|Muslim Violence — Crime or Jihad?
Fjordman – 3/24/2007
Although the European Union warns against “,” those who live in the real world know that there has been an explosion of violent infidelophobia in Western Europe staged by Muslim immigrants. This wave of violence especially targets
Jews, but the attacks against Christians that are going on in the the Middle East, where there may soon be no Christians left in the cradle of Christianity, are increasingly spreading to Europe as well. In more and more cities across the continent, non-Muslims are being harassed, robbed, mugged, raped, stabbed and even killed by Muslims, yet EU leaders continue their quest to merge Europe and the Arab world by making it easier for Muslims to enter and settle in Europe.
The fact that European leaders and media voice such concern for “Islamophobia” yet do very little to stop attacks against Christian Europeans demonstrates the creeping dhimmitude in Europe which has been accurately predicted by Bat Ye’or. Native Europeans are slowly becoming second-rate citizens in their own countries.
This violence by Muslims is usually labelled simply as “crime,” but I believe it should more accurately be called Jihad. Those who know early Islamic history, as described in books such as The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer, know that looting and stealing the property of non-Muslims has been part and parcel of Jihad from the very beginning. In fact, so much of the behavior of Muhammad himself and the early Muslims could be deemed criminal that it is difficult to know exactly where crime ends and Jihad begins. In the city of Oslo, for instance, it is documented that some of the criminal Muslim gangs also have close ties to radical religious groups at home and abroad. As Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen points out, the Koran is seen by some Muslims as a God-given “hunting licence,” granting them the right to assault and even murder non-Muslims.
It is hardly accidental that while Muslims make up about tem percent of the population in France, they make up an estimated seventy percent of French prison inmates. Muslims are over-represented in jails in countries all over the world, and a striking number of non-Muslims in jail also convert to Islam. There could be many reasons for this. Some observers have suggested that prison inmates generally lack control over their personal lives, and thus seek a strict code which provides them with the discipline they themselves don’t have. Perhaps, but personally I suspect that the most important reason is much more simple: If you’re a Muslim you can continue doing criminal things yet at the same time claim to be morally superior. If you rob and mug non-Muslims you are not a thief or a thug, you are in fact a brave Jihadist doing God’s noble work:
Tariq Ramadan and Islam’s Future in Europe
“Non-Muslims are lesser people. By saying this they justify the behaviour of young Muslim criminals who target the non-Muslims whilst they never touch fellow Muslims. They told me that drug trafficking is perfectly acceptable as long as one only sells to non-Muslims. They told me that stealing from non-Muslims is allowed as long as one does not harm fellow Muslims. One day our office was burgled and our computers were stolen. All except the two computers belonging to our two Muslim colleagues. You don’t steal from brothers or sisters! …
Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it.”
Andrew Bostom has demonstrated in his book The Legacy of Jihad that the basic patterns have remained remarkably similar throughout the centuries, regardless of whether the non-Muslims in question were Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists. Jihad and dhimmitude frequently have less to do with huge terror attacks or spectacular invasions than with accumulated daily humiliations and insults. A small group of Muslims move into an area, then gradually expand their numbers and with continuous verbal and physical harassment of non-Muslims and sexual harassment of their women force them to leave their homes or convert to Islam. Here is an example from Iran where the non-Muslims are Zoroastrians, but it might as well have been certain areas of Amsterdam, Birmingham or the suburbs of of Paris today:
The Islamization of Europe
Mary Boyce, Emeritus Professor of Iranian Studies at the University of London, has confirmed the external validity of Bat Ye’or’s analytical approach in her description of how jihad and dhimmitude (without the latter being specifically identified as such) transformed Zoroastrian society in an analogous manner. Boyce has written definitive assessments of those Zoroastrian communities which survived the devastating jihad conquests of the mid 7th through early 8th centuries 20. The Zoroastrians experienced an ongoing, inexorable decline over the next millennium due to constant sociopolitical and economic pressures exerted by their Muslim rulers, and neighbor. Boyce describes these complementary phenomena based on an historical analysis, and her personal observations living in the (central Iranian) Yezd area during the 1960s:
“Either a few Moslems settled on the outskirts of a Zoroastrian village, or one or two Zoroastrian families adopted Islam. Once the dominant faith had made a breach, it pressed in remorselessly, like a rising tide. More Moslems came, and soon a small mosque was built, which attracted yet others. As long as Zoroastrians remained in the majority, their lives were tolerable; but once the Moslems became the more numerous, a petty but pervasive harassment was apt to develop. This was partly verbal, with taunts about fire-worship, and comments on how few Zoroastrians there were in the world, and how many Moslems, who must therefore posses the truth; and also on how many material advantages lay with Islam. The harassment was often also physical; boys fought, and gangs of youth waylaid and bullied individual Zoroastrians. They also diverted themselves by climbing into the local tower of silence and desecrating it, and they might even break into the fire-temple and seek to pollute or extinguish the sacred flame. Those with criminal leanings found too that a religious minority provided tempting opportunities for theft, pilfering from the open fields, and sometimes rape and arson. Those Zoroastrians who resisted all these pressures often preferred therefore in the end to sell out and move to some other place where their co-religionists were still relatively numerous, and they could live at peace; and so another village was lot to the old faith. Several of the leading families in Sharifabad and forebears who were driven away by intense Moslem pressure from Abshahi, once a very devout and orthodox village on the southern outskirts of Yazd; and a shorter migration had been made by the family of the centenarian ‘Hajji’ Khodabakhsh, who had himself been born in the 1850s and was still alert and vigorous in 1964. His family, who were very pious, had left their home in Ahmedabad (just to the north of Turkabad) when he was a small boy, and had come to settle in Sharifabad to escape persecution and the threats to their orthodox way of life. Other Zoroastrians held out there for a few decades longer, but by the end of the century Ahmedabad was wholly Moslem, as Abshahi become in 1961. [Boyce’s footnote: The last Zoroastrian family left Abshahi in 1961, after the rape and subsequent suicide of one of their daughters.] It was noticeable that the villages which were left to the Zoroastrians were in the main those with poor supplies of water, where farming conditions were hard.”
|Fjordman is a noted blogger who wrote for the Fjordman Blog in the past. He has also been published on many other websites, including Gates of Vienna, which is the publication where this article originally appeared.
The brilliant writer, Noemie Emery, riffing off Time’s teary Reagan cover and Karen Tumulty’s lead story explaining why he’d be crying over the state of his party, took time to review what the magazine was writing about him two decades ago. From the Weekly Standard:
And how did an era of greed, led by an out-of-touch airhead, change two decades later into a golden age, led by a prince among men? The reasons are these: First, the only times conservatives are praised in the press is when they can be used to run down other conservatives; and second, it is a general rule of the press and of the establishment that the best conservatives are those dead or retired; and the more dead or retired, the better they are. As Jonah Goldberg noted this winter when Gerald Ford died, lauded by a media that had little good to say of him while he was president, each Republican president is a fool, a bigot, and a dangerous warmonger while he is in office, responsible for sexism, racism, ageism, and general misery. Once dead, however, he acquires a Strange New Respect. In time, the jibes thrown at him are airbrushed away, and he is seen as a statesman, a true conservative, with all the best values, all the more so when compared with whatever Republican is now in office, who is seen in comparison as someone who really is dangerous, a warmonger, bigot, and fool. In their turn, Barry Goldwater, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush the Elder have become harmless and loveable figures, cherished for their good humor, their prudence, and tolerance–and for their distance from today’s modern conservatives, who have run their cause into the ground.
This pattern will not alter: In a few years, when President Rudy or Commander in Chief Thompson begins knocking heads, watch out for the press to express its Strange New Respect for Bush 43, whose government was nothing if not diverse as regards race and gender, and who at least made a pretense of being compassionate. In 2027, if Time is still around, will it run a cover, showing him shedding a tear?
Wherever Reagan is today, he is doubtless not crying. We like to think he is watching the horse race, with other ex-presidents. And laughing his head off at Time
By James Lewis
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just cancelled his planned appearance before the UN Security Council meeting, which is expected to vote for sanctions against Iran.
We predicted a week ago that his appearance in New York in front of the “infidel enemies” might trigger a psychological crisis for someone as zealous and perhaps paranoid as Ahmadinejad. The prospect of losing face before the world, with no good way out, might confront him with an untenable dilemma. It might trigger an outburst, a spontaneous lecture to the Satanic forces of the world — i.e., everybody except the Mullahs — or some other unplanned action.
What to make of his cancellation? If it holds — and everything is fluid right now — a good guess is that some of the adults are taking over in Tehran. Ahmadi-nejad is technically subordinate to the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Khamenei, who has personally spoken out in recent days. The pragmatists have criticized Ahmadi-nejad openly in their factional newspapers for being unnecessarily confrontational, and failing to improve the economy. They probably are jealous of Ahmadi-nejad’s parading his ego in front of the world. And if the Security Council goes ahead with sanctions, some of the wealthy Mullahs may start feeling the pain.
Chances are that the decision to stop Mahmoud’s trip to New York was made by the Supreme Guide, with the support of the pragmatists.
At the same time the Russians are beginning to pull their technicians out of the Bushehr nuclear plant in a dispute with the Mullocracy that is said to be about money, but is more likely to be about nukes. The Russians can’t be thrilled with an out-of-control jihadist nuclear power on their Southern border.
When the Israeli Air Force bombed Saddam’s nuclear reactor in 1981, the French had withdrawn all of their technicians. The Israelis worked with French intelligence to avoid casualties, and destroyed Saddam’s nuclear program in essentially one strike. That is not going to happen with Iran’s dispersed nuke effort, with more than 1000 sites. But if the Russians withdraw their people, the Iranians know perfectly well that the Bushehr plant can be hit with immediate multiple attacks from US and Israeli forces.
Since the Saudis and other Sunni Arabs are now clearly aligned against Iran, the quality of intelligence about the regime has probably improved in recent months. And finally, no less than five senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards have just defected to the West, a major blow to the prestige and security of the Mullah regime. Since such sources are more valuable in place than after defection, it is quite possible that they defected because they saw that the balloon was going up.
So if anybody blinked, it was probably not Ahmadi-nejad himself, who is a martyrdom fanatic, but his boss Khamenei and the pragmatists. The regime may also fear a military attack in the near future. The apparent penetration of the IRGC officer corps will take months to resolve, and Ahmadi-nejad may need to stay in Tehran to keep his own backers from collapsing.
For the civilized world this is not a time to weaken. Paranoids in charge of nukes cannot be acceptable to any sane nation within missile range. The West and the Sunni Arabs cannot afford to settle for a nuclear Iran under the control of a kami-kaze cult. Since the Arabs know the Iranians well, they are less likely to deceive themselves about their zealotry than Europe and even the American political class. Israel can hardly be in doubt about the danger. As for Russia, Putin is a KGB type who will err on the side of being tough-minded when push comes to shove.
We are in a period of great danger, but the correlation of forces may be starting to shift against the Mullah threat.
James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
by Bill Levinson
Hear Rosie O’Donnell talk about 9/11 (or gun control, or why Christians are no better than Islamofascists). Here is what O’Donnell’s and Charlie Sheen’s friends at the Loose Change web site say REALLY happened on 9/11. Before beginning, we will be the first to admit that this column lacks totally the decorum that one should show in debating an issue with a political opponent, but we do not recognize the producers of Loose Change, or their supporters like Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen, as “opponents.” We regard them as 9/11 deniers (in the same moral class as Holocaust deniers), and not worthy of the respect that a lady or gentleman of breeding accords a pet or domestic animal.
The central premise of Loose Change is that the United States Government was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the attacks of September 11th, 2001 to occur.
However, when one looks deeper into the evidence, one might come to the startling conclusion that our own government might have been directly responsible for the attacks themselves.
Loose Change merely scratches the surface of information that points to a massive government cover-up regarding 9/11. We highly encourage you to take it upon yourself to research the events of 9/11 for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
We remind our readers that 9/11 Denial is the same thing as Holocaust Denial, except that it dismisses, explains away, or blames on someone else (as the Soviets blamed the Katyn Forest massacre on the Germans, when they did it themselves) four missing airplanes and two missing skyscrapers instead of six million missing Jews and three million missing Polish Catholics. Their association with Loose Change and 9/11 conspiracy theories therefore puts Rosie O’Donnell, Charlie Sheen, the producers of Loose Change, and MoveOn.org into the same class as Holocaust deniers. Having said that, we will now have some entertainment at these sideshow freaks’ expense.
hold on folks, here we go
• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
• Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.
• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
Yes, Rosie, sure, Rosie, we understand, Rosie, and did you take your medications this morning?
Here is an animation we made for Rosie O’Donnell in 2000, when she was the keynote Spokespig for the Million Mom March. There is little doubt that she was indeed squealing like a stuck pig by 2001, while there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the offices of the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), but the key point is that the following animation shows what we thought of this phony as long ago as seven years ago. Since then, she has proven us right at every opportunity.
Re: “You should have used contraceptives.” Or gone with Plan B, as John Edwards’ blogger Amanda Marcotte suggested that Jesus’ mother should have done. In any event, Rosie, your Million Mom March has been retroactively Plan B-d and tossed in the ash bin of history where it belongs. We digress, however, and we must add that Rosie O’Donnell is not the only mindless Hollywood celebrity who thinks Elvis Presely, the Bush Administration, the Zionist Occupied Government, and/or space aliens (as opposed to Islamofascists chanting to Allah) perpetrated 9/11:
As far as the plane that crashed into the Pentagon – Sheen isn’t even certain that event even occurred. Red State.com notes that [Charlie] Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the crash site’s evidence.
“Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters.”
Pssssssst! Rosie and Charlie, we’d better help you out. You, along with the MoveOn community that has taken care to wear tinfoil hats 24/7 to keep out the mind control rays, know the TRUTH. Now here is material taken directly from MoveOn.org’s Action Forum, which was posted there by others who know the TRUTH about 9/11 and were not affected by the Bush Administration’s, Neocons’, and/or space aliens’ mind control rays.
[MoveOn.org Action Forum] Marvin Bush (brother) was head of Securicom, the firm in charge of security of the WTC until 9/11. Coincidence?
Prof. Steven Jones (BYU) has found residue of explosives used in controlled demolitions in samples of steel from WTC.
The official explanation of why the towers fell is that heat from jet fuel weakened the steel and the collapse of the upper floors caused a “pancake” effect and each floor collapsed from the weight of the floors above it crashing down. I’d believe that if the melting point of steel weren’t 1,000 degrees hotter than jet fuel can burn, if most of the fuel hadn’t exploded outside the building upon impact, and if the towers didn’t fall at free-fall speed, as if there were not 47 steel columns holding the floors up in the air. [Hey— did you know that steel softens and loses considerable structural strength long before it actually melts?]
NORAD, our national air-defense system stood down and did not intercept the hi-jacked planes. Our military was conducting several war-game excersises [sic] which simulated hi-jacked airliners being flown into buildings. This gave cover for the real-world terror plot to happen, allowing the FAA to think the hi-jacked planes were part of the wargames and not take action of their own.
Flights 93 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11. None of the terrorists were even on the passenger manifests!
Ask questions, demand answers. Soon, it will be too late to freely ask these questions.
Yes, the TRUTH is out there, and you must wear your tinfoil hat 24/7 or your brain will be wiped clean with everyone else’s.
[MoveOn.org Action Forum] Another neo-con appeared today on C-Span to defend Bush and his spying program! I am Jewish and proud of it (despite everything) but I am sick of seeing those neo-cons posing as average joes on national television to defend Bush and his lies. Since they don’t have the decency or honesty to identify themselves by saying: “But you know, I am a Zionist and may be biased” and since most Americans can’t tell the difference and don’t have the courage to ask, maybe they should be forced to wear an Israeli flag on the lapel of their jackets. Isn’t it time to tell the American people the truth, i.e. that Jews control all the media.
And the Joooooooooooz control your minds as well, unless of course you wear a tinfoil hat to stop their Evil Mind Control Rays.
[MoveOn.org Action Forum] Fascism With Two Faces
Why bang our heads against the wall trying to decide which side would best combat terrorism? Both sides are just as incompetent. Both sides worked to erect the terrorism boogie man in the first place. Both sides supported the war on terrorism. The whole issue is just another strawman to set up and knock down.
What happened on 9/11/01 was obviously the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, especially the third building which we are led to believe was just a fluke of nature. Both the Brownshirts and the Blackshirts are silent about this.
It is all about switching from the cold war mentality between the two superpowers to a different Boogie Man to fight to the death, as the cold war Boogie Man had fizzled out.
The point is taken from “1984″ by George Orwell, but he forgot to spell it out for us: Do not believe the obvious, Big Brother will tell us what is obvious.
[MoveOn.org Action Forum] First, you’re right about one thing: Bush is no Hitler. Hitler was a socialist and believed in something beside money. He did not dodge real military service and he believed at least in Germany which was a real nation and not a corporation like the US. Moreover, Hitler did not use depleted uranium and phosphorous to burn people alive. He did not condone the torture of prisoners “for fun” or “to relieve stress”.
[”I knew Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a friend of mine. And believe me, Mr. Bush, you are no Hitler!”]
Second, regarding 9/11, you obviously are ill informed. Let me refer you to a few videos and web sites that might open your Jewish eyes (no offense, I am Jewish myself and was once blind too).
http://www.911truestory.com or http://www.911truth.org
Aren’t you curious about why Bush was against a 9/11 Commission? Why no real police investigation was conducted? Why no black box, parts of planes like engines or bodies were recovered? Why whatever was recovered was quickly shipped out of the country? Why, in a way that is totally unprecedented and not repeated since, buildings burned and collapsed like paper houses even the building that wasn‘t hit by planes and where there were just two minor fires? Did you know that some of the alleged hijackers who supposedly died on the planes have since been seen? [In the UFO with Elvis, no doubt.] Don’t you ask why the volume of put options on Boeing and American Airlines were two or three times higher than usual just before the facts? Do you know that a huge amount of gold that was stored in one of the towers is still not accounted for? These are but a few of the many questions that remain unanswered.
I wish that before you publish a book about the Menace in Europe, you think about the real damage that this country has inflicted on mankind since it came into existence 200 plus years ago.
Don’t tell anyone, and keep wearing those tinfoil hats to keep the mind control rays out! (Meanwhile, some very nice men in clean white coats are coming to take you to a beautiful country resort where everything is peaceful and quiet, and there are diligent nurses to make sure you take your medications every day, along with soft padded rooms to make sure you do not inflict harm on yourselves…)
By Geneive Abdo
Saturday, March 17, 2007; Page A19
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A small group of self-proclaimed secular Muslims from North America and elsewhere gathered in St. Petersburg recently for what they billed as a new global movement to correct the assumed wrongs of Islam and call for an Islamic Reformation.
Across the state in Fort Lauderdale, Muslim leaders from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Washington-based advocacy group whose members the “secular” Muslims claim are radicals, denounced any notion of a Reformation as another attempt by the West to impose its history and philosophy on the Islamic world.
The self-proclaimed secularists represent only a small minority of Muslims. The views among religious Muslims from CAIR more closely reflect the views of the majority, not only in the United States but worldwide. Yet Western media, governments and neoconservative pundits pay more attention to the secular minority.
The St. Petersburg convention is but one example: It was carried live on Glenn Beck’s conservative CNN show. Some of the organizers and speakers at the convention are well known thanks to the media spotlight: Irshad Manji, author of “The Trouble With Islam,” and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch parliamentarian and author of “Infidel,” were but a few there claiming to have suffered personally at the hands of “radical” Islam. One participant, Wafa Sultan, declared on Glenn Beck’s show that she doesn’t “see any difference between radical Islam and regular Islam.”
The secular Muslim agenda is promoted because these ideas reflect a Western vision for the future of Islam. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, everyone from high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to the author Salman Rushdie has prescribed a preferred remedy for Islam: Reform the faith so it is imbued with Western values — the privatization of religion, the flourishing of Western-style democracy — and rulers who are secular, not religious, Muslims. The problem with this prescription is that it is divorced from reality. It is built upon the principle that if Muslims are fed a steady diet of Western influence, they, too, will embrace modernity, secularism and everything else the West has to offer.
Consider the facts: Islamic revivalism has spread across the globe in the past 30 years from the Middle East to parts of Africa. In Egypt, it is hard to find a woman on the street who does not wear a headscarf. Islamic political groups and movements are on the rise — from Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Even in the United States, more and more American Muslims, particularly the young, are embracing Islam and religious symbolism in ways their more secular, immigrant parents did not.
I traveled to Florida to serve as the keynote speaker at an annual convention hosted by CAIR. On my way to the event, I spoke with Imam Siraj Wahaj, a charismatic intellectual from the Masjid Al-Taqwa in Brooklyn who has thousands of followers here and abroad. His words summarized the aspirations of mainstream Muslims in the United States and around the globe: “What we need to do is borrow those attributes from the West that we admire and reject those that we don’t. That is the wave of the future.”
Already, signs support Imam Wahaj’s words. Muslims living in the West and those in the Islamic world are searching for this middle ground — one that fuses aspects of globalization with the Islamic tradition. For example, Muslim women have far greater access to higher education today than ever before. In Iran, there are more women than men in universities, a first in the country’s history. But as increasing numbers of Muslim women become more educated, majorities are becoming more religious while also taking part in what are called Islamic feminist movements, which stretch from Egypt to Turkey and Morocco.
These women, who often wear headscarves to express their religiosity, have found this gray area between modernity and traditionalism. They are fighting for more rights to participate in politics and greater equality in “personal status” laws — the right to gain custody of children or to initiate divorce — but also view Islam as their moral compass.
Similarly, the political future of the Arab world is likely to consist of Islamic parties that are far less tolerant of what has historically been the U.S. foreign policy agenda in the region and that domestically are far more committed to implementing sharia law in varying degrees.
In Europe and the United States, where Muslims have maximum exposure to Western culture, they are increasingly embracing Islamic values. In Britain, a growing number of Muslims advocate creating a court system based upon Islamic principles.
What all this means is that Western hopes for full integration by Muslims in the West are unlikely to be realized and that the future of the Islamic world will be much more Islamic than Western.
Instead of championing the loud voices of the secular minority who are capturing media attention with their conferences, manifestos and memoirs, the United States would be wise instead to pay more attention to the far less loquacious majority.
Geneive Abdo is the author of “Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11.”
The Road to Serfdom
By Caroline B. Glick
Saturday, March 24, 2007
|In Israel, as in the rest of the free world, we are witnessing the death by a thousand cuts of free thought.
Last month, two students at Cambridge University’s Clare College became victims of this state of affairs. The students dedicated an edition of their satire magazine to the one-year anniversary of the global Muslim riots which followed the publication of caricatures of Muhammad in the Danish Jyllands Posten newspaper. As the students recalled, those riots led to the deaths of more than a hundred people.
Although the British media refused to republish the caricatures, British Muslims held terrifying protests throughout the country where they called for the destruction of Britain, the US, Denmark and Israel and for the murder of all who refuse to accept the global domination of Islam.
In their magazine, the students published some of the caricatures and mocked the Muslims for their hypocrisy in accusing British society of racial prejudice while calling for its violent destruction.
The Muslim reaction was apparently swift. Fearing for their lives, the students were forced into hiding.
But the Muslims were not alone in their anger. Clare College set up a special disciplinary court to consider action against the students. And the Cambridgeshire police opened a criminal investigation against them in late February.
The persecution of these students provides a case study of the two-pronged offensive being carried out today against Western culture. First there are the jihadists, who call for our destruction. Then there are the leftist intellectuals and public figures who defend radical Islamists and work to silence those who criticize them by criminalizing speech and condemning free thinkers as racists.
The direct consequence of this two-pronged offensive is the repression of free thought.
FOUR YEARS ago, US President George W. Bush called the invasion of Iraq “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”
The intention was clear. The purpose of the war was not merely to bring down Saddam Hussein’s murderous, terror-supporting regime. It was to bring about the defeat of the vile world view that supported the regime and to replace that view with the values of freedom, tolerance and democracy.
Four years on, US forces continue their heroic fight to bring order and security to that violent land. But the purpose of their efforts is no longer clear. The US no longer pushes the Iraqis or the greater Arab world to abandon jihad in favor of freedom.
Earlier this month, columnist Joel Mowbray gave evidence of the Bush administration’s abandonment of the war of ideas in a Wall Street Journal expose on the US taxpayer-financed Arabic-language television network Al-Hurra. The US launched Al- Hurra in February 2004 to compete with jihadist television networks like Al Jazeera. Its stated aim was to present a liberal, pro-democracy and pro-human rights voice to the Arab world. Yet, as Mowbray reported, since former CNN producer Larry Register was appointed to lead the network last November, that aim fell by the wayside.
In December the network began allowing itself to be used as a platform by arch terrorists like Hizbullah commander Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. Last month, when the Israeli Islamic movement began attacking Israel for conducting an archeological dig by the Aksa mosque, Al-Hurra’s coverage of the story was more extreme than Al Jazeera’s. Palestinian Authority mufti Ikremah Sabri was brought on live and accused Israel of shooting and throwing bombs into the mosque and of denying medical care to those it had supposedly wounded. Al-Hurra has also hosted an al-Qaida terrorist who rejoiced in the September 11 attacks on America.
As is the case in Britain, the Bush administration’s decision to largely abandon the ideological battlefield is the result of an uncompromising and unrelenting ideological and political assault against the voices that justify the war against the global jihad generally, and against the hawks in the Bush administration specifically.
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and John Bolton – and arguably Scooter Libby – were all forced from their positions in the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House after coming under unrelenting attack by the Left which all but accused these men of treason for their vigilant support of the war against Islamic totalitarianism. A central component of the onslaught against them was the repeated claim that their support for Israel is what brought these men to delude America into believing that the global jihad is a threat to US national security.
One of the central players in this concerted attack has been the billionaire George Soros. Soros is an anti-Zionist Jew with a troubling past. Specifically, by his own admission in interviews with 60 Minutes in 1998 and PBS in 1993, Soros collaborated with the Nazis in seizing Jewish property in Budapest in 1944.
Author Serge Trifkovic, who is currently researching a biography of Soros, tells of a Holocaust survivor in Hungary who claims that the reason Soros was allowed to remain free was “the boy’s special knowledge of the Jewish community and its attempts to protect its property from confiscation.”
Since 2003, Soros has donated more than $100 million to radical left-wing groups and to the political campaigns of far-left anti-war Democratic candidates in the US. His money has made him one of the most influential forces in the Democratic Party.
After Hamas won the Palestinian election last January, Soros turned his guns against Israel. Last October he announced his intention to work with left-wing American Jewish groups such as Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, American Friends of Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum to form an effectively anti-Israel lobbying group that will compete with the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Soros accuses AIPAC of making common cause with the war hawks and so harming US and Israeli national security.
This week Soros laid out his anti-Israel views in the New York Review of Books. In a longwinded screed entitled, “On Israel, America and AIPAC,” Soros presents an incoherent hodgepodge of sloppy logic and contradictory statements. On the one hand, he acknowledges that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza radicalized the Palestinians and brought Hamas to power. On the other hand, he insists that further Israeli withdrawals will cause the Palestinians to moderate. While he acknowledges that Hamas is a terror group, he insists that the US must recognize it and force Israel to recognize it and that AIPAC is responsible for neither recognizing Hamas as a legitimate political force in the region.
Soros claims to want peace for Israel. Yet he demands that the US and Israel embrace the Saudi plan which calls for Israel’s effective destruction through a forced Israeli withdrawal from Judea, Jerusalem, Samaria and the Golan Heights and the demographic destruction of the Jewish state through unimpeded immigration of 4-5 million foreign-born Arabs.
In effect, Soros’s arguments make clear that protestations aside, the advancement of human rights and peace cannot possibly be his true goals. Rather, what seems to interest him most is the erosion of the US-Israel alliance. A US abandonment of Israel is seen as a necessary component of an overall strategy for causing the US to cease its fight against the global jihad.
In her visit here next week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to pressure the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government to continue diplomatic contacts with the Hamas-Fatah terror government through PA Chairman and Fatah commander Mahmoud Abbas. In light of the administration’s weakening stand on Hamas, it is clear that Soros’s views have taken hold in ever-widening policy circles in Washington.
In advancing their anti-Israel views, Soros and his allies (most recently, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof), invoke the work of radical leftist Israeli organizations like the Geneva Initiative, B’tselem and Peace Now. Like Soros, these organizations claim to act for the advancement of peace and human rights. And like Soros, these organizations effectively cooperate with pro-jihadist groups in eroding Israel’s ability to defend its rights as a Jewish democracy.
The public storm that ensued this week after Jews in Hebron took control of a building they recently purchased in the city was a clear example of this leftist-jihadist collusion.
In demanding that the IDF move immediately to eject the Jews from the building they had bought, Peace Now and B’tselem ignored human rights and openly advocated the abrogation of the human rights of Israeli Jews to purchase and hold property. In so doing, they lent their support to the racist jihadist view that Jews must be barred from stepping foot in so-called Arab areas.
B’tselem spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday that whether the Jews purchased the building or not was immaterial. In her words, “Our opposition in principle is that these settlements should be evacuated anyway and that there shouldn’t be these pockets in Hebron.”
She added that “other than watching and making sure that [the sale] was done in a legal way, the IDF has the obligation to make sure that settlers don’t take over more areas.”
In so arguing, Michaeli gave effective Jewish Israeli support to even more outrageous statements by Israeli Arab parliamentarians. As she claimed that the IDF’s job is to fight Jews, Arab MKs Ibrahim Sarsour and Muhammad Barakei participated in the PA’s “Jerusalem First” conference in Ramallah. Sarsour called for “Muslims and Arabs” to “liberate Jerusalem.”
Sarsour declared, “Just as the Muslims once liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders, so must we today believe that we can liberate Jerusalem. It is not an impossible dream.”
Barakei accused Israel of trying to “empty Jerusalem of its Palestinian inhabitants.” Calling Jerusalem a “national issue, not just a religious issue,” he called on Palestinians to act immediately to “reclaim the city.”
As for Hebron, on Tuesday MK Taleb a-Sanaa called for an international boycott of Israel in response to the Jewish purchase and takeover of the building.
The Arab MKs spoke against the backdrop of Israel’s first Arab cabinet minister Ghaleb Majadle’s refusal to sing the national anthem and the publication of a University of Haifa poll showing that 76 percent of Israeli Arabs believe that Zionism is a form of racism and that 28% of Israeli Arabs deny the Holocaust.
Needless to say, no criminal investigations into possible treason charges have been opened against the Arab politicians.
A CLEAR line connects the Cambridge students, the Americans in Iraq, and the situation in Israel. The leftist-Islamist front is eroding the free world’s sense of justice. Rather than assert our liberal, democratic values and defend our freedoms, fearing leftist condemnation, politicians and opinion shapers have permitted themselves to become shackled to ideologies that negate everything for which the free world stands.
Israel, which stands on the front lines of freedom, is duty-bound to stem the tide. But our ignoble leaders have preferred to stop thinking and silently surrender.
This is how a civilization collapses.