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.

HONORING ORIANA FALLACI

Jack be nimble. Jack be quick. Jack jumped over the candlestick, and just in time to celebrate. No dhimmitude for these Italians. Government officials of Oppenao, Italy, have refused to build a mosque and will instead a plaza in honor of author Oriana Fallaci, Italy's La Republicca reports.

On May 17, bulldozers destroyed the little building that was used as a preach room and which was thought by Oppenao's muslims to become a mosque. The Oppenao mayor told journalists his citizens didn't want the mosque and they supported the idea of honoring Fallaci instead.

Fallaci, author of the book The Force Of Reason is known for her fight to raise awareness against islam. She died of cancer in 2006.

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

MOZART IN SAUDI ARABIA

DON'T OVERESTIMATE the power of the tease. As long as its oil and its oil wealth gives them the upper hand, the Saudi crown will not be fools when it comes to doling out tidbits to its first world dhimmis in this real-time international game of chess. Just a taste they will offer, then back to business as usual. The following event should not be taken as a crack in the dam, as the German ambassador suggests, but merely a rare toss of bone scrap to the cur dog infidels (and a few of its own ruling elite, of course. No harm in that) extending the long arm of taqiyya precisely enough to keep the kingdom’s dhimmis in check.

It's probably as revolutionary and groundbreaking as Mozart gets these days. A German-based quartet staged Saudi Arabia's first-ever performance of European classical music in a public venue before a mixed-gender audience. The concert, held at a government-run cultural center, broke many taboos in a country where public music is banned and the sexes are segregated even in lines at fast-food outlets.

The Friday night performance could be yet another indication that this strict Muslim kingdom is looking to open up to the rest of the world. A few weeks ago, King Abdullah made an unprecedented call for interfaith dialogue with Christians and Jews—’the first such proposal from a nation that forbids non-Muslim religious services and symbols, and often uses this type of open call for propaganda purposes to soften up resistence to its own Wahabi supremicism that it is busy exporting al over the world, particularly in the West.

"The concert is a sign that things are changing rapidly here," said German Ambassador Juergen Krieghoff, whose embassy sponsored the concert as part of the first-ever German Cultural Weeks in Saudi Arabia. Public concerts are practically unheard of in the kingdom. Foreign embassies and consulates regularly bring musical groups, but they perform on embassy grounds or in expatriates' residential compounds, and the shows are not open to the public.

Friday's concert of works by Mozart, Brahms and Paul Juon was the first classical performance held in public in Saudi Arabia, said German press attache Georg Klussmann. It was advertised on the embassy's Web site with free tickets that could be downloaded and printed. The excitement in the 500-seat hall was palpable as the largely expatriate audience walked in.

Japanese pianist Hiroko Atsumi, the quartet's only woman, said there was some debate before the concert about whether she should perform in an abaya, the enveloping black cloak all women must wear in public. She settled on a long green top and black trousers.

Among the first to arrive was Faiza al-Khayyal, a retired Saudi educator, with her 15-year-old daughter. Miss al-Khayyal said she had inquired about seating arrangements and had been told the audience would be mixed. Did she mind bringing her daughter to a mixed gathering? "It's OK with me," she said, adding with a smile: "I'm with her."

Faleh al-Ajami, an Arabic-language professor, brought his wife and two sons to the concert—a rare opportunity for the whole family to do something fun together. "It's a good step to introduce Saudis to classical music," Mr. al-Ajami, 50, said during the intermission.

For the expatriates, the evening was an opportunity to have a normal evening out in Riyadh, a city with no movie theaters and where women are not allowed in outdoor cafes. One foreign couple held hands, while another husband put his arm around his wife's shoulders—rare public displays of affection in the kingdom. The mutawwa, the dreaded religious police tasked with enforcing public morality, were nowhere to be seen for a change.

"I'm glad for an opportunity like this," said Mary Ann Jumawan, a 40-year-old administrator at the South Korean Embassy. "It's the first time in nine years here as a married couple that my husband and I go to a location like this."

But this last paragraph says it all. Not everyone was impressed, however. Saud al-Sabhan dismissed the notion that gatherings involving men and women together might one day become the norm. "Saudi society wouldn't accept it. And girls aren't used to such mixed gatherings," he said, adding that if he had a sister, she certainly would not have been allowed to attend.

See what I mean? Of course, I would rejoice to be proven wrong in this matter as in most matters of this nasty war which seems to have no name we can all agree upon. Unfortunately, my instincts and my education instruct me otherwise. Because if I am any judge of girls, I am inclined to believe that they "aren't used to" being burned alive either. For those of you who don't recall my reference:

Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from fleeing a burning building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, local newspapers reported. In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media accused them of blocking attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire March 18, 2002. About 800 students were inside the school in Mecca when the fire started. The daily al-Eqtisadiah reported that firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic law.

One witness reportedly saw three police "beating young girls to prevent them from leaving the school because they were not wearing the abaya." The Saudi Gazette quoted witnesses saying the mutaween—or Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice—stopped men who tried to help the girls, warning "it is sinful to approach them." The father of one of the 15 girls claimed the school watchman even refused to open the gates to let the girls out. "Lives could have been saved had they not been stopped by members of the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice," the newspaper concluded.

WAKE UP LITTLE DARLINGS, WAKE UP

Here's an excellent article written by Bruce Bawer, author of the essential While Europe Slept. Published by City Journal, "An Anatomy of Surrender" is a comprehensive detail of the ongoing voluntary submission of the West to Islamist attitudes and laws which over time will effectively destroy us.

Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West.

Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the Dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam.

Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. US muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s American Muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful.

Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and CW’s "Aliens in America." Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors.

Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito "Want to understand Islam? Start here."

There's lots more to this essay. We encourage you to read it all.

INTERVIEW WITH BILL WARNER (PT.2)

WASHINGTON—Welcome to part two of a riveting interview with laudible Bill Warner—the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com This interview was conducted by Jamie Glasov As we mentioned in thesend-up to part one of this interview, this, my friends, is serious reading material. Check your facts, if you doubt these, one by one, but please be certain of your sources. Analyze them as you would your mortgage papers. This is a war that begins with information, and disinformation is the primary tool of the enemy. Change your perspective from one of ignorance to that of an informed kafir citizenry. It is time, not only to love thy enemies, but to correct them as well..

FP: Give some advice as to how we can improve our organization.

Warner: Ok, let me lay out a theoretical organization devoted to attacking dhimmis.

We must organize as political activists. This can take a thousand forms, but since this is a Web article, let me suggest one possible form of war—personal educational attacks on dhimmis.

Organization: Wild Dog Team (must have a coordinating website).

Situation: a university professor of Middle East studies writes a puff piece about Islam in a large newspaper.

Response: A Wild Dog member posts the article to the Wild Dog target page. If this dhimmi writer has been attacked before, there is a historical record. (Assume this has been going on long enough that an email directory has been prepared for the newspaper staff and the University Middle East studies and the University Administration.) Other Wild Dogs sign up to do a pack attack.

A project page is created for this attack. The project page has some suggested ideas for attack lines. Each of the members writes a letter and sends it to the email list of the professor, the newspaper editorial staff, the University department and University Administration. The team member also posts his letter to Project Page. This lets other Pack members coordinate their letters and not duplicate.

The Library: The Wild Dogs Web page has a library of “best letters” so that cut and paste can be used for letter writing.

Tone: no personal attacks. Use facts of the doctrine and history. These letters are not to insult, but to educate. Shame works, use it.

Repetition: Each time the professor writes another letter or the newspaper publishes another dhimmi article, the Pack attack continues. Individual dhimmis can be influenced over time by knowledge, pressure and shame.

This is all doable. We have a lot of talent, but we are not organized.

Here is another organization idea: we kafirs have many Web sites. We need a communication network for our Web site owners. There are ideas, projects, strategies and tactics we could share and develop, and have a channel to advance some ideas.

We must make being a kafir a point of identity and pride. Call yourself a kafir in all relations with Muslims. We are the Free, free of Islam. Muslims are the slaves. We must make the word dhimmi a stinging, shameful rebuke, a punishing insult that hurts.

So I can’t make it any clearer and I need to shout:

Kafirs must organize and be politically active against the dhimmis.

FP: Let me switch over to some Christian apologists for Islam out there. They trying to make Islam seem right. There are also those Christians who oppose Islam but they are scared to come out. What are your thoughts on this phenomenon?

Warner: These are all manifestations of dhimmitude based upon ignorance and fear, the terms of surrender to Islam. Such people are not capable of defeating political Islam nor doing battle.

Jamie, I have been to some of the most outrageous Christian events. I have seen evangelical Christians stand up and defend Islam based upon what an imam told them. I know graduates from prestigious divinity schools say that a dhimmi was protected by Islam (warm and fuzzy) and the that Islam is a “brother Abrahamic faith”.

Some evangelicals admire Islam, because Muslims are so Puritanical and relentless in their public faith. Other Christians are jealous of Islam. Christians are reflexively attacked by the media and the intellectuals; mocked for their beliefs and given short shift for Christianity’s role in forming our civilization. You couldn’t even get the intellectuals to criticize Islam when they murdered and raped innocent school children in Beslan, Russia. Government, universities and the media fall all over themselves to “respect” and not “offend” Islam. Some Christians look at that and are wistful. This can lead to a kind of admiration. Islam may be like the Mafia, but they get respect.

Then you have the main line churches like the Episcopalians and Methodists. They compete with the Leftists to be the most tolerant and understanding dhimmis.

Christianity’s main problem in dealing with Islam is seeing it only as a religion. Therefore, they want to defeat Islam by conversion. Christians point to a few converts and say, “See it works.” The only problem is that more Muslims are born or immigrate than convert. Christians must do the math.

Christians are ignorant about Islam and don’t know how to use Mohammed for their benefit. If you know the life of Mohammed, you can use his brutality, enslavement of kafirs, deceit, and bigotry to attack Islam. The best strategy is to use the knowledge about Mohammed and the Koran to first cause the Muslim to become an apostate and leave Islam. Then they can convert the apostate to Christianity.

Christianity is the best, and maybe the only, chance we have of defeating Islam. Just earlier I said that our main problem was organizational. Christians have that solved and have, many times, exerted social and political pressure. Christians bring a certain mass to the solution. Just imagine what could happen if Christian intelligence, communications, organizational skills, morale and capital could be brought to bear. Christianity must realize that this is live-or-die as a civilization and there are only two choices—war or annihilation. See Turkey, Egypt, Iraq and North Africa for what an annihilated Christianity looks like.

It is time for Christians to learn the truth about political Islam’s history and doctrine. Protestant Christianity invented universal education. They must repeat this. This time they must educate themselves about the factual truth about Islam.

Now let’s deal with “scared to come out” part of your question. I know of both Christians and Jews who are afraid to speak about Islam at their church or synagogue. This lack of candor and honesty means that there are congregants who do not know that there are others feel just as they do. Silence has replaced honesty in both Christianity and Judaism. Both Christians and Jews are ruled by a desperate ignorance. The topic of Islam is forbidden to be discussed when ministers and rabbis get together at organizational meetings.

FP: What about the Jews?

Warner: A large portion of Jews are in a state of denial. When Islam comes up, their first instinct is to move from Islam to their irritations with Christianity. The vast majority of Jews don’t know Sira from syrup and think that Hadith is a Scottish dish. So they prove their “tolerance” by making apologies for Islam.

The true nature of Jews and dhimmitude is given in detail by Andy Bostom’s book, The Islamic Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (to be published in May, 2008). I am sure there is a rabbi somewhere who knows what a dhimmi is, but I have never met him.

Jews are the oldest and supreme dhimmis. They actually write propaganda for Islam. Bernard Lewis and Ruven Firestone are dhimmi sycophants of the highest order. They transform dhimmitude into an elitist Islamic Golden Age. And, of course, since Muslims are a minority in America, Jews would not want to be caught dead being bigots by opposing political Islam. So, the dhimmi Minnesota Jews helped vote in the first Muslim US Congressman whose supporters yelled “Allahu akbar” over and over again at his victory celebration.

There is no way to save Israel without understanding the jihadic nature of the Palestinians. But Jews must be willing to study political Islam to save Israel.

I am harsh in criticizing Christians and Jews because we cannot win without them. It is time to reverse a 1400-year history of deliberate ignorance and face the truth about the doctrine and history of political Islam. In the war to defend ourselves against political Islam, the Christians are like the regular army. The Jews are like the Marines. We need the intellectual power and influence of the Jews.

Jews and Christians could unite on a project that could save us. There is an enormous historical suffering in the Tears of Jihad. This material has never been collected. Jews have experience in documenting the Holocaust. They could work with Christians to collect and record the suffering. There is both old and ancient history to be collected and cataloged, along with the suffering of those alive today. This history must be preserved.

We can see we face an up-hill battle when it comes to unifying Christians and Jews to war against political Islam. It was Mohammed who said that Christians are endless divided and Jews have hearts harder than rocks. The actual task of attacking dhimmis is not so hard. It is assembling the army that is hard. Can evangelicals feel sympathy for the suffering of the Orthodox and Catholics? Many Jews don’t like the fact that they have to accept help from Christians for Israel. Historically Catholics have bad blood with the Orthodox. The first instinct of any Christian when they meet another Christian is to notice how they disagree about doctrine—endlessly divided. In the face of these divisions, we must assemble an army and prove Mohammed wrong.

We haven’t even talked about the secular kafirs. Kafirs are a quarrelsome lot and never seem to be happier than when they argue with other kafirs about politics. But the simple fact is that if all kafirs don’t unite against political Islam, Islam will unite them all when their descendants bow down and face Mecca at the call to prayer.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you.

Read it all.

INTERVIEW WITH BILL WARNER (PT.1)

WASHINGTON—What a treat we have for our readers, today. This is serious reading material, folks. Check the facts, if you doubt these, one by one, but please be certain of your sources. Analyze them as you would your mortgage papers. This is a war that begins with information, and disinformation is the primary tool of the enemy. Change your perspective from one of ignorance to that of an informed kafir citizenry. It is time, not only to love thy enemies, but to correct them as well.Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Jamie, thank you for inviting me.

FP: I would like to discuss the issue of dhimmis today. Let's begin like this: who are the dhimmis? And what different kinds are there?

Warner: Dhimmis begin with Mohammed. He was the world’s supreme master of making others submit to his will. Mohammed had the insight into the human psyche that all human beings have a genetic disposition to submit to the will of the group and higher ranked individuals.

We like to think of ourselves as individuals who can make decisions and freely execute them. Mohammed’s insight was into the submissive side of being human. To survive as a civilization we must allow others to dictate what we do to some extent. As an example, we all submit to the idea that we stop our car at the red light. We submit to society’s rules. We are not completely free, but a member of society. If we did not have this “pack” gene, we could not survive as a species. We must be able to work together. There is no way to survive alone.

In short, all humans have a beta gene, a submissive gene, as part of our DNA. But a beta needs an alpha. Mohammed was history’s supreme alpha male.

Previous religious leaders and philosophers approached humanity with the idea of freeing the individual from fear. Mohammed did not try to free humanity, but to make humanity a slave to Allah, the god of fear. So he “revealed” the ultimate alpha—Allah. Under Allah, all humans come to their fulfillment by being Allah’s slave. But since Mohammed was the only “prophet” of Allah, to obey Allah was to obey Mohammed. Islam is submission to Allah/Mohammed.

In his early phase in Mecca, Mohammed only talked about religious slavery to Allah/Mohammed. The Koran promises the use of violence in Hell after death. The Koran of Mecca has 67% of its text devoted to how the kafirs (unbelievers) must submit to Allah/ Mohammed.

Then in Medina, Mohammed’s message became political, and he became violent without limits towards kafirs. Mohammed made all the Jews of Medina submit to him by robbery, murder, war, assassinations, rape, torture, executions, exile and enslavement.

After he had subdued all of the kafirs in Medina, Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar. By now he realized that you could make more money from a live kafir than from a dead one. Kafirs can be enslaved, but the slave option has a disadvantage. Slaves have to be managed and be near at hand. So Mohammed created the dhimmi. The dhimmi agrees to live in a world that is dominated by Islam in all public areas. A dhimmi is free from Islam only in his own home. Law, customs, art, education, the media, government, speech and every thing in public space is Islamic. In addition, the dhimmi has to pay a tax to Islam called the jizya tax. In Khaybar the jizya tax was 50%.

The key psychological technique is that the dhimmi is to be humiliated in all possible ways. In effect, the dhimmi is halfway between freedom and slavery, a semi-slave.

Mohammed’s power structure was now complete. His first division of humanity was into believer/kafir. Then he refined kafir into dhimmi and slave. Humanity became divided into Muslim, kafir-slaves, kafir-dhimmis and kafirs.

As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.

FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?

Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.

In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.

There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor.

FP: I see, so two kinds of dhimmis.

Warner: Exactly, the word dhimmi has two separate meanings—a subjugated dhimmi is persecuted and the apologist dhimmi helps the persecutor. The context determines which dhimmi we are talking about. One dhimmi is to be pitied and helped; the other dhimmi needs to be educated. But the apologist dhimmi is the key to defeating Islam.

Our civilization is under attack by political Islam. It is the intent of Islam to do this country what it has done to every country it has invaded—annihilate our civilization. This annihilation is the goal of political Islam for a simple reason. Annihilation is the process of Islamification. We must understand that Islam is a totally separate civilization from ours. The civilization of Islam is anti-everything in our civilization. As an example, our ethical system has at its core the Golden Rule and is a unitary system. We have one set of ethical rules for all possible groups. Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs.

Kafir logic is based upon Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them must be false. Islamic logic is dualistic. The Koran establishes the logic of Islam. The Koran of Mecca contradicts the Koran of Medina, but since both Korans are perfect, both sides of the contradiction are true. Dualistic logic allows two contradictory “facts” to be true at the same time. Islamic logic is built on contradiction.

Allah is the god of duality and submission. Islamic civilization is based upon the principles of duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon the principles of unitary ethics and unitary logic.

FP: Right, ok, so our civilizations are completely different. We have nothing in common and our basic values are completely opposed to one another.

Warner: Jamie, this may be an extreme statement, but I am honestly unable to find even one issue on which Islam and the kafir culture agree.

Not one.

We have nothing in common. Since the Islamic civilization opposes us on every issue of art, politics, gender, education, the media, free speech, ethics, logic, family, and entertainment, it is an inevitable that the change would annihilate our civilization.

Mohammed agreed to a compromise with the kafirs once in the infamous Satanic verse when he compromised about prayer and the native Arabic gods. The Sira records that the act of compromise was the biggest mistake he ever made. After that, Mohammed never agreed with kafirs and never, ever compromised again. Total submission—annihilation—was Mohammed’s way.

There is no happy compromise that can be worked out with Islam. This is not because we are intolerant, unfeeling or stupid. As an example, the word kafir is the worst word in the human language. There is not one positive or neutral aspect to kafir. Allah loves Muslims and hates kafirs. What is the compromise that will let kafirs and Muslims live together harmoniously?

FP: Understood. So who are our enemies?

Warner: We have two ideological enemies—the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy—the apologist dhimmis. The apologist dhimmis preach that a compromise exists.

Now think about how the near enemy works. It is Islam that demands that Muslims write the “official” history of Islam that will be taught in the kafir schools. But it is an ignorant textbook committee of dhimmis that say, “Yes, only Muslims can write the official version.”

So our history courses never report the disaster of the loss of kafir culture in North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Hindustan. It is the dhimmis who decide the history, Islamic studies and Middle East departments and pass on lies as truth. It is a dhimmi government of America who has decided to base all of its policies on what the imam says. Islam knocks and we open the door and invite them in. Whatever Islam wants, the school board, textbook committee, zoning board, politician, educator, and media reporter gives them in order to be seen as tolerant.

Dhimmis roll over for all Islamic demands on our civilization. Dhimmis are aiding and abetting implementation of Sharia inch by inch. We are losing the war of annihilation due to the dhimmis, not the Muslims. It is not that Islam is so strong, but that we are so weak. We are weak because we are ignorant.

Who do you know—politician, professor, minister, rabbi, artist—who has read the Sira (the life of Mohammed) or the Koran? The heads of the FBI, military and the CIA have never given the slightest hint that they understand the doctrine or history of political Islam. All of these kafirs are dhimmis because they don’t know Islam.

The place to win the war of annihilation is to attack the near enemy, the dhimmi. Forget attacking the Muslims. That is useless.

FP: So what is the best way to wake up the dhimmis or, if they refuse to wake up, to defeat them? Tell us a bit about possible grand strategies.

Warner: The key to waking up the dhimmis is with two kinds of knowledge—history and doctrine. Our dhimmis suffer from wanting to do the right thing and they think that the right thing is to help the victim. And Islam always claims to be the victim. Dhimmis love a good victim story.

We need to tell the history of the real victims—subjugated dhimmis, the Christian Arabs, Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, the African slaves, the Hindus, and the rest. We need to tell our apologist dhimmis these victims, the story I call the Tears of Jihad.

The Western historical mind is schizophrenic. We have an enormous missing history. What’s missing is not the problem, the problem is that we don’t even know it is missing. I like to ask devout Christians, “What happened to the Seven Churches of Asia mentioned in the book of Revelation?” Most Christians don’t know how Greek Christian Anatolia became Turkish Islamic Turkey. Buddhists don’t know how Afghanistan became the ground zero of Ghandarvian Buddhism. Jews are in denial about their role as dhimmis in medieval Islamic history. North Africa used to be Greek and Roman. How did it become Islamic?

They all became Islamic with an invasion where the kafirs became subjugated dhimmis. Over the next centuries, all the dhimmis converted. The dhimmi is a halfway point to submission to Islam.

All of these civilizations were annihilated. It is the purpose and history of Islam to annihilate all kafir culture. But the enormous tragedy is that the history was annihilated as well. We don’t even know that such history exists, never mind what it is. Almost no kafirs ever refer to this non-history of annihilation.

How big is this non-history of annihilation? The total killed over a 1400-year period is about 270 million. That is the biggest single source killing in the history of the world. The history of the death of those 270 million is the Tears of Jihad. Each and every one of these people was killed for only one reason—they were kafirs.

FP: This was civilizational annihilation, right?

Warner: Yes, and it was a two-step process. The jihad crushed the kafir political structure and set up the natives as dhimmis. Centuries later, the kafir culture is annihilated because dhimmis always submit over enough time. Dhimmitude is a temporary state that leads to submission.

We must learn the history of the Tears of Jihad and present it to our dhimmi culture. Because it is not just that our leaders are dhimmis, but with the help of the media and education, our entire culture has been dhimmified. So the history of the subjugated dhimmi must be taught.

This is a major problem, for the Tears of Jihad history has been suppressed. The suppression did not occur because of some left or right wing cabal, but due to our own revulsion about the history. The history of the jihad and dhimmitude is so shameful and humiliating that we do not want to know. The kafirs totally lost everything that was in their culture. The language, art, customs, names, literature, legal systems, history—everything. When you go to Egypt, where is the living civilization of the pharaohs? When you go to North Africa, what happened to the Greek, Roman and Christian civilization? Annihilated.

But there are bits and pieces of the destruction of ancient kafir cultures that can be found, if you search. But you won’t find this history in the universities. The universities teach a beautiful lie of the glorious conquest of Islam and the “Golden Age” that followed.

We don’t teach this shameful and humiliating history of the deaths of Tears of Jihad for another reason. If we understand the past, then we understand that it is happening today. We don’t want to know it because that would mean we have to do something. We are like the man who suspects that his wife is cheating on him, but doesn’t want to know, because if he knew he would have to act. Ignorance is a good enough reason to do nothing.

But we must teach the apologist dhimmis the history of the subjugated dhimmis. The brutality of dhimmitude is too much to dismiss. The deaths of 270 million are too many to ignore. And what is worse, 210 million of these dead kafirs are “people of color”. Even your uber-liberal dhimmis can get upset at the suffering of “people of color”.

Not only can we save our culture by knowing what happened to other kafir cultures, but also we would pay a moral debt to the dead. Until we acknowledge and remember the 270 million dead, they will have died in vain.

FP: Is there another front of attack on dhimmis?

Warner: Yes, the second front of attack on dhimmis is to use the doctrine of political Islam. It seems that every dhimmi has a Muslim friend or at least has read an article that says that the “real Islam” is peaceful, blah, blah, blah. Well, we no longer need the doctrine of political Islam interpreted for us by a “good” Muslim or the New York Times. We can go straight to Mohammed and Allah and see what they say. That is the entire purpose of CSPI’s books, as well as many others such as those by Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer, is to expose the doctrine of political Islam.

You can’t go to a university to learn about Islam. The professors are the chief dhimmis and teach about Sufi poetry, Islamic architecture or modern political theory about the Middle East. But, the Web is filled with good sources on the doctrine of Islam found in the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). This material is scandalous. Mohammed was involved in violence on the average of every six weeks for nine years. The Koran talks about the kafirs as if they are the lowest scum in creation.

Not only is the political doctrine of Islam violent and hateful, but its results, the Tears of Jihad, are the worst single cause of suffering and the largest annihilation of people in human history. The story of the persecution of the dhimmis is dreadful. Mohammed was a violent and bad neighbor. This is all true and documented in fine detail by Islam.

All of the facts of persecution and doctrine of suffering are available to kafirs. So what? How can we force this material to be known? How can we deliver this ammunition? And to what target?

Our target must be the near enemy—the dhimmi, the apologist and enabler of Islam. Notice I said—the dhimmi, not the media, not the universities, not the government. We do not have the financial or political power to attack organizations.

But think about it. In every case, there is an individual involved. They may be the writer, the congressman, the professor, but their name is attached. We have to attack the specific dhimmi. By attack, I mean to invoke war, but this is an ideological war. Remember our ammunition is the doctrine and history of political Islam. We deliver that ammunition as best we know how.

While we are at it, we should also attack the dhimmi’s support network. If they are a newspaper writer, we also attack the editors and others who support or administer the writer. We attack the specific person and their network.

A lesson from the predators: a big cat kills in about 10% of its attacks. A wild dog pack kills about 90% of the time. Do the math. The wild dogs are organized, the big cats aren’t. We are too much like the big cats. We have to learn how to attack in packs.

We have very strong propaganda material. The kafirs have the best books, the best thinkers and the best Web sites. Islam has money, organization and a 1400-year head start so they are winning. Where we are tragically weak is in organization (including organizational money).

Read it all.

UGLY HABITS OF SAUDI REGIME

When the Left finishes with Tibet, perhaps they'll swing over to focus on Saudi Arabia for a duration or two. But until that cold day in American history, Turkey's president and prime minister have stepped in to save the life of a Turkish man sentenced to die in Saudi Arabia. The prisoner's capital offense: using God's name in vain during an argument with a neighbor, according to Turkish newspapers.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul has penned a letter to Saudi King Abdullah requesting a pardon for Sabri Bogday, a barber who moved to Jeddah from southeastern Turkey more than a decade ago. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has also reached out to Saudi officials on the barber's behalf.

Apparently, Bogday had an argument with an Egyptian neighbor in Jeddah. The neighbor told authorities that Bogday had "cursed the name of God."

Bogday was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, even though his accuser has apparently disappeared.

Actually we are led to understand that two witnesses (Muslim men), or four Muslim women, or four Christian or Jewish men are required to convict on these charges and many more. The testimony of non-Muslim women is not admissible nor is the testimony of non-Muslim men who are not Christian or Jew admissible in a Shari'a court.

Throughout history where dhimmis have lived under the yoke of Muslim oppression it has been and remains to this day, a common practice for two Muslims to accuse a dhimmi of some wrongdoing in order to cancel debts or settle vendetta. It is harder for a dhimmi to defend themselves (by bringing witnesses in their favor) than it is for Muslims to defend themselves since dhimmi can never find two Muslims who are willing to testify against another Muslim.

Shari'a is quite a garbage can. It never scaled up successfully from its roots as a primitive tribal warrior code. It is the codification of an ideology that truly needs to be expunged from the planet forever, just as other tribal codes such as cannibalism also needed to be expunged.

Make no mistake interpreting what we are saying. We advocate the extermination of the ideology, not its adherents. If its adherents however do not accede to the abandonment of the elements of the ideology that compels them to make perpetual war on their non-Muslim neighbors, then they become criminals and choose their own destruction.

The World Coalition, an anti-capital punishment group said that of 158 people who were executed in Saudi Arabia in 2007, 76 of these were foreigners. The group said that migrant workers were at greater risk of having death sentences carried out.

The group noted: "Saudi Arabian justice is particularly intransigent towards foreign workers and especially those from poor countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who represent nearly a quarter of the country's population."

"On occasion, their sentence depends solely on confessions obtained under constraint, torture or subterfuge. Trials take place in secret and the accused and their families are not informed of the accusations against them or the evolution of the procedures concerning them."

Read it all.

RUNAWAY LIBERALIZATION POLICIES

I'M WRITING FROM Sweden. Things are looking really bad here. Well, they have been for years actually—I live just outside of Malmö. The incidents that are referred to are all with the involvment of young Muslim males.

Here in the surburbs we have young Muslim males cruising in their vehicles all the time. Burglaries have gone up explosively—my family and I have had 3 burglaries in under 9 months! There have been 3 recorded rapes in this little surburb of 5000 people, a lot of violence against young Swedes and many more incidents. We are actually afraid to go out in the evening. That was not the case just 3-4-5 years ago. People feel unsafe and sometimes I talk to others about moving eventually, maybe Norway or some place else in Sweden.

Some 1-2 months ago I was at the local office in Malmø and a foreigner drew a gun after an argument with a lady. He shortly threatened her with the gun pointing in her face and then ran away. I came just minutes too late and had the whole incident described to me by a shocked witness. For days I waited for the media to write about it, but I have not seen anything yet. I cannot believe that it was not reported, but I am afraid that the journalists are taking the next step. That is, simply not to write about the upcoming crime at all!

I think all the people of southern Sweden have a feeling of that something is totally wrong at the moment. So much crime, so much violence. It has become normal like a colleague said to me.

“We better get used to it, it is just a natural development in our modern society with the liberal values. We have to put faith in the politicians, they know about this!” Inside I get angry at this naive and hopeless position. Why does it have to be this way? Are things in Denmark and other parts of Sweden not normal? The experts say that crime is not rising, that it is the same as it has always been, people just record more. It makes me sick to see these experts week after week, month after month.

But since I am from Malmö I cannot remember having experienced things like these ever:

In Malmö, I saw a man, 35-45, attacked by two young males a year ago and decided that I was going to testify, but the man who was attacked did not want to go to court. He lost some of his teeth and I helped him picking them up.

I have seen 3 car accidents the last 2 years and I find this strange, but each time there were young Muslim males involved in the car crash. One time they went totally nuts and were about to hit a younger lady who was in the other car and without fault with a bottle. And when the ambulance came they were about to fight them and one of them eventually got arrested when the police showed up.

Every now and then shouting and pushing in the streets when the Muslims get into arguments with each other. It’s seems so aggressive and Swedes get threatned when they dare stop and look at the argument.

Last summer some colleagues of mine had rocks thrown after them by some minor youths (10-11-12-13 years old). One of my colleagues told them to “Beat it” and was hit by a rock in the back when he turned around. He had to go to the hospital and could not work for 3 weeks.

My nephew, 19 years old who lives with my brother and his wife in Malmö, has been attacked 3 times in a short period of time. Each time he was jumped by a gang of 5-10 muslim males —sometimes much younger than he is. There are witnesses, but they are too afraid to step forward and to talk to the police and meeting in court. The second time he was beaten up so severely that he had to go to the hospital for a week. The police arrested some of the attackers the second time, but since there were “no” witnesses they could not go further.

My nephew’s younger brother, 14, tells tales of frightened Swedish teenagers who are terrorized by Muslim males in school. Every day some one gets something stolen. They all know who did it, but the teachers shut their eyes and the police won’t do anything about it.

He can tell of classmates getting robbed when they go shopping in Malmö. Some of the Muslim males even bring weapons to school and flash them in the classroom to both impress and schock the other children. The school has been set on fire a few times.

I know that there are many good Muslims out there and that it is only a minority of them who are causing all these problems. But you cannot say anything these days —immediately people get suspicious and ask if you vote for SverigeDemokraterne, which I believe is a racist party with proven Nazi-relations.

—Fredrik

There's your problem, Fredrik. You're afraid of what people will think if you vote for anything but a liberal party. Why CAN'T you say anything? Why can't you speak up against crime and intimidation? What liberal values ever extolled crime? Why would people get suspicious about someone who wanted law and order? Why are you afraid to stand up for your own right to exist?

If you want change you need to be willing to change your own voting habits. Instead you're snookered by people who say the opposition is "racist" or "Nazi". Talk about political correctness! The old axiom is as true today as it ever was: people in a democracy get the government they deserve.

That is a sad story, but all too common in the West now days, but you, and other Swedes, don't have to live with it. Embrace the spirit of Charles XII who was reported to have once said, "I have resolved never to start an unjust war but never to end a legitimate one except by defeating my enemies."

If it's choice between a Swedish racist, and a Muslim dominated society, I know which one I'd choose. Besides, anyone who doesn't tow the Liberal multiculturalist line is going to be labeled a racist. If SverigeDemokraterne is calling for a stop to Muslim immigration to Sweden, and the expulsion of those who won't conform to the values and principles of Swedish society, that does not make him a Racist. It makes him a defender of Sweden and the Swedish way of life. Too often people allow themselves to be intimidated and beat down by name-calling politicians.

And it sounds like that's what's happening with Swedes.

Name the problem: Muslims in Malmo are engaging in bullying, threats and ghazi raiding, as per their observed behavior on three continents over 1300 years, in order to intimidate the locals and seize territory. This has to be confronted and stopped while Muslims are still essentially outnumbered.

A RECURRING TALE OF POLITICAL HORROR

Writer Dan Simmons has penned a chilling piece of sci-fi worth any pair of eyes you've got. Read it here.

After reading the Dan Simmons tale, return to this page to the menace of demographic conquest outined in the following, originally posted here by Rebecca Bynum:

As George Santayana wrote: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Regarding Islam, we don’t have to look back hundreds of years to learn from history. All we need do is look at what has happened in Great Britain over the past three decades.

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called "religious rights."

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to "the reasonable" Muslim demands for their "religious rights," they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book, 2007).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States—Muslim 1.0%
Australia—Muslim 1.5%
Canada—Muslim 1.9%
China—Muslim 1%-2%
Italy—Muslim 1.5%
Norway—Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark—Muslim 2%
Germany—Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom—Muslim 2. 7%
Spain—Muslim 4%
Thailand—Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves—along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France—Muslim 8%
Philippines—Muslim 5%
Sweden—Muslim 5%
Switzerland—Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands—Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago—Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris—car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam—Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana—Muslim 10%
India—Muslim 13.4%
Israel—Muslim 16%
Kenya—Muslim 10%
Russia—Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia—Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia—Muslim 40%
Chad—Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon—Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania—Muslim 70%
Malaysia—Muslim 60.4%
Qatar—Muslim 77.5%
Sudan—Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh—Muslim 83%
Egypt—Muslim 90%
Gaza—Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia—Muslim 86.1%
Iran—Muslim 98%
Iraq—Muslim 97%
Jordan—Muslim 92%
Morocco—Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan—Muslim 97%
Palestine—Muslim 99%
Syria—Muslim 90%
Tajikistan—Muslim 90%
Turkey—Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates—Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam"—the Islamic House of Peace—there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan—Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia—Muslim 100%
Somalia—Muslim 100%
Yemen—Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that's not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel."
—Leon Uris, "The Haj"

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"

LE PEN CONVICTED FOR AN OPINION

Here's an interesting item. Jean-Marie Le Pen has been convicted of racism and fined 10,000 euros for remarks he made about Muslims four years ago. La Croix reports:

Jean-Marie Le Pen was fined 10,000 euros on Wednesday by the Paris appeals court for provocation to discrimination, hatred and racial violence, as a result of his remarks about Muslims printed in the April 2004 edition of the extreme right-wing journal Rivarol.

The 11th chamber of the court of appeals also sentenced the president of the Front National to 5000 euros in damages to be paid to the plaintiff, the Human Rights League. The lower criminal court had "nullified the suit" against him; thus he escaped conviction at the first hearing.

On April 2, 2004, the criminal court of Paris had condemned Jean-Marie Le Pen for an interview he gave to Le Monde on April 19, 2003, in which he declared: "The day when we have in France not 5 million but 25 million Muslims they will be our masters. The French people will hug the walls, they will walk on the sidewalks with their eyes lowered. And if they don't, they will be stopped: 'Why are you looking at me like that, are you looking for a fight?' And you will have to run, or else you'll be beaten," he added.

A month later Le Pen was back on the offensive in an interview in Rivarol: "Furthermore whenever I said that with 25 million Muslims in France the French people will hug the walls, people in the audience would say to me, and rightly so: 'But Mr. Le Pen, that is already the case now.'"

It was for these new remarks that he was convicted on Wednesday.

"The defendant pits the French against the Muslims (...) and attempts to arouse (...) a feeling of rejection and hostility towards the Muslim community," the court decided Wednesday. "His words instill in the mind of the public the belief that the security of the French depends on rejecting Muslims and that fear and apprehension, linked to their growing presence in France, will cease if their numbers decrease and if they disappear," the court added.

Orwellian thought control is nearly complete. The Anti-Christ is ascending.

EUROPE THREATENED BY BIGOTS, NOT ISLAM

Bigot. Rhymes with spigot. As in the full flushing spigot of Islamic immigration. This "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, except about one's own people" is the ruthlessness and stupidity that keeps on giving, folks.

Here is the statement by Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, on the march “Against the Islamisation of Europe” today in Brussels:

"European values are under threat, say the organisers of a protest march under the banner “Against the Islamisation of Europe” which was due to place today in Brussels in spite of the ban by the city Mayor. The fact is that Europe and its values are indeed under threat, but the danger is not coming from Islam. Our common European values are undermined by bigots and radicals, both islamists and islamophobes, who exploit fears and prejudice for their own political objectives."

The article continues with the same patronizing superior airs of appeasement:

"The self-proclaimed defenders of European values say that the Mayor has violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The freedom of assembly and the freedom of expression are indeed essential preconditions for democracy, but they should not be regarded as a licence to offend. I will not enter into the discussion about whether the march should have been allowed or not, but I note that the protesters’ reading of the Convention is selective to say the least. It is very important to remember that the freedom of assembly and expression can be restricted to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This applies to everyone in Europe including the millions of Europeans of Islamic faith, who were the main target of today’s shameful display of bigotry and intolerance."

Does this stuffed shirt ever leave his office to observe the intolerant slander and murderous assaults on civilization posited by "moderate" Muslims on their own signage when THEY are on parade? Obviously not. The one-sidedness of PC oblivion is never so apparent as when these folk speak of "millions of Europeans of Islamic faith" of whom they reel back in fear and terror. I say, follow the purse-strings. Saudi money has softened the blow of capitulation for these wimps and liars willing to sell out his own civilization to a people who are quite vocal in despising it.

Well, as Robert Spencer of Dhimmi Watch puts it, this is "moral equivalence of the first water." Ever notice that these so-called "Islamophobes" are not flying planes into buildings? Neither are not predicting their conquest of Europe. Nor are not physically attacking people who do not conform to their code of conduct in the great numbers we see under-reported every day in European and Asian media sources.

Stop blowing things up in the name of Islam, and this so-called "Islamophobia" will disappear. That Terry Davis would ignore all this and equate these two is unconscionable.

Read more here.

HURT FEELINGS DEFENSE

Faisalabad (AsiaNews) – It is dangerous to say that Christ is the son of God because this declaration “hurts the feelings of many Pakistani Muslims” who “do not want to hear such things, even in Christian Churches”. This warning was delivered by some residents of Punjab to local Christian congregations who “should immediately stop their prayers to the supposed son of God”.

Of course, what he means is when Muslims get their feelings hurt, they get violent and kill and destroy. It's a veiled threat to renounce Christianity or die.

Charles Hamilton, a Christian from Faisalabad, told AsiaNews, “We believe in Jesus, son of God. How can we renounce this belief? What’s more, if we bow to this request, not only will we go against our religious values, we will pave the way for more conditions to be imposed on us, which would destroy us.”

These stories about Muslim "sensitivity" are legion. Muslims must explain why their feeling are more important than others. Muslim's are among the worst human rights abusers in the world. They must explain why this is the case! In the West, Muslims enjoy many many rights, however a Christian is not allowed to even live.

From Great Britain, another writes:

So, it is more important to witness the plight of Christians in Faisalabad, great though it is, than it is to witness the plight of Christians in many of the Western countries to which we all belong.

Forbidden to ring our bells because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden to parade our ancient relics through the streets because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden to take the sign of the cross upon us in public because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden from wearing under or over our clothing any Christian symbol because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden from uttering any of our prayers in public because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden from educating our children in the ways of Christ in the schools which we pay for because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden from having friends drawn from the elder faith (the Jewish faith) because doing so offends the Muslim minority, forbidden from celebrating our own nationality lest in doing so we offend the Muslim minority, forbidden from flying our own flags in case the Muslim minority objects and calls it racist, forbidden from celebrating our ancient festivals—secular, Christian or pagan—in case the Muslim minority find, in our doing so, some objectionable content, forbidden from building new places of worship too close to a mosque because the tiny Muslim minority might be offended: forbidden, in the final analysis, from being English and free because the minority Muslim population of this once greatly free country object!

And the myth of the religion of peace rages on!

FISHING FOR A PERFECT SOLUTION

The following essay by Rachel Neuwirth and titled "A Win-Win Solution To the Arab-Israeli Conflict" was written as a win/win solution to the so-called Palestinian problem, but it simply does not take into account the Mohammedan precept of annihilating the Jews from the face of the earth wherever they find them. And since such is the case, no amount of logic or cajoling will suffice in convincing the Arab nations in the Camp of Islam to abandon its prime directive. The only anecdote to this crisis is to soundly defeat and eradicate this ideology no less than Naziism was squashed less than a century plus ago. The Muslim populations must be disabused of their diabolical ideology, forever. Islam, after all, does mean "submission" in Arabic.

Let's say it again: Muslims only recognize 3 types of peace with infidels—death, conversion to islam, or dhimmitude (which is offered only to Jews, Christians and Zorastrians who fearfully acknowledge that Mohammed is the Muslim's prophet and also concede other Islamic ideas).

Israel has a very ignorant, very timid, very confused, very bad government. It has had such governments for quite a while. In this it is little different from the rest of the civilized Western world, failing to come to grips with a problem that was foreseen, and analyzed, long ago, by a very few specialists in Islamic matters, most notably that soft-spoken small and steely woman, Bat Ye'or.

But for its own sanity, and the safety not only of its people but to help get other Infidels thinking about their situation, the government of Israel has a duty to raise the issue of Al-Hudaibiyya and force declarations on the matter from Arab states. The very phrase a “final peace settlement” rings hollow to anyone familiar with the tenets of Islam. For there can never be a “final peace settlement” between Moslems and non-Moslems. The model for treaties is the agreement made between Muhammad and the Meccans in 628 A.D., the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya.

It was supposed to be a “truce” treaty that would last 10 years. It lasted scarcely 18 months, when Muhammad, feeling that his forces had grown sufficiently, breached the agreement on a pretext, and attacked the Meccans. As Majid Khaddui notes in War and Peace in Islam, this Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya became the model, and the basis, for all future “treaties” with Infidel peoples and polities.

And it has another duty. That duty is to raise the even larger question: what does Islam inculcate, what do Muslims believe, about the permanence of any Infidel state, anywhere? Yes, we know the answer. But not everyone does. And everyone among the Infidels everywhere—in Thailand, and in India (where some may think that sacrificing Kashmir will lead the Muslims of Pakistan and India to cease their attacks, when it will do nothing of the sort), and in the Philippines, and in France and Germany and Great Britain and Spain and the Netherlands and Belgium and Norway (in the grim grip not of Thor's sons but of Quislingettes, of the unshakeably pro-"Palestinian" variety) and Sweden (more or less ditto).

The Spanish need to know what the Moroccans in their midst think, what they think when they hear the word "Al-Andalus." And the Portuguese. And those living in southwest France, right up to Poitiers. The Italians need to understand what will happen to Sicily. The Greeks, the Serbs (no, they don't need to be reminded, they know), the Croats, the Slovenes, the Rumanians, the Bulgarians, even the Hungarians, need to know what, in Islamic terms, their former status under Ottoman Muslim rule means for their status, in Muslim eyes, today.

And what about the rest of us, living as we fondly believe, in places that were never part of Dar al-Islam? What we, in North America and Australia and other places fail to realize, is that the whole word belongs to Islam, and it is only a matter of time and tactics, in the Muslim view. While some Muslims have comically tried to backdate their connection to various places—claims that Muslims settled long ago in Australia, or were on the boat with Columbus, have already been tellingly made, and while Infidels joke about it, that kind of thing is not quite a joke for the Muslim masses, steeped deeply in a crazed view of history, easily susceptible to any tall tale or conspiracy theory, a susceptibility made much greater than among most non-Muslims today because Islam, more than any other belief-system called a religion, inculcates the habit of mental submission, to not merely the will, of Allah, but to the whim of Allah, who does whatever he wants, breaks every rule

And since Israel are not behaving as proper dhimmi—their only choice is to start behaving as proper dhimmi—if they want to live. Their land is Muslim booty and to be distributed as the Muslims see fit. Or else, join the dead. This is the Muslim way, and the Saudis with their Wahhibi evangelism are primary instigators, and have no intention in "solving" the problem.

Here is Ms. Neuwirth's well-meaning but rather naive essay:

A true solution requires confronting two fundamental issues: 1. Current proposals, including the Road Map, are totally unworkable and should be abandoned. 2. An entirely fresh approach is required that is free of imposed constraints. The purpose of this essay is first to briefly challenge the entrenched mindset and then advance a win-win solution for both Jews and Arabs.

Before proposing the proper solution it is necessary to first demonstrate the falsity and futility of some of the main arguments intrinsic to the Oslo Accords and to the Road Map.

Demonstrably false argument #1: Israel should trade 'land for peace' to create yet another Arab country.

There are 22 Arab countries and only one Jewish country. The land-rich Arabs already occupy over 5 million square miles and land-poor Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 10,000 square miles. The Arab areas are thus 500 times larger than Israel and the Arabs already possess 99.8% of the total land. The so-called West Bank and Gaza areas combined total 2,300 square miles and comprise a miniscule 0.046% of the entire Arab empire - and to seize this speck of land the Arabs are adamant and willing to fight and die forever! Only a mind, hopelessly out of touch with reality, can seriously suggest that the Arabs need still more land, carved out of Israel, to create yet another country.

Demonstrably false argument #2: The 'Palestinians' are a separate people who deserve their own country.

There are no authentic 'Palestinian' people and there never was. Even the name of Palestine is a historic fraud perpetrated by the Romans, to permanently erase the original name of Judea, following the Jewish revolt against Rome of two thousand years ago. As recently as the 1940's the name 'Palestinian' clearly meant a Jew in the land of Israel and Arabs were simply called Arabs. After Israel's rebirth the local Arabs appropriated that now-available title for themselves and created a new identity.

This was done for purely hostile political purposes to undermine Israel's legitimate right to its biblical homeland. In all of history there never was a Palestinian nation, or country, or people, or language, or religion, which was distinct from the existing Arab counties in that region. Repeated attempts to rewrite history must never be allowed to corrupt the truth. To fully expose the 'Palestinian' hoax in modern times one should read Joan Peter's critically acclaimed book, From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine.

Demonstrably false argument #3: We can have a viable 'Palestinian' state in the so-called West Bank and Gaza next to a viable Israel.

Proponents of the Road Map offer NO development plan whatsoever. Any genuine plan must include a comprehensive environmental impact study covering: population growth; water resources; agriculture resources; economic development; social and political considerations; et cetera, with projections extending through at least the next century. Proponents offer NO plan because it is impossible to design any plan that enables both peoples to live viably in so tiny an area along with normal population growth. Below are projections for population growth in Israel and the territory of the proposed Palestinian state, based on current growth rates:

Inside Israel. Assuming continuation of their current growth rates for the next hundred years, Israel's Jews at 1.5% per year become 28 million and Israeli Arabs at 3% per year become 23 million. That totals 51 million Jews and Arabs living on less than 8,000 square miles with a density of 6,500 per square mile. The Israeli Arabs have double the Israeli birth rate and are already 23% of the total population and gaining. They remain mostly hostile and will soon be able to gain political control and they already hold about 10% of the Knesset seats. Israel will thus be unable to remain permanently Jewish and the Israeli Arabs will always be seeking to advance their Arab identity in conflict with Israel.

Inside the territories. At their present high growth rates the Palestinian Arabs, inside the West Bank and Gaza, growing at 3-4% per year become 120 million in 100 years. Including all the Palestinian refugees, who could migrate in from outside, would add another 47 million. Thus there are a potential total of 167 million Arabs in the projected Palestinian state in 100 years in an area of only 2,300 square miles for an astronomical density of 72,500 per square mile.

Many fail to appreciate the awesome power of compound growth until it is too late. These are only projections but long before those numbers are reached the area will explode in misery and conflict based on a crushing burden of population overload, aside from any political conflict. It is totally impossible for that many people to survive, much less thrive, in such a tiny area. That should be obvious to all.

Demonstrably false argument #4: Arab possession of their 22 countries and 5 million square miles is legitimate and not to be challenged.

Just how did the Arabs come to control such vast territories? They got it the old fashioned way—by conquest! Before Mohammed, 1,400 years ago the Arabs lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed founded Islam and with it the zeal for jihad to conquer and convert, often by force. During the period following Mohammed the Arabs conquered vast areas in North Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia and spread Islam far and wide. Today Arabs directly control 5 million square miles and 22 sovereign states, while non-Arab Islamic countries control nearly another 5 million square miles.

The Arabs often claim that they were the original inhabitants in the land of Israel. Actually Arab invaders did not enter the land of Israel until about the year 638 C.E. while Jews had established their first commonwealth under King David, with Jerusalem as their capital, over 1,600 years earlier. Archaeologically, the entire land of Israel gives testimony to the ancient Jewish presence, but there is no evidence of any ancient Arab settlers presence. And most of those 22 Arab States, including Iraq and Jordan, were first created by England, France or Italy during the past century to further their imperial interests, and with no historical justification.

In summary, advocates of these senseless schemes seriously propose to: invent a people that never was; seize land from Jews having virtually no land; transfer that Jewish land to those with too much land and unrelenting murderous hatred; and then let them all grow in numbers and suffocate together inside of a coffin-size territory - all in the name of peace and justice! That is what passes for thinking in this insane world. The Road Map guarantees a lose-lose outcome - we need a win-win outcome.

The true basis for a lasting peace:

A far-sighted Arab-Jewish agreement was arrived at 85 years ago but was never fully implemented. This still-legal agreement provides the basis for a solution today and should become widely publicized and supported.

In 1919, following the end of World War I, an international Paris Peace Conference was convened by the victorious Allies to settle international questions. Delegations attended from around the world including an official Arab and Zionist delegation. The Arab delegation was led by Emir Feisal I, who agreed that the entire Palestine territory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would become the Jewish national home and expressed that position in separate letters to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter. In return for Arab support the Zionists promised economic and technical assistance to the local Arabs and the Allied powers agreed to grant eventual sovereignty to many of the Arab peoples in the region that were previously under control of the former Turkish Ottoman Empire.

This conference, and a subsequent one at San Remo Italy, amicably settled the issues among the parties with voluntary, legally binding, international agreements. In 1922 the League of Nations assigned Britain as the Mandatory to faithfully carry out these agreements. It was British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill who unilaterally divided Mandatory Palestine into an exclusively Arab sector (Trans Jordan) and a Jewish sector. The Arabs received 76% of the original territory, comprising 35,000 square miles, located east of the Jordan River. That left the Jewish sector with only 10,000 square miles out of their original 45,000 square miles, which was still less than 1% of the combined Arab areas of 5 million square miles. That remaining Jewish sector is today contested with the 'Palestinians' claiming the 'West Bank' and Gaza to create, in effect, a second Palestinian state. (Jordan is mostly Palestinian.) It was the British, in 1919, who began to undermine their own Mandate and to instigate the Arabs against Jews.

The Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel has a policy paper no. 147 titled, "Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine Under International Law" by Howard Grief, author of the forthcoming book. It ably summarizes the post-World War I settlement of the Palestine question and its subsequent betrayal by the British government entrusted with implementing it.

A few extracts from the executive summary will indicate its importance:

"Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period. ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ... The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state. ... The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine. ... Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world."

It has been argued, by scholars of international law, that the agreements of the international Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and their formal assignment to Britain as the Mandatory by the League of Nations, continue to be legally binding on all parties under international law. In addition to Jewish legal claims based on the 1922 law a case can be made that it is also morally binding and that England is guilty of bad faith and for having engaged in deliberate sabotage of that agreement. A most promising beginning for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East was deliberately undermined by England and this part of history must be brought to bear upon the present conflict. Israel has a right to make full land claims under that 1922 Mandate by the League of Nations. The Arabs should also be made aware that it was England that instigated them against the Jews in pursuit of British imperial interests and to the disadvantage of both Arabs and Jews.

Significantly, Arab support for a Jewish state was clearly manifested at the Paris Peace conference of 1919. This should also be part of the legally binding Arab obligations to acceptance of a Jewish state with full rights. Emir Feisal I, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Excerpts of two letters from Emir Feisal to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and to Felix Frankfurter indicate their friendly relations and high hopes for Jewish - Arab cooperation. Also note in the following text the term 'Palestine' clearly refers to the Jewish national home and not to any Arab entity or people.

From Emir Feisal to Dr. Weizmann:

"His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish People, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:"

Article IV: "All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlements and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development."

From Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter:

"... We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of the powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together."

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home."

"People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and the Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital our of what they call our differences."

What remains now is for all parties to courageously and boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919 agreement. Those Arabs who have an acquired identity as 'Palestinian' should be given a far better alternative option than to be buried alive inside a non-viable illegal micro-state carved out of the Israeli heartland.

The Win-Win solution...

Contrary to popular belief, the Arab-Israeli conflict has a reasonable solution. An orderly resettlement elsewhere of the so-called Palestinian Arabs would solve this long-standing 'intractable' problem. To propose this solution today elicits automatic rejection by almost everyone and perhaps even anger and hostility at its very mention (although attitudes may finally be changing). This is because the minds of many have been so thoroughly conditioned, with layer upon layer of repeated falsehoods, such that open-minded reconsideration is almost impossible. But resettlement could become the basis of a win-win solution for both sides.

For example Saudi Arabia comprises some 750,000 square miles. It has a very low population density of only 33 per square mile vs. 1,000 for Israel including the territories. A modest 4% of Saudi Arabia, some 30,000 square miles, should be set aside for a new Palestinian state. That state would be 13 times the size of the present Palestinian area proposed under the Road Map and would now have ample space for natural growth. All of the intractable problems facing both Jews and Arabs, arising under the present schemes, would be eliminated. The Palestinians could now construct their own state with full political independence, self-rule and full dignity. The sources of friction between them and Israel would now be removed along with all the immense human and material costs associated with the current conflict.

Palestinians could begin using their legitimate 'right of return' to exit the territories, and the refugee camps, and migrate back to their ancestral home in Arabia and thereby also be closer to Mecca and Medina. A fraction of the countless billions spent on weapons by the Arab governments could fund the cost of establishing new settlements for the Palestinians. Israel would be free of Arabs, and the Palestinians would be free of Israel. The deep wounds of both peoples would now have a chance to heal.

In early 2004 a poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows 37% willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. And this is before a far better deal has been offered, including true self-rule, peace and security, plus their own ample territory. What if 'Palestinians' were offered a homeland territory, drawn from lands donated by one of the more spacious Arab countries, one expressing continuous concern, love for, and outrage at the treatment of these very same folk?

Israeli Arabs could play a constructive role in this because of their higher level of education and their experience living as full citizens in democratic Israel. They would become the managerial and entrepreneurial class and provide valuable assistance and leadership for fellow Palestinians who were stagnating in refugee camps inside other Arab countries. This crime was committed by their own brother Arabs, who refused to allow them to settle.

Once the migration starts toward a far better future the movement could well accelerate voluntarily because the first ones to relocate would receive the best 'ground floor' opportunities and the last ones to move would get what remains. Today there are tens of millions of people on the move around the world in search of better living conditions, so relocation is a long established and viable option for everyone.

Another important advantage is that Israeli-Palestinian interaction would be limited to the selling of Arab homes in the territories and an orderly exit. No more frustratingly complex agreements as with Oslo where Israel honors all commitments and Arabs violate all commitments, and even U.S. assurances often prove worthless. The less need for Israel to depend on agreements with Arabs, Europeans and even Americans the better.

Part of the problem are those Arab governments who deliberately keep the Israel-Palestinian conflict alive to divert attention from their own corrupt regimes. Also, western governments still pander to their corrupt Arab clients for purely expedient reasons. But new progressive voices are emerging among Arab intellectuals and even among some Moslem clerics that call for Arab societal reform, and who also recognize Jewish rights in the land of Israel. These voices need to be encouraged and enlisted in this quest for sanity.

What is also needed is Saudi cooperation and active support. The Saudis have long been responsible for promoting anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-American hatred along with funding terror and the teaching of a hateful form of Islam. With their 'royal' family of thousands of princes living lavishly, off of oil income and the labor of foreign workers, they are a cesspool of corruption that even Osama bin Laden finds offensive.

It is time to demand that the Saudis make a major contribution to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. They caused much of the problem and they must now assist with the solution. It is time for the Bush administration to make the Saudis 'an offer they can't refuse' and have them realize they have a direct interest in providing 'land for peace'.

For too long many people have labored under a collective mindset resembling a bad dream where big lies become entrenched wisdom and truth is constantly strangled. Unless we change direction there will be dire consequences extending well beyond the peoples of the region. Those who still have minds and morals intact now have an obligation to think clearly and with sanity and support this approach to finally resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

__________________

Rachel Neuwirth is a Los Angeles-based analyst on the board of directors of the West Coast Region of the American Jewish Congress and the chairperson of the organization's Middle East committee.

This article appeared as a guest commentary in MichNews.com July 26, 2004 and is archived here. Contact the author.