friends:
the article below was published at this blog, 03.29.2009, at the following link: http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2009/03/obamas-vision-a-muslim-compatible-america-.html .
i reprint it in its entirety, because i believe to do so is timely. we have seen obama repudiate the iranian people fighting an islamic theocracy, chests versus bullets, in the favor of that theocracy. we have seen representatives of the iranian regime invited to u.s. embassy 4th of july parties while this is going on, in the name of "engagement." we have seen the united state again place an ambassador in syria, leaving aside that country's assassination of lebanese politicians, its own drive toward a nuclear weapon, and continued harboring of iran's proxy, hezbollah in its continuing terror campaign against israel, ... , all in the name of "engagment."
so, it sees germane to ask again, precisely what is this "engagement." well, the entire blueprint for it, the entire blueprint for an integration of america with islamic society is set forth in "changing course," fronted by madeline albright and financed by george soros, and it is a scary document.
you may ask, so, what is your point? my point is precisely this. obama has followed the scripting of this document for the conduct of the early stages of his presidency to a "t." the only inference to be drawn from that is that he intends to continue following this script, and that he will do so.
this has profound import for this country and its role in the world, and profound import for the security of the state of israel, which i believe the radical left fully intends to abandon in courting the muslim world so assiduously. and, i believe it has profound implications for this country and its christians: we have long been a country ruled by the judeo-christain ethos, much to our own and the world's good. islam is a horrible religion, a doctrine of conquest and rule more than it is a religious faith, and wherever it goes it goes with tyranny, material poverty w/ wrecked economies, and a poverty and squalor of spirit the perpetuates savagery and barbarity, and repression of aspirations of the human soul.
our civilization is better. it is worth fighting for.
and you need to know what you are up against.
so, without further ado, a reprint.--
(warning, this article is long. please have a large cup of coffee and some croissants at your side. i should edit and shorten it, but i am not going to, because it is important. if you want to preserve your freedoms, please take the time to read it. i took the time to write it. no apologies necessary.)
Obama’s Vision -- a “Muslim Compatible” America
Changing Course
We are to be a Muslim compatible country, or so say the left in a pamphlet entitled “Changing Course.”
Why is understanding this pamphlet so important?
Because b. Hussein Obama is governing and conducting foreign policy and diplomacy right out of its pages, that is why. He is following the specific recommendations and scripting of events as set forth in this report, right down to the appointment of former U.S. Senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East peace process. If you want to understand what Barrack Obama means to “accomplish” in the application of U.S. foreign policy, if you want to know where he intends to take this country, then you had better understand the “roadmap” provided by this report. It says what he is going to do in governing the foreign policy of this country.
It reveals the left. Lord knows they haven’t hidden their agenda.
Much will be made of what the pamphlet says. I find very little of interest in what the pamphlet says, quite frankly, because most of it is a tired and not very energetic rehash of what the American left, and its hanky wringing core of comm symps and Islamic idolaters’ in the state department and academia, have been saying for the past 20 years.
I am, however, extremely interested in what the pamphlet does not say, but what it infers quite strongly and what its logic impels that it means, and that is the entire abandonment of Israel by United States foreign policy.
And, though the report does not venture a suggestion of the following, the structure and logic of it strongly infers that it is in America’s best interests to abandon her Judeo-Christian ethos, and become compatible with the history and teachings of Islam in its stead. Indeed, so enthusiastic are the report’s authors on “engagement” with Islam, that they go so far as to suggest a significant cross acculturalization between American and Muslim institutions, and a significant intermarriage, if you will, between those comprising the leadership strata in government, education, the academe, and leaders in the arts & entertainment, the sciences, and faith based and religious institutions, in both America and the Muslim world.
My pronouncements on Israel and Muslim “engagement” stand as mere bald assertions, without supporting context. So, I suppose there is only to turn to the text of the pamphlet I am discussing, and to see what it has to say about various things and why I think what is says. And, why I think what it doesn’t say supports my assertions about what it says inferentially.
This pamphlet eschews military intervention as a useful tool of diplomacy in the Muslim world, stating that it only makes enemies for the U.S. and causes much resentment. You know the drill. Instead, the pamphlet endorses the time tested, traditional device of palaver by which to carry on diplomacy, in short talking things to death in the intervals of “peace in our time” before all hell breaks loose. In a section entitled the “executive summary” the “leadership group on U.S.—Muslim engagement” announces its reliance upon diplomacy to cure several of the world’s more prominent sources of tension involving Islam, that being the mid east peace process and the aim of preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. To do this, the left and Obama will:
“1. elevate diplomacy as the primary tool for resolving key conflicts involving Muslim countries, engaging both allies and adversaries in dialogue
n engage with Iran to explore the potential for agreements that could increase regional security, while seeking Iran’s full compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation commitments.
n work intensively for immediate de-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a viable path to a two-state solution, while ensuring the security of Israelis and Palestinians
Report of the Leadership Group on U.S.—Muslim engagement, “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World, pub. By the U.S.—Muslim Engagement Project, Wash.D.C. & Cambridge, Ma., page 4. (Hereinafter, “Report.”)
So, there you have it. “we ain’t gonna make war no more, we ain’t gonna make war no more, we ain’t gonna …. make …. war …. no more!!!”
In short, and in plain English, following this blue print means that the United States will not use military power to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. In other words, it has now become a cardinal tenet of U.S. foreign policy that we do nothing to prevent Iran from attaining the bomb except via diplomacy, … , in the starkest terms possible, the authors of this report concede Iran the atomic bomb, and the missile systems necessary to deliver them against Israel.
Sorry Mattie, I will concede you have done right well by yourself career wise, but after having recently finished John Bolton’s “surrender is not an option,” Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 2007 and the “afterword” thereto, pages 460-473, I am just not very sanguine about the possibilities of palaver and the inducements of diplomacy having much effect upon either Iran or North Korea to halt their missile and nuclear weapons programs, or to change Iran’s chosen course. (This “scenario” has recently been set in motion by barrack Obama. Get it?) in the context of developing their missiles and nuclear bombs, the north Korean and Iranians have accepted bribe after economic bribe to stop their programs, have not stopped their programs, and have marched inexorably it would seem in a world full of weaklings with big weapons, to join the ranks. Maybe that is the goal of diplomacy, to give them nuclear weapons so that they may magically turn into pissants and poseurs, too, but it seems a dubious strategy to me.
to my thinking if Iran has nuclear weapons the drive will be to use them, before Israel, her intended victim, simply gives way under the threat of nuclear annihilation and peremptorily destroys them, whether by conventional weapons or her own nukes.
In short, the pamphlet “changing course” would commit to a failed strategy of previous diplomacy to bring a resolution to the issue of the Iranian and North Korean possession of nuclear weapons, and the facilities to make them. Nothing in recent history suggests that either the International Atomic Energy Commission or the United Nations general assembly and Security Council are going to be any more efficient or efficacious in reigning in these rogue states’ nuclear pretensions & ambitions than they ever have been. If the United States is afraid to use military power to do it, as a practical matter there is simply nothing stop Iran and North Korea from having them, save perhaps stinging insults: they seem rather immune from stinging insults, do they not?
The simple fact is, diplomacy proving unavailing, Iran will possess nuclear weapons.
What other tired old shibboleths has this report turned to, to bring an end to the tensions and violence in the world, particularly as it applies to Islamic terrorism.
well, the report holds to the view that if only the irately and Arab dispute over “Palestine” can be brought to a peaceful conclusion, then Muslim resentments toward the west and the united states will end, and peace will reign in the region, and hence the world. I cannot do the report’s position sufficient justice except to quote it fully, but, you will be forgiven in this camp if all of this sounds depressingly similar to the leftist state department pap that you have been hearing for years. United States diplomacy will:
“Work intensively for immediate de-escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a viable path to a two-state solution. U.S. leadership in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical not only for Israeli’s and Palestinians, but also for U.S. relations with Muslim countries and people world-wide. It would be hard to overstate the symbolic significance of the conflict, and the U.S. role in it, for Muslims in the Middle East and around the world. In the view of most Muslims, the U.S. has enabled and shielded Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands since 1967. When they consider the record of U.S. support for Israel, the U.S. decision to deny the legitimacy of Hamas following its 2006 electoral victory, they find it easy to reject U.S. calls for democracy in other Muslim countries.
Helping to de-escalate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and put it on a sustainable path to a two-state solution would contribute greatly to U.S. credibility across the Muslim world. Middle East states that have exploited the conflict to distract attention from their domestic failings might also face greater pressure to accelerate political and economic reforms.
Israelis, Palestinians, the U.S., and other key players in the region and around the world recognize that the status quo is untenable. Israel’s occupation of the west bank and its isolation of Gaza, the status of Jerusalem, and Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel undermine security for all, encouraging extremis and making it nearly impossible for leaders on either side to create a comprehensive peace agreement.
Today, the critical question is not whether to sacrifice Israel’s security for the sake of Muslim public opinion, or vice versa. Rather, it is what practical steps the U.S. can take to help Palestinians achieve their rights to security and self-determination, while maintaining and enhancing Israel’s security.
The bush administration began trying to reverse the polarization with a November 2007 conference at Annapolis and has made substantial efforts to build momentum in subsequent peace talks. However, there are serious difficulties with the design of the Annapolis process. Most serious is that the initial commitments the U.S. has asked both the Palestinian authority and the Israeli government to fulfill, based on the 2003 ‘roadmap’ (for example, reform and unification of Palestinian security forces and removal of Israeli checkpoints in the west bank) may be politically unattainable in the short-term. By pushing hard on a set of requirements that probably cannot be met, the U.S. risks undermining het credibility of leaders on both sides, and ultimately risks rejections of the Annapolis initiative as a whole.
To increase the chances of success, the U.S. needs to help Israel and Palestinian leaders by refocusing the negotiation process on a set of goals that are achievable in the next year. Specifically:
· halting Israeli settlement construction in the Palestinian territories, based on an unambiguous and jointly agreed definition of ‘new settlement construction’
· prosecuting Palestinian extremists who incite violence in the west bank (where Palestinian president Abbas can make and follow through on this commitment) [no like guarantee on “extremists” firing missiles into Israel from Gaza?] “It is to laugh, it is to cry” -- Bugs Bunny.]
· rebuilding security cooperation by sharing intelligence about planned attacks, taking joint action to prevent them, and cooperating in tracking down and arresting attackers; training Palestinian security forces; and improving treatment of Palestinians at Israeli checkpoints
· reducing the Israeli military presence (including checkpoints) as the security situation improves and renewing economic exchange between the West Bank and Israel
· investing in west bank areas that have benefited from enhanced security, focusing on education, and on social and municipal services that directly contribute to the quality of life on a daily basis.
The U.S. has a critical role to play in defining the benchmarks for performance of these commitments, monitoring their implementation, and fostering accountability for fulfilling them. Only with meaningful, substantial progress toward these initial goals can the parties begin serious discussions on final status issue
As negotiations move forward, the U.S. should also coordinate diplomacy closely with other key international and regional actors, including the other members of the quartet, the Arab league, the organization of the Islamic conference, and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and potentially Iran. Together with the U.S., these actors can strengthen incentives for both Israelis and Palestinians to move toward a permanent resolution.
The role and Hamas and its control of Gaza remain a serious challenge to the U.S. and other quartet members, Israel, the Palestinian authority, and Arab states who seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the conflict. The strongest source of U.S. leverage with Hamas may be a U.S. dialogue with Iran, discussed earlier, that could lead to a reduction in Iranian support for Hamas’s military operation
In addition or as an alternative, the U.S. should use indirect channels (through Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and potentially Syria) to assess the potential usefulness of engaging Hamas in dialogue to try to affect its behavior. Exploratory discussions should make it clear that he U.S. will respond constructively to Hamas only if Hamas changes its policies and behavior toward Israel a sustained Hamas ceasefire with Israel, and a mutually acceptable resolution of political representation questions with the Palestinian authority, should be the basis for any substantial change in the U.S. stance towards Hamas. Direct engagement with Hamas should take place only after Hamas acceptance of the quartet conditions, and should be coordinated with Israel and the Palestinian authority.
To build momentum for a broader regional peace, the U.S. should also engage Syria in dialogue. Moderates in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon could all gain if dialogue led to a realignment of Syrian foreign policy toward peace with Israel and full self-determination in Lebanon. As a core element of dialogue and diplomacy with Syria, the U.S. should help mediate and guarantee a Syrian-Israeli peace treaty, and seek ways to normalize Damascus-Washington relations, while encouraging the ongoing restoration of diplomatic relations between Syria and Lebanon.
To knit these threads together, the U.S. needs a carefully designed, sustained, and energetic strategy. Too often in the past, the U.S. commitment has been episodic. The track record of U.S. diplomacy in the region shows the high risk that misunderstanding, mistrust, and the actions of hard-lines and extremists pose to the peace process. On the other hand, high-level and sustained U.S. efforts have helped the parties to achieve substantial agreements, and could do so again.
As the leader of sustained U.S. efforts to achieve a permanent, two state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the President should appoint a special envoy.
Report, pages 41-46.
Well. Piece of cake. Why no one ever thought of such an easy strategy before, well, it is kind of staggering, something of a wonder, isn’t it? Peace treaty with Syria. Get Hamas to normalize, abandon its religious zealotry, rewrite its charter, which defines it religious purpose and eschews diplomacy, reform its state security apparatus and reunite with Abbas, all the while neutralizing Iran as a rogue state, in the mean time convincing the Israeli settlers to abandon their land claims and capital improvement on the west bank, and wrap the whole deal up.
All the while this legerdemain is being performed, no one of the parties shall ever mention the role of Islam, the Arab Brotherhood, nor the little ongoing fracas between Hamas and Abbas, and securing the antiquities at the temple mount and the partition of Jerusalem. What, you say, they didn’t mention that?
Does all of this sound sort of depressingly similar and couched with that smug, smarmy, sanctimonious self assurance that only the truly deluded and self centered in the world can summon? Real world issues which have led to the deaths of many are reduced to the level of conceptual “stumbling” blocks in this triumph of hubris and self assuredness over the realities of history and human behavior. It is only to be observed that reality has toppled many a bold scheme.
All of this is as doomed to failure in the future as it has been doomed by failure in the past. And, for the same reasons: human complexities do not bend to formula, especially not very well thought out formula.
Now, I am going to say something which is sort of out of step with the wisdom of the age. But, these are the sorts of things that they used to have wars over, little things like national boundaries and rights of occupation. (Anyone of you ever heard of the Ruhr valley?) When van Clausewitz said that war was an extension of foreign policy, this is what he meant. He might very well have added that a war properly brought and fought was also much more efficient than diplomacy, infinitely faster and capable of greater precision in resolution (generally because the winner had the ability to impose his decisions with quite literally life or death immediacy), and quite possibly more availing of and less destructive of human life and property, given the immediacy of resolution of most disputes.
In short, this is the same failed “policy” we have foisted off and forced upon the Israelis in return for our protection for the past 15 years or so, the famous “two state” solution. This is a “solution” that almost nobody thinks will be accepted by either side, ever. It will not work. The French, the Germans, the English, the Israelis, the Arabs, know that it will not work. John Bolton knows it will not work, and that no one will accept it, which is why he is promoting the re-absorption of the west bank back into Jordan (he knows full well the Jordanians will kill Abbas in far greater number than the Israelis ever did, just as they killed more P.L.O. than the Israeli’s ever dreamt of), and the integration of Gaza back into Egypt (where he knows the Egyptians will kill Hamas in droves, and stack them in sheaves, in biblical proportion.) Binyamin Netanyahu knows it will not work, because a two state solution whether or not saddled with a Muslim “right of re-entry” into “Palestine” means the eventual demographic death of Israel, something Olmert and Livni might have accepted, but an eventuality Netanyahu will not accept, even if the Israeli’s are pressured under the diplomatic “largess” of the United States. And, finally, the two state solution will not happen, because the Gazans and the Palestinians will not accept it, as it just leaves them with the problem of killing each other, instead of being killed by the Jordanians and the Egyptians and/or the Jews. Abbas and Hamas both know the incredible bloodletting that will follow upon statehood: they know they will kill each other with greater rapacity than any of their traditional foes have ever killed them. And, they would rather live the subsidized life of ease under the protectorate of the United Nations and the Euro Union, rather than to have to make their own way in the world. With the status quo, they can do some symbolic fighting from time to time, enjoy a little bloodletting against the Israeli’s, and enjoy a life of ease: with statehood, comes work, and serious killing with precious little symbolism or theatre involved in it, and a serious killing that will last years, rather than the desultory week or ten days at a time as against Israel. Statehood to the Palestinians means work, and they have become used to ease and theatrical killing.
Nope, as far as diplomacy goes, this is the same old tired canard that has been purveyed by the leftists and the euro for two decades.
Why would this pamphlet propound failed diplomatic efforts and policies whose failures and inadequacies have been amply and repeatedly demonstrated? It will not work, because it has not worked.
Psst!! Shush, now!! A little secret. No one expects it to work. Not even their author, Madeline Albright.
And, i will tell you why.
The pretense to the big nation state diplomacy is a sham. It is a ruse. It is a kind of Potemkin village scam on a gullible public, both domestic and international, to keep them focused on the false front image of diplomatic effort while the real action is going down.
It is to hide the fact that the democrats/leftists have learned to count. They can count to 1.3 billion, as in 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.
i will tell you where the action is in this report.-- it would be my preference that you go to pages 13-16 of the report, and read those pages very carefully. But, if you read only the following text, you will be as smart and well informed as you need be to understand the leftist/Allinksky/Democratic Party/Obama “change” in foreign policy:
“Roughly one-fifth of the world’s population, or about 1.3 billion people, is Muslim. Muslims form the majority in 56 countries across North Africa; the Middle East; Asia Minor; and Central, South and South East Asia. That geography spans major oil producing regions, key land and sea trade routes, and areas of high political sensitivity and instability. [Yes, because Muslims are there. It is that way wherever Muslims are found. Period. Sorry, i could not resist a simple truth: jjjay.] Muslims also form important minority communities in countries across Europe, North America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and parts of Asia. [Which also have become areas of contemporary “political sensitivity,” almost exclusively because Muslims are now there. Sorry, that truth thing again: jjjay.]
“Changing Course,” pp. 13-14.
Let us pretend to be Democrats, and do some more counting.
There are about 11 or 12 million Jews in the world. There are about 5.3 million Jews in Israel, another 5.3 million Jews in the United States, and a smattering here and there around the rest of the world. Need it be added that Jews are found in liberal to center leaning democracies, champions of free speech in bastions of free speech and liberality, and in uncensored societies and academia, or press towards those values wherever they are. This means that there are roughly 100 Muslims for every Jew worldwide, about 245 Muslims for every Jew in Israel, give or take a few here and there.
Israel, as contrasted to the Arab states, has no major oil fields, although natural gas deposits were found off the Mediterranean coast recently; Israel sits across no major land or sea trading routes, nor menaces any by piracy or the threat of nuclear missiles or conventional armed missiles; and Israel enjoys political stability and a civil and civilized politics, in spite of having the largest peaceful Arab minority community of any country in the world: this, a matter of substantial irony, to say the least, especially given the conclusions arrived at in this paper vis a visa the implications of the “changing course” pamphlet. Let it be said that Israel’s economy thrives because it is nurtured by hard work, free market economies, highly educated and motivated citizens, and a society which embraces our own values of free speech and due process of law.
Did I mention that Israel carries on no wars of domestic terror and violence against any nation on earth, or that Israel’s Arab and Druze citizens possess liberties and freedoms other Arabs can only imagine? Oh, if you are a diehard socialist or comm symp or fellow traveler with the Palestinians, I know your position and I know mine, so just keep the insults and dissents short. I would ask only were you of sufficient candor to note that all conflicts with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt have been conducted by Israel in observance of international rules, and were you of sufficient candor to acknowledge that the concept of “Palestinian” as applied to those of Arabic descent was invented by Yasser Arafat, who was either Egyptian or Tunisian, I cannot remember. But, otherwise, if you wish to challenge these assertions, flail away.
Need the rest of you be reminded that Jesus Christ was a Jewish Rabbi, in all likelihood, long before he “became” Christian, and that the values of the Torah and the Christian Bible are so similar and compatible that something called a Judeo-Christian ethos informs and forms the core values and ethics of both religions, of western civilization, and the core values and ethics and politics of Israel and the United States. In short, the heritage of the Jewish people, is our heritage, and formed our heritage, and informs it yet.
Is it such a world that i am constrained to explain that, within this context? Sadly, I fear it is.
Again, there are about 5.3 million Jews in the United States, and about 2-3, or 3-4 million Muslims in the United States. Those numbers and that relationship will change, as Muslim birthrates and immigration will supplant the Jewish position as a minority group, and also as Muslim influence in politics will supplant Jewish influence in politics. the Muslims will never equal the Jewish contribution in the letters, in the arts, and in political thought and action, but they will pass the Jews in numbers and votes, … , and, that my friends is that, and that is where it is at. Numbers.
So, how do the authors of this paper propose that the United States get along with these 1.3 billion Muslims, prickly and irritable sorts though they appear to be, wherever they are, and prone to express those qualities in violence, wherever they are? Again, a hint is provided at the “executive summary,” (for those very important persons who do not have the time to educate themselves, except by digesting platitudes):
“4. Improve mutual respect and understanding between Americans and Muslims around the world
· use public diplomacy to reinforce changes in politics and actions
· dramatically expand cross-cultural education, people-to-people and interfaith exchange
· promote greater depth and accuracy in news coverage and programming
· invest in cultural diplomacy through arts and entertainment programs, to deepen mutual understanding and challenge stereotypes
· involve the Muslim-American community as a bridge
Report, page __.
Folks, there you have the salient rationale found in the “Leadership Group on U.S.—Muslim Engagement” report. behind this largely uninspired rehash of past U.S. state department efforts and aspirations to impose its leftist leaning will upon united states foreign policy and the peace process in the middle east, and to impose U.S. will upon the leaders and people of Israel, we find a proposal to vastly change the way diplomacy is propounded, and in so doing, to make the Muslim community in the united states a diplomatic and political power: all under the aegis and direction of the left, and the democratic party. Never mind, that the U.S. foreign policy establishment’s aspirations, the history of their failures, are written large in the recap of the “two state” policy position put forward in this report, as are the failed aspirations for arms controls and nuclear proliferation controls. Never mind, that these are the failures of the leftist establishment’s control over the institutions of United States foreign policy, i.e., the dominate ideologies of the last 40 or 50 years in the U.S. government state department.
do be mindful, however, that in the little enumerations of the paragraphs just quoted above from the “executive summary,” you see grafted onto this old leftist and state department orthodoxy, the emergence into a dominate strain of democratic party theology and orthodoxy, that strain of 60’s thought from the agitator and community organizer, Mr. Saul Allinsky, as applied to and as intended to transform the Muslim American community into an economic, political and diplomatic powerhouse. And, all in the “ethnic wing” of the democratic mansion, occupying those suites formally dominated by the American Jewish community. It is a proposal of sweeping audacity, and it is right in front of your eyes, if you will see it.
You see, or should see, the emergence of this strain of thought into dominance in the person of Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, the woman who wrote her senior thesis on Saul Allinsky.
you see, or should see, the emergence of this strain of thought into a dominant position in democratic party politics in the person of Barrack Obama, the acorn patron who came up through the ranks of the community organizers, and who wields his power over acorn and the other arms of the liberal activist octopus, as though they were his personal fiefdoms. He is an Allinsky protégée, and educated in the thought of Herbert Marcuse, as well.
You see, or should see it, in the emergence of the ever increasingly virulent anti-semitic thought and action of the American left, and the increasingly anti-semitic action of the American Muslim community, as aided, abetted and enabled by the American left. The liberal Jewish community hasn’t a clue, … , they should read and assimilate this pamphlet authored and issued by the American left. They see, but they will not see.
The paragraphs quoted above echo the teachings of the 60’s in the United States, and of the community organizing activism of latter years. The sentiments voiced above should evoke memories of organizing in Chicago neighborhoods, these last years.
we are going to look at something in a little bit, an amplification of these concepts found deeper into the paper, which reveals the true scope of what the writers and authors and pretended social “authorities” hope to accomplish in this “engagement” with Islamic societies, which is nothing short of a fundamental remake of both American institutions and societies, as well as a remake of Muslim societies. The report is quite explicit on these subjects, and makes no secrets over them, nor the aims of the leftist/socialist/radical behind those sentiments.
heretofore, diplomacy has been conducted by governments, who marshaled the forces of their societies to advance their positions on the international stages, and whose diplomacy was conducted by ambassadors and generals, and when the common man had a role, it was subordinate, … , it was to fight and die adhering to his beliefs.
The radical vision of Allinsky, and Clinton and Obama is far more encompassing.
What in G_d’s name am I talking about, you say?
The aim of this report, “changing course,” is to integrate United States and Muslim societies. were these aims fully realized as intended by the author’s of this paper, is would affect fundamental change on American perceptions of Muslims, and it would also effect fundamental changes on American institutions and attitudes which would fundamentally impact who and what we are. We would, in short, in my view, emerge from such an experience less Jewish and Christian, and far more sympathetic towards the political and religious views of the Arab world. And, the Arab/Muslim American community would emerge from this process a political powerhouse, subordinate to and within the Democratic Party’s apparatus.
The Jews are to receive their eviction notice from that apparatus.
The exposition of these ideas begins in chapter v. of the report, sub-chapter 4., to “improve mutual respect and understanding between Americans and Muslims around the world,” beginning page 74 and running through page 91. With the following words, asserting the true aim of this report, the authors posit an integration of Muslim and American societies:
“… given the perceptual and psychological barriers that have built up in many Muslim countries and communities during the last decade or more, promoting effective, two-way communications with key Muslim constituencies should be a major focus of U.S. public diplomacy and strategic communications.
It is equally important to promote education, dialogue, and creative collaboration at the societal level, both as an end in itself and as a way to create more political opportunities for U.S. and Muslim leaders who want to improve relations. ….. However, the U.S. government and the government of Muslim majority countries need not only to increase funding, but also to change policies and regulations to make it far easier for Americans and Muslims in other countries to meet, talk, learn and work together. Philanthropic, religious, and media organizations also need to make significant new investments to ensure that there is deep civic engagement to complement government-sponsored initiatives.”
Report, page 75.
This is an open and bald faced statement of the purpose of the report.
This is not the cooperation and exchange between diplomats and emissaries; this is an exchange and acculturation between people’s and societies. In the end, it is, to coin a phrase, I suppose, extra-diplomatic, in that the exchanges and loyalties developed thereby transcend the interests of governments, and become the interests of peoples. It is, in short, the community organizers end run dash around institutions, really in an effort to thwart institutions, just as pan-Islam is not really curtailed nor controlled by the Arab nation states.
What might the new terminology of description be, a pan Pepsi generation, or a pan coca cola world?
The writers of this report view the state departments and the armies of the world as a source of trouble, and simply want to negate and supersede their role. George Soros, in effect, and his cronies, would like to run the world, in cooperation with their cronies as with Barrack Obama in the white house, and in control of things over and above that level if they cannot retain control of the seats of power.
Are mine the rantings of a lunatic? Well, let us see.
We find these remarks with regard to educational reform in both the United States and in Muslim nations:
“The U.S. government, together with educational, philanthropic, and business organizations, should substantially expand present commitments to academic and professional education on Muslim history, religion, and culture, and on issues in U.S.--Muslim relations.”
Report, page 79
“It is equally important for the U.S. to expand its commitment to fund basic education (literacy and numeracy) in Muslim countries, and to support teaching and learning about other cultures as part of the curriculum. The U.S. should not impose it view of what should be taught about other cultures in Muslim countries’ schools. Nonetheless, the U.S. should use dialogue and advocacy to promote balanced presentation of historical, political, and cultural issues, and to put an end to teaching the advocates of violence.”
Report, page 81
we find these remarks about international exchanges to build understanding, which sounds strangely like subsidized education for Muslim students in the united states, but again, these are things to “build bridges,” in the vernacular, at all levels of U.S. and Muslim societies around the world. Says the report:
“There are also strategic, cultural, and economic gains for the U.S. when bright young Muslims, who will someday be leaders in their own countries, come to the U.S. for their education.
“Organizations involved in cross-cultural student, cultural, professional, or community exchanges, and U.S. businesses with operation in Muslim countries, should substantially scale up their efforts to promote direct contact among citizens and leaders from the U.S. and Muslim countries. For example, the Brookings Institution has proposed a $50 million fund to support 10,000 global service fellowships per year. Exchanges should target education, media, labor, military, religious, and community leaders, because of their potential impact as opinion makes. Exchanges should also include musicians, artists, and other who can have a major effect on public perceptions and opinions.”
Report, page 81.
What we see here, purportedly, is no less an effort than to tie entire generations of Muslims to our view point. we should do well, however, to remember that most of the Arabs who run O.P.E.C. organizations in the Arab world were educated at English and American graduate institutions, and this has made them no less inclined to adopt economic and trade policies quite harmful to the united states: we should ask, why would we be any more successful this time around, in “turning” such people to our views.
Nonetheless, the report continues, with particular and continuing emphasis upon “engagement” in areas dealing with the control and content of broadcasting in the mass media, … , e.g., television and radio. the report focus upon the mechanics of the dissemination of such viewpoints over public airways, as it might be influenced by Arab/Muslim news media, broadcasters and producers for U.S. broadcasts, and as it might be influenced by Americans for Muslim majority nations, and how this might be shaped and directed by this interchange. I suppose it not unmindful at this juncture, to remember that in most nations of the world, and decidedly Arab & Muslim nations fall into this category, the content and broadcast of ideas over the air is of such importance that governments control most of it, and it is strictly a monopoly of government agencies. Even in the so called social democracies of Western Europe, such as in France and Germany, the content of public broadcast is of such importance that it is not left to chance, or chaos, and is tightly supervised and controlled. Only in the United States, and Canada, and Great Britain, are private entities given absolute discretion in what they print and broadcast. (Anyone given any thought to the “fairness doctrine,” and our good friend Rush, lately?) does any of this sound like control of a propaganda agency? And, just how realistic is the caveat in the last sentence quoted, that no broadcasts in a Muslim nation involving this sort of American cross-acculturalization are to be censored by Muslim societies and governments:
“Without adding substantially to the cost of coverage, news media could provide more diverse perspectives on breaking news and ongoing stories.
“In particular, U.S. news web sites could provide more extensive links to commentators based in Muslim countries, and Muslim media web sites could provide more links to commentators based in the U.S. Discussion between the production and editorial staffs of major U.S. news media and counterparts in Muslim national and regional markets about diversity and depth of coverage could also be productive. In the U.S., news media could expand their coverage of Muslims in non-conflictual contexts, including charitable and civic organizations, fund-raising events and cultural activities, while simultaneously giving more publicity to Muslim condemnation of terrorism and extremism.
“Whatever initiatives are taken by news media to provide more innovative coverage, it is important that they be voluntary and clearly separate from governmental public diplomacy, and from soft or hard censorship.”
Report, pages 85-86.
In answer to my own rhetorical question, posed before quoting the above material, it seems extremely unlikely that any Muslim TV broadcast will ever not be censored or separate from governmental controls, rendering it very likely that any such “more enlightened” broadcasts as envisioned in the above paragraphs would take place only in the united states, and only with the Arab/Muslim views impacting American broadcasts.
It strikes me in general, that a lot of the benefits conferred upon Islam by the American “viewpoint” are illusory at best, given religious and governmental influences there, and that the only “change” effected by these schemes is to be borne by American society. Is Mattie Albright incapable of seeing this, or understanding the plain import of the words she has authored?
An aspect of the nature of the relations described above eluded me for a while, but struck me upon reflection. The relations contemplated above strike me as creating not just affinity between U.S. citizen and Muslim adherent, but relationships along the line of loyalty, allegiance and perhaps even kinship. In short, these kinds of working exchanges strike me as going quite beyond the cordiality of acquaintance or familiarity, but to the core essence of friendship, and allegiance. These relationships are of a function and type that require professional judgment, balance and discussion, and between people quite likely to become, … , well allies, and those who would exchange values and ethics, perhaps value and ethos.
In short, the designs of such exchange are not merely to help reform Islam and decrease or eliminate violence from the Islamic mindset, but would fundamentally change us as well. In fact, the purported influence upon Muslim society strikes me as largely illusory on all points, and not just with state run media concerns. it strikes me, that any sober assessment of this “engagement” scheme on the person to person level has to conclude that the change “effected” thereby will be largely upon softening the attitudes and hostilities that Americans continue to feel over the 9/11 attacks, and a 40 year period of Islamic terror attacks upon our citizens and interests, … , especially upon the men and women who serve our country in our military. And, i further believe, that this “engagement” scheme is designed largely to prepare the American public for the larger role politically and socially to be played upon the American stage by Muslim Americans, as they are absorbed into the working structure of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have well noted that in Europe, the socialist and leftist parties are able to maintain their rule by toadying and courting the immigrant Muslim vote: it is not a lesson or observation that has escaped American Democrats & leftists.
If the plan in this pamphlet, “changing course,” is not an outright fraud, it at the very least is a fairly lame deceit. For instance, if we were truly wanting to affect change in Arab attitudes with regard to such issues as the peace process and nuclear proliferation, and to change attitudes and perceptions of Americans towards Muslims by using Muslim Americans as a “bridge” to do so?--
Why would a thorough approach to the issue of Islamic violence focused on the middle east, and the Middle East peace process being singled out by the authors of this report as key in solving the heretofore seemingly intractable problem of Islamic violence, not include a similar outreach to U.S. Jews and Israeli’s, if U.S. Muslims are to be bridges to the rest of the world. If Middle East peace is key to the whole approach of normalizing relations between peoples in the United States, Palestine and Israel, (and, no less between Israel & the U.S. and the Arab Muslims in the entire region) where is the outreach, the American Muslim “bridge” to Israeli Jews and to Israel and Islam? To omit this “bridge” to Israel and to Jews worldwide seems a rather obvious oversight, were such a bridge really intended, does it not? Is Jewish involvement in the peace process no less important to the peace process than Muslim involvement? It would seem so to Democratic Party theoreticians, at the very least.
Such a deficiency should have been obvious to the drafters of a report that took years to prepare, had they been serious about their intended purpose.
Well, it seems to me this is a revealing observation. Would not having all three participants in the Israeli-Muslim-American peace process being friendly, be more beneficial to its successful outcome than just having two of the participants being great chums?
I have wondered at this, and another very odd juxtaposition of elements in this report of the U.S.—Muslim Engagement Group.
And that is the contrast between the tired, hack kneed really, diplomatic analysis re: the peace process and nuclear proliferation, and the fresh approach of a people to people diplomacy which radically eschews traditional nation state diplomacy, in some effect actually kind of discarding it, were the interchanges between American and Muslim to produce some of the purported effect. Friends, after all, view friends quite differently based on their experiences with them, than their government might be able to define in accord with governmental policy.
And, then again, there is the almost total disregard of promoting a similar interchange and engagement with Israeli Jews and Arab & American Muslims.
I admit a certain disdain, distrust and dislike for Madeline Albright, and her ilk of the diplomatic trade, finding them supercilious hanky wringing twits. they also seem quite hidebound, arrogant, and the absolute worst kind of people in the world by whom to form lasting relationships with anybody in the world, save their counterparts exactly like them: they can all sniff down the ends of their noses at each other at cocktail parties, and the like. Give me a guy who likes a grilled burger and a beer to these pompous vainglorious clods any day of the week.
But, despite my name calling, the last thing in the world that Madeline Albright is in the world, on any given day, is stupid. And, i suspect that she may have a fair degree of native wit, guile and skill at close in maneuver to have gotten where she has in the world.
So, it has meant puzzlement to me why the nation state foreign policy segment of this report is as stale as it is. and, as doomed to simply repetitive failure: these same postures and stances have led to the collapse of talks and the breach of tentative agreements so many times, that such no one could possibly conceive of their efficacy this time around. the “peace process” has simply not proven amenable to the issues posed by the two state solution, and most halfway astute observers say that the demographic of Arabic population growth has completely daunted the prospect of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. This especially applies when the thorny issue of Israeli settlement in the West Bank is considered. The last i heard, the Israeli government would face armed insurrection if they tried to eject the Jewish settlers from the West Bank.
This seems to me to cast a very dark pall indeed upon the prospects that the nation state diplomatic posture recommended by this report could ever succeed.
And then, it occurred to me that in this I am absolutely right. And, that Mattie Albright knows this to be true, as well.
And then there are the nukes.
Even if you do not want to read the entirety of “Surrender Is Not an Option” by John Bolton, I would recommend most enthusiastically that you read Chapter 11 of the book, “Security Council Successes on North Korea,” and Chapter 12, “Iran and the Security Council: the EU-3 Find New Ways to Give In,” to understand how United Nations and nation state diplomacy "works," and to gain some sort of contextual understanding for the likelihood of talk and palaver and dialogue and incentives and encouragement stopping either the North Koreans or the Iranians from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Hint: it is very unlikely, so unlikely as to appear hardly conceivable.)
Diplomacy simply will not stop either country from obtaining its geopolitical and geostrategic aims. It just ain't gonna work, and you can take out your Thesaurus & Boy Scout Handbook and rub on them for hours to rub that sentiment up all you want, and you are still not gonna make it work. Ain’t gonna happen.
Mattie Albright is a full blown diplomat and suffers from all the attendant liabilities and limitations associated with that status, but she is no idiot.
She recognizes this as a rehash of failure, and as failed and doomed, as well as anyone. she also knows full well that these two rogue states who have wanted something and who have gotten this close to it, are not going to give the quest up this close and after having expended this amount of energy, nor are they going to change the stratagems and behaviors that have gotten them this far, this late in the game.
Again, it just rubs too much against the grain of learned behaviors, and the strength of desire, and North Korea and Iran are not changing now.
To suggest other in any serious vein is sheer idiocy, and Mattie is not a sheer idiot. She knows as well as i do, and i am sure even better, the truth of what I assert.
Then why has she announced these goals and policies as central to her plans for new millennia in foreign policy and relations.
The answer is, I believe, quite simple. These plans and policies are not intended to work.—
Given leftist goals and ambitions, they simply do not care one way or another about the success or failure of these policies, because they view the destruction of Israel as inevitable, and not worth committing the resource and wealth of the united states, and the lives of U.S. soldiers, in the final analysis, in order to preserve what cannot be preserved. They know that if Iran is capable of destroying Israel with a deployable and deliverable nuclear weapon, she will do so, and they have made the analysis that there really is no way to prevent this.
The leftist have taken the further inevitable step in this line of analysis, and have decided to ally themselves with whom they believe the eventual winner to be. The democrats have finally got the people capable of it, and they can count, all the way to 1.3 billion, a figure they appear might impress with, as they repeat the same ad nauseam in the text of the report. they have taken one further step it seems to me, however, not at all compelled by logic or necessity of reasoning nor real politick of any kind, and they have decided to transform the united states from a political entity whose predominate political & legal & economic heritage has been Anglo-Saxon & European, and Judeo-Christian in its ethos, it ethics, its values and its aesthetics, into a country whose population is Muslim compatible, if not outright Muslim.
Now, I do not understand the intellectual necessity for any of this. And, if truth be told, neither do the Democrats. I mean precisely by that, that they have not made an intellectual or an ethical or a moral or a philosophical, or certainly, a religious evaluation of these matters.--
They have simply chosen power, and the preservation of their own rule over this country, over protecting and preserving those values held in common by the United States and Israel, and heretofore advanced and protected by western civilization. They have chosen rule, over adherence to value and to ethics and to beliefs, and to heritage and civilization. They will not expose themselves and the United States to sacrifice or effort to preserve what has made us, and nurtured us, and sustained us to this point. In short, they have chosen capitulation to Islam, and much the same manner as suggested in the following paragraph.
In my view, the leftists as evidenced by this report, and by every public utterance from the Obama administration, and by every appointment made by Obama to his cabinet and to the federal bureaucracy, has demonstrated an anti-semitic fervor unparalleled in United States history or at least not seen since the heyday of the Klu Klux Klan, and demonstrated an overt favoritism and affinity to the leftist agenda in support of Islam. It has been a shameful display. And, it does not reflect my choices in the matter, or my way of thinking. You have to ask yourself, how it comports with my way of thinking, now, don’t you: i write these little essays for no other reason.
But, this report goes farther than the abject and craven abandonment of our closest ally for nearly 40 years; than the outright betrayal of our intellectual and religious forbearers; than the spurning of all that is good in a people who share a major credit in spawning and nurturing our civilization, …. , if it is possible to betray more than that, Obama and his minions have done it.
In this plan, they deliver over American and Western Civilization, quite literally, into the tender ministrations of Islam.
What, you say, how can you say that? You have not demonstrated that?
Have i not from the words put forth from that report, from the little leftist pamphlet? Why do you think the writers of that pamphlet have entitled it, “Changing Course?” Do you think the choice of these words mere stylistic zeal?
People in this day and age are so easy to gull, so incapable of reasoning through even a scintilla of what they are told, so incapable of extrapolating beyond the surface of the assertions to which they are treated, so incapable of applying their own tests of historical experience to an argument or proposition, as to be almost past comprehension. (They are also quite lazy, to boot.) People do not think as they read, and my guess is, dear and gentle reader, that you are not much different. You probably just accept what you are told, and do not apply either reason or historical knowledge to what you have been told.
People are so credulous; it is almost frightening to contemplate it.
Now, take the cardinal assumption of this report.—
It views the incidence of Arab/Muslim terrorism as bad, bad for business and bad for politics, and bad for, … , well, what else is there, besides votes. using a simple calculus, the report assumes that there are simply too many Arab extremist hatching every day, that we cannot kill them fast enough to eradicate them, … , after all, there are 1.3 billion of them.
but, the authors’ reason, if we treat them kindly, subsidize the education of their best and brightest, and associate and do business with their business people, and if we have interchange and engagement with them, they will come to like and respect and understand us, and we them, and we shall also improve their economic lot, and make their governance fair and reasonable and representative and no longer oppressive, and we shall enlighten them, and they will no longer resent us, and they will no longer have grievances against us, and they will no longer be impelled to kill us in heinous, depraved, disgusting and despicable and dishonorable ways designed to bring humiliation and shame upon us.
In short, we shall make them better.
If only we make Israel go away for them.
And, this is the operative and cardinal assumption of this entire report.
And, people read this, and they utter, oh, e doo te doo te doo, and accept it as learned verity, and it does not register upon them what it is they have just read, what they have just accepted.
well, let us examine this just a bit, first to the point of whether Islam and the Muslim world can change, and see if it stands up to even the most cursory examination.—
Is this assumption of Islamic change compatible with history?
I submit it is not. Islam is some 1400 years old. In all that time, its interchange and engagement with other societies, cultures, religions and political institutions, have not changed it much.
Is this assumption compatible with the theological structure of the religion?
Not really. There is talk in the report of Americans going into Muslim countries and affecting the curriculum and content of instruction of Muslim schools, of making Muslim students capable of reading and counting: “numeracy” is the term used for counting, if i am not mistaken. How likely is it that a school system such as the Mosque and Madrassa, whose instruction is primarily religious, is going to allow some infidel to waltz in and make systemic changes to the mode of instruction, which is determined by 1400 years of history, and local religious leaders?
there will be no instruction, there can be none, which questions the faith or which allows dilution of its tenets or questions the role of Mohammed as prophet: and, as a matter of practical fact, there can be no topic which does not impact the teachings or mores of Islam in such a manner, in some degree, such is the all encompassing impact of Islam upon Muslim society. The Koran is the entirety of Muslim society, and the entirety of Muslim society is the Koran, and i cannot conceive of much of any kind of “reform” that doesn’t run up against this. To pretend otherwise is nonsense, and to ignore 1400 years of history. Any such attempt at reform or tendency to reform runs the risk of apostasy and death to any adherent of Islam who advanced such notions, and death to any infidel who tries to advance them.
Muslim is such, that any departure from the accepted teachings of the religions interpreters and speakers will not be tolerated. Any academic subject which impacts on the adherence to the faith by the obedient and unquestioning faithful will be stamped out, and its adherents dealt with severally. Take a philosophy class, for instance, which discusses the notion of free will, a common enough topic in western universities, … , well, it was, before cultural sensitivity standards replaced it. The discussion of free will is forbidden in Islam. And, it is highly likely any Islamic teacher would much tolerate the instruction of philosophy in the first place, and that is because all the philosophy that is needed is adherence and willful obedience to the Koran. Period.
Well, what about cultural exchange, what about cultural exchange?
Well, it will not include bikinis, or bikini waxing, I can assure you of that. It will not include the wrong kind of music, nor will it include provocative theatre, or appreciation of Western art depicting the nude body. It will not include Thornton Wilder’s “Our Town,” or any other book which questions the state, or religion, or poses thoughts about the nature of man’s existence. That runs against the wisdom of the Koran.
How can i be so confident in these assertions? Because they have always run true.
Islam does not accept cross acculturalization. Islam is not the Catholic faith. Islam does not assimilate: how does a faith deviate from absolute truth? Islam stays pure, because it is by definition of G_d. It is not created by man, it was not heard by man and written down, because G_d does not speak with mortals, it was exactly created by G_d, it is, as a matter of Islamic theology “uncreated” by man, it simply is, and is G_d, and it is immutable, supreme and not capable of challenge.
Period.
The only interchange and engagement involved in this unholy scheme will be the infusion of Islamic doctrine and perspective into the American ethos. And, the resultant dilution of our faiths, our values, and the questioning of them by their adherents. That is perhaps not so bad, in theory, in a way because were this the competition of values on the open market place, i have no doubt that adherents to the west would far outstrip adherents to the ancient east. But, this engagement does not take place in an open market, because Islam is closed, this “engagement”, this “U.S. – Muslim” engagement, is strictly a one way street, where the bacillus of Islam attacks the organism of western belief.
As to the assumption, not explicitly stated in the report, that Islam and the Arab world will cease to attack Western interests, that Islam will settle down and not be violent or extremist if Israel is not there to “vex” and “humiliate” them continually. Does this hold?
Let me ask you this. Were Israel to disappear tomorrow, what would change about the world? What would change about the Middle East? What?
Conclusion.
The Jewish vote in domestic politics now means nothing, because it means nothing to the Democratic Party.
The value of the Jewish vote is determined just as the value of a stock sold on the stock market. The price of a stock does not reflect actual capital structures; look at GM's stock, which is worth bupkis, even though GM is a magnificent company by any standard. The value of the stock is based upon expectation and forecast, and foreseeable profits: GM is in the tank because people think it will be in the tank. It is the same with Jewish votes and demographics: it is now valueless to the democrats, in terms of any influence over domestic politics or the mid-east peace process, because the democrats have made the estimation that it will be valueless and irrelevant in the future. in the eyes and minds of democrats, leftists, radicals and socialist thinkers, the Jews have been replaced by the Arabs and Muslims as a dependable voting bloc which will always deliver for the democrats: the democrats can afford to give up the Jewish numbers now, because they will be replaced by even more Arab voters in the not too distant future.
Jews are still in considerable number in some places, they are still strong in some places, but, the expectation is they will not be. So, for all intents and purposes, the Jews have no political power, right now.
As long as they vote Democratic. Upon a moment’s reflection this proves not at all counterintuitive: their votes cast for the Democrats mean nothing because they have no influence upon Democratic Party decision making, neither with respect to domestic issue nor in terms of international policy, especially as with regard to influencing policy on Israel.
Doubt this? Besides Arabs and other American Muslims, who are the most virulently anti-semitic people in the United States of American right now? They are the leftist intelligentsia, at all levels of society and in government but especially entrenched in academia and they represent the authorship and constituency of the report we are discussing, the report that has chosen Islam and Muslims over the Jews.
It is that simple.
Jewish power is gone, as long as the Jewish bloc remains allied to and votes with the Democrats. Friends, the left has sold the Jews down the river.
By the time that Jewish liberals figure out that they have been had, and had big time, the Jewish voting bloc will have been replaced by the Muslim voting bloc. It makes no difference that the Muslims and the Democrats don't agree on anything, just as long as the Muslims deliver the votes, the Jews will be betrayed in their agendas domestically, and they are tragically betrayed in trying to protect and save Israel: friends, the deal is in, Israel has been sacrificed for oil and geopolitical considerations. The fix is in.
Look at the situation in terms of United States politics, where strength is measured in votes delivered to the voting booth.--
Jews. 5.3 million and shrinking. Muslims. 3-5 million, who knows, and producing offspring prolifically, like bunny rabbits. The Jews will be local powers in New York, Connecticut & Massachusetts for a few more years, and will have scattered influence in county and municipal affairs, and they will remain of course power houses in Florida, and that's about it. When Arab American/Muslim population demographics reach figures comparable to the Jewish vote, it is all over but the shouting for Jews on the national stage, and within the Democratic Party, save perhaps New York State and New York City. There the Jews will be in bitter contests with their Muslim adversaries, the verbiage and issues of the Middle East dominating local American politics.
Muslims. They will follow their patterns established in other parts of the world, and will move to every urban center in the United States, and, state capitals. The stealth jihad will continue, if nothing short of revolution stops it and they will become a national power house very soon, eclipsing the Jews on a national basis.
What? What is the point of this, you ask? Well, it is a simple point. The Jewish political bloc in the United States can no longer protect Israel; it has not sufficient perceived power to do so any longer. I know it is somewhat circular in terms of logic, the simple fact is that this is proven because the Jewish bloc has not prevented the sell out and betrayal of Israel as related in this pamphlet we discuss. The simple fact is that the Jewish bloc does not hold intellectual sway over “liberal” democrats, or the “liberal wing” of the democratic any more, as its increasing anti-semitic thought and behavior demonstrates. and, to conclude, the democrats have counted, and they have found the votes they think they need to preserve their hold on power in the united states in the American Muslim community, and that is who they have thrown their hats in with, as demonstrated by this pamphlet.
Again, tediously if you will, do you see any similar outreach to Israel and Jews coming from the Democrats, from George Soros, from the person of Barrack Obama. It is difficult to conceive of a diplomatic and foreign policy team more overtly hostile to Israeli interests, than that appointed to date by President Obama.
My dear Jewish friends, it is simply time to walk away from your Democratic house, and move to the Republican neighborhoods, where you are welcome and sought. Come on in, the water in the pool is fine, and the beer is cold and on tap in the ‘fridge. Simple as that.
International politics. There are two significant factors in this report. Two.
As to the peace process, the policies laid out in the report are a sham.—
The authors of the report know it, and I know it, and you, gentle reader should realize this, too. The authors of the report are not seriously propounding this as a concept that will work, because they know as an historical verity that pursuit of these goals has proven an abject failure, several times over. Do you want a reassertion of proof at this point? The first condition the report authors want met by Israel to jump start the talks, once more, is a demand that there be a cessation of Jewish settlement and construction of settlement in the West Bank. Oh, my yes, that is going to be easily achieved, isn’t it? At bayonet point perhaps, and the spilling of Jewish blood by Jewish soldiers. Just how likely is that?
The language in the report re: the peace process is just verbiage, and idol gesture, and nothing else. It is not intended seriously.
To my mind there are two things in this report that are significant, and to be regarded as cornerstones of democratic policies. One of these things is stated directly, and may be regarded as a statement of present intent on the part of the left. It follows.
1.) The Democrats propose to carry on diplomacy with the world, they eschew the military option, and the first place they are going to dialogue with the world is with the Iranians, and an attempt to dissuade the Iranians from nuclear proliferation and gaining the bomb. They know they shall fail, because diplomacy has failed in every attempt to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and North Korea to this point. In short, and in the starkest terms possible, they concede Iran the bomb.
(And, in a truly frightening corollary, they concede nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. Do you think Syria and Iraq have forgotten their nuclear pretensions, and do think Saudi Arabia and Egypt will be far behind their Muslim “neighbors” in obtaining nuclear weapons? This is horrible to contemplate, but i go where my mind and reason dictate, and this is inevitable: the Obama administration will arm the world with nukes.)
Having conceded Iran the bomb, this means the Iranians will use it, first chance it gets.
On Israel.
The Democrats can count. They count 1.3 billion Muslims/Arabs, 11-12-13 million Jews. It is a no brainer of an exercise, really, you can go to any number of statistics sites on the web, and confirm that. The Democrats have elected to go with Islam, internationally. The Democrats have further elected to go with Islam in domestic politics, and think that such is their future of the United States. Friends, it is all a matter of counting votes, and in this regard, the Democrats have chosen to let the tabulations of votes set their course in domestic politics and in foreign policy: do not be surprised to see Muslim immigration rise precipitously, as the democrats secure these voting bloc margins. Yes, they will do as European politicians have done, which is to sell out their constituencies for perpetuating their power. And, we shall suffer the same ends as they have chosen the same means. So, the Jews win Nobel Prizes. About 180 of 'me, I think. To a politician, that means 13 million Jews plus 180 more Jews. It makes no difference to the Democrats, they have counted to 1.3 billion.
We have seen one thing that is significant in the report. The recourse to diplomacy. Is there popping into anyone’s mind, the old 60’s radical mantra, hey, man, there isn’t nothing worth dying for? this repudiation of military force as a viable way of conducting foreign policy, which surely would seem strange to those who considered such matters indistinguishable in days only recently past.
The other significant matter is arrived at solely by inference.--
2.) The second significant thing in this report is the sections dealing with, "why should we care about Muslims," in which they count repeatedly to 1.3 billion, and, oh yes, report that Arab countries have all the oil, and sit astride the major shipping lanes and lanes of commerce in the world. This is why they count to 1.3 billion, and take about faith interchange and dialogue, and cultural interchange and dialogue, and educational faith and dialogue, and getting along.
Now, everybody will take the bullshit stuff, the foreign policy stuff, and they will take it seriously, and learned articles and discourse will flow over this aspect of the report, just as though it meant anything, and was a scholarly effort to resolve the world's problems. It is not, and is not intended to be any effort at resolving problems, it was picking sides: it is intended to be the same old tired bullshit it is, and its sole function is intended to divert attention from the important aspects of the report, which is the fact that the leftists have chosen Islam over Judaism.
Plain and simple, and irrefutable by the application of logic and inference and observation.
now, everybody will take the stuff they think is bullshit, just fluff to make the Islamic members of the panel feel good, and they will ignore it, and nothing will be said of it, but that is the oh so very important part of this report: it is key. the most important part of the report is the building of interchange between American scholars, elites, politicians and the like, with their "Muslim & Arab counterparts" in government, business, commerce, the arts, and in "interfaith exchange," and in the education of identified "elites" and "students." now, this is the visionary part of it, and it comes from the Soros/Acorn/Community Activist heritage of the modern virulent left, and it intends to build parallel inroads into Islamic society to dovetail with us, and to build inroad into American society so that Islam may insinuate itself into our society.
by what seems to me compelling inference, when you put these two things together, in the politics of the middle east and the foreign policy of “engagement” with Islam, this report concedes the destruction of Israel, either demographically through the Arab birthrate, or by the use of nuclear weapons should the Iranians ever figure out how to make the bomb and deliver it.
by the emphasis on diplomacy, and eschewing and renouncing the use of the U.S. military to establish diplomatic goals, (except as it pertains to the direct defense of U.S. interests, and you will notice nowhere in this report does it assert a U.S. interest to use the military on behalf of anyone else, especially Israel), the U.S. concedes Arabic/Muslims diplomatic and military goals vies a vies Israel.
I do not believe the juxtaposition of the Iranian policy with the old two state road map, which all agree has long passed its usefulness, can mean anything else. This conclusion is buttressed by the clear choice the leftists policy wonks have made for aligned with Arab/Muslim interests, in advancing policies that call for the integrations of American society and Arabic societies, and in the almost complete repudiation or ignoring of any of Israel’s legitimate interests.
no, the importance of the report’s proposals for "change" lies only in the genuine change foreseen in Muslim demographics as anticipated to take place in the U.S., and in the "building of bridges" between the U.S. society and the Muslim societies of the world, on all levels, including the level of faith, commerce, art, politics, philosophy and religion.
Everybody will think this part of the report is fluff, and they will gloss over it, and probably not even read it.
This is a crucial mistake.
This is where the action is.
Think about it, for a moment. What would be the point of publishing a paper advocating the two state solution, and advocating diplomacy with Iran?
What is the damned point of such an exercise?
It is the dogma of the state department. Controlled by the left. (Why do they need to write a paper telling themselves what they already believe?)
The left does not need to write another paper, saying the same hack kneed stuff that they have been saying for 20 years or more.
But, to publish a paper, and to advance the notions that they do advance in terms of the insinuation of the Muslim religion and view into our religious, political and commercial institutions, ... , yes, that is the significance.
And, that is why those portions of the report look like internet billboards for every sort of Islamic promotion conceivable.
That, my dear friends, is the significance of this report.
So that we and the Muslims will be friends. The leftists have picked sides, and they mean to impose this choice upon the rest of us, and to institutionalize and perpetuate that choice, through the means described in the pamphlet.
Even after they have wreaked nuclear devastation upon Israel for the temerity to exist and to espouse and be good, as good. Because, you see, by then, we shall thoroughly understand the Arab position, sufficiently to accept their actions, if not exactly positively endorse it.
Yes, that is the other thing we may take from this report.
It portends the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of her citizens, about 5.3 million Jews.
John Jay @ 03.21.2009
In “Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World,” published by the U.S.—Muslim Engagement Project, Wash. D.C. & Cambridge, Ma., February 2009, the voice of the American left announces a strategy for revising American diplomacy to better accommodate the reality of 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. it may be read in pdf format at this link: http://www.usmuslimengagement.org/storage/usme/documents/Changing_Course_Second_Printing.pdf , and it is reported upon with readership comment at the inestimable blog, atlasshrugs2000 , http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com in the articles “blueprint for surrender to Islam: the U.S. Muslim engagement” and “wake up! wake up!” with comment by Pamela Geller, and links to very authoritative voices analyzing the paper, at the following links: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/blueprint-for-us-surrender-to-islam-the-us-muslim-engagement.html and http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/03/wake-up-wake-up.html
this all the while stoutly and dubiously maintaining that this is no such thing as Islamic “terror” or “jihad” being waged in the world:
“It is critically important not to provide additional ammunition to extremists by linking the term “Islam” or key tenets of the religion of Islam with the actions of extremist or terrorist groups. ….. Terms like ‘islamo-fascism” link the religion to a totalitarians political creed, an implication that the vast majority of Muslims around the world find grossly untrue and offensive.”
