By Ted Belman
Everything I read about the negotiations leading up to Annapolis and the event itself suggests that a deal has been cut whereby Israel assumes its rightful (according to Islam) role as a Dhimmi in exchange for Saudi acceptance of the existence of Israel.
To understand what this role or status is, I recommend you read this synopsis distilled from Bat Yeor’s seminal book The Dhimmi.
It is unthinkable for Muslims that conquered peoples should rise up and throw off the yoke of Islam or that land once in the domain of Islam should ever be lost to that domain. According to Islamic thinking, once a region has been conquered for Islam, it is always Islamic and must be re-conquered from the infidel, regardless of the passage of time.
They [Dhimmis] were doomed to remain second-class citizens, living, it seemed, for the sole purpose of demonstrating to all, the superiority of Islam over conquered religions.
This is the core of the conflict. Palestine “must be re-conquered from the infidel, regardless of the passage of time”. Israel must submit to Islam. Muslims have been waging Jihad against Israel, both before and after its creation. They employ all tools at their disposal; economic boycotts, propaganda aimed at demonizing and deligitimating Israel just as the Nazis did, propaganda aimed at revising facts both past and present and finally armed struggle.
As Andrew G Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, noted in Passover and the Ignored Liberation
These uniquely Islamic systems—jihad and its corollary institution, dhimmitude—have shaped events in historical Palestine—modern Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jordan—from 634, through the present, setting in place archetypal patterns still quite evident today.
He goes on to discuss the central role of both Jihad and Dhimmitude in Islam.
In my article The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel I quoted Kissinger’s remarks to an Iraqi diplomat in 1975,
“We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world [..]
“We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions.
[..] “I don’t agree Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.”
Essentially Kissinger was assuring him that Israel’s dominance would be short lived and the US would help to bring this about. The Arabs couldn’t stand the idea of being dominated by Israel or Jews.
Thus the nature of the negotiations heretofore is that Israel must submit to Arab demands. Thus no negotiations at all at least not on the basics. Master and supplicant do not negotiate, The master dictates.
One of these basics is the Temple Mount. It is inconceivable that Islam, as represented by the Al Aqsa Mosque, be subject to Jewish sovereignty. It must be the other way around.
Israel must be so weakened that Arab dominance and Israel inferiority in security matters must be palpable. Israel must appear to exist under Islamic sufferance.
Dhimmis are also inferior to Muslims and thus are accorded no rights or respect. This was demonstrated at Annapolis by requiring Israeli delegates to enter through the “servant’s door” and by the refusal by the Arab delegates to shake Livni’s hand. This is more than petty; it is a demonstration of dominance and the US enabled such treatment thereby showing its own dhimmi status.
Bat Yeor observed, that jihad remained,
…the main cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since Israelis are to be regarded, perforce, only as a religious community, their national characteristics – a geographical territory related to a past history, a system of legislation, a specific language and culture – are consequently denied. The “Arab” character of the Palestinian territory is inherent in the logic of jihad. Having become fay territory by conquest (i.e. “taken from an infidel people”), it must remain within the dar al-Islam. The State of Israel, established on this fay territory, is consequently illegal.
And she concluded,
…Israel represents the successful national liberation of a dhimmi civilization. On a territory formerly Arabized by the jihad and the dhimma, a pre-Islamic language, culture, topographical geography, and national institutions have been restored to life. This reversed the process of centuries in which the cultural, social and political structures of the indigenous population of Palestine were destroyed. In 1974, Abu Iyad, second-in-command to Arafat in the Fatah hierarchy, announced: “We intend to struggle so that our Palestinian homeland does not become a new Andalusia.” The comparison of Andalusia to Palestine was not fortuitous since both countries were Arabized, and then de-Arabized by a pre-Arabic culture.
The Arabs realize that they cannot at this point wipe Israel off the map and so they are prepared to live with a greatly truncated and humiliated Israel, temporarily. But we must understand that Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive. Israel is only postponing the day it will have to fight for its existence.
Since the West is accepting Dhimmi status even before it is conquered why shouldn’t it demand Israel do likewise.
No comments:
Post a Comment