoted as observing, “There was this pupil called Mustafa, a really big guy, standing in front of a vast pile of children’s shoes. …Each pair had once belonged to a child obviously, and suddenly I noticed how this realization did something with Mustafa.” Hope lies in the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Islamic world who, despite the stunting effect of Islam on their humanity and intellect, nonetheless are able to escape the chains of that horrible religion, and genuinely join the rest of humanity, rather than hate them, lie about it and impress the gullible, the naïve and the ignorant. There hope lies. Where there is hope, there is room for realism. Where there is hope, there is no need for fantasy.
The suicidal depth of the Jewish peace delusion is well-captured by this representative comment, “One of every four Israelis is not Jewish. Let’s make a government and a society that includes all of our citizens irrespective of race religion or gender.” This was in response to an astonishingly naïve, yet unsurprising call from Rabbi Dr Ron Kronish of the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel, for “the Israeli Arab parties to be in the government.” This begs the question: does Rabbi Kronish know what proportion of the one-in-four Israelis subscribes to Muhammad’s genocide hadith? Has he asked this question? Does he even know of Muhammad’s genocide hadith? It is to be hoped that the rabbi might be disabused of his fanciful “interreligious” notions before he puts his society on an irreversible course.
To remain with the point, what proportion of the one-in-four Israelis who are not Jewish wishes to see the other three-in-four Israelis who are Jewish, exterminated? There is Holocaust denial in Israel: it is the Holocaust that Jews deny Islam has in store for them. Was it like this the last time? Did the Jews deny what Nazism had in store for them? Did they refuse to even acknowledge that Nazism was a problem? Can it really be the case that in more than seventy years, no Jew has noticed that it isn’t “Arabs” who are the problem, but Muslims, or more to the point, their religion, Islam? Have they really failed to pick up that every terrorist who makes an attempt on the lives of Jews screams “Allahu-akbar?”
How many Christian Arabs or Druze Arabs have attacked Jews? How is it that a rabbi can be surprised when a Christian Arab, a pastor, no less, turns up to help him deal with the coronavirus pressures on his community? Iran chants “Death to Israel” every single day. Are these Arabs, too? Have the Jews “stolen” and “occupied” Iranian land? Is it really beyond the wit of the most intellectually-gifted people on earth to see the pattern here? Whether it is Turkey, Nigeria, Jordan, Malaysia, Chechnya or Indonesia, significantly high numbers of people in such places hate Israel and hate Jews, way more than in non-Muslim lands. Is the link between them Arabs or is it Islam? Why is it that Jews insist on denying Islam? This paralysis in the face of Islam stands out in even sharper relief against the robust response of the Israeli Judicial system again those Christian Arabs who can only validate their “Palestinian” credentials by out-jihading the jihad. So it is that Christian Arab MK Basel Ghattas of the Joint Arab List, after a series of infantile provocative actions clearly designed to coax arrest, was finally jailed in July 2017. Israel Today’s conclusion was telling:
“These kinds of actions are hurting the Israeli Arabs by stigmatizing the entire minority, most of whom are opposed to such subversion. The Arab community therefore must condemn Basel Ghattas, as well as Hanin Zoabi and Jamal Zahalka, who, instead of working toward coexistence and partnership, are doing whatever they can to disrupt Jewish-Arab relations in Israel.”
Jonathan Elkhoury, the author of the Israel Today article quoted above, is a spokesman for the Christian Empowerment Council “that encourages Arabic-speaking Christians to integrate with Israeli Jewish society,” which is, of course, a laudable endeavour and one that Christians have no principled objection to. It is just odd that Elkhoury should demand of Israel’s Arab MKs that they “[work] toward coexistence and partnership,” instead of “Doing whatever they can to disrupt Jewish-Arab relations in Israel.” One wonders what Elkhoury imagines MKs who reject the demonym “Israeli” in favour of “Arab Palestinian,” are doing for Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. One wonders what contribution their Muslim Brotherhood activities make towards “coexistence and partnership.” Should the Arab community not condemn such MKs even more than the lone Christian Arab doing crazy stunts for street cred?
Part 3 looked at the identity of Muslim Arabs in Israel against the background of Jewish delusions and wishful thinking concerning “Israeli Arab” allegiances. Some of the ideological and cultural aspects of Islam were situated within its barbarous political economy. We forensically interrogated Muslim speeches made at Auschwitz, especially that of the former Grand Mufti of Bosnia, Mustafa Cerić, and the jihad exploitation of so-called “interfaith” dialogue. Part 4, the final part, looks more forensically at the confluence of interests between “interfaith” and jihad, the significance of Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, Mustafa Cerić and “Islamophobia,” and return to the jihad against Israel, speculating on the displacement of the “Palestinian” nationalist narrative by the marginalised Islamic narrative, giving a boost to the Muslim Brotherhood through its Islamic Movement and its Islamic Resistance Movement. We end by reminding the reader of the Islamic imperative to exterminate the Jews.
Quazgaa says
Wonder where can I find parts 1 and 2…
gravenimage says
Quazgaa, here’s part 1:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/05/jihading-the-holocaust-auschwitz-and-the-knesset-part-1
and here’s part 2:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/05/jihading-the-holocaust-auschwitz-and-the-knesset-part-2
Quazgaa says
Thank you, gi.
gravenimage says
🙂
gravenimage says
Jihading the Holocaust (Part 3)
……………
Cynical and disgusting–and all too many clueless Infidels are duped by this.
Claudius says
Congratulations Anjuli on describing the psychology of the barbarian and how this relates to the Islamic mindset. This explains why observant Muslims will not yield to simple arguments of logic – much stronger medicine is needed.
The modern world is a very uncomfortable place for a Muslim. The chieftain can provide nothing – when the Caliph of ISIS tried to set up an Islamic State to provide for the Ummah we all saw the consequences. We need to strengthen the trends that break down the barbarian tribe and weaken the trends that help Islam.
The Internet has been the first great success. Never before has the Ummah witnessed such ferocious exposure of Islam, and never before have the ulema been so helpless in the face of foreign influences on the minds of the faithfull. One imam lamented that when he tried to preach a sermon half the people in the mosque were fiddling with Facebook. This trend is irreversible.
Second has been the education of women, which is highly toxic to any patriarchy. We can see the slow breakdown of traditional Saudi society – witness the way the wife of Raif Badawi is fighting for the freedom of her husband. This is because women tend to be more successful than men at tertiary education, so that they become a highly prized source of income in the family. And with income comes influence and control.
Third is globalization – to get a good job you have to behave very well in a multinational corporation. Muslim professionals are highly conflicted, and hyper sensitive to any accusations of Islamic wrongdoing. They know where their bread is buttered.
The fourth trend has been the organization of religious minorities in Muslim areas. With cellphones, Whatsapp etc the Copts, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians are forewarned and forearmed about any trouble that may come from their Muslim bretheren. So bad has this trend been that Muslims are starting to scream persecution: https://www.wired.com/story/indias-frightening-descent-social-media-terror/
Besides, modern trends in solar panels, water technologies and even greenhouses mean that religious minorities are less and less dependent on the whims of the Muslim state. Behind the high walls of their compounds and gated estates they can be quite safe from the Ummah.
I think this is the way that Islam will eventually be defanged and defeated. As the previous generation dies off the trend will become cleared and clearer. I have met a few of these “new” Muslims, and they are a treasure to talk to.
Bruchi James Wallace says
Bosnians were formerly and originally Christian. Ottoman Empire occupied Balkan countries for 500 hundreds years then they converted Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as part of Albania to islam. Regarding Mustafa Cecic is Turkish.