On the Brink

Israel’s self-defeat
Israel is under the joint Lebanese-Syrian-Iranian attack, code-worded “Hizballah." The Lebanese president Lahoud, a Syrian puppet and a dhimmi Christian, happy with Hizballah’s achievements as representatives of the “proud Lebanese people,” declares that Lebanon is coming “from this in victory.” He is so afraid of these Muslim heroes and their Syrian and Iranian masters that he yells these words to ensure he is heard – his voice shrill, his face distorted. The Lebanese prime minister Siniora, a Sunni Muslim, tells the world that Hizballah, a Shiite murder gang, is the Lebanese “resistance” and promises to fight the Israeli “aggression” alongside with it. Hizballah dictates the Lebanese government’s declarations, and, as everybody understands, runs Lebanon. Question: will the Lebanese government and the nonfunctioning uniformed group called its army disarm the real Lebanese Army, Hizballah? Will the UN do that, with Annan busy decrying Israel’s “disproportionate use of force”, never defining what “proportionate” would mean?

Israel has been left undefended. It has modern military equipment and soldiers ready to fight. It does not have only what saved it against all odds in all wars – the will to win. An amazing disclosure of that came from Olmert himself. Just before he – a non-entity in Sharon’s entourage – assumed the position previously held by the likes of Ben-Gurion, he had described the foundation of his political platform as

We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. (Israel policy forum tribute dinner, June 9, 2005)

This astonishing admission obviously did not preclude his election success, which indicates that this generation of Israelis found nothing wrong with this revolting decadence and was ripe for defeat. Although the Bush government did originally give Israel a virtual carte blanche to do what it would in both Gaza and Lebanon, this support was gradually withdrawn both because of the irrationality of Israel’s military action and the pro-Arab pressure. Also, the inconsistency of the American policy, as expressed by Rice, never really matched the carte blanche. No surprise that Olmert’s hot air dissipated quickly, and the incompetent government of Israel resigned to failure, and so did the US government. A preemptive strike is what has worked for Israel in the past (the Yom Kippur war was almost lost because it was reactive), but the Israeli leadership has lost foresight, courage, and political will needed for that. When Israel's top commander is busy doing his finances on the first day of war, can one really see Israel as prepared to deal with what amounts to the ongoing unfolding of another Shoah?

After 9/11 Sharon warned Bush that Israel would not be another Czechoslovakia. Indeed, it was the “land for peace” principle that Israel had been required to follow, despite the horrible and not so distant history of its implementation with Hitler. It was that principle, the adoption of which by the Western democracies assured Hitler that they were nothing to be afraid of. Sharon thus had his reasons to be wary of a similar response of the US administration to the attacks of new Nazis. Yet, in the nightmarish turn of events, it was Sharon himself who made Israel into Czechoslovakia by handing Jewish fields and gardens to Arabs. This is in contrast to the lands of Bohemia and Moravia that were surrendered to Germany at the Munich sell-off – the majority in the “Sudetenland” were ethnic Germans. Another striking feature of that act was that Sharon ceded the land without even a false promise of peace like the one Chamberlain brought from Munich in 1938. Could it be that Sharon knew of the futility of gaining such a promise? What is certain, however, is that one more parallel with the Hitlerian history could not have been lost on Sharon – that with rendering the land Judenrein. Conceivably, it was this thought that his brain – an old soldier’s whom some had considered Israel’s savior – could not rationalize away and bear. I am not holding my breath for Olmert’s pangs of conscience. It could be, however, his incompetence and defeat in the “Hizballah” war that will spare us Olmert’s planned disembowelment of Israel – handing the enemy the heart of the country.

Islamic terror
As Israel has been from its rebirth, the US is under constant alert after the 9/11 assault, ultimately as hopeless as barring doors in a house full of windows under a bandit attack. The UK has just barely prevented another attack on the US by largely British citizens, which is perhaps still not completely over. There are ongoing and/or fulfilled threats for European countries, and it is a matter of time that France, Italy, Germany and the rest will suffer from their own version of 9/11, as Spain and Britain already have – likely from their own Muslim citizens, perhaps helped from abroad. Interesting, how in contrast to England, in response to jihadi attacks, Spain, which had been and remained the longest a fascist country, submitted to Usama's will. It would be pure rhetoric to ask whether this is a coincidence that all these events occur at about the same time, or there is something in common between them. It does not take more than common sense to see one common denominator: all the attacks are initiated by Muslims and – which is critically important – in the name of Islam. It is important, because the comparatively rare acts of mass murder committed by non-Muslims, such as commonly cited McVey’s, or IRA’s, or Basque separatists’, are not comparable to the Islamic ones if only because they are not committed in the name of Christianity and do not have an ultimate goal of erasing countries off the map. They are not in fulfillment of a long-standing political plan aiming at world domination, like that of Islam. They are not part of a movement supported or approved by enormous masses of people assigning themselves to one totalitarian ideology based on the same set of writings. Moreover, the name of Islam attached to suicidal mass murderers in Israel or Hizballah’s thugs or Usama’s kamikazes is not their mishandling of the peaceful Koranic and Sunnah teachings, however attractive that idea would be to a Western humanitarian raised in the tradition of religious tolerance. As ruled by authoritative Islamic scholars, and indeed can be readily found by anybody who makes a minimal effort to read both the sacred Islamic texts and contemporary fatwas (rulings of the qualified ulema), these actions are just, welcome and commendable from Islam’s viewpoint, just as are the actions of Muslim parents sacrificing their children to kill the enemy. Aside from providing the parents with a usual payment made to a shahid’s family by Saudis or other Muslim benefactors, such children, as any Muslims who spend their lives for Allah, immediately gain Paradise and enable a large number of their relatives to enter it.

The attempts to recast contemporary Islam into a “peaceful” religion, coming from wishfully thinking Western leaders and media or the apologists of Islam speaking for Western audiences, are heavily outweighed by translations of the sermons and textbooks from Islamic countries, scholarly works of experts, but most tellingly, by the ubiquitous spread of violent ideology and related behavior in the Islamic world, from Sudan to European cities, some of which already qualify to be major Islamic centers (eg, “Londonistan”). Those Muslims who commit themselves to violent action (currently aka “terror”) are considered the vanguard of the army of umma, the world Muslim community. In our day, with all the slant of the media towards demonstration of Israeli “atrocities” (up to the blatant falsification of photographs and staged-up video footage), the enormous ecstatic throngs of Muslims, congratulating themselves and giving out sweets to celebrate, can be seen by everyone after each terror act around the world. To deny that terror in the Muslim world is overwhelmingly supported is to be intentionally blind or delusional. Regardless of whether the rest of the world wants to engage in a religious war, the Muslim world is waging it. This war does not originate from a “deranged,” as Michael Chertoff called that, desire to reestablish the Caliphate. It comes from Muhammad himself, or Allah if you will, who called in the Koran (8:39; 9:29) for the believers to fight until Islam prevails in the world. It is these divine surahs rather than earthly caliphate that are cited by the likes of Usama in their calls for world war. The world caliphate is merely what will naturally result from that war.

Domino effect
Meanwhile, Israel is prevented from exercising its right for defense by the UN resolution that does not provide for the possibility of disarming terrorists and is, unfortunately, accepted by the inept Israeli government. The Iraqi constitution, for which many American soldiers have given their lives, is based on the Shariah, Islamic law, and Iraqis use their freedom of speech they got on a platter from the US Army to demonstrate against America unhindered. While Saddam is still alive, and under trial thanks to the American blood and money, Iraqi Shiites, who were tortured by him, already kill Americans and are eager to join Hizballah. It would not matter at all if objectively Hizballah did suffer a defeat, which by itself is really not the case. It stands undefeated if not victorious – there is not much to deny here. Israel has achieved none of its war goals. The UN resolution it used as the pretext to quit is not worth discussing. What matters more, however, is the perception of Arabs and other Muslims. In that perception, Hizballah has won unconditionally and will further win, when it will rebuild its infrastructure and Lebanon itself using generous Iranian petromoney. (Perception is the deciding factor not only in the Islamic world – for instance, the Vietnam war was lost by the US arguably because of the perception of defeat, while militarily it was winning). Even a minimal further concession in exchange for the captured soldiers, or the discussions of Har Dov (Shebaa Farms) can only add to Hizballah’s, Iranian and Muslim prestige. This victory raises tremendously the attractiveness of Islamic terror wherever it can be applied for achieving Islam’s political goals. This victory also followed that of Hamas, which had been handed Gaza as a clear prize for its terror strategy (again, this is the Muslim perception, the only important factor in the matter), and Israel’s previous withdrawal from Lebanon combined with Barak’s betrayal of the Lebanese allies of Israel – the only allies in the Arab world Israel had ever had. This victory of the armed Islam will also elevate the rate of Islamic conversion, already capturing a large population. Another important consequence is that this victory, and the consequent pressure from the competitors for power – gangs and politicians alike – will encourage the Arab states to reconsider their reservations for military plans regarding Israel. If the Arab governments themselves do not undertake aggressive actions against Israel, the “guerilla” movements, the governments’ tool for plausible deniability, will. It may not take long that Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi fedayeen, along with their Jihad, Hamas, Fatah, Hizballah and Qaida brothers, will attack Israel. On a much larger scale, the same awaits the US and its undercontrolled Afghan and Iraqi regimes, and the whole Western world. President Bush has finally progressed from calling Islam “religion of peace” to identifying “Islamic fascism” as the root of the problem. Now, of course, this can be interpreted as referring to an extreme subset of Islam. Unfortunately, however, this Islamic variety of fascism could also be the only readily available variety of Islam. It is hard to discern any other from Islamic teachings, activities, and history.

Religious mimicry
Islam was founded by Muhammad in the first half of the VII century. Muslims are taught that Islam and its holy book, the Koran, had existed as long as had the Universe, and all Jewish and Christian prophets had been Muslims. The truth, however, is that nobody had heard about Islam until Muhammad, an illiterate, poor and mentally unstable husband of a rich and much older wife, decided to turn his dreams or hallucinations into a message to humankind under her insistence. Perhaps her plan was to solve her family problems. In the patriarchal Arab society, Muhammad’s dependent status might have been considered not quite kosher. That could have contributed to his frequenting caves and sitting there, depressed and prone to scary visions under sensory and alimentary deprivation – these were the conditions under which he received his first revelation. The divine character of that was far from clear to the future Messenger of Allah, who was scared to death by his vision and needed his wife’s reassurance. Reassured, however, he quickly realized the benefits of his newly acquired Messenger status, and proceeded in his career from a pathetic charlatan, laughed at by the people who knew him the best, to a highway robber chieftain, to a genocidal mass murderer and totalitarian ruler, removing any opposition, real or imaginary, literally by sword. That removal was really an equal opportunity treatment, as he murdered regardless of the sex, age, and ethnic origin of the opponent, except when he exterminated all men of an entire peaceful Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza and enslaved children and women. This was the first recorded application of the Nazis’ Babiy Yar method, long before Hitler – Jews were brought in groups and murdered on the brink of a ravine that was to be their mass grave. By Muhammad’s desire, expressed on his deathbed, Jews cannot settle in Arabia, which had been their home for centuries. The same rule, incidentally, was introduced by the British for Jewish immigration to the part of the Land of Israel they decided to call Trans-Jordan (later shortened into Jordan), assisting Hitler in murdering Jews. This has since been the rule enacted by Jordanian rulers, who consider themselves Muhammad’s direct descendants. No wonder, as Muslims are bound to follow the Sunnah (the example) of the Prophet, as they have followed it in their barbaric conquests.

Muhammad’s revelations would come to him conveniently when he had to justify another crime of his, perversion, political expediency and, eventually, the social order he created to facilitate his autocracy. That divine order (the Islamic state is supposed to be perfect) collapsed immediately upon his death into the war between the followers of Muhammad’s daughter and her husband, Muhammad’s nephew Ali, and the supporters of Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha and her father the strongman Abu Bakr. The conflict was of the same type that the one between Anna Nicole Smith and her late husband’s children. Except that Aisha probably had a better claim to the spoils, as Muhammad “married” her when she was six and consummated that marriage when she was nine (the paragon for all humanity himself was over 50). The stakes, however, were much higher, and the two groups, respectively Shia and Sunni, have been killing each other since – just observe the endless slaughter in Iraq. Imagine how easy it is then for both to kill infidels.

By sword has been the way Islam has spread from the Arabian peninsula, brought under the Islamic yoke by Muhammad by the time he died in 632, to North Africa, to a large part of Asia, and – for a long time – some parts of Europe. Nowadays, helped by the boundless tolerance of Western democracies to everything they perceive as underdog, the Islamic violent takeover, still in full force with a weaker adversary as in Sudan, is supplemented by unstoppable Islamic immigration and the ensuing demographic and political changes in the world of the infidels – Crusaders and Jews. This perceived underdog position of the 1.3 billion-strong umma sitting on the oil treasure of the world has served the dual function of lulling the Western societies into deafness to Islam’s inhuman teachings while raising Muslims’ anger at their “humiliation,” which the true believers perceive as any state in which Islam is not über alles, superior. Naturally, Islamic immigration has no intention of assimilation – quite the opposite, its leaders have overt plans of (gradual) government change. Muslims have no right to befriend Christians or Jews (Koran 5:51), let alone non-monotheists. They believe Jews are cursed by Allah (Koran 5:64) – because of the Jewish beliefs that are nowhere to be found except in Islamic teachings. They believe that Christians and Jews are to either convert to Islam, or keep their faith but assume a subhuman dhimmi position in the society under what is called “protected status” (of the kind of mafia protection), or die if they violate these conditions. Non-monotheists have no choice but to convert or die. Whether to offer a choice or not is under Muslims’ discretion. There is no choice as to who will eventually rule the world, currently divided into Dar al-Islam, the realm of Islam, and Dar al-Harb, the realm of war. Democracy, with its freedoms and human-made laws, is incompatible with Islam. Adding free elections to Islamic ideology as an attempt to introduce democracy is less meaningful than holding free elections in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Freedom does not necessarily create good neighbors – not when a neighbor is a criminal.

Whereas Islam is thus first and foremost a political doctrine and movement, the “religious” facet of Islam adds to the picture not merely the neutralization of the instinct of self-preservation but indeed its reversal. The brain-washed Islamic suicidal murderers perceive their certain demise not as death but as the virtually only way to ensure their staying alive (and well in Paradise). They are also convinced that they do a great favor to those Muslims who unintentionally get killed in a terror act because those are supposed to attain similar benefits. Most importantly, this eternal life is contrasted not with death, but with the almost certain alternative of their ending up in Hell, which is described in great detail in the Koran and the Sunnah, leaving little to imagination. Hell is virtually unavoidable for a believing Muslim, unless he is committed to jihad. Therefore, both negative and positive reinforcements are employed in the Islamic indoctrination, which has shown a great efficiency with a large number of people – not only when they receive it from the childhood, but – tellingly – with new converts as well. The usual straw-man counter-argument that only a small proportion of Muslims are in this altered state of consciousness is clearly invalid because there is no need for more than a minute proportion of 1.3 billion Muslims, properly educated and armed, to achieve a catastrophic effect. It is true, as human rights defenders in the US declare, that it is bad in general to discriminate in accordance with faith. It is not true, however, when the faith includes the current and actively enacted mainstream notions of human sacrifice and the subjugation or extermination of the other faiths. However highly developed the Aztec civilization was, had it survived till now, its bloody rituals would be forbidden, and if they were an inseparable part of the Aztec religion, it would be categorized into cult and banned. Islam, the ideology whose followers, led by Muhammad’s example, rape, enslave, behead unarmed civilians, execute “blasphemers,” and commit mass murder of children, thrives. The concept of Islam as a monotheistic religion serves this political ideology to protect it from the eradication that would certainly be in the cards for it due to its fascist and violent character. This religious mimicry, first used by Muhammad for ennobling, nay, sacralizing his morbid desires and immunizing himself from human critique, is still employed for the same purpose and perfected by Muslim spokespeople.

It is uncanny how the ongoing events resemble the pre-WWII layout. Russia, jealous of what it perceives to be the imperial position of the US, is playing, again thinking that it will gain dominance through pitting today’s Nazis against the West. France, true to its colors, stubs its allies in the back and is trying to appease the enemy. The rest of Europe keeps silence, thinking that if it keeps its head low, it will keep it – with profit. Antisemitism, reinforced by anti-Israelism, is as rampant around the world as in 1930’s, if not more. The left intelligentsia, ignorant in the matter as usual, but omniscient regardless by default, supports a totalitarian ideology – as long as that claims to fight for the “insulted and humiliated.”

Despite all experience with Nazism, the world has yet to comprehend that violent ideology can only be fought as an infectious disease: by correctly identifying the agent, and by stopping its propagation by eliminating it and/or raising immunity against it - not by trying to appease it. Translated into the situation with Islam, that would mean first and foremost neutralizing those who spread the violent ideology - imams, mullahs and sheikhs, whose uniform obesity and penchant for hoarding female resources suggests that they themselves are not in a hurry to see Allah and the huris. This gives a strong hope that they can be persuaded to relay to their flock that jihad is about learning the multiplication table and brushing teeth rather then cutting infidel throats, as the believers are used to erroneously think. Ataturk knew that well enough to deal with mullahs and employ healthy anti-Islam safeguards that have survived and protected Turkey till now as a relatively modern and open country, despite all its mosques and muezzins. This is what should have been done in Iraq, instead of allowing its post-Saddam constitution to be based on the Koran - which is a bit like if Germany were allowed to use Mein Kampf for the same purpose after WWII.
“War on terror” may be a convenient shorthand. It is politically correct, but is as senseless as would be a war on guns or tanks, because terror is only a tool of war. The war that has been conducted by Islam, with variable intensity, against Dar al-Harb. Now is the first time, however, when the means of waging a truly decisive jihad have become available. Unless the complacent Western world learns from past lessons, it will be taught new apocalyptic ones, already under preparation by true believers in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and wherever there is a mosque with a properly thinking imam. One who knows that

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985; also Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6981-6984; and Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176-179, 56: 791).

If you are a good Muslim, you must follow the Sunnah. I doubt there are many Gharqad trees around.

August 13, 2006

Michael Vanyukov
Back to main page: Israel On My Mind

©Michael Vanyukov, 2006

 Number of new visitors since August 22, 2006: