Note from Robert Spencer:
The Salafi Society of North America acknowledges that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't really about getting land for the Palestinians at all -- it's just part of the global jihad.

It's interesting to remember that while this is being propagated -- the idea that the conflict between Muslims and Jews goes back to Muhammad and is explained in the Qur'an, Massachusetts schoolchildren will be learning that Muslims don't really pay attention to what the Qur'an says.

Now if the Jihad against Israel is essentially without end as long as the ideology of Islam remains what it is, there is no point in all this blather about "negotiations" and treaties. Don't tell that, of course, to those people, such as Martin Indyk and Richard Hass and the egregious Dennis Ross, who haven't a clue either as to the centrality of Islam, and the real nature of the conflcit, nor of the tenets or history of Islam. For all I know they read Esposito, or at best Lewis (a great supporter, now much chagrined, of the Oslo Accords -- as he has been of the "Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations" project in Iraq, which misses the point entirely of what the Infidel world needs to do, which is -- not to bring "democracy" but to act in a way that will constrain Islam, in the first place by doing whatever is necessary to show to the world, of Infidels and Muslims alike, that Islam has been a complete failure, politically, economically (sitting on top of oil does not make a country an economic success -- what is remarkable is despite the trillions of dollars, what miserable failures the OPEC oil countries have been in their attempts to have real economies), intellectual (what achievements in the last thousand years can be ascribed to Islam -- and what are the great limits on human creativity that this belief-system that discourages free and skeptical inquiry, that provides a complete Guide to the Universe that prevents thought, that forbids statuary, most painting, most music, and of course most real literature as all other cultures understand that word-- what are those achievements, exactly?), and moral (for a system that is based on the conquest of the world, even if it is not achieved or not acted on every minute of every day), and that actively seeks to subjugate all non-Muslims, against whom hostility is inculcated from the Muslim cradle to the Muslim grave) -- well, all of this is far beyond the Rosses and Indyks of this world.

And of course that is all they know. They do not know about Islam. They have spent years, decades, on "negotiations." That is what their careers are made of -- that and managing to convince some rich people who think they are helping Israel (Haim Saban, the Weinbergs, all those others who bankroll the likes of Indyk and Ross). If the war against Israel is a Jihad (and of course there are a few islamochristians such as Hanan Ashrawi who come in handy in helping to disguise the Jihad, the Islamic impulse behind everything -- and it also helps to simply ignore, without comment, the repeated invocation by Arafat of the Treeaty of al-Hudabiyya, the main documents of Hamas, the PLO, and all the other groups, which are completely soaked in Islamic doctrine.

There is no solution, and negotiations are silly. The only solution is that of darura -- necessity. If Israel abandons its idiotic belief that further concessions and further retreats will make peace more likely, when it will without question make war more likely, it has a chance to survive. And if Israel's leaders do not understand this, it is up to those outside, who see more clearly, and who understand the significance of Israel and the Land of Israel or the Holy Land (take your pick) remaining out of Muslim control -- for that control would have devastating consequences for the morale of Christians and Jews, and indeed of agnostics and atheists who have emerged in Western Christendom, and cannot be allowed to happen. If that means "saving Israel in spite of itself" by working against its suicidal impulses to surrender and to be blinded by its left, so be it. The history of Israeli diplomacy, after all, is a history of blunder and failure.

It is not surprising. The ruling establishment in Israel consisted not of Mizrahi Jews, who knew something about dhimmitude, but of people from Europe, who knew nothing, and learned little, about Islam. Jabotinsky himself talked about the need for an "Iron Wall" and he realized that the Arabs would never accept Israel otherwise -- but even he did not understand that Arab opposition (despite a facade of "nationalism" and the useful local Christian Arabs who had internalized Muslim attitudes just the way Michel Aflaq, the Christian Arab who founded Ba'athism, did) was based on Islam. Many Israelis realize this -- Moshe Sharon, Raphael Israeli come to mind among the scholars of Islam. But most do not because the realization that there is no solution, that there is only the hope of an endless standoff, is just too painful to contemplate. Denial of reality can be very strong. It was strong in the 1930s with the Nazis. It was strong , in the refusal of many in the democracies to understand either the nature of Bolshevism (it should have been clear by 1919, when Mark Aldanov wrote "Lenine" or after the Kronstadt mutiny, or after the terror unleashed following Fanny Kaplan's attempt on Lenin's life) or of its still more hideous avatar, Communism.

The fact that for centuries Muslim peasants tilled the soil, and were illiterate, and hardly knew the Qur'an and the hadith, meant that they were not a threat. But with Saudi and other Arab states getting rich, they could pay for mosques, they could pay for madrasas, they could have a full panoply of audiocassettes, videocassettes, and now satellite channels. It is harder and harder to find those quiet, simple folk who may call themselves "MUslim" but were once scarcely the threat. The doctrines did not change. They were always there. There were dozens of Jihads thorughout the 19th and 20th centuries -- beginning with that in 1804 in West Africa, continuing in North Africa with Abdel Kader, and in the Sudan with the Mad Mahdi, and in India, and of course the Jihad against the Armenians, and the 1915 world-wide Jihad that was declared (and records of it were declassified by the State Department only in recent decades -- why that declaration of Jihad was hidden from public knowledge is a fascinating question). What changed is that the Arabs (who essentially are the moving force in Islam, and despite the universalit claims, Islam is a vehicle for Arab linguistic, cultural, and even political imperialism -- the most successful imperialism in world history, one hardly recognized, much less resented, by most of its victims).

Yes, of course, the Jihad against Israel is merely the most publicized of the JIhads -- though until now the Arabs have worked mightily to depict it not as a JIhad (they needed and worked assiduously for Western support, and they have been quite successful too ever since they promoted that "Palestinian people" idea virtually unopposed by the helpless, confused, inarticulate Israeli governments, good at waging war, terrible at presenting their own case or even in understanding the most elementary things about their own case). In failing to see things clearly, successive Israeli governments have failed their own people. And what is more, they have failed the West by not helping the West to understand the larger question of JIhad. ONe cannot blame them; they have been under terrific pressure; they lurch from one crisis to the next; they are pushed around even by their closest ally, the United States. Still, if the war against Israel had been understood as rooted in Islamic tenets, if those tenets had been publicized, comprehended, and taken into account, would the countries of Western Europe, or their elites, really have allowed in, with such negligence and nonchalance, millions of Muslims into their very midst, which has already created, for the indigenous Infidels, a situation far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than it would otherwise be.

True, Israel owed the rest of the world exactly nothing. But had it analyzed its own problem correctly, Europe would not now be in danger of transmogrifying into Eurabia, and be busy rewriting its own history to accomodate absurd Muslim demands, and reshaping its own collective understanding of its own past to make its present appeasements more palatable. Madness, all way round.