DECONSTRUCTING THOSE ARAB REFUGEES

UNTIL THE 1967 WAR, many in Western Europe saw Israel—correctly—as a tiny and besieged state, surrounded by enemies who wished to destroy it. In this respect, they were helped along by the fact that the leader of those who would after the Six-Day War be carefully renamed as the "Palestinians," were not yet called "Palestinians" but simply "the Arabs" or "the Arab refugees." And their putative leader, Ahmed Shukairy (who was himself half-Turkish), had the habit of expressing himself as a truthful Muslim, and told the world that his goal was the destruction of Israel.

The Arab leaders said the same thing. And those Arab leaders, at the time, did not have the enormous oil wealth that the member-states of OPEC really began to acquire only in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then they enjoyed a really fantastic jump in oil revenues, and thus an equally fantastic increase in perceived power and real ability to buy all kinds of influence along with other, more tangible goods and services, only when OPEC quadrupled the price of oil in the fall of 1973.

And beginning with their defeat in the Six-Day War, the Arabs realized that they would not be able to defeat Israel militarily, at least not yet, not under the new conditions, and with Israel now in possession of "the West Bank" and Gaza and all of the Sinai (some 95% of the territory Israel won by force of arms in that war). They would have to formulate a new strategy to force Israel to disgorge what it had won, to make Israel appear not to be what in fact it still was, a tiny state subject to this unending Arab and Muslim hostility, that no concessions by Israel would ever truly assuage (at least not for the Muslims who took Islam seriously, and that meant, at least, all of the Arab Muslims). So they did several things. They decided on a campaign of diplomatic and economic warfare, accompanied by terrorist acts within Israel and against Israelis overseas, and on a campaign to weaken Israel and to force its former friends to sever ties, or at least to cease being friendly toward Israel, and ready to misunderstand its plight, and the real nature of the war—the Jihad—being waged against it.

The first to be won over, largely by bribery of African rulers, were the black African states that had enjoyed good relations with Israel and had benefited greatly from Israel's extensive, and intelligent, aid program in Black Africa, which encouraged the development of small-scale agriculture. All of these countries, or almost all, within a year or two after the Six-Day War, had been persuaded by Arab money and the promise—never fulfilled—of more money to come if they did what the Arabs wanted, cut off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Read it all as noted JW contributor Hugh Fitzgerald outs the liars and puts the truth back where it belongs.

LETTER FROM ISRAEL

A hearty thanks to Brigitte Gabriel for passing along the following letter sent to her.

My name is [name removed] and I live in Ashdod, Israel.

As you probably know, 11 days ago Israel finally started to take action in Gaza strip in order to defend itself and it's citizens. It must be said that Israel's actions are the response to the violent nature of the actions and threats of Hamas against us.

For 11 days now, my city, along with other cities in the region of southern Israel have been and are being attacked and bombed by Hamas. Together, we are a million people under the threat of being bombed.

What we do today, what I do today, is standing against the missiles of Hamas, a thing which i have never had to do before, so my Israeli fellows that have been suffering from it for years will be able to live in peace. A real peace, and not just a cease-fire for Hamas to take advantage of to get armed. We suffer now so our Israeli brothers can live in peace, AND so missiles won't ever become "routine" in our cities too. What we don't do today, will cost us tomorrow.

As a citizen of a western country (Israel of course), i have been surprised to see the huge hypocrisy shown by the western world during these 11 days. Protests and demonstration against Israel and it's actions all over the world, comparing us to the Nazis and calling us murderers. All that from the people who have ignored the violent nature of Hamas and it's actions and attacks against Israeli CITIZENS for years and years.

That being said, i'd like to thank you and your organization for your support and right view of reality. It's important to me and other Israelis to know that there are sane voices out there too.

And a personal message for Brigitte Gabriel:

I joined your website and organization after listening to your speeches on YouTube. As i know your story, i know u understand that what we are doing today is defending our home. Hamas, just like the radicals in Lebanon, has no tolerance and doesn't want to live in peace with us. Hamas's wish, in the good case, is to throw us to the sea. To take the only place i know as HOME away from me. And neither me nor the Israeli people will stand that kind of wish.

So from the Israeli people and country—thank you.

And now we turn to Hugh Fitzgerald for more penetrating snark—as he challenges the dhimmitude of the Danes in Denmark as well as the French who continue to bow to outrageous Muslim demands:

And, as teachers in France have found, there are subjects that must not be touched. French teachers, who receive their curriculum from the Ministry of Education (for a sample, see what those following that handed-down-from-on-high curriculum, while living abroad, do for the C.N.E.D., which google), find that they cannot discuss World War II or the mass-murder of Jews (it offends Muslims), they cannot teach about the history of France and French kings (it offends Muslims), they cannot teach about anything to do with the Christian religion (it offends Muslims), they cannot teach about world history other than history having to do with Muslims (it offends Muslims), they cannot teach the writings of Voltaire (it offends Muslims, because Voltaire wrote the play "Mahomet, ou l'Impostuer) or Montaigne (half-Jewish, and besides, the spirit of skepticism, of "Que scais-je?" is very much against the spirit of Islam which discourages skepticism, and encourages the habit of mental submission, to Allah of course, for he knows best), of Proust (well, you know), and so many others.

In Denmark, it might take a different turn. I would assume any Danish teacher who dared to try to teach Hans Christian Andersen, and his story "The Little Jewish Girl," would be physically threatened. And indeed, given Andersen's close friendship with the Melchiors, a family of Danish Jews, perhaps Hans Christian Andersen should be removed from the curriculum, in such schools, altoghether.

And please—no mention of the Danish King, and the heroism of the Danish people, in rescuing Jews during World War II. That would make Muslims feel very bad. It would make them feel that they were among the wrong kind of people, people who, from their point of view, behaved so badly during World War II. And we can't have them thinking that, and perhaps taking it out on the symbols of Danish authority, including teachers and principals, or policemen, or firemen, or just Danes walking in the street, can we?

And don't start trying to teach Muslims about Danish principles, including the solicitousness for so-called "free speech." Muslims know exactly what the Danish exercise of "free speech" can lead to—it can lead to cartoons about the Perfect Man, and we can't have that, can we?

Oh, Denmark. And oh, all of Western Europe. You've got to stop it now, while there is still time. You've got to halt, and then diminish, the size of the permanent menace. But first, you must understand the ideology of Islam, and why all hopes of changing or modifying it are forlorn, and why you must do what you must not only to protect yourselves physically, but to protect the civilizational legacy that you inherited, and without which, neither you, nor your progeny, nor the entire world—not just the Western world—will be in far far worse condition, than it has ever been before.

Read it all.

ON MUSLIM IMMIGRATION FAILURES

"What's more, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr (1145-1217), who traversed the Mediterranean on his way to Mecca in the early 1180s, found that even Muslims preferred living in Crusader lands. He lamented that near Tyre he passed a series of farms where "the inhabitants were all Muslims, but they live in comfort with the Franj [Franks, or Crusaders]—may Allah preserve them from temptation! Their dwellings belong to them and all their property is unmolested. Now, doubt invests the heart of a great number of these men when they compare their lot to that of their brothers living in Muslim territory. Indeed, the latter suffer from the injustice of their coreligionists, while the Franj act with equity."

DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT MUSLIMS today flock to non-Muslim lands because they are better run, they are safer, the lives of the citizens are more secure, the possibility of redress against authority greater, the access to the wonders of the modern world that are the product of a mental freedom, and an absence of inshallah-fatalism, that are the hallmarks of mind-forged-manacled Muslims, so that any Muslim in his right mind of course wishes to live in Great Britain, say, rather than in Pakistan, or in France rather than Algeria or Morocco, or in the Netherlands rather than in Morocco or Turkey (because Kemalism did not go far enough, and the remains of the pre-Kemalist Day, that is Islam, are all about, and indeed now being relentlessly revived), and so on.

But these Muslim "refugees from Islam" do not recognize that what they find and like in the West is precisely owed to the fact of the West's non-Islamic history, and quite unlike previous refugees, such as those from the Nazis who worked to warn people about the Nazis, and refugees, from Russia or Eastern Europe or China, who worked to warn people in the West, where they found refuge, about the menace of Communism, about the threat from Soviet Union and Communist China, Muslims in the West come not to warn the West about Islam, but rather bring with them the very Islam that has caused their own countries to be so unpleasant or unlivable in the first place. They do not see this. They are "slaves to Allah" or rather slaves to Islam as a Total Belief-System, and while the morally and intellectually most advanced see this, and some of them become apostates, others are afraid, or tied down by filial piety, a desire to retain, as many feel they must, "cultural" or "family" ties, and do not wish to suffer the ostracism that they fear if they do indeed break openly with Islam.

Only the very most advanced, and the bravest, dare to see Islam—its texts, its tenets, its attitudes, the very attitudes that they hear expressed openly in Muslim-only gatherings, where the hostility to Infidels is not hidden, and some of them hear this with horror, but many others hear and are prompted not to break with Islam, which often means breaking with their families, but choose to hide or disguise that anti-Infidel feeling that they know about, know all about, but decide to lie about in order to protect, out of embarrassment, out of fear that Muslims may lose their truly "protected status" in the lands of the Infidels (where so far they are allowed to essentially retain a loyalty to Islam, and therefore to the Shari'a and to a general worldview, that necessarily bespeaks permanent hostility to the Infidel nation-states, to the legal and political institutions of those nation-states, in which they now live and of which they have even been permitted, by those too ignorant to understand Islam, to obtain citizenship.

—Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch

95 THINGS THAT FUEL MUSLIM EXTREMISM

The conclusion concluded from the National Intelligence Estimate by many concluders in solemn conclusory conclave assembled: “The American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism.”

Ninety-Five Other Things That Also Fuel Muslim Extremism:
1. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.”
2. The British government’s protection of Salman Rushdie.
3. The American coup against Mossadegh in 1953, cited by some Iranians as the direct cause of the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini more than 25 years later.
4. The remarks of Pim Fortuyn about Muslim attitudes toward liberal Dutch mores.
5. The movie by Theo van Gogh about the subjection of women in Islam.
6. The election of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the Dutch Parliament.
7. Hindus passing by mosques as Friday Prayers end.
8. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Sunni insurgents.
9. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Shi’a militias.
10. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Kurdish desire for independence.
11. The failure of Americans in Iraq to give Baghdad an instant makeover so that it resembles the most prosperous and advanced American city.
12. The failure of Americans to solve every economic problem in Iraq, to make Sunnis and Shi’a friends, to get the oilfields pumping at full capacity, and to make donations even beyond the many tens of billions spent directly on reconstruction in Iraq.
13. The failure of the Americans, in obtaining debt relief from all Infidel creditors for Iraq (but not from any of the Muslim Arab states), to persuade those same Infidel countries to supply another $50-$100 billion.
14. The refusal of the French state to permit the wearing of the hijab.
15. The insistence, by the French state, that texts by Voltaire, Montaigne, Proust, and other writers deemed or perceived to be anti-Islamic by Muslims, be assigned to students, as required reading, by the Ministry of Education.
16. The selling of alcohol by Christians in Basra.
17. The existence of Christians in Basra.
18. The continued functioning of Christian churches in Baghdad.
19. The Copts in Egypt who complain when Muslims attack their churches and other institutions, or kidnap and forcibly convert Coptic girls to Islam.
20. The Filipinos who try to hold private religious services in Saudi Arabia, land on which no non-Muslims should be present in any case.
21. The American airmen who were assigned to bases in Saudi Arabia and who showed insufficient obeisance to their Saudi masters, all daggers and dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command.
22. The obvious superiority of Western economies.
23. The obvious superiority of Western education.
24. The obvious superiority of Western medical care.
25. The obvious superiority of Western artistic achievement.
26. The obvious superiority of Western (fill in here whatever you like).
27. The failure of Muslims living in the countries of Western Europe to have a standard of living equal or superior to that of non-Muslims.
28. The continued refusal of non-Muslims in the West to institute a formalized long-term system of Jizyah, by which Muslims can be supported; they now must make do only with the benefits provided by Infidel taxpayers on a year-to-year basis.
29. The financial support given by the Americans to the Mubarak regime in Egypt that enrages the Muslim Brotherhood.
30. The financial support given by the Americans to successive Jordanian kings and kinglets, which enrages the Muslim Brotherhood.
31. The diplomatic and other support given by the Americans to the corrupt Al-Saud family of “Saudi” Arabia, which enrages Al-Qaeda and its local supporters.
32. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from the Mubarak Friends-and-Family Plan, which whips up anti-American sentiment among Egyptian Muslims.
33. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from Pakistan if it does not collaborate less meretriciously in the soi-disant “war on terror,” which whips up anti-American sentiment among Pakistani Muslims.
34. The temporary withdrawal of Infidel support for the “Palestinians,” who deserve to receive Infidel aid of every kind, and permanently.
35. The discussion by some in the West of ways to diminish, in order to prevent further global warming, the use of oil -– which discussion is seen as damaging Arab and Muslim interests, and must therefore be regarded as a deliberate attack on Islam.
36. The reference by Pope Benedict to a 14th century Byzantine emperor’s remarks in the course of a scholarly address at Regensburg.
37. The refusal of Pope Benedict to continue to apologize, and his apparent refusal to completely humiliate himself, before Muslims demanding such humiliation.
38. The Israeli “occupation” of Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank after the Six-Day War.
39. The Israeli “occupation” of Gaza and the West Bank after the Camp David Accords.
40. The Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank after the full withdrawal from Gaza.
41. The Israeli “occupation” of the sacred Arab and Muslim soil on which the only Jewish state was created in 1948.
42. The presence of Jews in the Middle East.
43. The presence of Jews, uncowed, anywhere in the world.
44. The presence of a strong, self-assured community of Christians in Lebanon.
45. The presence of Copts in Egypt, who sometimes act as if they, too, too, have a right to regard Egypt as their land.
46. The refusal of Italian authorities to prosecute, before her death, Oriana Fallaci.
47. The refusal of Italian authorities to ban Dante in schools because of the mention of Muhammad in The Inferno.
48. The refusal of Italian authorities to remove or cover over frescoes in Bologna that depict Muhammad in an unflattering manner.
49. The refusal of the government of Denmark to punish a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for daring to exercise the right of free speech.
50. The refusal of Hindus to abandon any claim to ancient sites, where Hindu temples once stood until destroyed by Muslim invaders.
51. The refusal of some Hindus to forget the history of India.
52. The refusal of some European governments to permit Muslim mosques of any size to be built wherever, whenever, and with whatever towering minarets and electronic amplifying equipment, as Muslims believe is their sacred right.
53. The attempts by some Western police to enter mosques where they have found, in the past, false passports and other documents, as well as weapons including guns and explosives, sometimes hidden in false ceilings.
54. The attempt to permit Europeans to continue, even outside Denmark, to exercise the so-called right of free speech, as has happened with Charlie-Hébdo and other French newspapers.
55. The refusal of the University of Geneva to renew the contract of Tariq Ramadan.
56. The public displays of piggy-banks, and of allusions in English pub names such as The Saracen’s Head, which may offend Muslims.
57. The discussions by some national authorities in Holland and state authorities in Germany of the need for more stringent qualifications for nationalization, and in some cases the institution of those more stringent qualifications.
58. The single mention by President Bush of the word “islamofascism” -– a word which Muslims all over insisted must never again be repeated by him, and which he never again repeated.
59. The behavior of American soldiers who have on several occasions returned deadly fire coming at them from mosques in Iraq.
60. The behavior of the British police in not notifying Muslim authorities well in advance of any planned raids on any suspected Muslim terrorists in Great Britain; this is a grave offense which has now apparently been rectified in order to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds.
61. The belief that some in the West continue to hold, that Jews do have a historic as well as religious connection to the part of Dar al-Islam they call Israel.
62. The outrageous way in which Infidels refer to the Prophet Muhammad as if he is not universally regarded as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
63. The mention by Infidels of aspects of Muhammad’s life—such as the Khaybar Oasis attack, the Banu Qurayza decapitation, the murder of Asma bint Marwan, the marriage to nine-year-old Aisha; these are not true, or if true, are not things which Infidels have any right either to discuss or even to know about.
64. The belief of some Infidels that those who give up on Islam, who are apostates and therefore traitors to Islam, could after their act of treason conceivably continue to know anything about Islam, given that Allah clearly takes away from such people all their previous knowledge of Islam at the very moment when they decide to apostasize.
65. The outrageous belief by some Infidels that nonetheless they may have reason to listen to the testimony of ex-Muslims as to the real contents of Islam.
66. The outrageous and insulting mention, by Infidels, of such words as “taqiyya” and “kitman.”
67. The outrageous mention, by Infidels, of the word “dhimmi,” about which they can not possibly have any accurate conception, and which they have no right to discuss in the first place unless they are Muslims.
68. The outrageous attempt to suggest that people are not born Muslims.
69. The outrageous attempt to suggest that the spread of Islam was ever undertaken through violence, when everyone knows it was a case of sudden mass conversion.
70. The refusal of this or that Infidel religious leader, political figure, writer, artist, comedian, or simply you, or simply I, to exhibit the proper attitude toward Islam, Islam, Islam.
71. The wherewithal provided by OPEC revenues that enables the Saudis, especially, to fund mosques and madrasas worldwide and thereby to naturally increase the numbers of “extremists” in the Lands of the Infidels.
72. The wherewithal of OPEC revenues that pay for an army of Western hirelings, including former diplomats (mostly English and American), former intelligence agents, former and present journalists (especially those covering the Middle East), public relations experts, businessmen eager for contracts in the Gulf, and many other fixers and middlemen. This helps delay the day of new energy policies that could conceivably diminish the OPEC oil revenues that fund the Jihad, and also prevents the unwary from regarding Saudi Arabia as anything other than a “staunch ally.”
73. The willingness of journalists to overlook obvious links between the practice of Jihad and the doctrine of Jihad, encouraged by journalists who still do not feel any obligation to learn about Islam. This encourages Muslims to make demands for changes in political and legal institutions in the West, or to insist that outspoken Infidels—the Pope, Theo van Gogh, Jyllens-Posten—must stop speaking or writing about Islam. Any such refusal to comply with Muslim demands engenders—“fuels”—Muslim “extremism.”
74. The refusal of the Buddhists in southern Thailand to stop being Buddhists.
75. The refusal of the Christians in the southern Philippines to submit to the demands to hand over lands to the Muslims of As Sayyaf.
76. The refusal of Christians in Sulawesi to stop holding church services.
77. The refusal of the Israeli government to stop trying to protect ancient archeological sites in Jerusalem, many of which have been severely damaged by the Muslim construction on and deep within the Temple Mount.
78. The refusal of Hindus in India to concede to Muslim demands for the full application of Shari’a to the Muslim community.
79. The refusal of Orthodox priests in monasteries in Bosnia and Kosovo to abandon the monasteries to Muslims who are clamoring to destroy them.
80. The outrageous insistence by the world’s Armenians and by many others that Turkey stop denying the mass murder of Armenians by Muslim Turks between 1915 and 1920.
81. The outrageous demands by many Infidel lands that outside forces be brought in to protect the non-Arab Muslims from the Arab Muslims in Darfur, despite the express opposition of both the government of the Sudan and the Arab League.
82. The outrageous demands by some Infidels that Muslims should be permitted to open mosques only on the basis of reciprocity—that is, on the basis of similar permission being granted to non-Muslims in Muslim lands.
83. The outrageous refusal of some Infidel countries to prevent transmissions of Al Manar and other satellite channels run by terrorist groups.
84. The refusal of many Western countries—Great Britain, Germany, Canada—to yield to demands of local Muslims that they be made subject only to the Shari’a and not to the manmade laws of the Infidels.
85. The refusal by Australia to cease contributing troops to help their American allies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
86. The continued existence of Jews.
87. The continued existence of Christians.
88. The continued existence of Hindus.
89. The continued existence of Sikhs.
90. The continued existence of Buddhists.
91. The continued existence of followers of Confucius.
92. The continued existence of agnostics.
93. The continued existence of atheists.
94. Everything.
95. Nothing.

—Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch.

THE FITZGERALD PERSPECTIVE

Tancredo spikes again, after the MSM continues to ignore him as a marginal candidate for for the US presidency. The following article by Hugh Fitzgerald originally posted on Jihad Watch on July 18, 2005, pulls the argument together in an even clearer light for today’s readers. Fitzgerald writes:

A two-year-old posting on the matter, put up the last time Tancredo raised the matter of deterrence and a retaliatory attack on Mecca:

"Congressman Tancredo, a former history teacher, has almost alone in Congress bothered to begin to investigate what Islam teaches, what it is all about. For this he deserves the support of everyone, and everything possible should be done to help re-elect him—if for no other reason, than to ensure that at least one member of Congress will speak the truth about the belief-system of Islam. He deserves to be supported to the hilt, in any possible way.

And the Congressman did not recommend that "Mecca be bombed." While many people have in the past suggested that—see the redoubtable Fred Ikle, for example, he who was so important in the Reagan Administration—Congressman Tancredo said something different, and perfectly understandable.

He was asked about rumors that Muslim terrorists might have already smuggled into the country nuclear devices that they planned to set off, and what kinds of things might deter them. He mused aloud, that one of the things that might deter them would be the threat to bomb Mecca. That was all he said. It was hardly remarkable, and the only thing remarkable about it has been, as has been repeatedly suggested at JW (see, for example, the recent article by Rebecca Bynum)is that all the different ways to inflict damage on the belief-system of Islam have not been discussed. But on the other hand, as long as we are conducting either a "war on terrorism" or a "war on an ideology of violent extremism" that remains carefully unnamed, perhaps in the end it is not surprising that we have no discussion of the kinds of deterrents that would work, and on whom.

For example, there may be no way of deterring the groups and groupiscules of fanatics. But there are ways to threaten, and deter, the Saudis from continuing to send money abroad to support the entire Muslim infrastructure that, as the recent Freedom House report showed, encourages not merely Islam but the most hate-filled brand of Islam—in other words, there are threats of seizure of assets that might get the attention of the rulers of Saudi Arabia (and the U.A.E. riding pillion), to have them cease using the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas and Da'wa throughout the Western, Infidel world.

But Tancredo was addressing a different problem. and he did not offer an answer. He offered one among many possibilities that he thought deserved intelligent discussion. And he was right. And this is not a clear-cut case. There are many ex-Muslims, for example, who appear to believe that Tancredo is absolutely right—that this may be the one thing which, if threatened, or at least considered, could cause Muslims to rethink. It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understanding that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limitation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR—of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats.

But the mere fact that people who have been defending certain acts now feel they must, for Infidel consumption, seem to be distancing themselves, is a sign that when danger is perceived, there is a drawing-back. It is certain that the mere discussion of bombing Mecca has both good and bas aspects. The bad aspect is that it is the kind of remark that allows many to get on their high moral horse, and huff and puff, and "deplore" this wild man, Tom Tancredo. Anyone can imagine what editorials in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon deploring Tancredo might look like. But in our Infidel hearts, we are all secretly pleased, and relieved—are we not?—that such a discussion of deterrence has at least been begun. For without such a discussion, there is no way to begin to think straight about the problem of Islam world-wide—not of "terrorism" but of Islam.

Every intelligent Western observer has noted what Tocqueville, who had been in Algeria, referred to as the "morbid" quality of Islam. Churchill, in "The River Wars," had nothing good to say about the foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism of the Muslim warriors, but he did note that they did not fear death, for the sensual Paradise that awaited the warrior who died in Jihad was a reality.

And because the usual kinds of threats might mean little to fanatics, one has to figure out what might work as a deterrent. In Israel the punishment of destroying houses has some deterrent effect, given that the families of the "martyrs" will suffer—and some "martyrs" are willing to die, but don't want their family members left behind to have to build a new home. It is not true that such deterrence does not work. There are other possibilities. Much Muslim behavior inimical to the West can be deterred.

For example, the family that has seized, and treats as its private property, the vast territory of Arabia—the House of Al-Saud—both directly or indirectly helps to support, and even help to create, fanatics in two ways. Within Saudi Arabia, its own despotism and corruption causes young Saudis who are enraged by them to embrace, not Jeffersonian democracy, which is un-Islamic, but rather Al Qaeda or other groups, which provide them with the vocabulary, the imagery, the categories that Islam itself supplies to define opposition to a corrupt caliph or ruler. For it does not do, within Islam, to denounce someone as corrupt, or as a despot. The rulers, after all, are the rulers, and the habit of mental submission that Islam inculcates, and the inshallah-fatalism that is within Islam, helps in large part to encourage submission to the despot, however corrupt—unless that despot can be seen as, defined as, placed in the category of, "Infidel."

Then anything and everything can be done to destroy that "Infidel." And that is exactly what happens among those who oppose the Al-Saud, or the Mubarak Friends-and-Family stratokleptocracy in Egypt—save for a pitiful, nearly nonexistent Western-style secular opposition in the latter, the opposition will always take on a Muslim cast. Muslims can do no other. And the corruption of the Al-Saud helps create the odd scion of plutocrats who, in Muslim terms most nobly, gives it all up to fight for "justice" against the corrupt rulers, but "justice," alas, Muslim-style, with the Muslim worldview, which means that all evil comes from Infidels, and all who are genuinely evil must be defined as, and treated as, Infidels, even if they may claim—falsely, obviously—to be Muslims, as do so many of the corrupt princes and princelings of Saudi Arabia.

That is one way the Al-Saud help swell the ranks of the Muslim terrorist groups.

The second way they do so is in building, and paying for the maintenance of, mosques and madrasas all over the world, but especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr, where those mosques, and those madrasas, can encourage the worst brand of Islam (this does not mean that a "milder" brand does not inculcate hatred of Infidels, for it must—it is a question of with what intensity, with what fervor, with what single-mindedness, the particular brand of Islam inculcates what is common to all of them, part of Islam itself). Nearly $100 billion has gone from the Saudis as part of the propaganda weapon on behalf of Islam, as part of world-wide Da'wa, and to pay for Western hirelings who will do the bidding and promote the interests of, and deflect criticism from, the Saudis as they continue their malevolent activities throughout the world.

The Al-Saud are rational actors. They can be threatened, and forced to cease their support for the mosques and madrasas and hate-filled propaganda. they can be threatened with seizure of their assets abroad. They can be threatened with a total removal of American guarantees, which they assume are permanent, for their safety. They can be threatened with a loss of secure American or other Western refuges if and when they are overturned. They can be threatened with the removal of Western doctors, and teachers, and a refusal to allow their children to study in the West, or for them to find medical care in the West. These are very dangerous threats—imagine if someone threatened you that you would never again be allowed access to advanced Western medical care.

And in the end, if they think they have that ace-in-the-hole, oil—you can show that you are willing to seize the oil in the al-Hasa province, oil conveniently close to tankers in the Persian (Persian, not Arab) Gulf, and that there are a thousand-and-one ways to deal with this situation. But this requires a complete change of tone to get the Saudi attention. Such attention will not be attained if those who continue to prate about a "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia, which one finds in such deplorable examples of the appeasement-of-the-Saudis mindset in the Op/Ed of one Flynt Leverett, described—even more disturbingly—as "former senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council"—and someone who has clearly been one of those who fails to understand that Saudi Arabia is not, and never has been, and never can be, the ally of an Infidel country, but that, if treated correctly, certain kinds of behavior on its part can be prevented, and certain other kinds of behavior forced from its rulers.

Congressman Tancredo, in raising the question of what would, or would not, work as deterrence, was performing a great service to discussion. It is of course difficult to predict what bombing Mecca would do. I tend to think it would be far better to discuss all the other kinds of deterrence that one knows will work, on the rational actors or quasi-rational actors within the dar al-Islam. And as for the fanatics, one can consider how to limit access to Mecca, airfield by airfield, port by port, highway by highway, until it should be as remote as the highest Himalayas, or some impassable and steaming jungle, or the frozen wastes of Ultima Thule. Mecca would still be there, but to get to it—that would be the problem. And that kind of deterrence would be a step-by-step affair.

But the question of the psychology of Muslims—of their combination of grandiosity and living in some mythical great past, and resentment over the miserable and obviously miserable present, where murderous hatred of Infidels is so often part of some grotesque ten-step Self-Esteem Program for those Muslims who have tasted the West, may even have used drugs or lived as criminals and now wish to go straight, Islamically straight—needs more examination.

However the debate over this or that kind of deterrence goes, the mere fact that such a debate takes place is good, for it automatically ends certain taboos. It makes clear that this is not a "war against terror" alone but a long campaign, very likely without end unless the migration of Muslims to the West is stopped and reversed (and while hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. claim to "wish to leave" one does not see any of them leaving—but more significantly, one has not heard, even from the most antisemitic and anti-Israel brigands, any pleas for them to remain), and unless the unearned and entirely unmerited OPEC oil wealth is so diminished that the Saudis, and the rest of them, can be pushed back into that state of obscurity, poverty, and general irrelevance that they were in before an accident of geology gave them power. In the meantime the Infidels, for their own safety, must work to create those conditions—or to do nothing to prevent the creation of those conditions—by which, like those in the Soviet Union who concluded that their own system had failed, Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the evident political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own peoples and polities, and will have to attribute those failures, correctly, to Islam itself.

Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle. One wonders what views they would have on the threat to bomb Mecca, or to limit access to Mecca, as something that might work on the groups and groupiscules that, unlike the sneering but carefully calculating members of the Al-Saud, are less subject to the ordinary threats of loss of income, loss of access to all the goods and services of the advanced Infidel world, even loss of life."

PAINTING A SIMPLE PICTURE

From Hugh Fitzgerald:

Muslims feel "isolated." Muslims feel "unwanted." Muslims feel "unloved." That's why they do what they do in southern Thailand, and the southern Philippines. That's why they decaptiate Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, attack Christan churches in Alexandria, or Baghdad, kill Hindus in Bangladesh and drive millions of them out, why the Taliban, those hyper-Muslims, forced Hindus in Afghanistan to wear yellow identifying robes, why they felt compelled to blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas, or destory churches in Gaza, or drive even "Palestinian" Christians out of Bethlehem. It's why death threats were made against Danish tourists, unless and until the editors of Jyllands-Posten were punished for daring to publish a handful of anodyne cartoons. That's why bombs went off in Atocha Station in Madrid, on the Underground in London, why a Moscow theatre was seized, why Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh were murdered.

"Not integrated." "Unwanted." "Unloved." Prove, Infidels, the contrary. Do everything you can to integrate those Muslims. Lavish every possible program on them—language, culture, all the things that no other group of immigrants appears to need, lest members of that group start hating those among whom they live. Provide every conceivable benefit: education, health care, subsidized housing, all far beyond what those hundreds of thousands, say, of Somalis now living in this country could ever have dreamed of at home, living in Muslim Misrule, Muslim Malgoverno. Pile it on. Dedicate, re-dedicate those mosques. Do whatever it takes. Don't say a word against Islam, don't even hint at it. Always and everywhere denounce those who beg to point out this or that disturbing feature of Islam. Shout them down. Censor their websites. Banish those "hate-mongers" to the outer darkness.

Keep it up.

KNOW THEM BY THEIR ICONOLOGY

Here's another piercing insight by Jihad Watch's own Hugh Fitzgerald, this time a long cold stare into the "morality play" we are now experiencing with the incident of the 15 British sailors captured by Iran in what has been falsely claimed as Iranian waters.

The parading of enemies, a staple of cruel and totalitarian regimes, begins with examples of Enemies of the State (domestic version), and those Soviet show trials of the Old Bolsheviks such as Bukharin, accused of the crime of being "wreckers" - "wrecking" things built on the glorious path to Communism. The foremost prosecutor was the inimitable Andrey Vyshinsky, back in the 1930s, and along with being "wreckers" those Old Bolsheviks (old enough to have known Stalin when he was just one more young psychopath, not yet powerful enough to find a 6000-mile-wide outlet for his peculiar urges). For more see Alexander Weisberg, "The Accused" or read, still better, the actual Soviet transcripts of the trials (the paper can crumble in your hands, so watch out).

Baby versions of the Soviet trials were also arranged in the countries of Eastern Europe, once they were seized by the Red Army and its local collaborators. After the noble Tomas Masaryk (the son) was murdered, thrown out of a building's window by the NKVD in the Second (or for purists, Third) Defenestration of Prague, and the Communists came to power, there was scarcely time to hold one's breath before Rudolph Slansky, and others, mostly but not exclusively Jews, were removed from power, and charged with treason. Stalin, back in Russia, was just warming up to the pleasing idea of finishing off Hitler's unfinished symphony of mass murder of the Jews, and the idea of the Doctors' Plot, and what would naturally follow, was hatching in his wolf-like primitive brain. The Slansky Trials followed, very quick, very efficient, readings aloud by the accused of confessions prepared carefully by the NKVD, and a good time was had by all.

Then came the Parading of Enemies (foreign style). The Chinese Communists did a lot of this, and the North Koreans: the bestial Americans, whether soldiers or civilians, captured and paraded, derided and berated. But this was still in the days before television was for the masses, so the parading was mainly for the world press.

The Iranians, in their earlier androlepsy (strictly speaking, a word that applies only to the seizure of diplomatic personnel), the seizure of the American Embassy in Teheran, and the parading of the blindfolded diplomats (one of those whom the Americans hostages saw on several occasions—see the testimoony of Don Sharer and others—was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), to be taunted and jeered and jostled about, all for the delight of the hysterical Iranians, in the first flush of their Khomeini madness.

Now it is the turn not of the Great Satan (America) or the Little Satan (Israel) but the Old and Cleverest Satan (in the Iranian mythology), England. The letter from Turney, the abashed confession given by British male sailor was at this point willing to yield (there will no doubt be others)—all of this is of a piece with Stalin or for that matter with those Chinese professors forced to wear dunce caps, and have affixed to their chests their own "confessions" before being paraded in the streets and then killed (or sometimes merely condemned to a lesser fate) during the "Cultural Revolution."

Any country or regime that puts on such parades, just as any country that has giant photographs of its leaders, shows its own country to be unfit for human habitation, and should be accorded not automatic respect (for its display, as the Iranian government thinks, of its might) but automatic contempt. No other proof is needed. It has conducted its own show trial. It accuses itself. It confesses to its own crimes, which it does not recognize as crimes. And it condemns itself, as Iran is now condemning itself.

And it will be punished.