Archive for Obama’s Betrayal

RECKLESS AND INDEFENSIBLE

Posted in ONLINE DEBATE, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 3, 2017 by drjgelb

Betrayal Backlash: Obama, Kerry Slammed and Schooled on Israel By Top Senate Democrat – by Guy Benson

30th December 2016

It’s not just conservatives who are furious with the Obama administration’s shameful betrayal of Israel at the United Nations shortly before Christmas — a number of leading Democrats are criticizing the move, which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say further undermines both Israel’s security, as well as America’s bipartisan pro-Israel consensus. In his long-winded and unproductive speech this week, outgoing Secretary of State John Kerry spent an inordinate amount of time fixating on the issue of Israeli settlements, going out of his way to lambaste the “right-wing” government that Israeli voters have elected:

“The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements,” Kerry said. “The result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself just described as more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history, are leading in the opposite direction. They’re leading towards one state.” Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Kerry pointedly noted, opposes a two-state solution, as do other members of the governing coalition.

Many Israelis see the two-state solution as an unrealistic pipe dream so long as Palestinians doggedly refuse to even recognize Israel as a Jewish state at all, with less than a quarter of Palestinians polled in favor of an outcome in which Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish nation.  Indeed, Kerry had barely finished speaking when a Palestinian official reiterated his side’s opposition to Israel’s existence, saying that the Secretary of State’s words changed nothing.  Those stark realities notwithstanding, Kerry invoked the word “settlements” more than 40 times during his address, while mentioning “Hamas” just four times. A few thoughts:

(1) It’s difficult to overstate the backwardness of a worldview that obsesses over Israel’s settlements — including housing developments within the Jewish Quarter of its own capital city — while paying relatively scant attention to the Palestinians’ anti-peace extremism. They will not recognize Israel as a legitimate Jewish state. They will not foreswear violence. They will not stop teaching their children to hate Israel and glorify the killing of Jews. They will not stop calling for the destruction of the state of Israel. These are the true, intransigent, violent barriers to peace, not Israeli settlements. These truths should be very obvious — and they have been to US policymakers for decades. That’s why the United States has always held the United Nations’ virulently anti-Israel jackals at bay in Security Council proceedings. Until this administration’s disgraceful abstention and alleged whipping of anti-Israel votes among other members last week, that is.

(2) Perhaps voters in Israel elected a harder-line government (in spite of, or perhaps because of, accusations of Obama administration meddling against Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Obama reportedly loathes) due to a prevailing suspicion that the Obama White House does not have Israel’s back. Obama has a long history of pandering to Israel’s adversaries, then brokered a disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, which Israel’s leaders understandably view as an existential threat to their people. Is it any wonder that faced with these global headwinds and historically-hostile American posture, Israeli voters would err on the side of electing a muscular government that prioritizes the safety and security of its citizens? The Obama administration has actively helped to isolate Israel on the world stage, and Israelis doesn’t trust American leadership right now. Kerry’s bemoaning of their electoral decisions is therefore ironic; Obama’s actions empowered the so-called “hardliners.”

(3) Crucially, there is a very relevant (and fairly recent) history lesson here that is evidently lost on Obama and Kerry’s “Smart Power” set.  It lays bear the foolishness and myopia of the ‘settlements’ tunnel vision. We’ve seen this movie before, and some of us remember how it played out — including incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. It’s astonishing that this even needs to be said, but it does:

Israel’s government unilaterally uprooted all settlements in Gaza back in 2005, forcibly removing thousands of its citizens from their homes in pursuit of peace. After the Israelis fully withdrew, the Palestinians in Gaza burned all Israeli remnants (including valuable resources) to the ground, then elected Hamas terrorists as their “government,” which has fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and constructed terror tunnels.
Settlements are not blocking peace. The Palestinians are, because their leadership in Gaza and the West Bank — who have joined together on a number of occaions to form pro-terror unity governments — do not want peace.  Which is why the Obama administration’s decision to make Israel’s life even harder by validating Palestinian narratives among the international community is so reckless and indefensible.
Advertisements

BRET STEVENS DISCUSSION 20TH JUNE 2014

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , on November 1, 2015 by drjgelb

MIKE HUCKABEE LOVES ISRAEL AND IS SICKENED BY THE IRAN DEAL!

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by drjgelb

This article appeared in The Jerusalem Post today:

Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has come under fire from both Jewish groups and the Democratic party after comparing America’s nuclear accord with Iran to the Holocaust.

Speaking with Breitbart News Saturday, the former Arkansas governor called Barack Obama “feckless” and “naive,” adding that by signing the deal the President “will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.”

“This is the most idiotic thing, this Iran deal. It should be rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and by the American people. I read the whole deal. We gave away the whole store. It’s got to be stopped,” he said.

Huckabee’s comment drew immediate condemnation from the Democratic National Committee, the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Anti-Defamation League.

“From questioning President Obama’s religion to questioning whether or not President Obama loves America to asserting President Obama isn’t an American, we thought we had seen everything from the Republican Party and its presidential candidates,” said DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“But now, the most liked Republican presidential primary candidate Mike Huckabee said that President Obama is marching Israelis to ‘the door of the oven’. This rhetoric, while commonplace in today’s Republican presidential primary, has no place in American politics. Cavalier analogies to the Holocaust are unacceptable. Mike Huckabee must apologize to the Jewish community and to the American people for this grossly irresponsible statement.”

The NJDC demanded that Huckabee’s fellow Republican candidates denounce his statement in the strongest terms.

”Far, far too often, this organization has found itself forced to denounce politicians for invoking the Holocaust in inappropriate and offensive ways. These comments by Gov. Mike Huckabee, however, may be the most inexcusable we’ve encountered in recent memory,” the group said in a statement which accused Huckabee of callous disregard for the memory of Holocaust victims.

“Whatever one’s views of the nuclear agreement with Iran – and we have been critical of it, noting that there are serious unanswered questions that need to be addressed – comments such as those by Mike Huckabee suggesting the president is leading Israel to another Holocaust are completely out of line and unacceptable,” said ADL national director Jonathan A. Greenblatt.

Huckabee has been an outspoken supporter of Israel and has visited the country several times in recent years.

During a 2014 press conference in Jerusalem, Huckabee also critiqued American Middle East policy, saying that he didn’t think that talks were “going anywhere at all.”

“Nothing has been asked of the Palestinians – nothing. Not one thing. And until there is some understanding that there must be recognition by the Palestinians of the Jewish state’s right to exist, I’m not sure what there is to discuss or negotiate.”

He added that he was flabbergasted that Israel is being pressured by the international community to negotiate with an adversary that will not concede its very existence, and teaches its children to celebrate terrorism.

“It’s very difficult to negotiate with someone who doesn’t believe you have a right to exist,” he said.

Daniel K. Eisenbud contributed to this report.

Some of the Comments below the article were moronic and I had to respond:

XLupusX, you and the ADL are ignorant in the extreme! Mike Huckabee began travelling to Israel at age 17yrs and has loved Israel ever since! He has been to Israel over 42 times!! He is very well known by Members of Knesset and  PM Netanyahu & has been recently honoured as the 3 millionth member of Stand Up For Israel in a live Internet broadcast watched by people the world over. He knows Israel and Israeli & Diaspora Jews like the back of his hand. He speaks to thousands of ordinary Israelis and Jews via Social Media (& on FNC until his announcement as a candidate). He has been misunderstood as insincere in these comments ONLY by those who don’t know how much good he has done for Israel and what a great supporter he has been for Israel. He knows the history of the Middle East accurately and comprehensively and can demolish detractors’ lies with real authority. Your insults are offensive lies and thousands of Israelis would be happy to put you straight on Mike Huckabee in a heartbeat!

  • ps. Mike Huckabee has taken the measure of the Mullahs & I would suggest we LISTEN to him over Obama & Kerry or pay a very high price! Iran will get a bomb in 10yrs or less. One H-Bomb will repeat the Holocaust by killing everyone in Israel! Understand that you progressive morons!!

    bilde

    Screen-Shot-2015-04-15-at-4.00.22-PM-e1429138953904

    717cartoon

A SENSIBLE ARTICLE ON WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO DESTROY ISIS – REBLOGGED

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 29, 2014 by drjgelb

If You Want To Stop ISIS, Here Is What It Will Take    by Angelo M. Codevilla

The Islamic State’ video-dissemination of one of its goons beheading an American is an existential challenge from which we cannot afford to shrink. Until the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS) did that, it made sense for the U.S. government to help contain it because the Islamic world, which the IS threatens most directly, must destroy it sooner or later. But internetting that beheading was a gory declaration of America’s impotence—a dare-by-deed that is sure to move countless young persons around the globe to get in on killing us, anywhere they can. The longer the Islamic State survives, the more will take up its dare. Either we kill the IS, or we will deserve the wave of terrorism that will engulf us.

Killing the IS requires neither more nor less than waging war—not as the former administration waged its “war on terror,” nor by the current administration’s pinpricks, nor according to the too-clever-by-half stratagems taught in today’s politically correct military war colleges, but rather by war in the dictionary meaning of the word. To make war is to kill the spirit as well as the body of the enemy, so terribly as to make sure that it will not rise again, and that nobody will want to imitate it.

That requires first isolating the Islamic State politically and physically to deprive all within it of the capacity to make war, and even to eat. Then it requires killing all who bear arms and all who are near them.

Why It’s Now Our Business

The Islamic State is a lot more than a bunch of religious extremists. Its diverse composition as well as its friends and enemies in the region define its strength and its vulnerabilities. Its dependence on outside resources, its proximity to countries with the capacity and incentive to strike serious blows, and its desert location, make its destruction possible with little U.S. involvement on the ground, and providing the United States uses its economic and diplomatic power in a decisive manner.

It would have been better for America not to have taken sides in that region’s reshuffling, or to have done so decisively in a manner that commanded respect.
Geopolitically, the creation of a Sunni Arab state in western Mesopotamia should not be any of America’s business. For a thousand years, Sunni Assyrian Arabs from the northwest have fought for exclusive control of that area, against countervailing pressure from Shia Persians from the southeast and their Arab co-religionists. All the while, Kurds held fast to their northern mountains. In recent centuries, the Ottoman Empire arbitrated that ancient contest. In 1801, Sunni Wahabis from the Saudi clan invaded present-day Iraq and inflicted horrors that surpass even today’s. In response, the Ottomans nearly wiped out the Saudis and tortured the Wahabi leaders in the main cities of the empire. It would have been better for America not to have taken sides in that region’s reshuffling, or to have done so decisively in a manner that commanded respect. Alas, U.S. administrations of both parties intervened fecklessly. We are reaping the results.

Now one of the parties to the struggle is making itself our business, and is doing so globally. We have to mind that business.

How to Command Respect Again

To kill IS, take note of its makeup: Sunni Wahabis from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, Syrian Sunnis who rebelled against the Alewite regime of the Assad family, the Naqshbandi army constituted by the Ba’athist cadre of Saddam Hussein’s army and security services that fled to Syria in 2003, that ran the war against the U.S. occupation, and that now runs the IS military, plus assorted jihadis from around the world including the United States and Western Europe.

Breaking the hold of ISIS on the people it now rules will require a rude ‘awakening.’
Note, as well, that the IS did not have to exert much power to conquer Sunni majority areas in either former Syria or former Iraq. The people there want to be ruled by Sunni, unless they are given a compelling reason to accept something else. In former Iraq, the local Sunni tribes supported the Sunni Ba’athists’ fight against the Americans until, in 2006, the Shia death squads slaughtered them in such numbers as to lead these tribes to beg for a deal with the Americans. What the American spinners called “the Sunni awakening” resulted from the reality of imminent Sunni mass death. Breaking the hold of the IS on the people it now rules will require a similarly rude “awakening.”

Note the material sources of the Islamic State’s power: supplies from and through Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood government, paid for largely with money from notables in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, as well as from the government of Qatar. Beyond religious sectarianism, the motivation for this support is the Qataris’ and the Turks’ foreign policy seemingly based on promotion of Sunni political Islam wherever possible.

The first strike against the IS must be aimed at its sources of material support. Turkey and Qatar are very much part of the global economy—one arena where the U.S. government has enormous power, should it decide to use it. If and when—a key if—the United States decides to kill the IS, it can simply inform Turkey, Qatar, and the world it will have zero economic dealings with these countries and with any country that has any economic dealing with them, unless these countries cease any and all relations with the IS. This un-bloody step—no different from the economic warfare the United States waged in World War II—is both essential and the touchstone of seriousness. Deprived of money to pay for “stuff” and the Turkish pipeline for that stuff, the IS would start to go hungry, lose easy enthusiasm, and wear out its welcome.

Next, the Air War

Striking at the state’s belly would also be one of the objectives of the massive air campaign that the U.S. government could and should orchestrate. “Orchestrate.” Not primarily wage.

Saudi Arabia has some 300 U.S. F-15 fighter planes plus another hundred or so modern combat aircraft, with bases that can be used conveniently for strikes against the IS. Because Saudi Arabia is key to the IS’s existence, to any campaign to destroy it, and to any U.S. decision regarding such a campaign, a word about the Saudi role is essential.

Wahabism validates the Saudis’ Islamic purity while rich Saudis live dissolute lives—a mutually rewarding, but tenuous deal for all.
The IS ideology is neither more nor less than that of the Wahabi sect, which is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, which has been intertwined with its royal family since the eighteenth century, and which Saudi money has made arguably the most pervasive version of Islam in the world (including the United States). Wahabism validates the Saudis’ Islamic purity while rich Saudis live dissolute lives—a mutually rewarding, but tenuous deal for all. But increasingly, the Saudi royals have realized they are riding a tiger. Wahabi-educated youth are seeing the royals for what they are. The IS, by declaring itself a Caliphate, explicitly challenged the Saudis’ legitimacy. The kingdom’s Grand Mufti, a descendant of Ab al Wahab himself, declared the IS an enemy of Islam. But while the kingdom officially forbids its subjects from joining IS, its ties with Wahabism are such that it would take an awful lot to make the kingdom wage war against it.

American diplomacy’s task is precisely to supply that awful lot.

Given enough willpower, America has enough leverage to cause the Saudis to fight in their own interest. Without American technicians and spare parts, the Saudi arsenal is useless. Nor does Saudi Arabia have an alternative to American protection. If a really hard push were required, the U.S. government might begin to establish relations with the Shia tribes that inhabit the oil regions of eastern Arabia.

Day after day after day, hundreds of Saudi (and Jordanian) fighters, directed by American AWACS radar planes, could systematically destroy the Islamic State—literally anything of value to military or even to civil life. It is essential to keep in mind that the Islamic State exists in a desert region which offers no place to hide and where clear skies permit constant, pitiless bombing and strafing. These militaries do not have the excessive aversions to collateral damage that Americans have imposed upon themselves.

Destruction from the air, of course, is never enough. Once the Shia death squads see their enemy disarmed and hungry, the United States probably would not have to do anything for the main engine of massive killing to descend on the Islamic State and finish it off. U.S. special forces would serve primarily to hunt down and kill whatever jihadists seemed to be escaping the general disaster of their kind.

That would be war—a war waged by a people with whom nobody would want to mess. Many readers are likely to comment: “but we’re not going to do anything like that.” They may be correct. In which case, the consequences are all too predictable.

Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.

LETTER TO MY MEMBER OF FEDERAL PARLIAMENT

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 16, 2014 by drjgelb

Dear Kelly,

I hope this email finds you well.

No doubt, you have been appalled at the swift and horrific rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The article attached herein is truly a timely warning that Western governments would be very foolish to ignore. The author, whom I have personally met, is a thoughtful, highly intelligent and scholarly researcher of Islam and provides his readers with evidence based opinion that is independently verifiable.

I hope that you have recognised, as have I, that the preferred approach of the Obama administration to Islamic imperialist aspirations has been to deny their existence, to order all references to “Islamic Extremism” and “Jihad” removed from Federal publications and to label terrorist attacks such as the Fort Hood shootings with euphamisms such as “workplace incident”.

The result has been the total failure to accurately assess the consequences of American policy in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, Israel and Iran. Former U.S. Intelligence leaders are extremely worried about U.S. foreign policy settings and are incredulous of Obama’s choice of Muslim Brotherhood linked advisors.

The attached document, published today in the online Mid-East Forum by Mark Durie, provides a well researched explanation for the behaviour of the Islamic State and warns that adherents of Islam are mandated by Islamic scriptures to treat non-Muslims in exactly the manner we are seeing today.

Furthermore, widespread theological illiteracy in the government and public alike, renders our community extremely vulnerable to the dissimulation of Islam perpetrated by the increasing number of Saudi sponsored chairs of Islamic Studies being established across Australia. With professors in these institutions being constantly quoted as the sole experts in Islamic jurisprudence, both public and government are extraordinarily vulnerable to the deliberate untruths favoured by Islam as an instrument to protect Islam’s real intentions. This strategy, formally named “Taqqiya”, appears to be a concept unknown to journalists, who accept false statements without any apparent fact checking. The ABC is a serious offender in this regard.

Please read the attached article and could I please come and talk with you about my concerns and ideas in respect of the increasing threat posed by the tens of thousands of Islamic militants currently volunteering amongst the murderers of the Islamic State, who are certain to return to their parent nations (thousands expected to return to Indonesia) with committed Jihadist intentions.

Kind Regards,

Jerry GELB

    How Dissimulation about Islam is Fuelling Genocide in the Middle East
    Middle East Forum 16/08/2014 12:09 am

    Tens of thousands of Yazidis have been driven from their homes in northern Iraq.
    In northern Iraq religious genocide is reaching end-game stage. Islamic State (IS) soldiers, reinforced with military equipment originally supplied by the US, are driving  back Kurdish defenders who had been protecting Christians and other religious minorities. While hundreds of thousands of refugees have been fleeing into Kurdistan, around 40,000 Yazidis and some Christians are trapped on Mount Sinjar, surrounded by IS jihadis. (Yazidis are Kurdish people whose pre-Christian faith derives from ancient Iranian religious traditions, with overlays and influences from other religions.)

    The Assyrian Aid Society of Iraq has reported that children and the elderly are dying of thirst on Sinjar. Parents are throwing their children to their deaths off the mountain rather than see them die of thirst or be taken into slavery  by IS. The IS jihadis are killing the men they capture. In one recent incident 1500 men were executed in front of their wives and families. In another incident 13 Yazidi men who refused to convert to Islam had their eyes plucked out, were doused with gasoline and burned alive. When the men are killed, captured women and children are enslaved to be used for sex, deployed as human shields in battle zones, or sold to be used and abused as their new owners see fit.

    The United States has ironically called for greater cooperation. UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, urged ‘all parties to the conflict’ to allow access to UN relief agencies. She called on Iraqis to ‘come together’ so that Iraq will ‘get back on the path to a peaceful future’ and ‘prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity’.

    Of course  it is not ‘vibrant diversity’ which is being wiped out in Iraq, but men, women and children by their tens of thousands. This is not about the failure of coexistence, and the problem is not ‘conflict’. This is not about people who have trouble getting on and who need to somehow make up and ‘come together’. It is about a well-articulated and well-documented theological worldview hell-bent on dominating ‘infidels’, if necessary wiping them off the face of the earth, in order to establish the power and grandeur of a radical vision of Islam.

    The American administration, according to Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute, ‘withholds arms from the Kurds while awaiting a new, unified Iraqi government with a new prime minister. Meanwhile … no Iraqi troops are in Nineveh province. Only at a few minutes to midnight on the genocide clock has the US begun to launch military strikes against IS forces.

    These events ought to be sobering to the West, not least because thousands of the IS jihadis were raised and bred in the mosques of Europe, North America and Australia, not to mention the madrassas of nations such as Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Having been formed by the theology of radical Islam in their home societies, would-be jihadis are flocking to Syria and Iraq where they seek victory or martyrdom, killing and raping as they go.

    Why is this so? How did the Arab Spring, hailed by so many armchair western commentators as the next best thing for the Middle East, blossom bright red into a torrent of blood?

      Theological illiteracy

    Part of the answer is that the West is in the grip of theological illiteracy. It has stubbornly refused to grasp the implications of a global Islamic revival which has been gaining steam for the best part of a century. The Islamic Movement looks back to the glory days of conquest as Islam’s finest hour, and seeks to revive Islamic supremacy through jihad and sacrifice. It longs for a truly Islamic state – the caliphate reborn – and considers jihad to be the God- given means to usher it in.
    This worldview was promoted in compelling, visionary terms by Indian scholar  Abul A’la Maududi, whose writings continue to be widely disseminated by Islamic bookshops and mosques across the West.

    Maududi argued in his radicalisation primer, “Let us be Muslims” that the only valid form of government is Islamic theocracy – i.e. sharia rule – and Muslims are duty-bound to use whatever power they can muster to impose this goal on the world:

    “whoever you are, in whichever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God.” … The name of this striving is jihad. And “If you believe Islam to be true, you have no alternative but to exert your utmost strength to make it prevail on earth: you either establish it or give your lives in this struggle.”

    My own copy of Let us Be Muslims, which lies open before me as I write, was bought from a well-respected mainstream Islamic centre here in Melbourne, Australia.

      Violent protests

    When Pope Benedict gave a lecture in Regensburg in 2006, in which he suggested that Islam had been spread by force, the Muslim world erupted in violent protests.
    Sheikh ‘Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, responded with a revealing defence of Islam’s record. Without a glimmer of irony, he argued that the Pope was wrong to say Islam had been spread by force, because the infidels had a third choice, apart from death or conversion, namely to “surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims.” He claimed that those who read the Qur’an and the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhammad) will understand the facts.

    The reality unfolding in north Iraq today reveals to the cold light of day exactly what the doctrine of the three choices means for conquered non-Muslims populations, and why the dogma of the ‘three choices’ is no defence against the assertion that Islam was spread by the sword.

      Jizya

    It is crystal clear that IS is not playing by the world’s rules. It has nothing but contempt for the Geneva Convention. Its battle tactics are regulated by sheikhs who implement the sharia’s rules of war. Many of the abuses committed by IS being reported by the international media are taken straight from the pages of Islamic legal textbooks.

    Consider IS’s announcement to Christians in northern Iraq: “We offer them three choices: Islam, the dhimma contract – involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this, they will have nothing but the sword.”

    These words are cobbled together from the pages of Islamic sacred texts. It was Sa’d b. Mu’adh, a companion of Muhammad, who said of the pagan Meccans “We will give them nothing but the sword” ( A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, OUP 1955 p. 454). Muhammad himself was reported to have said “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [i.e. they are not Muslims] invite them to three courses of action. … Invite them to Islam… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim. The Book of Jihad and Expedition [Kitab al-Jihad wa’l- Siyar] 3:27:4294). When the Caliph Umar attacked Persia, he announced to them “Our Prophet [Muhammad] … has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay jizya” (Sahih al- Bukhari, The Book of al-Jizya and the Stoppage of War 4:58:3159).

      Prophesy

    I have analysed the doctrine of the three choices in my book The Third Choice: Islam, dhimmitude and freedom, drawing extensively on Islamic sources to explain the worldview of jihad and the dhimma. That book now reads as a grim prophecy of the tragedy unfolding in Syria and Iraq. The Arabic word jizya is derived from a root j-z-y which refers to something given as compensation, in substitution for something else. According to Arab lexicographers, jizya is tribute taken from non-Muslims living under Islamic rule “as though it were a compensation for their not being slain.” It is paid by defeated communities to compensate or reward their attackers for forgoing the right to kill, enslave or loot them.

    The nineteenth-century Algerian Qur’anic commentator Muhammad ibn Yusuf at-Fayyish explained that jizya is “a satisfaction for their blood. It is … to compensate for their not being slain. Its purpose is to substitute for the duties of killing and slavery … It is for the benefit of Muslims.” Over a thousand years earlier, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub, a Hanafi jurist wrote “their lives and possessions are spared only on account of the payment of the jizya.”

      Compensation

    In 1799 William Eton, in a survey of the Ottoman empire, reported that Christians under Ottoman rule, on paying the jizya, were addressed with a standard form of words to the effect that “the sum of money received is taken as compensation for being permitted to wear their heads that year”.

    To be sure, there are other ways to interpret the Qur’an, but the point is that this understanding of jizya has become the operative one in Northern Iraq and Syria. It also has the backing of centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and practice. It was with this understanding of Islam that the Middle East, South Asia and large parts of Eastern Europe were conquered and occupied under Muslim rule until modern times.
    This grim fact – that the IS jihadis can ably defend their theology on the basis of Islam’s history and religious traditions – means that it will be no easy task to persuade Muslim clerics and intellectuals to ‘debunk’ them. Such a strategy, which has been proposed by Peter Leahy, former head of the Australian Army, will be fraught with difficulties. Debunking would be a whole lot easier if radical ideologies were in fact bunkum. The problem is, the jihadis hold far too many theological trump cards from the Qur’an and the precedent of Muhammad’s example to be so easily routed on the field of ideas. Indeed it is the radicals who have become expert at debunking, as their successful global recruiting drive shows.

    Let us consider some of the weight behind the radicals’ theology.

      Surrender

    According to Islamic law, Christians and other non-Muslims who agree to keep their religion and their lives by paying jizya are subject to a dhimma treaty of surrender.
    The word dhimma is derived from an Arabic word meaning ‘to blame’. It implies a liability or debt arising from fault or blame. The idea is that the non-Muslims, known as dhimmis, owe a debt to their conquerors for their lives, and non-observance of the treaty of surrender would attract blame and thus incur punishment. The dhimma conditions include payment of jizya by adult men, but also many demeaning legal disabilities which are enforced upon non- Muslims and apply in one form or another across most of the Muslim world right up to the present day: one example is widespread restrictions on building new churches in areas formerly conquered by Islam; another is restrictions on freedom of religious expression.The imposition of these disabilities upon non-Muslims is in accordance with a command of Muhammad

    “I have been sent with a sword in my hand to command people to worship Allah and associate no partners with him. I command you to belittle and subjugate those who disobey me, for whoever imitates a people is one of them” (cited from Musnad (chain of) Ahmad Ibn Hanbali, founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence).

      Belittling

    One of the means of belittling non-Muslims has been to ensure that they would not “look alike”, by requiring that they wear discriminatory clothing, patches or even, in ancient times, seals around their necks. A modern-day manifestation of the principle of not ‘looking alike’ is the application of the Arabic letter nun (for Nazrani, the Arabic word for Christians) to the exterior of Christian homes in Mosul. Using similar reasoning, the Taliban required that Afghan Hindus should wear discriminatory patches on their clothing, so their non- Muslim status could be instantly recognisable.

    IS is even looking to the model of first century Islam to set the level of the jizya tax. Early Islamic sources state that the jizya was a minimum of one gold dinar, and up to four dinars, depending upon the wealth of the individual dhimmi. Following these provisions to the letter, IS has made the following declaration:

    “Christians are obligated to pay Jizya tax on every adult male to the value of four golden dinars for the wealthy, half of that for middle-income citizens and half of that for the poor . . . they must not hide their status, and can pay in two installments per year.”

    A gold dinar weighs about 4.5 grams, which at $45 a gram means that a tax regime of one to four dinars equates to $200 to $800 US dollars per non-Muslim adult male. This is a heavy burden for a conquered people in a war zone, and the reality on the ground in both Syria and Iraq has been that the jihadis demand much more, and not once a year as its textbooks state, but again and again.

      Convert or die

    Reports show that IS has been setting jizya so high in both Syria and northern Iraq, and levying it so often, that it cannot be paid. This gives Christians who wish to stay in their homes but two choices: convert or die. Most have fled, but some, including those who are too frail or disabled to flee, have had to convert to save themselves. The fleeing refugees are in a particularly desperate situation, because they are progressively stripped of their belongings by IS checkpoints as they escape.
    There is nothing new here. Throughout history the jizya has been a heavy imposition for non-Muslims. Large numbers of Christians converted to Islam in the early centuries of Islamic rule in order to avoid this tax. Dionysius, a Syrian patriarch writing in the eighth century, reported that the jizya often had to be extracted from Christians by beatings, extortion, torture, rape and killings. Many fled destitute from town to town after they had sold everything they owned to pay the tax.

    Arthur Tritton reported in “The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects” about eighth-century Egypt that for ordinary day labourers the jizya tax was around a quarter of annual earnings, or ten times the zakat tax paid by Muslims. Shlomo Dov Goitein, writing on the situation of Jews in medieval Egypt, reported that men would enslave themselves or their family to pay the tax. Centuries after Dionysius of Antioch, he also reported that many, having sold all they had to pay it, took to wandering homeless as beggars.

      Rules of war

    The treatment of captives by IS is also in accordance with orthodox rules of war in Islam, which permit men to be killed, while women and children are enslaved. Sex slavery – concubinage – is permitted by the sharia principles which guide IS. The Reliance of the Traveller – a respected Sunni manual of sharia law – states: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (chapter o9.13). The option of converting to Islam to avoid death or capture – which is being urged upon non- Muslims by IS – is also clearly supported: “Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive” (chapter o9.12).

    The widespread looting of property is also validated by Islam’s rules of war: “A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it” (chapter o10.1). And “Anyone who … kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money or other” (chapter o10.2).

    The grim reality is that the fate of Christians and Yazidis in northern Iraq today all too often matches the stipulations of Islamic textbooks: non-Muslim men are killed, their women and children enslaved, and their property and possessions looted.
    It is regrettable that the hard cold reality of Islamic imperialism and the dhimma system have been denied and obscured by scholars. For example Bernard Lewis claimed that “The dhimma on the whole worked quite well.”

    As part of this obscurantist veil, the true meaning of the words jizya and dhimma have been hidden by scholars. Anglican priest Colin Chapman, who was the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s envoy to Al-Azhar University in Cairo, claimed in his widely-ready book, “Cross and Crescent” that Jews and Christians were ‘protected’ and implied that the jizya was paid in compensation for them not doing military service or paying the Muslims’ alms tax (zakat). In reality the main protection afforded to dhimmis is that they can keep their heads away from the sword of jihad, and it was in return for this privilege that the jizya is exacted. John Esposito similarly claimed that jizya is an “exchange” in return for keeping one’s religion, protection from ‘outside aggression’, and exemption from military service.

      Islamic rule

    Such dissimulations, also advanced by Muslim apologists, have served to prop up the myth of convivencia and a golden age in which Christians and Muslims lived contentedly side-by-side under Islamic rule. Architects of multiculturalism and advocates of interfaith dialogue have repeatedly promoted this mythical Islamic construct as a model for different religions to flourish side by side in Europe today. This has gone hand in hand with the claims that European culture owes an unacknowledged debt to Islam, and Islam’s historical record has been misrepresented by hateful, bigoted people. In reality Islamic coexistence with conquered Christian populations was always regulated by the conditions of the dhimma, as defined above, under which non-Muslims have no inherent right to life, but had to purchase this right year after year.

      Bigotry

    Willful historical ignorance has been deeply debilitating for the intellectual elites of the West, who feel righteous in dismissing evidence that contradicts their corrupted worldview, on the grounds that they are taking a stand against the bigotry of Islamophobia. They have been schooled in this self-hatred by their Muslim dialogue partners. Also debilitating has been the trend among scholars to deny or downplay the military meaning of jihad. An extreme example is Yale theologian Miroslav Volf’s preposterous claim that the use of military force to expand Islam is “rejected by all leading Muslim scholars today.”

    The promotion of the idea of the ‘greater jihad’ as a personal spiritual struggle has also served to distract western leaders, such as CIA director John Brennan, who stated that “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”

      True meaning

    In reality the meaning of jihad in all sharia textbooks is warfare against unbelievers. If the true meaning of jihad was a spiritual struggle with the self, IS would not be attracting so many willing volunteers from around the globe to the killing fields of Syria and Iraq. There is a chronic and urgent need for a dialogue of civilizations between Islam and the post-Christian West. However this dialogue cannot be based upon myths. At the top of the agenda must be the twin institutions of jihad and the dhimma. It is essential for Western people to emphatically reject and stigmatize these two pillars of Islamic law, and to deplore to Muslims their application both throughout history and in the contemporary world.

      Cultural blindness

    One of the effects of enforced cultural blindness and intellectual amnesia is rampant theological illiteracy among Western policy makers. This is now having the direst of consequences for Christians and others in the Middle East. Those who managed the Western occupation of Iraq were deeply ignorant of the dangers to non-Muslim minorities posed by the Islamic revivalism combined with Western inference, and in particular by the re-establishment of the jihad-dhimma system. They overlooked the fact that re- establishing the dhimma has always been part of the agenda of Islamic revivalist movements. They did not grasp that jihad war zones always prove especially deadly to non-Muslims, even when the main conflict is between Muslims.

    It had also been forgotten that advances in the rights of non- Muslim populations across the Middle East – such as the official dismantling of dhimma laws by the Ottomans in the mid- nineteenth century – were only achieved due to sustained political and military pressure from the Great Powers, and at the cost of suppressing mainstream Islamic dogmas. Indeed this ‘humiliation’ of Islam is one of the very things the global Islamic revival is supposed to be winding back: this is why the deterioration of the human rights of non-Muslim minorities – from Malaysia to Egypt – has been so marked in recent decades.

    Today Islamic revivalist dogmas, which have become deeply entrenched in Muslim communities both throughout the West and in Muslim majority states, eulogize Islam’s glory days, when Christians and other non-Muslims paid jizya to keep their heads. Revivalists look forward to a time when sharia principles, implemented through unfettered jihad, will enforce the view that non-Muslims do not have an inherent right to life, but only a conceded right for which they must compensate Muslims in gold. We need not be surprised or shocked when young men from around the globe, reared on this poisonous theological cocktail, volunteer for jihad in Syria and Iraq to usher in a longed-for Islamic utopia. It should not shock us that they have no qualms about shedding non-Muslim blood.

    The effect of the cultural jihad, waged not only by Muslim apologists, but also by Western elites, is that Western policy makers have become blind to the enormity of present-day non- Muslim suffering under the yoke of Islam, for they have no reference points to comprehend it. To engage with this suffering and develop policies to counter it would require acknowledgement of its root causes, namely the theological framework of jihad and the dhimma, but that is simply too frightening for societies who have multicultural dogmas rusted onto their psyches, having embraced a false view of history and stubbornly obscurantist views about theology.

    As long as policy makers continue to seek intellectual solace in calls for ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘reconciliation’, the vulnerable will continue to be killed, raped and looted in the name of Islamic revivalism. The lives of tens of thousands of vulnerable and peaceful Christians, Yazidis and others, whose crime is that their religion is unacceptable, now hang in the balance in northern Iraq, while the West sits paralyzed on the side lines, stunned and stupefied by the lies it has told itself for so many years.

      Infidel West

    This is not to say that reconciliation is unnecessary. Usama Bin Ladin got it right when he asserted that the doctrine of the three choices is the crux of the West’s problem with Islam: “The West avenges itself against Islam for giving infidels but three options”:

    “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue – one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice – and it is: “Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?” [The answer is:] Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword – for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

    Bin Ladin was right about this, that Islam’s doctrine of three choices, encompassing the theological institutions of jihad and the dhimma, is and must be the central issue for the West in its dialogue with the Islamic world. An understanding of this doctrine and its implications for the human rights of non-Muslims should be a cornerstone of public policy in relation to Islam, both now and in the foreseeable future.

    This will not be an easy or comfortable dialogue, judging from the howls of protest that greeted Pope Benedict’s comparatively mild Regensburg lecture in 2006. Yet appeasement of howling objectors through conflict-avoidance manoeuvers will bring nothing but grief, as we are seeing in northern Iraq.

    According to the “Vicar of Bagdad”, Canon Andrew White, what is needed right now to help non-Muslim victims of Islamic jihadism is three things: Protection, Provision and Perseverance. The lie foisted upon the world was that there was nothing non-Muslims needed to be protected from. Right now IS’s victims deserve military intervention, food, water and medical supplies. Many will need permanent sanctuary outside of their homelands. Longer term, much more is needed. Certainly the will to persevere, because the world is in but the early stages of a (now resumed) centuries-long war with militant Islam, but above all, in order to make sustained progress in the long struggle ahead, we will require a greater appetite for the truth.

    Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING ON BOKU HARAM

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 22, 2014 by drjgelb

This morning’s session of the HFAC on Boku Haram and the kidnapping of over 250 Nigerian schoolgirls on the 14/07/2014, followed by further attacks, massacres and kidnappings, was a torrid affair, with more than one Lawmaker losing their temper with the smug State Department experts. Boku Haram have killed over 6000 people, predominantly Christians, in the last 10yrs and the Nigerian Government has been unable to defeat them. They are an extremist, Islamist Jihadist, terrorist organisation, whose leader clearly articulated the groups motivations and goals as overthrow of non-Islamic religions, Infidel political systems such as Western Democracy and all systems of Justice other than Sharia Law, as directed by Allah.

Please note in this Video, the repeated nauseating attempts by the senior State Department experts to avoid at all costs admitting that the kidnapping of these schoolgirls was motivated by hatred of Christians, despite the leader of B.H. explicitly stating this. Note also the denial of Islamic supremacist aspirations as prime motivation for B.H. Links with the Muslim Brotherhood and A.Q. This pattern of dishonest denial of Islamic Jihadist aspirations for re-establishment of a Worldwide Caliphate, as mandated by the Qur’an, has characterised the Obama administration and disqualified him, his administration and many of his supporters as credible contributors to the discussion.

%d bloggers like this: