Not a week ago, Saeb Erekat, a career activist for a “Palestinian” cause, told Niki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, to shut up. A few days later, Hamas announced that “…the Palestinians won’t accept the US administration’s yet-to-be-announced Middle East peace plan.” Their spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, was quite clear, “The American announcement about a plan that would be presented soon is worthless.” Putative leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas, declared that Trump’s peace plan was the “slap of the century.”
Posturing for public consumption and the demonstrated Arab penchant for theatrics aside, the west is not hearing correctly what the Levantine Muslim Arabs are saying: “We know who our enemy is. You don’t.”
For this reason, the west has, for 60 years, tried to placate Arab demands the world over without realising what exactly it is they are actually doing.
Writing for Arutz 7, Prof. Paul Eidelberg states that Muslim physical and economic terrorism arising from an intractable intransigence and antipathy towards Jews is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. Not for nothing does Sura 9:111 praise the Muslim who “slays and is slain for Allah.”
This applies to non-Jews as well.
Citing Lee Harris, Eidelberg writes that civilised people today seem to have forgotten that “… there has ever been a category of human experience called “the enemy”…someone who is willing to die in order to kill you. And while it is true that the enemy always hates us for a reason, it is his reason and not ours. He does not hate us for our faults any more than for our virtues.”
In other words, with an increasingly widespread and erroneous Western trend of a refusal to kill or destroy your enemy before he kills or destroys you, Western leaders today refuse to recognise that those who would destroy their way of life as an implacable enemy. Other more recent world leaders like Carter and Obama, and demonstrably misguided leftist-liberal Western democracies like in Sweden have even refused to NAME the enemy in the mistaken hope that by pretending that the enemy is merely misguided or misunderstood, he will cease to be an implacable enemy.
Embedded in these (failed) leftist-liberal utopian ideals which are appropriate for a world in which everyone plays by the same rules, and accepts the same standards, of rational cooperation; they are fatally unrealistic in a world in which the enemy acknowledges no rule accept that of ruthlessness.
Russia has been ruthless with its Muslim insurgents. China too been ruthless with its Chinese Muslim Uyghur insurgency. Japan does allow mosques within its borders and Burma has expelled tens of thousands of Muslim Rohingya who were beginning to do what Muslim “minorities” the world over do as they grow in numbers in a host society: demand concessions antithetical to the culture, value and traditions of their hosts (I’m thinking, for example, of French Muslim street prayer and street Dawa here….).
The core issue here is that while the Islamic Muslim enemy acknowledges no rule except that of ruthlessness, Western governments are applying theories of cultural relativism to a 1400 year old mindset of Islam drilled into the Muslim psyche from birth. The problem is that Islam’s world view does not “do” compromise. It never has. You either live in the Domain of Peace (with Islam) or in the Domain of War, Dar al-Harb.
This mindset would explain the antagonistic statements made by sundry “Palestinian” spokesmen documented earlier in this piece: the notions of reciprocity and compromise are foreign to the 1400 year old mindset of Islam in addition to it being anathema in the Quran itself.
Being the word of Islam’s deity as revealed to Mohammad and set in the Quran, Allah is pure will and absolute transcendence with no possibility of human free will or choice. This meshes perfectly with the original ethos of jihad for Allah which is a denial of the sanctity of human life for any and everybody who is not in the Dar al-Islam (Domain of Peace)….
In the light of these basic understandings, it is now much easier to understand where the “Palestinian” leadership stands in a western-style process it does not respect and which western do-gooders comprehensively fail to acknowledge.
Any peace process with Islamists in this final phase of the 70 years Arab-Israeli war (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PA) must take into account that it is only through ruthlessness, where the victor will be SEEN to have won, will there be a deterrent peace between Israel and a deeply antagonistic Islamic world. Ruthlessness in the napalming of Dresden and the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki determined the outcome of six years of a terrible conflict.
In the recent military escalations by Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria and Iran against Israel, part of the ongoing 70 year Arab Israeli war predicated on a hate “other”, and sanctified by the Islamic concept of Dar al-Harb, it is clear that any intended “peace negotiation” by the Trump administration will encounter incredible opposition as it faces a 1400 year old mindset of doing things differently….
For this reason too, while an autonomous region called Palestine (or anything els) may at some time in the future be formed, a “Palestinian” state can now no longer be created. With the entry of Iran into the immediate Middle East arena, and with the understandings I have enumerated above, it is clear that Israel can longer afford to vacate the Jordan Valley to a lethal cocktail of avowedly genocidal jihadists.
Even without the intended Iranian expansion and land-bridge to the Mediterranean via Lebanon and Syria, the refusal by Yasser Arafat of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of 95% of Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount together with an “initial” return of 100,000 Arab “refugees”, it is has become increasingly clear to all except the increasingly ineffectual vestiges of Israel’s elitist left of centre groups, that Hamas and the PA were never ever really interested in statehood.
For Jews (and Christians, Bahai and Druze) in Israel and the coming conflict, the cost of “ruthlessness” will be excruciatingly painful.
Its alternative simply does not bear thinking about.