Tel-Chai Nation

Robert Spencer provides some info on why the world is far from winning the war on terrorism, why democracy isn't exactly what can help to do so. And, from John Derbyshire:

...Does anyone, DOES ANYONE, think we're going to defeat Islamofascism by squirting clouds of this multicultural mush at it? The terrorists sure as hell don't. Does anyone think the enemy gives a fig for our determination not to "focus on hatred, bigotry, and irrationality" (Judge Brinkema). I wonder if you can win a war without deploying hatred. Homer didn't think so. The New York Post described Judge Brinkema's closing remarks as "a tongue lashing." I would say that's about right. They have suicide bombers — and, any day now, nukes which they will use. We have wet tongues.

"When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, naturally they will favor the strong horse."—-Osama bin Laden. Yes, they will. We are doomed, doomed.

And, as Spencer tells, following a panel discussion in Phoenix, the reasons we're not is because:

How can this be, when the enemy has nothing approaching our military might? Because far more important in the long run than the jihad of bombs and beheadings is the soft jihad of subversion of the West, which is succeeding magnificently while most citizens of Western countries are completely unaware that it is happening.

Spencer recommends Prof. David Selbourne's book, The Losing Battle with Islam. But while it may have its high points and recommendations, as Spencer points out, here's where Selbourne flops, and reveals one of the biggest acts of stupidity that some people, whether conservatives, experts on terror, and some people who describe themselves as pro-Israeli, have displayed:

...although he writes passionately and well about the excesses and enormities of Israel's enemies, Selbourne seems to have bought into the propaganda of Palestinian mujahedin to an alarming degree. He apparently fails fully to realize that Israel faces the same jihad, motivated by the same ideology, as that which the rest of the world faces. He decries Israeli settlements in the West Bank as "illegal" and "a rank injustice," with no attempt whatsoever to understand those settlements in light of the history of Israel's relationships with its hostile neighbors, or in light of larger questions about territorial gains won in wartime and kept for security purposes -- despite the fact that what Israel has done has been done by innumerable states throughout history, including Poland, the Soviet Union and others after World War II, and no one ever uttered a peep of protest.

Now to be more clear here, while Judea, Samaria and Gaza are Jewish by national origin and right, recognized by the San Remo conference, The League of Nations, and the UN Charter. But that aside, what Spencer points out here is a most glaring mistake that even some conservatives are still making: they seem to think that there was literally a "palestinian people" of Arab/Muslim character, and they advocate recognizing this recently invented "palestinian people". If they don't shape up their positions and better inform themselves, how do they ever expect to solve their own problems?

Labels: islam, jihad, terrorism, war on terror