"Peace Process" as End-Stage Jihad

From the desk of Diana West on Sat, 2010-03-27 08:11

Mind-boggling how quickly the Jerusalem housing project sent the stars into re-alignment over Israel to shine down now on a new, official US vision of the Jewish state as an drag on US interests in the world, even to the point of endangering the lives of American troops.

That was the message the Vice President delivered in Israel this month (“What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops …”) according to Israeli media. The White House denied it.

That was the feeling the President conveyed in treating visiting Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu like an international leper this week (no pictures, no press, no statements, no nothing).

And very sensationally, that was the narrative Centcom Commander Gen. David Petraeus put in writing to the US Senate (sending hero-worshipping conservatives into denial) as noted in last week’s column. Disregarding the impetus of 14 centuries of Muslims’ doctrinally-driven aggression on non-Muslims, Petraeus advanced a line that echoed the Arab League’s: namely, that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question” drives violence throughout the Centcom region, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan, and enhances the powers of Iran and Al Qaeda.

One prominent conservative commentator who strongly supported the Bush-Petraeus policy in Iraq expressed his shock to me in an email: “I would think that Jewish leaders would be appalled by Petraeus's statement (as if to say The Jew's are protecting their property with the blood from the bodies of our dead young men !!!)  It is about 95% the way to the `blood libel’ that, I hate to admit, Christians used in the Middle Ages against the Jewish people.”

And it energized the Israel-bashers, from Stephen Walt, who quoted Petraeus in a Washington Post op-ed, to Robert Malley, erstwhile Middle East advisor to Candidate Obama fired for his contacts with Hamas, who bluntly underscored the same line at a conference: “Israeli actions are threatening U.S. actions and military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  

Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza launched about a dozen terror-rockets into Israel, drawing zero international comment. Next, Great Britain took the extreme measure of expelling an Israeli diplomat over British passport forgeries used in the alleged Mossad assassination of a Hamas terrorist. Is the international noose around Israel drawing tighter or is the “peace process” just intensifying? When executing terrorists and building apartment houses violates “peace,” and launching rockets is part of the “process,” it’s impossible to tell the difference.

Obviously, there is more to this than apartment houses. In his book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Andrew Bostom explains the doctrinal basis not just of Islamic antisemitism – an eternal driver of the jihad on Israel – but also of the concept that there exists a kind of eternal right of return of Muslims to any former Muslim conquest. “All of historical Palestine,” he writes, “whose pre-Islamic inhabitants, Jews, Samaritans and Christians were conquered by jihad in the fourth decade of the seventh century, is considered “fay territory.” In other words, having once been conquered by Islam, such land is considered by Muslims to be “a permanent part of the Dar al Islam, where Islamic law must forever prevail.” According to this thinking, Israel, governed by “usurper” infidel Jews who are no longer a subjugated dhimmi people, “must be destroyed in a collective jihad by the entire Muslim community.”

Hard to ignore such a potent source of aggrieved aggression. But we do, and to the point of denying its very existence. And then what? Oskar Freysinger of the Swiss People’s Party, famous for leading the campaign to ban minaret construction in Switzerland, once put it this way to me when explaining why his party, known for its anti-Islamization policies, had always supported Israel: “We are well aware that if Israel disappears we lose a vanguard. They [the Israelis] are fighting our fight, in fact. As long as the Muslims are concentrated on Israel, it’s not so hard for us. But as soon as Israel will have disappeared, they will come to get the other part” – namely, Europe.

What Freysinger sees better than most (including Israelis)  is the apocalyptic dimension to global jihad, regardless of the “peace process” and other camouflage. Not only are we witnessing what could be the final stages of jihad on Israel, the US is now openly supporting the wrong side.

The Turkey in the room

Submitted by 4Symbols on Fri, 2010-04-09 18:32.

In hoc signo vinces

Petraeus can not see the Turkey in the room, the fall of Israel will clear the way for Islam to advance into Europe, Petraeus has lost the strategic plot.

Looks like Petraeus as a major proponent of psychological warfare maybe in need of a psychologist.

A little knowledge is dangerous...

Submitted by Uwe Hayek on Sun, 2010-03-28 11:18.

I have been reading a lot about Islam lately, on www.hetvrijevolk.com , www.faithfreedom.org , http://dutch.faithfreedom.org .

It happened that I had a discussion with a Moroccan muslim a few weeks ago, in an Antwerp pub.  Everything I had read about the "muslim indoctrination" turned up in this conversation.

In the end he blamed "the west" for the "Reconquista", and asked me what my view was on the retaking of Spain by Christian Europe.

I answered that I would prefer to talk about the  "Conquista", the taking of Spain by the Arab Muslims in 711.

When he answered that Spain had always belonged to the Arab Muslims, I ended this frustrating and pointless discussion.

It seems to me that "Palestine always belonged to the Palestinians" is a crock of that same heap, and you should read something more about this subject, Kapitein Andre.

Then, as an answer to both comments, K.A. and mpresley, I refer the movie "Crimson Tide", where lt.comm Ron Hunter (Denzel Washington) dramatically explains to Capt Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) that when threatened by a nuclear conflict, we should not fear the enemy, but the possibility of nuclear conflict itself.

 Appeasing Islam is pointless, and is just as all the attempts at appeasing that have gone before, just the faster route to more war and trouble.  We could hardly convince the Russians of not starting an all out nuclear war, and convincing Muslims not to self destruct is complete and utterly pointless.

The soft and appeasing approach of Pres. Obama will be only interpreted as weakness in the muslim world, and will lead to disaster for the whole globe.

The best thing...

Submitted by mpresley on Sun, 2010-03-28 00:52.

...that could happen would be for the US to wash its hands of the Middle East. Let the two principal actors come to an equitable solution by themselves, if they can. And if not, so be it. The problem would have likely been "solved" long ago were it not for outside meddling.

But this cannot happen because of our dependence upon Arab oil, and our misguided notion that we might remake Islamic regimes into something analogous to Western democracies; as if Western democracy itself has become anything more than impending liberal totalitarianism, war without end, and financial ruin. Happily, it is our business since both Arab and Jew have plenty of dollars, and spending dollars is always seen as a good thing as we attempt to take profit from a "plague house.".

Those who speak of Middle East peace seem to be under the hypnotic and illusory spell of language. It is as if they presume that words and phrases having a "theoretical meaning" can somehow magically impart it to an unwilling reality.

Blood Libel? What was your family's real name?

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2010-03-27 22:52.

This was no mere “housing project”.  It is the new construction of a settlement deemed “illegal” by both the UN and Israel’s closest allies, and one that further delays and reduces the possibility of the “two–state solution” and “peace process”.  Further expansion of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem is nothing new.  Howevever, Netanyahu’s government seems myopic: it is focused more on party politics than regional or international issues, and has allowed its closest allies to be humiliated.  Ms. West selects and conflates fact and opinion to try to justify this myopia, but it will not do.  Supporting Israeli policies should not be the prime object of US or European foreign policy, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is distinct from Al-Qaeda's global holy war.  Jewish settlements are not keeping Islamic supremacism "over there", and I am disgusted to see Israeli territorial disputes blown up into a titanic struggle between good and evil, with Jewish settlers keeping me safe.  Don't make me laugh...

Whether Petraeus’ comments were serious or informational/psychological warfare (of which he is a major proponent), intended to bring Netanyahu to heel and convey the impression to the Muslims of a US– Israeli schism, is difficult to determine.  Both nationalist and supremacist sentiment in Afghanistan and Iraq, enraged by the US and NATO occupations, can more than make up for any success with the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. 

 

I distinguish between Muslim nationalist and supremacist elements, despite the refusal of many conservatives to do so.  Whereas Taliban interests are “nationalist” and confined to the Pashtun homeland and bordering areas, Al–Qaeda is dedicated to Islamic supremacy and is determined to strike US and Western interests globally.  Such distinctions must also apply to the Palestinians, who have legitimate grievances against Israel, and also include Islamic supremacist organizations such as Hamas, who can be expected to continue its war irrespective of a two–state solution.

 

I am decidedly opposed to Islam in the West.  However, Levantine Muslims and specifically Palestinians, should be accorded the right to self–determination.  Israeli society also has supremacist elements who will never support a Palestinian state nor the incorporation of Palestinians into the Jewish State as equal citizens.  As the United States and its allies are determined to forge peace and security in the Levant, they must confront supremacists and court moderates on all sides if they are to attain these objectives.