Tuesday, August 08, 2006

The War Against the Jews and the war against us

Martin Rawson in the Guardian

We live in historic times. How's that for a cheerful opening?

A little over sixty years since Auschwitz was liberated, with living survivors of the Holocaust still among us with the Nazi's numbers tatooed on their arms, the War Against the Jews has begun again in earnest, not only in Israel but in the west.

Whether it's a group of Jewish women shot down in Seattle while minding their own business, a synagogue or a Jewish school or library firebombed, a Holocaust memorial in Brussells desecrated and vandalized or the odd Jew beaten or stabbed to death now and then, attacks like this that just happen to involve local members of the Muslim ummah have become nothing special beyond an odd news flurry here or there. ..you know, just one isolated crazy,nothing to see, move along now...

The war against Israel has mutated into the War Against the Jews, which it always was in truth anyway. It's just more open and readily apparent now.

Racism, hatred and violence directed at Jews has again become commonplace...even mainstream in some circles. And a large number of people would apparently just as soon not notice, as if it didn't effect them in the least.

Unfortunately, it effects them in ways many of them haven't even begun to consider.

The Israel/Lebanon war, started on Iran's orders is merely an opening battle leading to the next stage of the real war whose signs are already on the horizon: The next world war – radical Islam's open jihad against the free world. Israel and the Jews are just a stop along the way to the Great Jihad.

Ordinarily, a small, democratic nation defending itself from a vicious, unprovoked attack on its territory by another sovereign government would be a no-brainer. It could expect to receive support from its fellow Western democracies, especially when Iran, one of the western democracies' biggest foes, is involved.

Would anyone question a response in force by Britain or the United States in those circumstances? If Mexican bandits crossed the border, seized a couple of INS agents as hostages and began shooting rockets at Yuma and San Diego and the Mexican government did nothing about it, would anyone have a thing to say about an American `disproportionate response?'

But in this case, a sizable portion of the West, particularly in the media and in academia have chosen to side with the enemy of all the freedoms they claim to hold dear. Why is that?

It's because this ongoing jihad is still perceived in some circles as just a war against the Jews, as part of the war against `Zionism' that has nothing to do with them...just a problem with the `mistake' of the creationof the State of Israel. And that is a dangerous, even suicidal fallacy.

It's a funny thing about the Jews. Historically, they seem to function as the early warning system for Western civilization. Hitler went after the Jews first and then ramped up to attack the rest of Europe. And in our own time, the first target of Islamic fascism was Israel, and all of the terrorist tactics perfected there have reappeared aound the world in places like London, New York, Bali, Mumbai, Thailand, Iraq, Kashmir, Beslan..

Just like Germany in the 1930's, the psychology opposing the west is nourished on deep feelings of inferiority masked by claims of victimization and a need to dominate the `other' at all cost to secure `rights'. Is there any society on Earth more imbued with an inferiority complex and a sense of failure than Islam?

And then as now, the war started with an attack on the Jews...a signpost for things to come.

While some people saw Hitler and the Nazis almost immediately as the threat to civilization they were, others merely saw Hitler(if they thought about it at all) as a world leader with legitimate aims for Germany and legitimate aspirations..and someone to do business with.

They kept that attitude right up to the moment the bombs started dropping on their heads.

It's the same with Iran and Ahmadinejad. Remember Putin at the G-8 summit saying that President Bush and the US were `too emotional' when it came to Iran? Didn't it sound suspiciously like the old European appeasors talking about Hitler?

Want another sure sign of the times? Look at to the reaction of France's foreign Minister after his meeting in Beirut with the foreign minister of Iran.

Did he urge Iran to bring peace to Lebanon by instructing its proxy, Hezbollah to end the war and return the Israeli hostages?

Quelle drolle, mes infants!

Phillipe Douste-Blazy did nothing of the kind. He actually praised Iran, saying that Ahmadinejad's Iran was "a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region."

France is obviously setting itself up to play the same role with Iran as it did with Saddam Hussein...or with Hitler during Vichy.

It might not be a world war yet when the French surrender, but you can bet your last cent it's a world war when they collaborate.

Ahmadinejad and Khameini are different than the Nazis in one major respect...the Nazis wanted to conquer the world and live to enjoy the spoils. The jihadis don't seem to particularly care; why worry about death when the 72 virgins await?

They actually welcome death and destruction if it paves the way for Islam to rule the world and brings on the return of the 12th Imam.This suicide martyr complex is deeply engraved in the Iranian/Shia psyche.

Ahmadinejad is not a marginal figure by any means and he has plenty of supporters, including a number of Muslims in the west. The jihadis have simply replaced Sieg Heil with Allahu Akbar.

Ahmadinejad, along with the rest of Iran's leaders has threatened to destroy Israel numerous times and is obviously seeking the means to do just that and yet people refuse to take him at his word because they think that he is still mostly just talking about the Jews. Do they imagine that it will stop there, with Israel and the Jews? With the `Little Satan'?

In Europe in particular, you would expect some clarity from recent history, from the London bombings, the Danish Cartoon riots and le jihad Francais last year.

Uh-uh. Faggettabodit.

Instead, we see an almost visceral effort on the part of much of the European press and Europe's politicians to ignore the threat of jihad against their own countries and focus on Israel and the Jews as if they were the threat. And garner the votes of all those Muslim voters and their fellow travelers on the Left. Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was a superb example of this, making a point of denouncing Israel on a regular basis because he was dependent on the jihad vote in his constituency in order to get re-elected.

And that brings up another little point...what will the West (particularly Europe) do about the fifth column within, the large group of Muslims that have migrated to the west and have now settled in comfortably there, a large number of them with no intention of assimilating? In Britain, for instance, the Labour party increased Muslim imigration almost 10 fold during Tony Blair's administration in the hopes these would end up being Labour voters - little guessing that many of them have a quite different agenda.

Which way will the majority of them go, and what will they do? If I were Martin Rawson and his chums at the Guardian, I'd be a lot more worried about that and what it means for Britain than about Israel or the Jews.

Israel, of course cannot win the battle in Lebanon decisively because Hezbollah cannot be uprooted from Lebanon any more than Islamic fascism can be uprooted from the Muslim world without a sustained, decisive effort by the West. Is the West up for the struggle?

On September 12th, 1683 the siege of Vienna by the Ottoman Army was lifted, and the last attempt by Islam to conquer the west was successfully turned back. Three hundred and eighteen years later, jihad inserted itself back into our consciousness with the attack on the World Trade Center in New York. And that's no coincidence. These people have long memories.

The last chapter of a 1,500 year old struggle is about to be played out.

And whether we like it or not, the War Against the Jews is a war against the rest of us, and it's not just happening in the Middle East anymore.

Depend on it.


Anonymous said...

Been reading your blog for a while - awesome post!

Anonymous said...

to anon @ 9:36 am

while i do still surf the web, why do that?
come to joshuapundit.com and the best of the web comes to you.
please also note, this is not a patronizing comment.

with that said:
ff you may want to re-visit this comment:

If Mexican bandits crossed the border, seized a couple of INS agents as hostages and began shooting rockets at Yuma and San Diego and the Mexican government did nothing about it,

with the exception of the missile comment, that IS what is happening about once or twice a month.

as for puken, there is a difference between being an appeaser and a supporter. puken is a supporter and will look on pleasantly while the iranians do what he wants/wanted to do.

Anonymous said...

my apologies.
i identified the appeaser and supporter in my previous comment but failed to identify the enabler.
the USA.

Anonymous said...

darn it again.
i forgot to address the INS comment. it is usually local law enforcement officials, sometimes a texas ranger, they don't make'em like they used to, as opposed to those at the federali level.

Freedom Fighter said...

Hi Louie,
Thanks for the kind words.

Hi Nazar,
OK...in a previous comment, you disagreed with my 20-60-20 formula fro trying to assess the number of Muslims who are active jihadis...you thought the the number was more like 5%.

Assuming you are correct, that is still 65,000,000 people! To extend your formula to France, that gives us 65,000 active jihadis...and I can guarantee you that this figure is far short of reality, and that it is growing, thanks to the increased Islamization and radicalization of Muslims going on in mosques and madrassahs world wide.

Common sense should tell us that if it was really only 5% of the ummah that were jihadis, Western Politicians, particularly in Europe, would not be nearly so craven in outdoing each other in dhimmitude. And remember, I'm speaking about active jihadis only..not those who symphathize with their goals but don't get actively involved except on election day and when it comes time to donate some zakat for the cause. Those people come from the 60%.

In a recent poll in Britain, 54% of British Muslims said they would like to see sharia law established in Britain, 1/3 thought the 7/7 bombings wre justified and 12% said they would not inform the authorities if they knew of terrorist activities being planned.

I don't see an Islamist takeover of Europe, but I do certainly see vast civil unrest and possibly civil war.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I think the problem is worse than you think.

Countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are indeed a great danger..but that's partly because of the fifth column of symphathizers imbedded in the west..and their appeasers on the Left.

Anonymous said...

off topic comment:

Source: UPI
Muslim officer warns about new laws

Date: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:13:34 AM EST

LONDON, Aug. 8 (UPI) -- A senior Muslim police officer in Britain has warned about what he calls Islamophobia, which he says has created a generation of angry young Muslims.

Speaking at a conference of the National Black Police Association in Manchester, Tarique Ghaffur, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said country's tighter anti-terror laws indirectly discriminate against Muslims, the Independent reports.

and here i thought that islamophobia was the "result" of angry young muslims. silly me. when it will come to crunch time, i wonder where the loyalties of this high ranking law enforcement official will align?