Israeli journalist Caroline Glick speaks about the Abraham Accords and anti-Semitism. I add some brief remarks. David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend, November 13, 2022.
Comments
࿗Infidel࿘says
Interesting conversation. Caroline Glick did hit on some important points, like the role of Qatar in propping the Muslim Brotherhood, and RS did make some great points, on how what Jews do at the Temple Mount is irrelevant to muslim attitudes, which are always gonna be hostile
One thing I diverge slightly from RS: his contention that if the Islamic Republic falls and Iran gets a government that is no longer anti-Israel or anti-Arab, that the Abraham Accords will implode. There are 3 major contenders for leadership of the muslim world, which is ~1.8 billion: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Of these, Saudi Arabia generally has the support of almost all Arab states, w/ the exceptions of the Palestinians, Syria, Libya’s GNA, Algeria, Yemen and Somalia
While Iran would like to be acknowledged as the leader of the ummah, the fact that they are shi’a is an important roadblock, and only earns them the loyalties of shi’a groups worldwide – Hizbullah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Badr Brigades in Iraq, Hizb e Wahdat in Afghanistan. They only rent, not own, the loyalties of the Muslim Brotherhood: we saw that during the Syrian Civil War, when Iran was backing Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood was the leading opposition to that regime: it actually led to Khaled Mashal relocating from Damascus to Doha
However, Turkey has a pretty strong claim to the leadership of islam, since much of the islamization of the world – from Albania to the subcontinent – was done by Turkic, not Arab or Farsi conquerors. That’s part of the 16-empires and the jihad themed TV serials of Erdogan that’s being claimed. Turkey, therefore, despite being non-Arab, but being sunni, gets the default support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they even supported and had the support of ISIS while it lasted
So even if Iran were to disappear, Turkey would emerge as the biggest threat to Israel, and a much more formidable one. Unlike Iran, which is a pariah, Turkey is a part of NATO, and there is no mechanism to remove them from it. They have their vassals all over the place – the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Libyan GNA, Algeria, Somalia and Yemen, and they even picked up Pakistan and Malaysia during Imran Khan’s regime, although now Islamabad is trying to patch things up w/ the Saudis. They also are a part of the Turkic Council, which includes all but one of the -stans. As a result, Turkey would be source of constant support to the Muslim Brotherhood, can’t be cancelled, and would make a powerful axis w/ Qatar alone – the latter underwriting this jihad and the former providing it its military backing. They have dreams of resurrecting the Ottoman empire, so the Arabs would still need Israel to save them. In fact, one might even see Syria join the Abraham Accords if Turkey/Qatar ends up as the main backer of the Muslim Brotherhood. And of course, Qatar might assert its own claims on such a leadership role, being as they are on the Arabian peninsula, one of the claims of islamic leadership
On the Religious Zionism Party, I didn’t get the name of their leader that Caroline mentioned, but I fully support what he is doing. If it’s okay for muslims to visit Al Aqsa, it should be okay for Jews to openly visit it and pray there however they want. On this issue, the Religious Zionism Party should look at Hindu activists in India, who are now claiming former Hindu temples that were demolished and mosques built on top of them. Not just in Varanasi and Mathura, but now looking at Delhi as well, where the Quwaat ul Islam mosque was built on 27 Vaishnav and Jain temples. There is a legal campaign on to reclaim all those mosques, as well as repeal India’s 1991 law that froze the status of mosques that were built after demolishing temples. The Religious Zionism Party needs to start a campaign to claim not just Al Aqsa, but any and all Synagogues and other Jewish shrines that were demolished to make way for mosques or other islamic shrines
Finally, one more thing of interest would have been Bahrein. They may be welcoming the Jews, but is that the view of their shi’a as well? Bahrein has been trying to dilute its shi’a population by welcoming in non-Arab muslims from the subcontinent, so what effect has that had on their shi’a? I’ve heard that the latter is keen to show itself as independent of Iran, and has therefore been more aligned to the shi’a regime in Iraq. Does that make them more accepting of the Abraham Accords?
While a good presentation, I do think it was pretty incomplete given how it didn’t mention the role of Turkey in all this at all
࿗Infidel࿘says
This post didn’t appear when I posted it this morning, and I thought it had been completely lost in the ether. That’s why I composed the post below at 3:21pm. Apologies for the double post: I had no idea that the above post was held up
gravenimagesays
Good analysis, Infidel.
And it is sometimes unclear why some comments get hung up. Glad it finally posted.
mgsays
The redoubtable R Spencer and the insightful Caroline Glick. What a nice video to have with the morning coffee.
࿗Infidel࿘says
I watched the video, and was impressed by Caroline Glick’s recognition of Qatar as the main stumbling block in peace w/ Israel. Also, while RS did seem impressive w/ his cautionary note of what will happen if the regime in Iran falls, I think both of them missed out a major factor: Turkey. There are 3 claimants to leadership of the ummah: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Saudi Arabia has in its corner most of the Arab states, except for the likes of Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya’s GNA, Algeria and the Pali authority. Iran has shi’a forces in all countries that have any shi’a presence – Hizbullah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Badr Brigades in Iraq and Hizb-e-Wahdat in Afghanistan
As far as the Muslim Brotherhood goes, Iran doesn’t own its loyalty: it rents it, and that loyalty hasn’t been there since the Syrian civil war, when Hamas’ leader Khaled Mashal moved out of Damascus and to Doha. Reason is that Iran can’t hold on to the loyalties of any sunni group: it loses it the moment any credible sunni alternative comes along, and that one has arrived in the form of Turkey. The Turks have greater islamic street cred than the Iranians, since they islamized areas from the Balkans to the Indian subcontinent. So while the Arabs may resent them due to their experience during Ottoman rule, for others like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turks are fine, unless Qatar decides to step in to trump them using the fact that they are an Arabian peninsula country. Turkey also has in its camp the Turkic Council – the ex-Soviet -stans, as well as the likes of Malaysia and Pakistan, although the latter has been trying to mend fences w/ the Saudis ever since the fall of Imran Khan
Therefore, even if the Islamic Republic falls and Iran were to become a secular country w/ no more animosity towards Israel, there would remain the issue of Turkey. The Muslim Brotherhood, and thereby Hamas, would continue to be underwritten by Qatar and backed more tangibly by Turkey. This would be a bigger problem for both Israel and the Arabs: unlike Iran, which was a pariah state, Turkey is a member of NATO, and there is no mechanism to remove them from it. Even though Turkey has dreams of resurrecting the Ottoman empire, and backs the re-creation of other Turkic empires like the Mughals in the subcontinent. As a result, I don’t expect the fall of Iran to automatically end the Abraham Accords: Turkey and Qatar too would have to fall for this to happen. And there has been no pressure from the US – neither the Pompeo nor the Blinken State Department
On the issue of Temple Mount, I agree w/ RS that if the Temple Mount pretext weren’t there, something else would be. I therefore disagree w/ Caroline that the leader of Religious Zionism Party (didn’t catch his name) is playing into anybody’s hands. If anything, the Religious Zionism Party should take a page out of Hindu activists in India. Having won the temple in Ayodhya, there is now a legal campaign on for getting back not only the temple sites in Varanasi and Mathura, but even looking at overturning the 1991 law that froze the status of all mosques to the status they were in 1947. Essentially, Hindus are starting to campaign for getting back all their temples that were provably destroyed in order to build mosques. Religious Zionism Party should take a page out of that and campaign not only to get Temple Mount back for the Jews, but also all Jewish synagogues and shrines that were ever demolished in order to make way for mosques and muslim shrines
Finally, on the question of Bahrein, even though they may welcome Jews and have kosher kitchens, I wonder how welcoming their shi’a population is of the Jews. I’ve read that Bahrein’s shi’as are eager to demonstrate that they’re not puppets of Iran, and to their luck, Iraq’s majority shi’a government has been a voice for them. It would be interesting to see whether those shi’a are as welcoming of the Jews, and trying to make a civil case to reverse the disenfranchisement that their Wahabi rulers are imposing on them
MR3000says
Do Not Be Deceived! Many already are regarding the Abraham Peace Accords. The Abraham Peace Accords sounds good and Israel along with many Jewish and Christian citizens, worldwide, are all for it in hopes of a final solution to “Peace” in the Middle East. However, I am sure that you are quite familiar with the term “Hudna” in Islamic ideology and military strategy. We have two sects of Islam that seek to destroy Israel and America; Shi’a of the Islamic Republic of Iran and also the Sunni, Wahabbi-influenced Saudi Arabia.
We are in fact fighting and protecting Sunni Islam against Shi’a and if Iran is moved out of the way, militarily, we still cannot trust Saudi Arabia to continue to be a “friend and ally” as most Americans believe.
The Ultimate goal of Iran is the same goal that Saudi Arabia is looking to achieve, except by using different methods of getting there. The Abraham Peace Accords would only be Temporary as so allowed in Islamic teaching regarding military strategy.
Sure, Israel will take any opportunity to go forth with all sorts of concessions if it will finally bring “peace and security” to that nation. Israel has made concessions all along to no avail. The question is, once the Abraham Peace Accords do take place in an international move, and I believe that this will happen, can we really trust Islamic entities to hold to the agreement? “War is deception,” as stated in Sun Tzu’s Art of War and also by Muhammad.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Interesting conversation. Caroline Glick did hit on some important points, like the role of Qatar in propping the Muslim Brotherhood, and RS did make some great points, on how what Jews do at the Temple Mount is irrelevant to muslim attitudes, which are always gonna be hostile
One thing I diverge slightly from RS: his contention that if the Islamic Republic falls and Iran gets a government that is no longer anti-Israel or anti-Arab, that the Abraham Accords will implode. There are 3 major contenders for leadership of the muslim world, which is ~1.8 billion: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Of these, Saudi Arabia generally has the support of almost all Arab states, w/ the exceptions of the Palestinians, Syria, Libya’s GNA, Algeria, Yemen and Somalia
While Iran would like to be acknowledged as the leader of the ummah, the fact that they are shi’a is an important roadblock, and only earns them the loyalties of shi’a groups worldwide – Hizbullah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Badr Brigades in Iraq, Hizb e Wahdat in Afghanistan. They only rent, not own, the loyalties of the Muslim Brotherhood: we saw that during the Syrian Civil War, when Iran was backing Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood was the leading opposition to that regime: it actually led to Khaled Mashal relocating from Damascus to Doha
However, Turkey has a pretty strong claim to the leadership of islam, since much of the islamization of the world – from Albania to the subcontinent – was done by Turkic, not Arab or Farsi conquerors. That’s part of the 16-empires and the jihad themed TV serials of Erdogan that’s being claimed. Turkey, therefore, despite being non-Arab, but being sunni, gets the default support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and they even supported and had the support of ISIS while it lasted
So even if Iran were to disappear, Turkey would emerge as the biggest threat to Israel, and a much more formidable one. Unlike Iran, which is a pariah, Turkey is a part of NATO, and there is no mechanism to remove them from it. They have their vassals all over the place – the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Libyan GNA, Algeria, Somalia and Yemen, and they even picked up Pakistan and Malaysia during Imran Khan’s regime, although now Islamabad is trying to patch things up w/ the Saudis. They also are a part of the Turkic Council, which includes all but one of the -stans. As a result, Turkey would be source of constant support to the Muslim Brotherhood, can’t be cancelled, and would make a powerful axis w/ Qatar alone – the latter underwriting this jihad and the former providing it its military backing. They have dreams of resurrecting the Ottoman empire, so the Arabs would still need Israel to save them. In fact, one might even see Syria join the Abraham Accords if Turkey/Qatar ends up as the main backer of the Muslim Brotherhood. And of course, Qatar might assert its own claims on such a leadership role, being as they are on the Arabian peninsula, one of the claims of islamic leadership
On the Religious Zionism Party, I didn’t get the name of their leader that Caroline mentioned, but I fully support what he is doing. If it’s okay for muslims to visit Al Aqsa, it should be okay for Jews to openly visit it and pray there however they want. On this issue, the Religious Zionism Party should look at Hindu activists in India, who are now claiming former Hindu temples that were demolished and mosques built on top of them. Not just in Varanasi and Mathura, but now looking at Delhi as well, where the Quwaat ul Islam mosque was built on 27 Vaishnav and Jain temples. There is a legal campaign on to reclaim all those mosques, as well as repeal India’s 1991 law that froze the status of mosques that were built after demolishing temples. The Religious Zionism Party needs to start a campaign to claim not just Al Aqsa, but any and all Synagogues and other Jewish shrines that were demolished to make way for mosques or other islamic shrines
Finally, one more thing of interest would have been Bahrein. They may be welcoming the Jews, but is that the view of their shi’a as well? Bahrein has been trying to dilute its shi’a population by welcoming in non-Arab muslims from the subcontinent, so what effect has that had on their shi’a? I’ve heard that the latter is keen to show itself as independent of Iran, and has therefore been more aligned to the shi’a regime in Iraq. Does that make them more accepting of the Abraham Accords?
While a good presentation, I do think it was pretty incomplete given how it didn’t mention the role of Turkey in all this at all
࿗Infidel࿘ says
This post didn’t appear when I posted it this morning, and I thought it had been completely lost in the ether. That’s why I composed the post below at 3:21pm. Apologies for the double post: I had no idea that the above post was held up
gravenimage says
Good analysis, Infidel.
And it is sometimes unclear why some comments get hung up. Glad it finally posted.
mg says
The redoubtable R Spencer and the insightful Caroline Glick. What a nice video to have with the morning coffee.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I watched the video, and was impressed by Caroline Glick’s recognition of Qatar as the main stumbling block in peace w/ Israel. Also, while RS did seem impressive w/ his cautionary note of what will happen if the regime in Iran falls, I think both of them missed out a major factor: Turkey. There are 3 claimants to leadership of the ummah: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Saudi Arabia has in its corner most of the Arab states, except for the likes of Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya’s GNA, Algeria and the Pali authority. Iran has shi’a forces in all countries that have any shi’a presence – Hizbullah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Badr Brigades in Iraq and Hizb-e-Wahdat in Afghanistan
As far as the Muslim Brotherhood goes, Iran doesn’t own its loyalty: it rents it, and that loyalty hasn’t been there since the Syrian civil war, when Hamas’ leader Khaled Mashal moved out of Damascus and to Doha. Reason is that Iran can’t hold on to the loyalties of any sunni group: it loses it the moment any credible sunni alternative comes along, and that one has arrived in the form of Turkey. The Turks have greater islamic street cred than the Iranians, since they islamized areas from the Balkans to the Indian subcontinent. So while the Arabs may resent them due to their experience during Ottoman rule, for others like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Turks are fine, unless Qatar decides to step in to trump them using the fact that they are an Arabian peninsula country. Turkey also has in its camp the Turkic Council – the ex-Soviet -stans, as well as the likes of Malaysia and Pakistan, although the latter has been trying to mend fences w/ the Saudis ever since the fall of Imran Khan
Therefore, even if the Islamic Republic falls and Iran were to become a secular country w/ no more animosity towards Israel, there would remain the issue of Turkey. The Muslim Brotherhood, and thereby Hamas, would continue to be underwritten by Qatar and backed more tangibly by Turkey. This would be a bigger problem for both Israel and the Arabs: unlike Iran, which was a pariah state, Turkey is a member of NATO, and there is no mechanism to remove them from it. Even though Turkey has dreams of resurrecting the Ottoman empire, and backs the re-creation of other Turkic empires like the Mughals in the subcontinent. As a result, I don’t expect the fall of Iran to automatically end the Abraham Accords: Turkey and Qatar too would have to fall for this to happen. And there has been no pressure from the US – neither the Pompeo nor the Blinken State Department
On the issue of Temple Mount, I agree w/ RS that if the Temple Mount pretext weren’t there, something else would be. I therefore disagree w/ Caroline that the leader of Religious Zionism Party (didn’t catch his name) is playing into anybody’s hands. If anything, the Religious Zionism Party should take a page out of Hindu activists in India. Having won the temple in Ayodhya, there is now a legal campaign on for getting back not only the temple sites in Varanasi and Mathura, but even looking at overturning the 1991 law that froze the status of all mosques to the status they were in 1947. Essentially, Hindus are starting to campaign for getting back all their temples that were provably destroyed in order to build mosques. Religious Zionism Party should take a page out of that and campaign not only to get Temple Mount back for the Jews, but also all Jewish synagogues and shrines that were ever demolished in order to make way for mosques and muslim shrines
Finally, on the question of Bahrein, even though they may welcome Jews and have kosher kitchens, I wonder how welcoming their shi’a population is of the Jews. I’ve read that Bahrein’s shi’as are eager to demonstrate that they’re not puppets of Iran, and to their luck, Iraq’s majority shi’a government has been a voice for them. It would be interesting to see whether those shi’a are as welcoming of the Jews, and trying to make a civil case to reverse the disenfranchisement that their Wahabi rulers are imposing on them
MR3000 says
Do Not Be Deceived! Many already are regarding the Abraham Peace Accords. The Abraham Peace Accords sounds good and Israel along with many Jewish and Christian citizens, worldwide, are all for it in hopes of a final solution to “Peace” in the Middle East. However, I am sure that you are quite familiar with the term “Hudna” in Islamic ideology and military strategy. We have two sects of Islam that seek to destroy Israel and America; Shi’a of the Islamic Republic of Iran and also the Sunni, Wahabbi-influenced Saudi Arabia.
We are in fact fighting and protecting Sunni Islam against Shi’a and if Iran is moved out of the way, militarily, we still cannot trust Saudi Arabia to continue to be a “friend and ally” as most Americans believe.
The Ultimate goal of Iran is the same goal that Saudi Arabia is looking to achieve, except by using different methods of getting there. The Abraham Peace Accords would only be Temporary as so allowed in Islamic teaching regarding military strategy.
Sure, Israel will take any opportunity to go forth with all sorts of concessions if it will finally bring “peace and security” to that nation. Israel has made concessions all along to no avail. The question is, once the Abraham Peace Accords do take place in an international move, and I believe that this will happen, can we really trust Islamic entities to hold to the agreement? “War is deception,” as stated in Sun Tzu’s Art of War and also by Muhammad.