Saturday, July 15, 2006

Ahmadinejad Ups Ante: Calls for West to “Remove” Israel

For decades the mainstream demand coming from the Islamic world regarding Israel was for the West to pressure the Israelis to withdraw from the territory they occupied in 1967 and to recognize an independent Palestinian state. Jihadist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Qaeda al-Jihad have sought a larger goal, namely the elimination of Israel as a state. Iran, since its 1979 revolution, has followed the jihadist line, rather than that pursued by the Arab front-line states. Iran, of course, being neither Arab nor front-line, was not the major state player with regard to the Arab-Israeli dispute. But now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by taking the leading role in this crisis, is attempting to make the total destruction of Israel the goal, not only of the jihadist elements, but also of the region’s state players.

Ahmadinejad , apparently tired of tossing about the much overused terms “Zionist” and entity,” unveiled his latest euphemism in an attack on “the illegitimate, occupying and forged agent,” also known as Israel. According to a report from the Islamic Republic News Agency:

Ahmadinejad said the Zionist regime arrests and tortures defenseless people adding the powers, who claim to support democracy, independence and sovereignty are undermining all these cases in Lebanon and Palestine. He continued the powers who have created the Zionist regime in the region, must remove it themselves and (when it happens) the regional nations can also forgive the past. Otherwise the regional nations will take their final decision, Ahmadinejad added.

Note well that the stakes are being raised. If the Iranian head-of-state has his way, getting Israel back to the 1967 borders will no longer do. If the West wants peace and forgiveness, we have to pull a Czechoslovakia 1938-1939 on Israel.

Such is the new price of peace. Is there an American Neville Chamberlain out there?

Posted by Mike Palmer at 00:41 | | Comments  

Friday, July 14, 2006

Jihadist Isolation?

Earlier today (see previous post) the Saudis distanced themselves from Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran in their latest confrontation with Israel. Now a voice of moderate, nationalist Lebanon has done the same. The English-language internet edition of The Daily Star has published an editorial that portrays the recent crisis as an “opportunity.”

While at first glance the editorial might actually seem to praise Hezbollah, a careful reading suggests that moderate, Lebanese nationalists are, in fact, throwing down the proverbial gauntlet at the feed of the Shi’a Islamist movement. The editorial does this by first laying out the stakes for “tiny” Lebanon.

Israel's steadily mounting military response to Hizbullah’s capture of two soldiers inside the Jewish state has already imposed human and financial costs that a tiny country like Lebanon can ill afford. Since the damage thus far is still relatively small when compared to that to be expected if and when Israel unleashes the full weight of its might, things can easily get far worse unless cooler heads prevail. With luck and forethought, however, the deeply worrisome situation might still be retrieved to the benefit of all parties.

Next, the editorial makes a pitch for national solidarity.

The past 17 months have been disappointing, but only because they began with so much optimism: On balance, the accomplishments far outweigh the failures. The current crisis has the capacity to shatter this emerging sense of nationhood, though, so any political act that tends to help solidify it is highly encouraging.

Then the editorial issues its challenge to Hezbollah.

What has been missing is a consensus with sufficient strength and appeal to forge a genuinely Lebanese identity. Hizbullah has always been the missing catalyst in that consensus, and the current crisis provides an opportunity to fulfill the resistance movement’s potential as cornerstone of a new stability. This can only happen, though, if Nasrallah is able to keep his party’s fate—and therefore his country’s—from becoming intertwined with the problems that plague Iran and Syria's relations with the international community. He has the power to do this by empowering Lebanon's government—not Germany’s or Egypt’s or anyone else’s—to negotiate on Hizbullah’s behalf. Only thus can he begin to refute, once and for all, the suspicion that his priorities are regional ones, and that local issues and the people they affect are only tools and pawns in a wider game in which most Lebanese have little stake and even less interest.

The editorial, while it appears to speak well of Hezbollah, is calling upon its leaders to place Lebanon’s national interest ahead of any other, most especially that of Syria and Iran. The obvious problem is that Hezbollah is not a nationalist organization, be it Lebanese or Arab. It is an Islamist/Jihadist movement.

In combination with the Saudi statement, The Daily Star editorial reflects the increasing isolation of Hezbollah in this crisis. I’m certain that behind the scenes the Arab states are busily pressuring Syria as well. The crisis will demonstrate just how subservient President Assad has become to Iranian interests, for it is only Tehran’s interests that are now being served.

Posted by Mike Palmer at 09:12 | | Comments  

The Saudis Speak!

I kept checking Arab News today to see what the Saudi line would be. Finally, late this evening (early morning there) “the Kingdom” spoke. I have to say I find the language a bit surprising.

The statement contained the usual support for the right of the Palestinians and Lebanese to use whatever means available to resist occupation.

An official source said Saudi Arabia has always been an avid believer in the rights of nations subjected to occupation to resist it in all its shapes and forms, according to the Saudi Press Agency.

The nation has the right to reject the occupation’s illegal procedures that aim at erasing a nation’s identity and altering ground realities.

This has been the basis of the Kingdom’s stand with regard to the legal Palestinian resistance to military occupation. This has also been the Kingdom’s firm stand with the Lebanese resistance until the end of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.

Of course, the Israelis had withdrawn from Lebanon and are only there now because of the Hezbollah attacks. From the Saudi perspective, of course, Palestine remains under Israeli occupation.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the Saudi statement took a very different tone.

The source added that the Kingdom wanted to clearly state that there must be a differentiation between legal resistance and unaccountable adventures committed by elements within a state without referring to a legal state authority, or consulting and coordinating with Arab countries. Their actions thus expose all Arab countries to grave danger and their achievements to destruction, SPA quoted the source as saying.

The Kingdom sees that the time has come for these elements to solely bear the full responsibility for such irresponsible actions and the task of ending the crisis, that they have triggered, should fall singularly on them.

What are the Saudis saying? Several things. First, whatever the rights of the Palestinians, the Saudis view the recent course of events as a collection of “unaccountable adventures” undertaken not by states, but by elements within them, namely Hamas and Hezbollah. The Saudis are also complaining loudly and publicly about the lack of consultation and coordination by both groups with the “Arab countries.” In other words, the consultation and control has been coming from Iran. The Saudis do not appreciate the fact that they, and the other Arab states (excepting Syria), find themselves in a bind because of a rapidly expanding regional crisis now managed from Tehran. I read the statement as a warning to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria that because of their “irresponsible actions” they are on their own.

I would not go as far as to say that the Kingdom is giving Israel a green light. If the Israelis strike too hard, too fast, the political pressure on Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states might grow too strong to ignore. Nevertheless, the Saudis are clearly warning Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, as well as Iran that they ought not to bank on Saudi support if the crisis continues and that they ought not to expect, if it worsens, that the Saudis will automatically play their “oil card” as a means to pressure the United States.

This is good news because it means that the Saudis are taking a step to bring the crisis under some form of control. Nevertheless, it does not mean that they will succeed. The next few days will demonstrate how much clout the Kingdom possesses. There’s no way the Saudis can bring Hezbollah into line, or Tehran, but they have much greater sway with Hamas and Syria. The latter can shut down Hezbollah if it wants to.

Posted by Mike Palmer at 00:33 | | Comments  

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Israeli Group Claims to Hold Two Palestinians as Hostages

A statement from the extremist “Gilad Shalhevet Brigades” claims that it has kidnapped two Palestinians. The group’ statement was simple: “For your information, a few minutes ago we kidnapped two Palestinian workers in the Jerusalem area. The two are being held in a hidden location and we will conduct negotiation for their release through the media. We demand the immediate release of the kidnapped (Israeli) soldiers; if they will not be released within the next 48 hours, the lives of the Palestinians will be in danger.”

Posted by Mike Palmer at 18:37 | | Comments  

"Iran's "Big Test"?

I wrote yesterday about the linkage between Iran and events on Israel’s Northern border. Today’s Jerusalem Post contains a report that confirms that connection--Hizbollah wants to transfer the Israeli soldiers they hold to Iran. If Iran is willing to take the soldiers, and Hizbollah is able to get them to Tehran, this would further complicate the crisis and deepen the connection between the events in the Levant and the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been on a tear the past few days, attacking "the Zionist entity" and the West. In a speech Wednesday he stated his belief that international events are working in Iran's favor. "Bullying powers, including the Zionist regime, are bound to collapse in in the near future." The idea that Isarel and the West are on the verge of collapse is a bit much.

In another speech reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency President Ahmadinejad, who apparently has an affinity for the terms "bully" and "entity," threatened Isarel and its suporters once again. According to the IRNA report the Iranian president warned that:

proponents of the bullying Zionist regime, which has occupied Palestine, should be answerable to the international community. Speaking at a gathering of people in the provincial town of Kalibar, the chief executive said that every government supporting this regime should be aware that its support makes it an accomplice in the crimes committed by the regime. “They should be aware that if they do not stop their support for this criminal regime they will share the same painful fate facing the Zionists,” he added.

The president regretted that in the world of today, the entire humanity is under the rip of several governments, which are united to oppose and oppress the world. Ahmadinejad pointed to the Iranian nation as one of the proponents of Islam, justice and the suppressed, adding that, “We will cry out that we are against tyranny and aggression. However, we shall stand up to the bullying powers. “Given that Iranians have always been following divine guidelines, supported the suppressed and sought global justice, they have always been victorious and have gained honors in big tests.”

Is Ahmadinejad looking for a "big test?" If he's not, he's certainly doing a good job of painting himself into the proverbial corner. How far will Iran go to back up it's talk? Or is Ahmadinejad only prepared to fight to the last Syrian?

Posted by Mike Palmer at 13:06 | | Comments  

Al-Zarqawi Sold Out by al-Qaeda?

So claims the first wife of the late Qaeda al-Jihad “Emir of the Land of the Two Rivers.”
“My husband has been sold to the Americans,” she told an Italian reporter in Geneva. “He had become too powerful, too troublesome.” She asserted: “I think a secret pact was struck whose immediate goal was his death. . . . In return, the American troops promised to ease, at least momentarily, their hunt for bin Laden.”

The idea that Osama would sell out his man in Iraq is not beyond the realm of possibility. We know that Qaeda al-Jihad’s number-two-man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been critical of some of al-Zarqawi’s tactics: video taped slaughter/beheadings and attacks on Shi’a civilians and mosques. In 1989 unknown assassins placed a bomb in the car of Abdullah Azzam in Peshawar, Pakistan, killing Osama bin Laden’s jihadist mentor and his two sons. Some specialists on the jihadist movement have suggested that al-Zawahiri may have had a hand in the assassination, since there is little doubt that he seems to have profited most from Azzam’s death.

If al-Zarqawi’s widow has it right, and that remains a big if, what might explain such a move? I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration would call off the hunt for Osama in exchange for al-Zarqawi. After all, such an explanation assumes that we are hot on Osama’s trail, which I doubt. But what other factors might explain a decision by Qaeda al-Jihad to finger al-Zarqawi? There are two plausible scenarios. The first is that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri concluded that al-Zarqawi’s approach in Iraq was undermining the jihadist cause. The second is that al-Zarqawi had gained too much notoriety vis-à-vis his senior Qaeda al-Jihad leaders.

There is evidence to support the idea that al-Zawahiri was dissatisfied with some aspects of al-Zarqawi’s leadership. But if that dissatisfaction had led the senior Qaeda al-Jihad leaders to “dime” on al-Zarqawi, that would suggest a subsequent change in tactics in Iraq. No such change has occurred.

A more plausible scenario is that al-Zarqawi had become too visible. His rise in “popularity” within the jihadist movement, alluded to by his wife, has to be understood within the context of a potential reestablishment of the Khalifate, the goal of all the jihadists.

If there is to be a Khalifate, there has to be a Khalifa. While leading jihadists can model themselves as “emirs”—princes—no one can declare himself Khalifa. The “righteous” Khalifas of the seventh century A.D. were selected from among the Islamic leadership by the acclamation of their peers. Anyone who presumed to become the new Khalifa would have to achieve some heroic and near-miraculous victory in the service of the Ummah, preferably while staking out the domain of the new Khalifate in some core region of the Arab world. While bin Laden and al-Zawahiri were hiding out in caves somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border, al-Zarqawi was actually engaging the “Crusaders” and their Shi’a and Kurdish allies on the ground in the “Land of the Two Rivers.” It is conceivable that if a few years down the road the jihadists were successful in Iraq, i.e., they forced the United States to withdraw in defeat and established themselves in power in Baghdad, who might the mujahadeen in Iraq proclaim as “Khalifa”: Al-Zarqawi, the man who fought the successful battle on the ground in Iraq, or bin Laden, who waged his jihad from a cave via audio tapes?

If this scenario did, as al-Zarqawi's wife asserts, play out, what substantiating evidence might we see? I would suggest a media blitz by Osama and Dr. Ayman to put themselves back into the spotlight. And that is exactly what has occurred.

Despite all the Islamist and jihadist hoopla about the "righteous khalifas," the fact remains that not many of them died peacefully in bed, or in battle.

[Thanks to Chris Cartellone]

Posted by Mike Palmer at 12:26 | | Comments  

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Tehran Takes the Lead

What is happening in the Middle East? First we had the attacks from Gaza against Israel by Hamas. This has now been followed by attacks from Lebanon by Hizbollah. Both groups fired rockets into Israel and in raids managed to capture several IDF soldiers, virtually forcing the Israelis to meet the demands of Hamas and Hizbollah and reward terrorism, do nothing and appear weak, or retaliate by striking at or moving into Gaza and Lebanon. While all of this has been going on, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been on a speaking tour lashing out at “the Zionist entity” and its supporters, and projecting Iran into a leadership position within the Islamic world.

The Arab front line state with the largest stake in the developing crisis is Syria. In June Syria and Iran reached a military cooperation agreement. Reports indicate that the Iranians have promised the Syrians financial support for a build-up of the Syrian military. Hizbollah, based in southern Lebanon, is a Shi’a organization supported by Tehran.

One advantage gained by the Iranians during the growing crisis is that it shifts the attention of the West away from the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program. And, of course, any Israeli retaliation will bring instant condemnation from the Islamic world and a good part of the rest. Moreover, a crisis that threatened Lebanon’s territory would weaken the reform movement their, strengthen Islamist elements, and could serve as an excuse for the reintroduction of Syrian troops.

But if this is, in fact, the Iranian game, it is a dangerous one, especially for Syria. Jordan and Egypt are unlikely to assist Damascus should the crisis escalate. Nor, with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, is there a great power willing to pressure the United States to keep the Israelis on a short leash.

Perhaps the Syrians and Iranians expect the Israelis to repeat their invasion of Lebanon in 1982. While the Israelis will no doubt operate in southern Lebanon south of the Litani River, it is not inconceivable that if the crisis spins out of control they might move directly against Syria itself. The IDF has been to Beirut once already. They’ve yet to reach Damascus.

It is conceivable that a Syrian military debacle along the road from the Golan Heights to Damascus could be a death-blow to the regime of President Bashir Assad. That might well be good news for the American effort in Iraq. But, then again, the Middle East is nothing if not unpredictable.

What we do know is that when Hizbollah acts, Syria and Iran are involved. Their intentions remain a matter of speculation, but the game they are playing is risky. If they assume that Israel will be held on a short leash by the West, and especially by the United States, they may be mistaken. But Iran might be willing to risk seeing Syria humiliated in the hope that such an event would force the rest of the Arab world to react as it did in 1973, and weaken both President Mubarak in Egypt and King Abdullah in Jordan.

On key element of this evolving crisis is that the jihadist elements—Hamas and Hezbollah—have taken the lead in lieu of state actors, for example Nasser in 1956 and 1967 and Sadat in 1973. And if Hezbollah and Hamas are nothing but tools, which seems likely with regard to the former, it is Tehran and not Cairo calling the shots.

We may be witnessing the merging of jihadist (in this case non-al-Qaeda) efforts with Iranian state politics. Tehran, which is working diligently (see my post of July 10, 2006) to undermine the image of al-Qaeda, sees itself as the leader of the Islamist movement.

As bad as the situation might look, it could be worse. At least the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons, at least not yet. But imagine playing out the present crisis with a nuclear Iran.

Posted by Mike Palmer at 16:46 | | Comments  

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Iranian President Threatens Israel and West

I suppose this is not actually “news,” in the sense that he’s been at this game for some time. Nevertheless, it’s worth reporting because he’s the leader of a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. You can watch a video of an excerpt from his speech at the MEMRI TV website. The text of that excerpt appears below.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Today, it has been proven that the Zionists are not opposed only to Islam and the Muslims. They are opposed to humanity as a whole. They want to dominate the entire world. They would even sacrifice the Western regimes for their own sake. I have said in Tehran, and I say it again here--I say to the leaders of some Western countries: Stop supporting these corrupt people. Behold, the rage of the Muslim peoples is accumulating. The rage of the Muslim peoples may soon reach the point of explosion. If that day comes, they must know that the waves of this explosion will not be restricted to the boundaries of our region. They will definitely reach the corrupt forces that support this fake regime.

To this the crowd offered repeated cheers of Allah Akbar—God is great!

The report of the speech at the website of IRNA (Iranian Republic News Agency) is also interesting. There’s the usual tirade against Jews, Zionism, and the “illegitimate entity,” known in western circles as Israel. The president stated that "if a free and fair referendum were held among Palestinians, they would call for withdrawal of the Zionist regime from the occupied lands and for establishment of an independent government."

If we assume that is true, and it may well be given the electoral strength of Hamas, then there is absolutely no reason for Israel to negotiate with, or to accommodate in any manner, the Palestinians, since it is apparently their goal not to reach an accommodation with the “illegitimate entity,” but to eliminate it.

And the bottom line for Americans is simple: if we do not throw Israel to the wolves, Muslim rage will spill out of the region and strike the United States.

Posted by Mike Palmer at 11:31 | | Comments  

Monday, July 10, 2006

Al-Qaeda and Osama Work for "First World Sponsors"

The Tehran Times today published an article titled “Al-Qaeda, the Global Renamo.” For those too young to remember, the Renamo guerrillas were anti-Marxists supported by the apartheid Republic of South Africa to destabilize its neighbor Mozambique. Additional support reputedly came from the United States and Saudi Arabia. The article states:

Al-Qaeda is in fact another version of the Renamo guerrillas, but a little more global. The basic concept of how it evolved and its core mission are much the same. Yes it doesn’t sound too exciting, but in reality that is all it is.

The article criticizes Al-Qaeda for its lack of “extensive social welfare programs: informal banking, food distribution, basic health service, and, of course, ideological education. I doubt that Osama bin Laden would disagree. The reality is that innumerable Islamist and Jihadist groups supplement Al-Qaeda’s efforts in many of these areas.

Of course the most important allegation in the article is that Al-Qaeda actually works on the behalf of unnamed “First World sponsors.”

The Renamo guerrillas and Al-Qaeda had and have only one primary similarity and agenda, and that is death, destruction, and destabilization on behalf of foreign First World sponsors, nothing more. Most of their members have been provided with training and arms from First World countries. To be brought out of the pocket when convenient, and put back in again when necessary.

Iran, in the international forefront of accusations that the Holocaust was a fraud, now wishes the world to believe that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are actually tools of some great power, undoubtedly the Great Satan itself—the United States. The concept is one that we are all familiar with: the “war of terror” is nothing more than a great hoax perpetrated by Bush and Blair so that they can wage war against Islam. Since it’s a bit much, given some of bin Laden’s recent pronouncements, to continue to charge that the attacks on 911 were actually carried out by the CIA or the Mossad, the claim is changing: Osama and company were the guilty parties, but they work for the United States. The concept has the additional advantage of belittling al-Qaeda vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic of Iran in the battle for leadership among the Muslims.

Conspiracy theories run deep and strong in the Islamic world.


Posted by Mike Palmer at 17:58 | | Comments  

Sunday, July 09, 2006

There is no room for freedom in Islam!

If I wrote what follows, I would be branded as, at best, an Islamaphobe, or, at worst, as someone who harboured an actual hatred of Islam. But the text that follows was actually written by a Muslim, someone proud of his faith. And it is written not as a condemnation of Islam, but as an affirmation of what the writer sees as the character of his faith and his complete submission. You can find it posted in the "articles" section of the al-Ghurabaa’ website under their title (not mine) "There is no Room for Freedom in Islam." I’ve appended the entire article, lest I be accused of selective quotation. The bolding that appears is mine. The poor grammar and spelling errors are not.

Despite the insistent pleas of some apologetic sections of the Muslim community and their distorted claims that Islam ‘represents freedom’ and ‘tolerance’. The fact of the matter is that there is no room for freedom in Islam whatsoever, in fact Islam calls for the complete opposite, and end of all freedoms and the enslaving of all people to their lord.

We do not want the slavery to our desires, money, women, man-made laws, Tony Blair etc like that offered by a free and democratic society, rather the Muslims believe in Islam, which is the total submission to Almighty Allah exclusively by worshipping Him (swt), obeying and following his commands and declaring complete intolerance, hatred, disassociation from Shirk (associating partners with Allah) and all of its people (i.e. all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists etc).

The west calls for freedom of belief, to believe as you wish and worship as you wish and change your Deen as you wish. There is no space for this fallacy in Islam; in the Shari’ah it is well known that we have been ordered with “the one who changes his Deen, [to] kill him.” And although under an Islamic authority nobody will be forced to embrace Islam, we do not accept for people to walk with their idols and crosses in the streets publicly, nor to build any new places of worship (though they may keep their existing ones).

Another favourite of the west is the personal freedom to dress provocatively, to walk naked in the streets harming everybody in their way, freedom to look at pornography ‘as long as it is not children’, freedom to drink themselves into a frenzy until they are drunk and begin to steal, rape, kill and beat their wives and children. To the point that “the Home Office has suggested that nearly a half of all violent crimes are alcohol related and a staggering 19,000 sexual assaults are also alcohol related.”

This is the fruits of freedom! How people live with this corruption in the name of freedom I will never understand! Allah (swt) ordered us to stay far away from alcohol and all other intoxicants cutting off all of these ills from the root. Islam ensures that nobody feels the urge to exercise any ‘freedom’ to walk naked or dress provocatively or even to freemix let alone to destroy marriages and lives with fornication and adultery.

And besides these and other freedoms to steal, cheat, extort etc in the name of ‘interest’ and ‘profit’ we have the famous freedom of speech and expression, boasted and ‘courageously’ defended recently throughout Europe. So what is this ‘great’ concept of freedom of expression?

Strange… upon examination we find that it is nothing more than an excuse to lie, cheat, slander, backbite, swear, insult, mock and even defame all people in the name of this grand privilege to speak your mind. No, there is no room in Islam for this kind of evil concept, there is no freedom to lie, no freedom to slander, no freedom to swear, no freedom to insult any prophet and the prophet (saw) said, “whoever insults a prophet, kill him.”

So we find that the freedom that people worship is nothing more than an excuse to follow desires and corrupt societies, do you not think that Britain would be much better if the people were honest, trustworthy, decent people who did not swear, nor lie, nor slander each other, if they were not drunken rapists, criminals and adulterers like today but instead were sober and faithful HETERESEXUAL husbands and wives? Verily Britain will be so much better when governed under the Islamic rules in the coming days inshaa Allah.

Posted by Mike Palmer at 13:05 | | Comments  

Islamists and Jihadists: Utopian, Totalitarian, and Anti-Semitic

There are some in the West who prefer to view Osama bin Laden as some kind of Arab Robin Hood, but Osama and his fellow jihadists are utopian, totalitarian, and anti-Semitic. The jihadists want the world for Islam, albeit one slice at a time. Why? Because their God told them in the Qur’an that it is theirs, and that they are the best people on the Earth. The jihadists believe that it is their sacred duty to secure the world for their faith, and for their God. And once they have, everyone—both Muslim and non-Muslim—will live within the behavioral boundaries established by Shar’ia in a global khalifate. Jihadists view the misguided Christians and Jews, and most especially the latter, as committed enemies, hell bent on thwarting the attainment of this Muslim millennium and, in the service of Satan himself, destroying Islam. Osama and his followers believe that on the Final Day of Judgment even the trees and rocks will reveal their inborn hatred of the Jews and point them out to the Muslims so that the last of the Hebrews may be slaughtered. The totalitarian and anti-Semitic aspects of Islamism and the jihadists are so obvious that American white supremacists have developed a sudden attraction to jihad and a favorable view of Islam. In the fall of 2005 David Duke toured and spoke in Syria, and in March 2006, when John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published their controversial article “The Israel Lobby” in the London Review of Books, the former Klansman’s website proudly proclaimed: “Harvard Researchers Adopt David Duke’s View of Iraq War.” The website for Aryan Nations now includes an Arabic slogan beneath its banner and elsewhere members speak openly of an “Aryan jihad.” The organization now has a “Minister of Islamic Liaison,” who explained the reasons for the budding alliance.


[W]e both share the same enemies—such as Zionism, Democracy, Globalization, Capitalism, Communism, Freemasonry, Liberalism, Feminism and all the other jew bastard creeds—and this makes it even more necessary that we see each other as allies so as to defeat our common enemies. The benefits to such an alliance between Muslims upholding the authentic Salafi Jihadi creed and the Aryans upholding National Socialism are too numerous to mention here, but let it be stated that there already exists a strong historical precedence for such an alliance in history.

We Muslims who uphold the ideals of the Salafi da’wah, Islamic revivalism, Jihad in the Cause of Allah and the rebuilding of Khilafah have the same spiritual ancestors who show us the path towards success in both this world and the Hereafter. These include Imam Hasan al-Banna Shaheed (d. 1949), founder of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood), and Mohammad Amin al-Husseini (d. 1974), the Grand Mufti of Al-Quds (Jerusalem)—may Allah have mercy upon them both. These two great men already showed us the way from their alliance with the honorable warriors of National Socialism in Germany and Europe.

Jay Farber, “pastor” of Aryan Nations, dismissed those who questioned the group’s “alliance with Islam” as “Biblically Illiterate itiots [sic] with the IQ of the roving bands of savage negro beasts shooting their own rescuers in New Orleans.” “Our alliance is Biblically acceptable,” he explained, “as well as acceptable from the Querran [sic]. Death to the jew, peace be upon the Islamic Jihadeen [sic].”

If the members of Aryan Nations can recognize the reality (appealing to them) of the jihadists, why do so many others in the West refuse to see the obvious? This is "the real war"--the West against jihadism. And until the West achieves a consensus recognizing this reality, the war will continue and grow ever more barbaric.

Posted by Mike Palmer at 12:16 | | Comments