Original Article: Kerry, Bush, and the war on terror
Note from Robert Spencer:
Since global jihadists want to destroy republican government and the secular societies of the West, the
war on terror should enjoy bipartisan support. I myself do not agree with the President on
many important issues, but I appreciate his resolve to resist those who would destroy us. Unfortunately,
however, anti-jihadist efforts are becoming a political football in the 2004 election.
Here is an interesting report from Kenneth Timmerman at Insight, which sheds some light on
the infamous Kerry memo trumpeted by Iran's Mehr News Agency. (Thanks to "Allah.")
Kerry recently said that if elected he would appoint as special envoys to "the Middle
East," a phrase that ludicrously means "to the Arabs and Israelis" with "Arabs" usually supplanted
by the tendentious "Palestinians" (as in soi-disant "Palestinian people") Jimmy Carter, he of the hectoring
of Begin at Camp Davied; the "I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust"
phrase; and volunteeer public relations adviser (see Douglas Brinkley's book on Carter) to Arafat (not
to mention Carter's bringing "peace in our time" vis-a-vis North Korea a few years back,
or promoting Aristide's ascension, or praising Robert Mugabe -- Carter has always been wrong); James
Baker, the Texas fixer and recipient of Arab largesse, whose Princeton undergraduate thesis was on
the subject of why Israel should not be recognized, and who has never varied in
his palpable distate for Israel; and Clinton, the amiable flimflam man, who entertained Arafat so
often that he hardly had time to learn about what might actually make the Arabs
tick. This week Kerry announced, in what was described as a pro-Israel speech, that he
would appoint Dennis Ross, or Samuel Berger, or others of that ilk -- in other
words, others who believe in negotiation and treaties because they no nothing about the Treaty
of al-Hudaibiyya, who know nothing about the tenets of Islam, and do not realize that
what is going on in the relentless Arab campaign against Israel is NOT that of
"two tiny peoples, each struggling for their homeland, etc." but rather, a classical Jihad to
destroy, by all means possible -- where military means will not avail, economic pressure (the
hollow "oil weapon"), bribery (of diplomats and journalists), and propaganda (of the kind for which
Jimmy Carter was willing to volunteer his own smilingly pious services)--the Infidel state of Israel,
existing as it intolerably does within the dar al-Islam. Obviously its borders, its size, are
utterly irrelevant to Arab Muslim hostility (one does not permit any Infidel sovereignty within Muslim
lands -- and eventually, Muslim lands will encompass the entire world, but those closest to,
or within dar al-Islam, are to be dealt with most immediately). There is not a
hint that Dennis Ross, Berger, nor any of the other negotiatiors who, despite revealing at
every turn their utter incomprehension (I have actually heard Ross, on an NPR show, express
bewilderment when one caller mentioned the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya -- it is clear that in
his years of toing-and-froing, he never took the time to study the political aspects of
Islam; a day with Majid Khadduri's study The Law of War and Peace in Islam
would have saved him a few years of fruitless travel). These people are ignorant and
arrogant. Ignorant, because they are lazy, or because Washington life is so full of hectic
vacancy that they have no time to sit, to study, and to think. Arrogant, because
they presume to make judgments on matters of supreme concern without having done the kind
of homework one would do simply before buying a car, or even a toaster oven.
And that, so far, is what we have to judge Kerry on. Given his nearly
20 years in the Senate, and his service on relevant committees, it is a scandal
that he has not yet uttered the word "Jihad" or shown any understanding of the
role of Islamic ideology, the essential role, in what is happening not only to Israel,
but all over the MIddle East and indeed, in the rest of the world.
He could, if he understood things properly, attack -- quite appropriately -- the dreamy policy
of bringing "democracy" to Iraq. A foolish and wasteful policy, one which will cost men,
materiel, and political capital, and distract from the real need to identify and articulate the
problem of Islamic teachings, Muslim demographic takeovers of part of the West, and Muslim WMD.
And which will do nothing to limit the power of Islam -- very likely will
make things worse.
|