GO ISRAEL

GO ISRAEL !!

from JIHADWATCH

Reporting this, or rather, re-reporting this [about Israel's moves against the "Palestinians"]gives the impression that this site has an agenda other than simply exposing Islam, that is, of seeing a triumphant Israel. I am not suggesting that we should oppose Israel, as it has every right to exist, but to report the military movements of this nation or that nation as cover stories about global jihad is very weak. One wishes we would stick to the global jihad."-- from a posting above

What is the "Global Jihad" you refer to if not the sum of all the local manifestations of the same impulse, arising from the same texts and the same attitudes? The Lesser Jihad against Israel is part of the Globel Jihad, and far from getting in the way of comprehension of that Global Jihad, offers a great many lessons to Infidels.

What lessons? Well, the lesson that the Lesser Jihad against Israel was, for a while, deliberately disguised. It was disguised because prior to the OPEC trillions and all the power that brought, prior to the millions of Muslims permitted to settle deep within the Bilad al-kufr of Western Europe and, to a much lesser extent, North America, the main Jihad in town -- the one that the

West paid attention to and misunderstoode -- was that against the Infidel state of Israel.
The Israelis of course have refused to recognize the nature of the siege they have undergone, the Arab opposition that began before the state was declared, continued after the state was declared and before there was a single Israeli soldier in either the "West Bank" or Gaza, and that will go on forever, whatever further retreats or surrenders based on miscomprehension, by both the Israelis and those who pressure them, of what they face.

Had the Israelis not been inhibited, had they not been so intent on winning allies among whatever non-Arab Muslim states, whose people were essentially unfriendly or contemptuous or hostile to the Arabs, and whose regimes were run by "secular" Muslims -- i.e. Kemalists in Turkey, Shah Reza Pahlevi in Iran, then they might have begun to understand Islam. But they were ruled, by and large, from people who had come from Europe (the Jews from Arab lands and Iran have come into their own in Israel only quite recently).

And what would that understanding have done?

It would have led the Israelis, well-versed in the essential principles of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, based on the model of Muhammad's treaty with the Meccans at Hudaibiyyah, not to bother too much and certainly not to give up land and other tangible assets to Muslims who have not only failed to live up to every single one of the agreements, ranging from the armistice agreements of 1949, to Nasser's promises (made to Eisenhower and Dulles) in 1956, to the assorted agreements made after the Six-Day War (all those concessions repeatedly squeezed, drop by drop, out of Israel by a series of American secretaries of state, including the egregious Kissinger), to those made after the 1973 War, to all the hustling and bustling about by such non-students of Islam as Richard Haass and Dennis Ross and others who never learned to learn about Islam.

And since the Israelis failed to identify the problem correctly, at a time when, had they done so, Europe still possessed among its leaders those who had a better sense of history, and also did not grow up under the steady stillicide of anti-Israel propaganda that only the most remarkable and level-headed of young Europeans manage to reject in toto, and many perfectly nice people simply know nothing of the history of that area, of the history of the MIddle East, of the League of Nations and the Mandates Commission and the purposes of its various mandates including the Mandate for Palestine, and of course grew up when that fantasy was created and given life -- the local Arabs magically turning into the "Palestinian people."

Had the Israelis understood Islam, they might have managed to convey that understanding to others, including the ruling elites in Europe who, so disastrously, remained equally obtuse when it came to Islam, and let in millions of Muslims without paying any attention either to the tenets and attitudes that Islam inculcates, or to the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest and subsequent subjugation of every non-Muslim people whose lands the Muslims conquered.

Today, the Arabs and Muslims continue to pretend, aided and abetted by Western hirelings, and by all those who for one reason or another have not studied the Arab siege of Israel (including the demographic and cadastral records of those former Ottoman vilayets that went into making up this "Palestine" that never existed under Muslim rule), that "if only" they were given their way in "Palestine" all manner of things should be well.

We are to believe, I suppose, that Kashmir and the rest of India will be left alone, that Hindus and Christians will no longer be discriminated against, persecuted, even murdered, in Pakistan and Bangladesh, that the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system in Malaysia, that forces local Indians and Chinese to subsidize Muslims at every level, that the Buddhist teachers and monks and villagers murdered in southern Thailand would no longer be murdered, that the As-Sayyaf organization in the Moro Islands would no longer be killing Christian Filipinos, that the Christians in the Moluccas and Sulawesi, and the non-Muslim Chinese everywhere, and the dangerously syncretistic Anbangen, and the Hindus in Bali, would no longer need to worry about Islam or Jemaah Islmaiya and a hundred similar groups, that the Christians in southern Nigeria who tried desperately to escape from the "Jihad" (in Colonel Ojukwu's words in 1969 in the Ahiara Declaration) against them by fighting for an independent Biafra, that the non-Muslim blacks in the southern Sudan, and the non-Arab Muslims in Darfur (Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacy) would find everything suddenly all right.

And in France, in Italy, in England, in Spain, in Russia, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Belgium, and everywhere else where even relatively small Muslim populations dare demand changes in everything -- in the curricula in schools, in the dress in schools, in the hospital wards and the examining rooms, in the food offered in government canteens, in the demands made for limits on the practice of free speech by free men in Europe, exercising their own freedoms, in so much else -- all this the Arabs and Muslims never mention, but somehow let it be known that Israel's refusal to roll over and play dead (though god knows the Israelis have repeatedly been willing to give up far more than any other people would or should, and seem incapable of learning from their repeated mistakes and surrenders) is what causes all these problems in what we may call the Global Jihad, but which can not be understood unless we study, and analyze, the way the Lesser Jihad against Israel was and continues to be misunderstood, by both the simpletons and the malevolent, and that this has had consequences both for Israel and, possibly as disastrously, for the countries of western Europe as well.

This site does "have an agenda." That "agenda" is to take the side of all those Infidel states and peoples that are threatened by Jihad. That means siding with Israel. It means siding with India over Kashmir. It means taking the side of the blacks in the southern Sudan, should they wish to be protected and to declare independence. It means taking the side of the Ibo and other Christians in Nigeria.

It means taking the side of the Serbs when they are now being attacked in Kosovo and Bosnia. It means taking the side of the Armenians as they seek admission of guilt, not by "Turks," but by Muslim Turks and Kurds (and even Arabs in the Syrian desert). It means taking the side of the Thai government if it decides to act decisively, even ruthlessly, in southern Thailand. It means supporting the government of the Philippines as it attempts to crush the As-Sayyaf group.

Do you object? Do you find something wrong with that?

Tell us exactly what.

Posted by: Hugh

---------------------------

STORY FROM JSW.COM

June 30, 2006
Bin Laden as Patrick Henry?
By Daniel Henninger

So we got the Hamdan Guantanamo detainee decision yesterday, the turmoil over revealing the Swift surveillance of terrorist financing a week ago, the FBI's capture in Florida of the would-be al Qaeda bombers of the Sears Tower before that, and oh yes, those 17 Muslims in Canada who wanted to invade Parliament and behead the prime minister. We seem to be thoroughly entangled just now in never-ending tensions over civil liberty concerns on one hand and manifest national security threats on the other.

Nearly five years after September 11, it's a little stale to argue that this much confusion is just the way a vigorous democracy functions. Or not.
It was good to see that the FBI could catch a group like the Florida bombers. By coincidence about that time, the director of the FBI in New York, Mark Mershon, visited our offices. Mr.

Mershon made it clear that the FBI will not monitor or surveil anyone, including Muslim extremists, without a "criminal predicate." Generally, probable cause is the gold standard for watching. Mr. Mershon said that if someone keeps his head down and nose clean in the U.S., he can function with a great deal of freedom. That's a rough but workable description of our system.

This traditional, all-American tradeoff between liberty and risk works OK in a country populated with standard criminal types; most eventually work their way up to a police database. But what about the world of Islamic fanaticism whose recruits, notably suicide bombers (or pilots) are nearly all first-timers?

Does "our system" mandate that we allow an Islamic fifth column to fly beneath the radar of probable cause and into buildings? Do we have to settle for catching bottom-feeders like the Florida plotters while the smart boys, planning a smallpox attack in Detroit, stay below what they've read is the threshold for FBI curiosity or a FISA warrant?

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh in a conversation about this tension said, "I'm not sure I agree 100%" with the president or Attorney General Gonzales that we need additional legal authority. He thinks the array of existing tools is adequate, citing the use of conspiracy law against sophisticated organized crime groups. More pointedly he says, "Give me an example of things you can't do with available means."

Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director, agrees that American conspiracy law is a big tent and that "a balance needs to be struck." But he thinks it is a mistake to think about the terror threat in traditional, individual-liberty terms. "The tough case," he said "is what to do with groups that have as their explicit objective, as much of the Muslim Brotherhood does, an Islamic state governing North America? It's hard because it involves raising [security] questions around people who purport that these are their religious beliefs. Our constitutional structure has real problems with that."

Those difficulties notwithstanding, Mr. Woolsey thinks it would make sense to attempt a legislative carve-out of special, defined status for this threat, similar to what we did for communism during the Cold War. I agree. We are damaging ourselves now by conflating traditional individual-liberty concerns with the reality of a global, anti-American movement. Sen. Arlen Specter is the leading example of trying to plug ancient square pegs into this new round hole in our security.

To clarify the new threat, Mr. Woolsey analogizes the McCarran Act, "which made the commies' lives here miserable, if not illegal." That's an interesting idea. The American left will go screaming into the streets at the word "McCarran," but I'd urge anyone else to look at the law's description of the enemy; pull out "communist movement" and drop in "Islamic jihad" and the current threat achieves defined status.

The tension between the Bush administration and its critics has much to do with the fact that the government's surveillance programs are justified to fight a blob called "terrorism." The conceit is we're all supposed to mumble, sotto voce, that it's really Islamic terrorism; but for reasons of delicacy the government won't quite say that and won't make it official. That gives the administration's critics at least a basis for arguing that its surveillance claims are too broad.

In this way the Taliban on Guantanamo reach the status of Everyman, even in the minds of Supreme Court justices. Why not a congressional act defining the threat? So what if it failed? The purpose would now be plain and even the New York Times could no longer pretend it can't distinguish between wiretaps on revolutionary Islamic fanatics and Patrick Henry's descendants.

It is possible to sharpen the focus of this matter further. The critics of the anti-terror surveillance programs such as the NSA's warrantless wiretaps give the impression that these efforts somehow violate principles laid down at the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The legal arguments, however, revolve around the requirements of Title III (establishing probable cause for electronic surveillance) and the FISA statute. Both laws, from the 1960s and '70s, in part were a reaction to government wiretapping of individuals involved in the civil-rights movement and anti-Vietnam War protests.

Many of those in the opposition on these surveillance issues--in Congress, the legal community and the press--are people whose personal and intellectual formation is rooted in the events of that era. This is the prism through which they transmute any political event; does it pass or fail the commandments carved in the '70s? But this is 2006, not 1974. Islamic jihad and al Qaeda are not the Montgomery marchers or Kent State, and our debate and laws should reflect that. Applying transaction analytics to telephone traffic is not the same as two cops with headphones in a hotel listening to the people in the next room.

Perhaps there's a silver lining. The public demonizing of Messrs. Bush, Cheney and Gonzales as ruthless tramplers of civil liberties is a throwback to the anti-LBJ, anti-Nixon style of Vietnam-era protests. This has been catastrophic for shaping public policy around this issue. But if the bad guys go slow because they think that George Bush and Dick Cheney are RoboCops willing to do what they gotta do track, trap and catch them, hey, maybe our crackpot "system" works after all.

Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.