Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America?

Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America?
Glen Reinsford
Author: Glen Reinsford
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: June 18, 2007

Muslims on Coney Island Ave. Brooklyn, NY 

Are you aware that CAIR insists that any and all Muslims from around the world are automatically “entitled” to immigrate to America? FSM Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford makes compelling arguments on this issue. Is an ever growing Muslim population an asset or a liability for us?

Muslim Immigration: A Winning or Losing Proposition for America? 

By Glen Reinsford

Pardon the crude analogy, but what if someone handed you a revolver with one bullet and five empty chambers and asked you to put it to your temple and squeeze the trigger? Would you indulge them?

If you are a sane person, then you would naturally decline the offer, regardless of the number of empty chambers. Even a one in a hundred chance of doing harm is hardly a reason, in and of itself, for taking an unnecessary risk.

Consider the similarities to Muslim immigration:

1)     In most cases, nothing bad will happen.

2)     In some cases, it will.

3)     The risk increases as the process continues.

4)     There is an utter pointlessness to the whole affair.

First, let’s concede that the majority of Muslim immigrants mean Americans no harm. They have their reasons for not wanting to live in Muslim countries and these aren’t hard to guess. Of the fifty-three Islamic nations on the planet, there is hardly a single one that isn’t characterized by some combination of debilitating corruption, economic blight, third-world standard of living, political repression, or an appalling human rights condition. 

Unfortunately, however, more Muslims in America will inevitably result in a more Muslim America, which ultimately means having to deal with the problems that plague Muslim society. If there are tangible benefits that offset the added strain of trying to accommodate a religion that is very much at odds with Western liberal values (including freedom of conscience, social tolerance, democracy, and the equality of women), then they are not immediately apparent.

Even the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the most vocal advocates of unfettered Islamic immigration into America rarely bothers to try and make the case that non-Muslim citizens will benefit from an influx of those believing that Islam is meant to be the dominant political, religious and social system that Muhammad required it to be. Instead, CAIR merely implies that Muslims are entitled to America by virtue of the fact that the U.S. accepts other immigrants. 

Beyond flirting with cultural catastrophe, there is also the loss of American lives resulting from the domestic terror attacks that will certainly escalate as the U.S. inexplicably imports a fifth column in a time of war. 

A Pew Research poll released in May shows that one out of every four Muslims in America either supports al-Qaeda outright or is ambivalent about the terrorists that slaughtered 3,000 fellow citizens in the name of Allah just six short years ago. About the same percentage of younger Muslims also believe that suicide bombings can be justified in “defense of Islam.”

Support for terrorism isn’t just theoretical. The release of the study was sandwiched between news of a shooting rampage plot by Muslims against Fort Dix residents and a separate Fedayeen plot literally to blow up JFK airport in New York. It also follows the murder of five Americans at a Utah shopping mall by a Muslim teenager in February.

In each case, the terrorists are immigrants to America. 

This is also true of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who murdered two people waiting in line at an LAX airline counter in 2002, Mohammed Taheri-azar, who intentionally ran down nine students with an SUV in North Carolina in 2006, and Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, a Muslim doctor in Chicago who allegedly allowed a Jewish patient to die under his care in 2003. Naveed Haq, who shot six women at a Seattle Jewish center last year, was the son of immigrants.

The Qur’an, Islam’s holiest text, contains dozens of verses that directly encourage religious violence, and there are literally hundreds more that speak of Hell or hatred toward nonbelievers. Muslim apologists usually insist that the bloodiest directives are reserved for times of war (even if this stipulation is not always evident from the context of the passage).

Many Americans naively assume that they are safe from Islamic terror because they mean Muslims no harm. Indeed, the Pew Research study showed that the majority of American Muslims are “well-assimilated” and have a “positive view” of American society, something that simply would not be the case if there truly was a “war on Islam.” Even CAIR (an organization that normally tries to convince the world of just how miserable life is for Muslims in the U.S.) hastily touted this part of the study, as it tried to assuage the concerns of Americans over the news that their Muslim neighbors may not be who they appear.

But whether or not there actually is a war on Islam matters far less than what Muslims choose to believe. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of Muslims overseas and an alarming number of Muslims in the U.S. are convinced that there is a war against their religion. In fact, high-profile organizations like CAIR and MPAC routinely feed this misconception with negative propaganda, while very few Muslim leaders are active in countering it.

Suddenly the issue of whether or not those Qur’anic mandates to “slay the infidels wherever ye find them” are limited to times of war becomes somewhat academic. A Muslim who actually believes the rhetoric of war (as most Muslims now do) has, at his fingertips, a manual of instruction telling him to strike off heads and fingertips in the cause of Allah. What sense does it make for the U.S. to draw its future citizens from a pool of potential terrorists?

As if this weren’t bad enough, the Pew Research study also finds that the younger generation of Muslims is more accommodating of terrorism than their parents – a trend that is supported by surveys of Muslims elsewhere in the West, with alarming implications. While moderates are capable of breeding radicals, radicals rarely breed moderates. Islamic extremism will expand with each new generation, even if the overall number of Muslims stays the same.

Progressive radicalization is a persistent theme in Islam, not just in the West, but in other parts of the world as well, where fundamentalism usually has a way of winning out over pragmatism.

In Gaza, for example, Palestinians recently used their new-found “independence” to elect the bloody Islamist terror group, Hamas, to power, even though it meant an immediate and drastic reduction in foreign aid. 

It is also highly unlikely that the Pakistan of today (where Islamists are forcing the implementation of Sharia and the persecution of surviving religious minorities) is what the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had in mind when he engineered an independent Muslim nation just 60 years ago. Jinnah was a secularist who believed in the separation of church and state.

Lebanon, a vibrant and predominantly Christian nation before 1975, is perhaps the most vivid example of Muslim immigration pushing a nation past the tipping point in the modern age. Native Lebanese expert, Brigitte Gabriel, traces the downfall of her country to the absorption of Palestinian refugees, which gave radical Islam the foothold that it needed to trigger the civil war. 

The subsequent occupation by Syria forced out huge numbers of Christians and devastated the social fabric of what had been the Arab world’s best example of economic success, civil liberty and tolerance. The free reign of Hezbollah and other radical groups has virtually ensured Muslim hegemony and Lebanon’s grinding descent into the abyss of dysfunction that defines those nations under Islamic rule.

Every country that is Muslim today was once non-Muslim. Every culture that found itself under the heel of Islam died a pitiful death as the concentration of Muslims within the population gradually exceeded critical mass. This is because Islam is an end unto itself. Like a virus, once it is introduced, it uses the host’s machinery to make copies and eventually strangle native religions into tiny, persecuted minorities. 

In the past, Islam achieved its imperial goals by the sword. Today – notwithstanding the occasional terror attack – Jihad against the West is waged via the tactics of unilateral immigration and one-sided proselytizing.

This is not to say that all Muslims are a threat to America’s future, of course. Indeed, there is a handful in the United States that does stand against extremism, trying their best to convince the rest of the Islamic world that America is not a legitimate target for terror. Unlike, say, the first-generation immigrants who mostly make up the executive leadership of the Hamas-linked CAIR, these Muslims aren’t takers. They are makers – giving back to America, rather than existing merely to foment grievance and group identity for personal indulgence. 

Presumably, there are potential Muslim immigrants who would also become patriotic and productive citizens. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who they are or predicting who their children might become. Like putting a partially-loaded gun to one’s head, there is absolutely no compelling reason to gamble with American life and civil liberty. What reward have Americans gained so far that can possibly offset the loss of those already killed by Muslims on American soil?

For potential immigrants who believe that Islam is the true religion, America’s message should be one of challenge rather than appeasement. Over the course of fourteen centuries now, Islam has demonstrated a proven ability to take prosperous countries and turn them into disaster zones. Now it is time for Muslims to show that their “one, true religion” is capable of building societies in which Muslims themselves actually want to live rather than escape. 

After all, what service to the Muslim world does the United States do by absorbing the most reform-minded individuals from where they are needed most?

It should go without saying that citizens of America who happen to be Muslim should not be viewed with suspicion or treated any differently than anyone else merely on the basis of their religion. But neither should Americans be afraid of confronting organizations like CAIR, which cynically exploit Western tolerance for the purpose of ultimately destroying that tolerance and advancing a theocratic system that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles that made America successful and attractive.

Again, the message should be clear: If you want to live in a Muslim country, then go live in one. On the other hand, if you don’t want to live in a Muslim country, then stop trying to turn America into one.

The problems are not uniquely American, of course. But Americans are best positioned to avoid them if they can muster the courage. Others in the West are not as fortunate. Some have developed a pathetic resignation to their fate.

On a recent visit to the United States, Queen Elizabeth talked positively of the “challenges” posed by “diversity.” This was a thinly-veiled reference to the consequences of British immigration policy over the last fifty years, which now include a disaffected Muslim underclass that is just beginning to flex its muscle. In the Queen’s mind, it would appear that diversity is the tautological justification for very social “challenges” that diversity creates.

But “diversity” is merely a description, not a self-evident moral axiom that confers any sort of legitimacy in its own right. The same social engineers who champion the cause of diversity are often known to sing a different tune when it comes to poverty, the uneven distribution of wealth and the many other elements of economic diversity.

Challenge and risk often have their place at the personal level. There is usually nothing wrong with the challenge to exercise, eat right or become more productive, for example. Likewise, there are rewards in life, such as a lucrative career or meaningful friendships that are often accomplished only through taking a measure of personal risk.

The challenges posed by Muslim immigration are not personal, however, and neither do the esoteric rewards (whatever they may be) offset the all-too-tangible consequences for the broader society, particularly since it will affect those members who never wanted to incur these risks in the first place. 

Muslim immigration adds nothing that is truly necessary to the lives of Americans, but its degenerative effects are already starting to threaten the American way of life through demoralization, litigation and the other subtle tactics of cultural Jihad.

In this sense, Americans are following in Europe’s footsteps when they would do better to avoid the example being set. Although the Brits may brag about the problems that they have created for themselves, a more sensible France is quietly trying to pay some of its five million Muslims to leave the country.   Other Western nations are also trying to accommodate the social strain that is rising from a petulant and increasingly unruly Islamic minority.

The Muslim world does not accept non-Muslim immigrants. In fact, it is becoming more homogenous as Islamic regimes drive out religious minorities or whittle them down through other means of attrition. Even Muslims who feel entitled to life in the West often decry the presence of foreigners in Muslim lands.

But if Muslim lands are for Muslims, then it is all the more reason for insisting that this is where they stay, particularly since the legacy of Islamic immigration into the West is becoming a series of unilateral concessions to appease Muslims that not only go unreciprocated, but are then the new foothold for even bolder demands.

Muslim immigration is a losing proposition for America. At best, it is an unnecessary risk that offers no comparable benefit. At worst, it is suicidal.

#  #  Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford is Editor of

© 2003-2007 All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to


Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

 Click here to support Family Security Matters

What really happened in the Middle East

What really happened in the Middle East

Vasko Kohlmayer
The Terrorism Awareness Project, an offshoot of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, has put out an excellent overview of the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict called What Really Happened in the Middle East.

A straightforward presentation of facts, this ten-minute multimedia production cuts through all the noise, passions and dissembling that have made this subject so difficult to understand and should be seen by all those interested in this problem. Like almost everything that bears Horowitz’s imprimatur, this eye-opening presentation is highly instructive and superbly executed.
Contact Vasko Kohlmayer

Framing global warming

Framing global warming

Clarice Feldman
Professor Bryson, the father of scientific climatology says anthropogenic global warming is hooey. Naturally whenever scientists who do know what they are talking about offend the dogmatists, they are said to be going against the “scientific consensus”. Science is science. Consensus is politics. And close examination of many of those part of that “consensus” reveals they are not climatologists,but grant seekers.

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.
“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
[snip]””There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'”
[snip] Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. “And that goes in the paper as ‘scientists say.'”
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. “It is sort of a smear.”

Posted in Uncategorized. Leave a Comment »

Betraying America Por La Raza!

Betraying America Por La Raza!
By John Perazzo | June 18, 2007

On June 10, the Justice Department announced that three Texas National Guard members helping to patrol the Mexican border had been charged with human smuggling. One of the three was caught, in uniform, driving a van packed with 24 illegal Mexican immigrants along Interstate 35 in Texas, some 68 miles north of the border. That driver, 26-year-old Pfc. Jose Rodrigo Torres of Laredo, was arrested June 7. His two accomplices, 25-year-old Julio Cesar Pacheco (also of Laredo) and 36-year-old Sgt. Clarence Hodge, Jr. (of Fort Worth), were arrested the following day. The suspects now face a possible federal indictment on smuggling conspiracy charges, which could land them each in prison for up to a decade and cost them as much as $250,000 apiece in fines.

According to the complaint by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Pacheco and Torres had run numerous smuggling trips before. It seems that Pacheco headed the operation, recruiting fellow soldiers to help him do his dirty work and paying them lots of money for their efforts. The scheme worked like this: Pacheco collected anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 from each Mexican wishing to be smuggled across the American border. In turn, he commissioned Torres, at a rate of roughly $150 per passenger, to drive the illegals to a secure, predetermined location in Texas. In an interview conducted last year, Pacheco, who had just been hired to help monitor the border in his hometown of Laredo, told the Associated Press that he was eager to begin his new assignment. Now we know why.

After his apprehension, Torres waived his Miranda rights and told Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that he had transported illegal aliens on approximately seven previous occasions, and that Pacheco had paid him $1,000 to $3,500 for each trip, depending upon how many passengers he was carrying.

Hodge played a much smaller, albeit significant, role. His job (on June 6) was to provide cover for Torres by walking up to the latter’s vehicle at a Border Patrol checkpoint along Interstate 35, some 30 miles north of Laredo, and give the appearance that he and the driver were conducting National Guard-related business. At approximately 9:40 p.m. the following night, however, Torres’ van was stopped by a different set of Border Patrol agents 33 miles farther north; they immediately observed the men hiding inside the vehicle.

Most crimes are, by definition, characterized by self-interest and an absence of concern for the ramifications of one’s own actions. And as such, the transgressions of these three national guardsmen are hardly unique. But the fact that the two major players — Pacheco and Torres — are Hispanic, may bear some notice. Modern America has fallen under the sway of the leftist notion that people ought to define themselves, first and foremost, not as Americans but rather as members of a particular racial or ethnic group — “hyphenated Americans,” as the saying goes. Founded on the axiom that the United States is a nation of white oppressors who seek to dominate nonwhites, this mindset has spawned the ever-growing phenomenon of groupthink, where any individual who gives greater allegiance to his country than to his ethnic group is deemed a sort of traitor to his people.

To discern where Pacheco and Torres might possibly have learned such a value system, we needn’t look far. Consider, for a moment, those organizations that are the dominant voices on the issue of “immigrant rights” in America today. Without exception, they promote the idea that shared victim status (as emblemized by skin color and class) far outranks patriotism as a justification for solidarity of purpose. Portraying American society as inherently unjust, these purported guardians of the downtrodden actively encourage illegals to view themselves as combatants in a noble, desperate struggle to win the rights and privileges they are allegedly being denied.

One such organization is MEChA, an umbrella of radical Chicano student groups with a presence on some 300 college campuses across the United States. Embracing the ideology of “Chicanismo,” MEChA holds Chicano purity to be its highest ideal, and views assimilation with “white America” as a betrayal of ethnic heritage. The organization’s slogan — “Por la Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” — translates to “For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing.” In 1995, UC San Diego’s official MEChA publication printed an editorial characterizing a recently deceased Latino immigration agent as a race traitor who, like “all the migra [a pejorative term for the INS] pigs,” deserved his death. Exhorting students to “constantly remind” Chicano faculty and administrators “where their loyalty lies,” MEChA’s national constitution emphasizes the importance of “politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness.”  MEChA’s founding manifesto rejects the very notion of respect for U.S. borders — “We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent [the United States]” — and vows to repel the “brutal ‘gringo’ invasion of our territories.”

The largest Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), opposes the REAL ID Act requiring that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify that they are legal U.S. residents. It opposes allowing state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws.  It opposed the “Secure Fence Act of 2006” which authorized 700 miles of new border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Raul Yzaguirre, who was President of NCLR from 1974 to 2004, believes that illegal aliens are best described as “hardworking people who are paying taxes, who are helping this economy.” He opposes the imposition of sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants, and in fact rejects the very use of the term “illegal.” Such attitudes proved to be of great benefit to Yzaguirre’s career. On April 12, 2007, Hillary Rodham Clinton named him to co-chair her presidential campaign and to direct her outreach efforts to Hispanic voters. 

Another very prominent “immigrant rights” group is the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), which claims a membership of approximately 115,000.  In LULAC’s calculus, the movement to establish English as the official language of the United States is “incredibly divisive because it sends the message that the culture of language minorities is inferior and illegal.” Such a policy, warns LULAC, could “fuel the fires of racism” and consequently spark “hate crimes and right wing terrorist attacks.” Advocating amnesty for all illegal aliens, LULAC charges that America’s national security measures since 9/11 “have been focused on terrorizing good people simply because they are foreigners.” LULAC has portrayed the Minuteman Project — a nonviolent, volunteer effort by private citizens seeking to restrict the flow of illegal immigration — as “an anti-immigrant group” composed of “racists, cowards, un-Americans [sic], vigilantes, [and] domestic terrorists” who are “often affiliated with white supremacy groups.” Jose Velez, who headed LULAC from 1990 to 1994, claimed that the US. Border Patrol is “the enemy of my people and always will be.”

Perhaps the most influential Hispanic advocacy group in the United States is the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), which contends that Americans who oppose unrestricted immigration are merely giving expression to their inner “racism and xenophobia.” Advocating “legalization” for all “undocumented persons living and working here in the U.S.,” MALDEF depicts illegal immigrants as the unappreciated “backbone of the U.S. economy.” In the organization’s view, supporters of “English Only” policies are “motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments,” and anyone who opposes the hiring of illegal aliens wishes to discriminate against “brown-skinned people.”

La Voz de Aztlán is the Internet publication of the Nation of Aztlán, a California-based secessionist organization that seeks ultimately to gain, for Mexico, ownership of the Southwestern United States — territory that it claims was “stolen” by white America. La Voz is intolerant of Latinos who hold views that conflict with its own. One such individual is Linda Chavez, an outspoken opponent of bilingual education and affirmative action. According to La Voz, Chavez is an “extraordinary malinchista” (traitor) and a “coconut” (brown on the outside, white on the inside) similar to “the brutish Jewish female Kapos at Auschwitz who received special favors for sleeping with their Nazi masters.” The publication further likened her to black “Uncle Toms” like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and “House Niggers” like former UC Regent Ward Connerly (both opponents of affirmative action). 

An organization that was particularly active in the massive “immigrant rights” rallies of 2006 was the Mexica Movement (MM), whose central thesis is that European “invaders” unjustly “stole” the North American continent from its rightful owners. MM views existing borders between
Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Central America as the arbitrary constructs of squatters who are illegally occupying land that is not rightfully theirs. By this reasoning, white Americans are the real “illegals” — intruders in a land where they do not rightfully belong. MM counsels its people to steadfastly eschew any impulse to assimilate into America’s illegitimate society or to embrace its inherently corrupt values: “We are educating our people against the ignorant suicidal assimilation into European blood and culture. . . . Assimilation means marrying white to kill the brown in us, to kill the heart of us. Assimilation means the end of us. Assimilation sucks us down into the white race.”

These are just a few of the multitudes of vocal “pro-immigrant” groups that are largely portrayed by the media as well-meaning advocates for the powerless and the poor. In essence, they reject all U.S. efforts to maintain border integrity and to regulate the flow of immigration. Do we know for certain that their mindset had infected Julio Cesar Pacheco and Jose Rodrigo Torres specifically? No. But the fact that both men are Hispanic seems too coincidental to be a genuine coincidence. Given that they were raised in an American culture where the sentiments and worldviews of the aforementioned groups were received with solemn respect by political leaders, community activists, and the media alike, it would not be at all extraordinary for these two young men to have been profoundly influenced by those teachings. And on a practical level their Hispanic backgrounds undoubtedly helped them gain access to the migrants involved, and to win the latter’s trust by conveying a desire to help out some of “their own people.”

Nor are Pacheco and Torres alone. In March, for instance, two former Marine Corps recruiters in Laredo — Victor Domingo Ramirez and Vic Martine Martinez — were convicted and sent to prison for using their positions and uniforms to illegally smuggle immigrants into the United States. The tree of leftism — rooted in the notion that grievances centered on race and class define one’s loyalties more legitimately than does one’s status as an American — continues to bear bitter fruit.

Bye, Bye, Gaza

Bye, Bye, Gaza
By Jacob Laksin | June 18, 2007

“Bye, bye, Gaza.” So declared terrified Palestinians this weekend, as they fled from what, after six days of street fighting between rival Hamas and Fatah cadres, has effectively become the realm of the Islamic terrorist organization. They have the right idea. Although Hamas has offered amnesty to its political opponents, Gazans are unwilling to credit the offer. That’s not especially surprising. By now, few require edification about what Hamas means when it proclaims that the “era of justice and Islamic rule have arrived.” It means, for instance, that prisoners can expect the treatment afforded 28-year-old Muhammad Swairki, a cook for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas‘s presidential guard. After seizing Swairiki last week, Hamas fighters bound his hands and legs, then “freed” him in the following manner: by hurling him to his death from a 15-story apartment complex in Gaza City. Cases like these contribute to the minimum of 120 people who have been killed in the recent carnage unleashed by Hamas. Measured by the unebbing flood of refugees from Gaza, many Palestinians consider the era of Islamic justice and rule far more desirable in principle — after all, they did vote to elect Hamas — than in practice. Abbas’s Fatah seems bent on capitalizing on that hard fact. While Hamas was crushing the remaining pockets of resistance in Gaza this weekend, Fatah forces moved to assert control over the West Bank. In his boldest move, Abbas expelled Hamas from the Palestinian Cabinet and decreed an “emergency government,” with himself in command. The ploy is clear enough: To send the message that Fatah, unlike its bloody-minded counterpart in Gaza, is a force for moderation and compromise; that it is the true representative of the Palestinian people; and that the international community’s assorted diplomats should address themselves — and their aid packages — to its offices.  Will it work? Fatah cannot be disappointed with the early evidence. Hardly had Abbas ousted Hamas from the Palestinian Authority this weekend than the American consul general in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles, turned up at Abbas’s headquarters in Ramallah to announce that the United States would suspend its economic embargo, a response to the election of Hamas in 2006, just as soon as the new emergency government is appointed. The European Union has similarly pledged to work with a Fatah-led Palestinian Authority. Even Israel is on board. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert kicked off his trip to the U.S. on Sunday by hailing the emergence of a new Palestinian government as a victory for peace. In Fatah, Olmert said, he saw “an opportunity that has not existed for a long time.”  What Olmert could have possibly had in mind is unclear. Proof of Fatah’s moderate credentials, which supposedly make it a credible partner for negotiations, is nowhere to be found. In his enthusiasm for Fatah, for instance, Olmert declined to mention that it remains an umbrella organization for terrorist factions committed to and, indeed, actively seeking Israel’s destruction. Just last Saturday, one of these factions, the Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, launched an attack on an Israeli military post near Gaza using a jeep disguised as a television vehicle. The European Union has had its own runs-ins with Fatah terrorists. To take one recent example, in January of 2006, Fatah militants stormed the EU’s offices in Gaza after the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammed in a Danish newspaper. One might think that such incidents would cast doubt on the popular narrative that Fatah represents the “peaceful” and “secular” alternative to Hamas. Instead, faced with two uninspiring choices among the Palestinian leadership, the international community has mistakenly invested its hopes in the one with better public relations. Aside from being misguided, calls for negotiations with Fatah are a diversion from the more important work at hand. Now that Gaza has officially become “Hamastan,” emphasis should be placed on isolating Gaza. Properly, Israel has already taken action in that direction, declaring Gaza a “terrorist entity,” locking down the Gaza border, and deploying troops along its perimeter. Even more encouraging is a new report in the Times of London that Ehud Barak, now Israel’s defense minister, is considering an invasion of Gaza, with 20,000 troops, to lay waste to Hamas’s military capability. That still doesn’t address a central problem — the smuggling of weaponry into Gaza across the porous Egyptian border — but suggestions from senior Israeli military figures that IDF troops may be deployed along the Egyptian border indicate that Israel is at least serious about eliminating any potential threat from Gaza. None of this will please Israel‘s hardened critics. In its latest policy brief, Amnesty International lays out what will likely be the theme of human-rights watchdogs who specialize in depicting Palestinians as blameless victims of Israeli injustice. Waving aside Israeli concerns about security, the group concludes that border closures, as “well as other forms of restrictions on freedom of movement of people and goods,” can under no circumstances be imposed “on whole communities.” Similarly, count on self-appointed global consciences — a certain ex-president comes to mind — to claim that Israel’s isolation of Hamas, rather than the campaign of terror that makes it imperative, is the true cause of conflict in Gaza.  But here is the good news: In the new security environment, these positions are unlikely to garner a substantial following. Most reasonable observers recognize that there are authentic threats to Israeli security and that no country could countenance an open border with a failed state presided over by terrorists. Both the United States and the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization, and after a flurry gruesome reports about revenge killings and public executions in Gaza, none of the prominent players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are ready to reconsider their view. No one wants to see undue suffering befall Gaza’s residents, of course, but in this instance the suffering is largely self-imposed. Unsettled though the future course of Palestinian politics remains, it seems clear how the civilized world is prepared to greet the Hamas terror state. In short: Bye, bye, Gaza.