As Bat Ye’or showed in Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis and I elaborated in my own book Defeating Eurabia, Eurabia was born when Western European leaders abandoned their pro-Israeli stance due to Arab threats in the 1970s. This should serve as a reminder of how closely the fate of Europe is tied to that of Israel. Three years ago I wrote the essay Why Europeans Should Support Israel. As I stated there, “Bat Ye’or’s predictions about Arab anti-Semitism spreading in Europe as the continent’s Islamization and descent into Eurabia continues have so far proved depressingly accurate. This trend needs to be fought, vigorously, by all serious European anti-Jihadists. Not only because it is immoral and unfair to Israelis, which it is, but also because those who assist it are depriving Europeans of the opportunity to fully grasp the threat and understand the nature of the Jihad that is now targeting much of Europe as well.”- - - - - - - - -
I remember one Holocaust survivor who was asked what he had learned from the Second World War. He replied that “When somebody says he wants to kill you, you should believe him.” Jews have learned this lesson the hard way, which is why they will fight, as they should, when people such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran brag about how they want to wipe out Jews in a “final victory.” The rest of us should fight, too.
The incessant demonization of Israel in the mass media prevents us from realizing that what we are dealing with is a global campaign of bloody conquest. Those of us who read the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) or websites such as Jihad Watch know that Islamic leaders and preachers regularly and openly brag about how they are planning to conquer our lands, defile our women and wipe out our civilization. When people say that they want to kill you and wipe out your culture you should take them seriously. They mean exactly what they say; it’s not a code word for “I feel so humiliated by Western support for Israel.”
And it’s not about “human rights,” either. The “human rights” of Muslims, especially those of Muslim women, are violated every single day in Muslim majority countries, not to mention those of the religious minorities who are unfortunate enough to live there. From an Islamic point of view, human rights are the invention of Western Crusaders. Groups such as Palestinian Hamas only talk about “human rights” to deceive a Western audience. What they really mean is “We hate you, infidel scum, and your worthless culture. Our brave Jihadists will slaughter you and crush you like bugs while we defile your women and keep your children as slaves.” Of course, if asked by the BBC, the CNN or The New York Times they will state their concern for “human rights” and “Islamophobia.” It sounds much better on TV.
If Arabs truly wanted peace with Israel they could have had so a long time ago. But they don’t. This is about the fact that Islam should dominate the entire world, starting with the Middle East. The Jews of Israel, in contrast, do not want to “take over the entire world,” they simply want a tiny piece of land where they can live in dignity and practice their religion in freedom. What is happening between Israelis and their neighbors is not a “cycle of violence,” any more than it is in the Indian subcontinent. After the partition of India, non-Muslim communities have been nearly wiped out in Pakistan due to persecution, whereas Muslims in the Republic of India have increased their numbers and enjoy special rights. It’s not about mutual ethnic cleansing; it’s about brutal Muslim oppression of non-Muslims, sanctioned by Islamic law and religious texts. The same goes for Thailand and Southeast Asia. Thai Buddhists do not have a history of bothering others; Muslims have an uninterrupted history stretching across 1400 years and several continents of doing so. Those who focus on the non-existing “Israeli aggression” serve to hide the global violence coming from the Islamic world.
Rather than unfairly attacking Israel we should thank Israelis for having served as brave frontline soldiers against the global Islamic Jihad for generations. They are fighting our fight, and we spit them in the face for it. The truth is that Israelis have shown remarkable restraint and civilized behavior compared to the consistently uncivilized behavior of their enemies.
Read the rest at the Brussels Journal.
28 comments:
Israel is doing, and has been doing, exactly what Islamists strive to do in Europe today: conquer "infidel" lands and destroy and/or expel the previous inhabitants.
Israel's struggle is in no way, shape or form "our" struggle, quite the opposite in fact - biblical justifications notwithstanding.
"From an Islamic point of view, human rights are the invention of Western Crusaders".
Yes. It is exactly the case , that is exactly the seminal thought that is used to recruit and subvert ignorant Muslim youth. I believe Muslim youth have a love and hate relationship with the West and there is some sort of failure to adapt completely resulting in feelings of non-acceptance even rejection. But it is based on many misconstrued ideas of what the west is about.
I think many minorities struggle with this, they don't quite get the white man and what makes him tick. They come here or grow up here in thew West and yet they are outsiders in a sense but it is not the result of some overt action or conspiracy, as they well know deep down inside but they need someone something to blame for their failure and outsider status which conflicts with their macho image of themselves. It is a very machismo based culture and this doesn't get you places in Westyern society except a permament seat in the ghetto. Yet I think sometimes they want to prove themselves to others and be respected but for things that don't count among successful Westerners. This separation does seem to be gentically based because even when some individuals do try the more accepted route of success and intergration it seems that they cannot ever fully shake off this part of their identity and it comes back with a vengeance resulting in suicide bombers afflicted with STS.
My original point was my hearty agreement with this statment about Human rights being a Western creation, this is the very heart of Islamic terrorist ideaology.
It is looked upon as unclean way of doing things, elevating the mind and laws of man above that of the pure and the holy and sacred. One might be tempted to think well that is not dangerous in itself--which is true, you may think that ans not start a holy war but this leads back to the foundations of Islaimic thought, which encourage and even command one to fight against that which fights against God. They look at our laws and ideas as at enmity with God, essentially hostile to pleasing God and based on actual denial and even hatred of God. Therefore according to their historic teachings and practice they are justified in fighting and killing a people who do such things. Yes one must go back to find those teachings and the actual implementation of them before modern times but it is there.
Now there is something to be said for that argument. In fact many conservatives, traditionalists and Christians feel the same thing or similar sentiments.
As a believer I do bel;ieve that much of Western decay and rot comes from such an attitude and a lack of respect for structure, logic and authority stemming from a belief in a particular form of Deity or power.
Likewise the Muslims have no respect for Westerners even though it is a hate love relationship, they do love the freedoms but they hate other parts of it and all the more because it presents a constant struggle against and temptation to that whcih is forbidden and destructive.
After all they see the same things we see, they see their burka clad women and they see white western women dressed like streetwalkers passed out drunk in the street or getting it on indiscriminately in nightclubs and what not. Or they see disorder between the sexes threatening their family structure and a myriad of things and the West is unable to command respect anymore because although these differences always existed yet the modern form of amoralitry called freedom now hasn't, That is the crucial difference that doesn't help us in this war. We can talk about freedom all we want but that isnt enough to command respect alone.
Along with this freedom comes great responsibility and the strength and dignity to carry oneself according to a higher law.
Another line that I think was great is this one:
" Those who focus on the non-existing “Israeli aggression” serve to hide the global violence coming from the Islamic world".
Indeed , indeed, I would like to put this one on a T-shirt. It is so true and so light revealing.
In hoc signo vinces
@mriggs,
Have you been dinning out with General Petraeus in strategic drag.
Hold and defend your assets.
Quoting Fjordman: ". ..After the partition of India, non-Muslim communities have been nearly wiped out in Pakistan due to persecution, whereas Muslims in the Republic of India have increased their numbers and enjoy special rights. . ."
This issue of migrating to kuffar lands and obtaining special rights is a topic discussed in a book written by apostates S. Solomon and E. Alamaqdisi called "The Mosque Exposed".
Quote beginning on page 51:
". . .A' jihad bil hijra: jihad by immigration, both abroad and from city to city.
Continued further down page 52:
Hijra (Migration from Mecca to Medina by Muhammad and his followers)
"We will concern ourselves here only with a social jihad: that of hijra, or migration.
This notion is important and has both religious and political significance attached to it because the hijra, the immigration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. Migration is legally obligatory on a Muslim as prepatory to other forms of jihad for the victory of Islam and Muslims in other countries. This was established when Muhammad said:
'I command you with these five, which Allah has charged me with: assemble, listen, obey, hijra and jihad.'
Thus he declared hijra as preparatory as well as pairing it with jihad. Muhammad further added migration to continue as long as the enemy is fighting, in other words, resisting Islam. Hijra, migration, is obligatory as long as kufr or apostasy abounds.
Sura 8:72. . .those who believed and adopted immigration and fought for Islam with their wealth and their persons in the cause of Allah.
Sura 8:75. . .and those who accept faith wubsequently and adopt exile and fight for the religion of Islam in your company they are of you. . .
Sura 2:218. . .those who believed and those who suffered immigration and fought strove and struggled in the cause of Allah, they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah.
Sura 9:20. . .those who believed and suffered migration and strive with might and main in Allah's cause, with their wealth and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will be winners
So migration precedes jihad and both are inextricably linked.
Collective migration, or the congregating in one area, brings in the awareness of an Islamic identity: it enables Islam to be noticed in the abode of apostasy, through it's demands and refusal to integrate, and assimilate, and it helps to change and dismantle and finally annihilate the existing socio-political system of that society, as described by Maududi[*].
In other words, it is not possible to consolidate the Islamic religion without migration. There is no way to raise the profile of Islam in the abode of apostasy without the help of Muslims and the increase of their numbers.
This increase of numbers does not have to be from one country to another; it could, if necessary, be within the same country. So migration can be from Liverpool to London, or from Leeds to Luton, if the numbers would strengthen a given area and the kufr there would be defeated, or at least if Islam would gain both religiously and politically."
[*]Tafseer al Qur'an, ibn Kathir; Dar al A'hiya a'turath al Arabi, Volume 1, p.103. Masnad al Ansar, Imam Ahmed; Dar al A'hiya a'turath al Arabi, Volume 6, p.471. Sunnan a'Tirmizi, Dar al Kittab, 1994. Volume 8, p.135.
mriggs wrote,
"Israel is doing, and has been doing, exactly what Islamists strive to do in Europe today: conquer "infidel" lands and destroy and/or expel the previous inhabitants."
Well, at first blush, this looks reasonable enough. After all, many Israelis are the descendants of colonists from the early 1900's, and many Palestinians claim to have roots extending far back into distant centuries.
Thus, mrigg concludes that Israeli=invader
Palestinian=native.
Mrigg, being a European I assume, sees himself as a native and thus more like the Palestinians than the Israelis whom he sees as the invaders.
That Palestinians themselves are acting as invaders in European countries does not seem to trouble him, which is strange.
But in any case this view is historically near-sighted. While many of the Israelis are descendants of 19th and 20th century Jewish colonists, those Jewish colonists were descendants of 6th and 7th century BC Hebrews. I've never seen a good anti-Zionist answer to this point.
Michael Servetus, I have no idea what makes the white man tick either and I'm a white woman. I'm baffled sometimes by some of their actions and how they must sacrifice X because it's fair and Y in the name of social justice. It pisses me off to no ends, but I guess it's part of being part of a culture that is on it's death bed.
And I'm unsure about how the Western man will react to his women being defiled considering from what I see he enjoys being conquered by others - obviously, in the name of social justice and fairness. These words piss me off as much as community cohesion. lol
On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'd be willing to defend a bunch of stupid feminists either. I mean, if I was a man, I would actually welcome them being defiled if they weren't my kin genetically.
Just a quick question, do Muslim immigrants settle in the west because they wish to colonize us, or do they come here because they want a higher standard of living, or is it a combination of both?
I don’t believe that every single Muslim in the west would turn against us if it ever came to it. I believe that many would choose to join us and help us defend what they perceive to be a superior and more just society, rather than joining a Taliban like mob hell bent on turning the continent into a Stone Age hellhole.
Yes there are many radical Muslims who would like nothing better than to destroy everything that we hold dearly, but I don’t think that goes for all of them.
Here’s another question, are there any individual and national differences among westerners, or are we all the same, Americans and Europeans, atheists and Christians? Are there no distinct differences at all in how we think and how we choose to live our lives?
Israel is doing, and has been doing, exactly what Islamists strive to do in Europe today: conquer "infidel" lands and destroy and/or expel the previous inhabitants.
What rubbish!
The Israelis - or simply the Jews - are doing what every decent person should in such situation:
They purchase the land fair and square.
They did so before Israel was created, and they do so still.
It's creepy how anti-semitism is slowly coming back into fashion. And, as in Germany in the 1930's, it's the Socialist that lead the charge.
I watched a TV documentary a couple of years ago about the lead up to the creation of the Israeli state. An Israeli military commander who participated in the various military campaigns was interviewed and asked about the expulsion of Arabs from Deir Yassin and other Arab villages which happened to be situated inside present date Israeli borders, and he had no problems in admitting that atrocities were carried out by the Israeli army in order to drive the Arabs out. He also told the makers of the TV documentary that he saw several Israeli military personnel randomly shoot and kill innocent civilian Arab villagers in order to intimidate the others to flee.
Even Robert McNamara admitted that the allies committed horrendous atrocities in WW2.
Historical revision seems to be in vogue at the moment among some of the GoV crowd.
In hoc signo vinces
@Henrik Ræder,
"It's creepy how anti-semitism is slowly coming back into fashion."
The "creepy" is in part discordianism, non-religious politicking that attempts to immanentize the eschaton and bring about a horizontal utopia through chaos and the destruction of western civilization.
I have always been suspicious of the Western Right's newly found love for Jews and Israel. I suspect it's partly due to the idea that "any enemy of the Muslims is our friend" and partly due to a need to distance themselves from the old antisemitic Right, the Holocaust and the KKK. But Jobbik has shown that antisemitism in alive and well among the Right.
I suspect many on the Right feel so guilty about what happened to the European Jews, that they fall over themselves trying to extol the Jewish contribution to human civilization. They also see Israel as a sort of proxy war machine against the Muslims and a place where all Jews will eventually retreat and take their Hollywood, their Multiculturalism and their decadent art with them.
In other words, I don't think this love will last, especially among conservatives and Christians.
And I also wouldn't be surprised if, 50 or 100 years from now, the Right would talk about the need for the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic civilization to fight the resurgent East.
In reply to kritisk_borger's reference to the documentary he recalls but does not identify, watch this short clip from one of Pierre Rehov's documentaries.
Rehov sources his documentary through both the Western and Arab lens as he interviews actual Arab witnesses about their own experience regarding their expulsion from Deir Yassin and other Arab villages(@ 3:17).
Rehov interviews:
Said Abourish, Palestinian writer Consultant to Arab Governments
Hazem Nusseibeh, Palestine Broadcasting Service
Shlomo Ben Ami, Former Israeli Minister, Professor of History
An elderly Arab woman in the Shatila Refugee Camp, Lebanon
Rehov presents original archived documentation including:
the French paper, "Le Monde"
and
the Jordanian weekly "Al Urdun" (April 1953),
and
the Palestinian publication "Falastin" (February 1950)
Rehov uses additional references including:
"Memoirs of Glubb Pacha", written by a British Officer in the Arab forces
and
the "Memoirs of Khaled Al Azem", Syrian Prime Minister (1973)
The video clip takes only five minutes of your time.
linbetwin: I want my people to prosper, first of all, but if the strongest civilization on this planet has to be somebody other than the West then I would pick the Chinese and the East Asians over the Muslims any day of the week. Islamic culture is, always has been and always will be a form of barbarism. East Asians can support a higher civilization.
kristik, the Muslims that will fight with the West, will be known as ex-Muslims, apostates, those who have chosen man's law over Allah's law, rejected Allah's ways, and embraced the infidel, taken Christians and Jews for their friends.
Hope that clarifies things for you. Or you could look at every Muslim majority nation on the planet and show me in which one the non Muslims enjoy equality of opportunity and before the law?
Don't worry, Fjordman, Islam will not be the next big civilization. not in the next 500 years. It's not enough to want to dominate and to be convinced your god will prevail. You have to have superior science and technology, a well-organized society. That's how the West came to dominate the world, not through fanaticism of faith. If/when we do pass the torch, it'll be to East Asia, not to Muslims. I see Islam as a threat, but not as a competitor.
It's hilarious to me how people can say that they want the West to stay dominant and compete with the East and we could ally with X or Y and how not all Muslims will stay Muslim and fight us or whatever. Don't you people get that the West or Europe doing X is totally irrelevant? It's like Fjordman puts it - his people. If all Europeans move to India and all Indians to Europe, I will start supporting "India", not say that I want the people who now live in Europe to be dominant.
Heroyalwhyness, have a look at this video in which Lehi, Irgun and Stern Gang members (those were Israeli militia groups operating in the area at the time)who were there on the day describe what took place in Deir Yassin.
Are they lying too?
The first link didn't work, so I'm reposting it here. You have to copy and paste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=PKLucDqEeKA&feature=related
kritisk_borger,
Its simple enough to just fix the problem.
mriggs,
You should really get your facts straight before posting.
bartholomewscross said: "But in any case this view is historically near-sighted. While many of the Israelis are descendants of 19th and 20th century Jewish colonists, those Jewish colonists were descendants of 6th and 7th century BC Hebrews. I've never seen a good anti-Zionist answer to this point."
The point is (whether or not it is a "good anti-Zionist answer" is up to the beholder, I think) ... the point is there is NO Law of Nature that says that if a people live or lived in a certain territory that that territory is then theirs for the duration. Life, with a big "L", just doesn't work like that.
Humans, like most other animals, are territorial, that is obvious. And how it works is: DEFEND IT OR LOSE IT. You don't get to go claiming it back 20 or 200 or 2000 years later just 'cause your ancestors came from there.
Some of my ancestors LOST the territory (parts of Ulster) that our people had lived in for who-knows-how-long. They lost it 'cause they weren't as smart or capable or united as the invaders/settlers/planters/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. We screwed up. We didn't manage. Even in modern times with the IRA and what not, we didn't manage to get it back. We LOST.
And that's Life. We can't go claiming it back 400 or so years later by using some rationalization that those were our ancestors' lands or that (if it were true) our gods promised that land would always be ours.
The modern settlement of Israel by Jews is clearly a colonial act. It is a population movement no different from the population movement of Palestinians or other Muslims into Europe. Both are unwelcome to the people living in the territory being conquered. The only difference from our point-of-view is that many of us Europeans don't give a d*mn about the Arab/Palestinian problem because it's not our problem -- it's not our territory being taken from us.
Fjordman -- the enemy of one's enemy is not (necessarily) one's friend. That is really Lesson Number One when it comes to a people making their way successfully through human history.
It is a lesson that the Irish, amonst many groups (think of all the various American Indian tribes that allied with the European powers in order to become more powerful than competing Indian tribes -- mistake!), failed to understand.
E. O Connor. I agree . In my judgment Israel is official as a result of war and the then legal will of the victor of that war, . The Palestinians need to get over it. That territory was once controlled by the caliphate which was foreign. The territory then came under the control of the once Great Britian to do with as it pleased. That part is over. The only reason there is violence and bloodshed there now is because of the hatemongering and anti Semitic Muslims.
You are right things happen and we must adapt and overcome. Hey if they want to fight that is up to them but don't look for sympathy from me for their despicable behavior and mindset. Despicable in any case.
Even the son of a Hamas founder has been converted to a new view on the matter based solely on the actions of both parties and what human reason dictates, reason as opposed to the the logic of nurtured hate. His conversion experience is detailed in a newly released book called Son of Hamas. There are also some youtube vids of interviews.
Michael S said: "In my judgment Israel is official as a result of war and the then legal will of the victor of that war, . The Palestinians need to get over it."
That is one way to look at it. But, you must remember and not be surprised by the fact that the Arabs/Palestinians will remain p*ssed off for some time to come because, of course, they lost what they considered to be their territory.
At the same time, the Jews do not hold any special claim to the lands there just because their ancestors lived there so many millennia ago. They just happen to have won their more recent invasion of those territories ... at least so far.
At the same time, the Jews do not hold any special claim to the lands there just because their ancestors lived there so many millennia ago.
For example, if a people could lay claim to a place just because there ancestors happened to live there before, then Europeans -- heck, all peoples in the world! -- should have a legitimate claim to sub-Saharan Africa since we're all out-of-Africa, right? Europe should never have given up its colonies in Africa 'cause we had a RIGHT to them!
A lot of Norwegians (maybe including Fjordman?) ought to lay claim to parts of Germany. Heck -- the Icelanders ought to get large parts of the west coast of Norway (and parts of Ireland)! While we're at it, Europeans better get the heck out of the United States and Canada ... oh, and Australia and New Zealand ... cause the Indians, Abos, and Maoris are gonna need their ancestral homes back.
Fjordman writes:
I remember one Holocaust survivor who was asked what he had learned from the Second World War. He replied that “When somebody says he wants to kill you, you should believe him.” Jews have learned this lesson the hard way, which is why they will fight, as they should, when people such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran brag about how they want to wipe out Jews in a “final victory.” The rest of us should fight, too.
This kind of advocacy of unreciprocated altruism is exactly why Whites are being displaced from and dispossessed of our homelands. This kind of insanity, this exhortation to place the interests of others above our own, is exactly why Europe is transforming into Eurabia, why the United States is being overrun by mestizo peasants, and why Rhodesia and South Africa have degenerated into hellholes.
The incessant demonization of Israel in the mass media prevents us from realizing that what we are dealing with is a global campaign of bloody conquest.
We who? Being White I find the West's judaized media's incessant demonization of Whites far more severe and of far more concern. They openly celebrate genocidal levels of immigration and interracial transfers of wealth and power in White countries - that's how the global campaign of bloody conquest most directly impacts me and my people. Muslims are but one component.
You think the Israelis have it bad? We are openly scapegoated in our own homelands. When we speak, or act, or otherwise pursue our interests it is painted as "hate" and "racism" by a judaized ruling class who guilt-trips us with holocaust rhetoric. You're worried about muslims pushing us around. Jews and their deluded sympathizers are already doing it.
Rather than unfairly attacking Israel we should thank Israelis for having served as brave frontline soldiers against the global Islamic Jihad for generations. They are fighting our fight, and we spit them in the face for it.
Again, we who? Who is spitting in who's face? What do Europeans owe Israelis? Can you explain how the jihad would be any farther along if Israel never existed, without these generations of jews you imagine have been fighting "our" fight for "us"? The Israelis have always fought and will continue to fight for themselves. They haven't done anything to help stop Europe from becoming Eurabia, have they? Most have quite a grudge against Europeans and the European diaspora, seeing jewish history among Europeans an unbroken string of completely unjustified anti-jewish pogroms and persecutions. Ask Takuan Seiyo. He'll be so happy to lecture you.
Richard Spencer’s new webzine Alternative Right was launched on March 1. Presumably it will attract the brightest young American conservatives (cross your fingers!). The recent book-review of Why Are Jews Liberals?, a book by Norman Podhoretz, pretty much illustrates what Tanstaafl tried to say just above this post.
Those who really want to approach the Jewish Question honestly should not miss Alternative Right’s book-review.
Post a Comment