Societies Suffused With Islam Seek Their Own Level

c) The presence of Israelis in all parts of historic Palestine west of the Jordan (the region east of the Jordan has been made, by fiat of the Jordanian government, Judenrein), makes for just a little more temporary unity among the local Arabs, based on the shared anti-Infidel (in this case, anti-Jewish) venom which provides sustenance, a poisonous panem quotidianum, to the local Arabs in the Arab-occupied parts of Western Palestine, than would be the case without that presence. In Gaza the Infidels are just over the horizon, and while rockets are lobbied incessantly in their direction, they are not in the midst of Gaza, so Arabs take out the aggression so much a part of Islam on other Arabs.

It would be no different in the case of Iraq, where an American withdrawal could permit a relapse into low-level internecine warfare, between sects (Shi’a and Sunnis) and between ethnic groups (Arabs and Kurds), and that low-level warfare would be without end, until such time as another despot comes along and manages to impose his will, or until there is a permanent break-up in the artificial state of Iraq. Such an understanding should lead those who grasp the nature of Islam, and of Muslim peoples (with their notion that after any conflict there remain only two possibilities: that of being the victor, and that of being the vanquished) to wish to consider how best to exploit the situation in Iraq, not the one created, most temporarily, by the “surge” but the one that reflects permanent fissures, and the kind of behavior that Islam’s texts, and tenets, and attitudes, and atmospherics, naturally encourage. 

One should begin with what we all know to be true: the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988. This conflict managed to use up the resources, and monopolize the malevolent attention, of two powerful and dangerous Muslim states, Iran and Iraq. And within Iraq, the hostility between Sunnis and Shi’a long predates the arrival of the Americans, or even the ascension to power of Saddam Hussein, but has been observable ever since the British took over from the conquered Ottoman Turks. And, if one were to take a still longer view, one would observe that the Sunni-Shi’a split goes back to the earliest days of Islam. Similarly, the Arab mistreatment of the Kurds is not a recent phenomenon, but merely a recent manifestation of the Arab supremacist attitude toward all non-Arab Muslims, including not only the Kurds, but the Berbers, the black African Muslims of Darfur, and other non-Arab Muslims in the subcontinent and Central and East Asia who are to be used, for Arab interests, and if possible made to feel that they should wish to be so used, should try to play the sedulous apes of, the “best of peoples,” the Arabs.

A similar realism ought, at long last, to come to those who keep thinking that if only, if only this and if only that, they can somehow reach “an agreement” between Arabs and Israelis (sometimes the loaded words are “between Israel and Palestine” – a transparent attempt to reify a non-existent state), then over time the Muslim Arabs, in “Palestine” and outside, will gradually abandon their hostility to Israel. But why should this be so? Why should Muslims who are taught that the world belongs to Allah and to Muslims, for any reason at all decide to drop the most essential ideas, the foundational ideas, in the politics and geopolitics of Islam. To wit: no Infidel nation-state can be permitted to exist on land once possessed, for a long or a short period, by the forces of Islam. Non-Muslim peoples have no legitimate claims; Muslims alone have claims. And in those lands that were never possessed by Islam, it is the duty of Muslims to remove every obstacle to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam.

May it go on forever.

This is yet another in an uninterrupted series of grotesque surrenders, the kind which are described by successive Israeli governments and negotiators as helping to “bolster” the “Palestinian” side, particularly if a shadow-play is constructed where a “trustworthy” and “moderate” interlocutor – Mahmoud Abbas – is set against the other kind, the ones against whose attacks he needs to show, apparently, that his sweet reasonableness is in fact capable of obtaining “concessions” from the Israelis, who are always so ready to oblige. Yes, the Olmert government wants to give that nice trustworthy, no-one-here-but-us-accountants Mahmoud Abbas the “confidence” to proceed, that is to proceed with what he, Mahmoud Abbas, has carefully described as “choosing peace [i.e., negotiations and a ‘truce’ treaty] as a strategic option.”

But when the Olmert government does this kind of thing, letting out murderers and would-be murderers, those in the Israeli security forces who apprehended these people, often risking or giving their lives to do so, and the people of Israel whom they have so heroically been protecting, are entitled to ask: