Israel’s Peace-Making Charade or Useful Idiots Paul Eidelberg It’s amazing how politicians have pulled the wool over the eyes of so many people in Israel during the past 16 years, despite the jihadic words and deeds of the Yasser Arafat and his successor, Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas. To this day, with 10,000 Jewish casualties since Oslo, Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to meet with President Barack Obama to facilitate the fictitious peace process with the fictitious Palestinians. This charade or addiction is unique in human history. The day after 9/11, former President George W. Bush called Islam a religion of peace. People called Bush stupid, but not for calling Islam a religion of peace. But that was his most stupid statement. However, that stupidity underlies the policy of six Israeli prime ministers—the policy of “territory for peace.” I ask: What empirical evidence prompted Yitzhak Rabin, Simon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert to pursue this mendacious, idiotic, and disastrous policy? Consider Shimon Peres, the architect of Oslo. His confident, former head of military intelligence, Professor Y. Harkabi, had written a tome of more than 400 pages documenting hundreds of statements of Arab leaders vilifying Jews and vowing to destroy the Jewish state. But there are other Israeli prime ministers who turned a blind eye toward the inherent evil of Israel’s despotic Arab-Islamic enemies. After Menachem Begin signed the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 1979, Egypt’s state-controlled media proceeded to broadcast even more anti-Israel hatred. What did Begin do about this violation of the treaty? Nothing. Or what about Yitzhak Shamir. He attended the 1991 Madrid Conference, two weeks after the Teheran Conference, where Egypt joined other Arab-Islam states calling for Israel’s annihilation. What did any Israel government do when, year after year Egypt facilitated the supply of arms to the PLO in Gaza? Nevertheless, Israel’s political elites persist in the peace charade. During the 2003 election Ariel Sharon declared that anyone opposed to Oslo—and that meant a Palestinian state—would not be a member of his cabinet. The “two-state solution” lurking in Oslo is the policy of the present Netanyahu government. Oslo is a disease, and it has infected every Israel government since 1993. One prime minister after another has painted himself into the corner. Let’s face it: stupidity and cowardice have been ruling Israel for several decades. If Bibi talks about limitations on the sovereignty of a Palestinian state, this is political hogwash intended for domestic consumption. All his talk about an economic approach to dissolving the conflict is bourgeois hogwash. Islam trumps economics in the minds of Israel’s enemies. Doesn’t Israel’s political elites know anything about Islam—Israel’s sworn enemy? Then let me provide some statistical data regarding the Trilogy of Islam: The Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira. The Hadith consists of Islam’s oral traditions. The Sira consists of biographies of Muhammad used to develop the Hadith and Muslim Law, Sharia. The question is whether Islam is a religion of peace? In my last report I referred to Dr. Moorthy Mathiswamy, whose book Defeating Political Islam is must reading. Dr. Mathiswamy cites a monumental study of Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. Apparently, “The words of Allah are only about 17% of the Islamic trilogy, but the words and actions of Muhammad comprise 83% of the trilogy.” According to Warner, at least 75% of the Sira is about jihad. About 20% of the most authoritative school of the Hadith is about jihad. There are 146 references to hell in the Koran, only 6% of which concern moral failings such as murder and theft. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Muhammad, a political crime. Of more than 153,000 words in the Koran, only 4,018 or 2.6% seem to express goodness to humanity, and these are qualified by obedience to Muhammad. Warner concludes that, based on a detailed analysis, there is no benevolence toward good nonbelievers. According to Warner, “There is no such thing as a universal ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and nonbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world submit to Islam. This is the basis of jihadism. It follows that Islam does not believe in the concept of humanity, which means that Islam tacitly rejects the biblical concept of man’s creation in the image of God. Imago dei is the basis of ethical monotheism; it is the basis of civilization. It thus appears that Islam is at war with civilization. This is the conclusion of Lee Harris’s brilliant book, Civilization and Its Enemies. This horrific conclusion explains why Muslims, according to the Center of for the Study of Political Islam, have slaughtered some 270 million human beings since the time of Muhammad. Is Bibi aware of this? Dr. Muthuswamy contends that any talk of democracy or human rights is irrelevant wherever political Islam is the ruling power. Political Islam animates the fork-tongued Palestinian Authority. Is Bibi aware of this? President Obama seems unaware that jihad is being preached in hundreds of mosques in America, mosques by financed by Saudi Arabia—whose king he bowed to. These mosques are power centers for jihad against America. In his first interview as president, Obama said we cannot paint with a broad brush a faith because of the violence that is done in the name of that faith. He’s mistaken. As Dr. Muthuswamy notes, “Overwhelming statistical evidence points to the reality that Muslim populations do not believe in coexisting with unbelievers and strive for conquest and subjugation of them…” This is unlike any other major religion—Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Negotiating with Islamic regimes dignifies them and disarms your people. Former UN Ambassador John Bolton has pointed out that six years of negotiations with Iran have given Iran more time to develop nuclear weapons. This applies to negotiations between Israeli prime ministers and the Palestinian Authority. This charade has given the PA time to obtain more and deadlier weapons. Islam is nothing if it is not a jihadic creed cloaked in “monotheistic idolatry.” The most profound and disturbing insights into the nature of Islam appeared in an essay written by Professor Kenneth Hart Green published in 2008. Green sees in Islam a tendency to embrace a Nazi-style anti-Semitism combined with a fanatically-obscurantist denial of the Holocaust. Green sees in Islamism “a perfect exemplification of “absolute idolatry.” “As we have been so unfortunate as to witness [this absolute idolatry] produces both radical evil, and simultaneous unconscious denial of its evil, because [this idolatry, pronounced] as God (or his … representative) can legitimately deny that what it is doing is evil. This is an original and unprecedented form of modern evil.” If this is a valid view of Islam, is it not absurd and even suicidal for Israel to engage in negotiations with the followers of Muhammad? Now let me enumerate some of Dr. Muhuswamy’s conclusions: Under no circumstance should Israel make territorial concessions. To put it bluntly, enough of Israel’s useful idiots! _______________________________ *Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, May 18, 2009.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Posts
