Fitzgerald: What's Behind Opposition to the "Settlements"
JIHAD WATCH: Opposition to what are so tendentiously called "the settlements" is not about the "settlements" at all. It is about whether Israel is going to be allowed to decide for itself the minimum conditions of its own survival, or whether others -- apparently to include an Administration so deeply unlearned in the history of the area, and in the claims, and rights, of the Jews to build these "settlements" (simply Jewish villages and towns) on land that was always intended for Jewish settlement by the League of Nations in its Mandate for Palestine. That was one among many mandates created after World War I, several of which led to the creation of Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq -- that is, three of the now-22 members of the Arab League. Other mandates were intended to make provision for some of the many other non-Arab or non-Muslim peoples -- but the Kurdish state and the Armenian state as originally envisioned were still-born, and the Jews received not all of historic Palestine, but only Western Palestine, while again the Arabs took the lion's share for themselves.

It is not the "settlements" that are at stake, but whether or not Israel will control the small sliver of territory, the "West Bank," without which the Jordan Valley, and the historic invasion route from the east, cannot be controlled. For if Jewish settlements are stopped, if the decision is taken out of Israel's hands, and if its claims are de-legitimized, it is just part of a deliberate, unending, and most cunning attempt by Muslim Arabs to push Israel back, so as to whittle away at it, and step by step to weaken Israel and demoralize its population. This has been written about and spoken about so much in the Arab media that it is inexcusable for those who make policy to continue to have failed to notice it.

This would be done in stages. Mahmoud Abbas is the leading proponent, at present, of this Two-Stage Solution. That is what he means when he says "we choose peace as a strategic option." Not "peace" tout court, but "peace as a strategic option." First, by opposing the Jewish claim to have any natural expansion in what are so wrongly called "settlements," this would condemn Jews, but not Arabs, to keeping their population from increasing in the "West Bank." That would inevitably lead to their shriveling. It would start the process of forcing Israel to yield, to give up those Jewish villages and towns, to give up their rightful claim that was already shrunken by 77% when Great Britain created, back in 1922, the Emirate of Transjordan out of Eastern Palestine. Eastern Palestine was originally intended for inclusion in the Mandate for Palestine.

If Israel cannot allow even for natural growth in its "settlements" -- meaning apparently no babies are to be born beyond the replacement level, while the Arabs in the "West Bank" and in pre-1967 borders of Israel, like the Muslims living everywhere, are permitted to have eight and ten and twelve children per family, we know the result. And if Israel's settlements are paralyzed, and painted even in the Untied States -- never mind the U.N. -- as illegitimate, the pressure on Israel, which is already immense, would likely force the Israelis, despite their own need to survive, to give up the "West Bank" that offers them the only strategic depth they possess. Israel without the "West Bank" is nine miles wide, from Kalkilya to the sea. It can be cut in two with ease by the fabulously well-armed, and overwhelmingly more numerous Arabs. Unless Israel is prepared at once to use nuclear weapons, it can be overrun. And not only must Israel continue to control the Jordan Valley and the historic invasion routes from the East, but it must also control the aquifers under the "West Bank" that are so vital. >>> Hugh Fitzerland | Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Fitzgerald: Obama Is Not a Muslim. He's a Naif
JIHAD WATCH: Obama’s policies since he became President have revived suspicions that he is secretly a Muslim. He's not a Muslim. He's a naif. But so are a great many people in Washington. They are like high school kids who, when asked by an inquiring reporter what they intend to be, say with absolute conviction: "An astrophysicist." This despite not having any understanding of what kinds of study that would entail, and most of them are incapable of such study.

The previous Administration ended up squandering money on the sentimental messianism of what metamorphosed into a Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, where "freedom" would be brought to "ordinary moms and dads," in Bush's unforgettably comic formulation. “Freedom” was defined as mere head-counting at election time, not as a resulting advanced Western democracy with guarantees for minorities and solicitude for individual rights, and with the Shari'a as the ultimate authority -- the Shari'a that in letter and spirit contradicts the most important principles of advanced Western democracy. >>> Hugh Fitzgerald | Friday, May 22, 2009

Fitzgerald: There Is No Compulsion in Religion
DHIMMI WATCH: The continued emphasis by Muslim and non-Muslim apologists for Islam on a single verse -- "There is no compulsion in religion" -- is permitted not only because their Infidel audience has no idea either about what is said relevantly elsewhere, in hundreds of places, in the Qur'an and Hadith, and not only because they are unaware of the doctrine of abrogation or "naskh," but because they are also unaware of the precise meaning that is given to that phrase "there is no compulsion in religion" by Muslim jurisconsults. If they did look into it, they would find that the "obvious" meaning of the words -- that is, the meaning that we Infidels choose to endow that phrase with -- is not what Muslim scholars mean at all. They mean that in the end one cannot force deep belief on people, though one can force them to comply outwardly, even on pain of death. And that is what Islam is in the business of doing: forcing outward compliance, on pain of punishment that may well include, has often included, death.

But there is one more thing that should surely be offered as an objection when some fool comes along and utters credulously this "there is no compulsion in religion" and expects us to believe the Western understanding of it. That is the observable behavior of Muslims over 1350 years. What have Muslims done, when they have conquered, by force or otherwise, non-Muslim lands and peoples? They offer three possibilities: death, conversion, and, at least to those who can be classified as ahl al-kitab or "people of the book," permanent status as dhimmis, with a host of political, economic, and social disabilities which together added up to lives of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, at times relieved -- but only at times -- by the occasional mollitude of a particular Muslim ruler. A slim reed on which to base one's happiness. And so, over time, many non-Muslims, in order to avoid this condition of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity, converted to Islam. Fitzgerald: There Is No Compulsion in Religion >>> By Hugh Fitzgerald | September 24, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Paperback (US) Barnes & Noble >>>
The Dawning of a New Dark Age – Hardcover (US) Barnes & Noble >>>

Hugh Fitzgerald: Mosques in the West
JIHADWATCH.ORG: A Jihad Watch poster recently asked incredulously, “There's a mosque in The Hague?"

Yes, there is a mosque in The Hague. And all over Rotterdam, and Amsterdam, and in Paris and Marseilles and Lyons and Toulouse, in London and Manchester and Birmingham and Leeds, in Rome and in Milan, in Berlin and Hamburg and Frankfurt, and in thousands of other cities and even small towns all over Europe. The Saudis and other rich Arabs fund them, just as they pay for the land, and the construction, and the maintenance, of mosques all over this country, from Boston to sunny California. Most of the mosques in the Western world are not paid for by the locals, but by very rich foreign Muslims -- governments, institutions, individuals.

After all, not all of that ten trillion dollars in oil revenues that Muslim states have received since 1973 alone goes for arms purchases, and palaces for the boys, and wages for those millions of non-Muslim wage-slaves who keep Saudi Arabia and the smaller sheikdoms going, and gambling in London and Monte Carlo, and call girls (the Arabs especially contemptuous of the West for allowing "their women" to be bought and used in such a way, by their sworn enemies, the Arab Muslims), and endless shopping in the funfair-cum-brothel of Europe.

Occasionally local opposition can stop the building of a mosque, but not because the mosque has been paid for by sinister foreigners, nor because mosques are far more than merely religious establishments but politico-religious outposts of the Army of Islam, and inevitably, unless subject to constant round-the-clock monitoring, will tend to have khutbas based on the almost-unavoidable subject with which the Qur'an and Hadith are full: to wit, the permanent state of war that exists between Believers and Infidels, and the need for Muslims to work to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam. Fitzgerald: Mosques in the West >>> By Hugh Fitzgerald | April 26, 2008

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback - UK)
The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Hardback - UK)