Peacemongers and Jihadeers

by Yashiko Sagamori

Part I

According to a recent news item, Iranian TV entertains its viewers with a weekly ER-like program whose main story line depicts Israeli doctors stealing organs from Arab children.

Israel, as usual, effortlessly lives up to its abysmal reputation. According to another recent news item, Israeli doctors discovered a vaccine restoring the immune system of people suffering from AIDS. It is not a cure since it does not kill the virus. But it partially reverses the devastation inflicted by the virus on the immune system of the sufferer. With the help of the Israeli vaccine, AIDS patients will be able to lead longer, more normal lives. Among other things, this means they will have more sex partners. As a result, some of their partners will inevitably become infected with HIV. This will give people of good will all over the world a perfectly valid reason to blame Jews for the spread of AIDS. This also makes all of us, friends of Israel and anti-Semites alike, wonder what miracles Israel would have been able to bestow on humanity had it not had to fight for its life every single day of its existence. Since, for a number of perfectly obvious reasons, nobody on earth wants Israel to turn into a superpower, even a miniscule one, this explains why the entire world actively supports Israel's enemies, even though Israel's enemies never tried to conceal their hostile intentions towards the entire world. Those intentions are mandated by their religion, which demands that its followers conquer the world, force its inhabitants to convert to Islam, and rule it according to the laws of Sharia.

Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to ponder what would have happened in Israel or elsewhere had there been peace on earth. Thanks to peacemongering demagogues of all creeds, the very idea of peace has finally become an abstraction as unattainable as the idiotic dream of 72 virgins awaiting every jihadeer in heaven once he receives his just reward on earth. More and more commentators agree that the next world war has already begun. They only disagree on its number. Some call it World War III; some others set the number three aside for the Cold War, making this one World War IV. At least one pundit insisted on V, but most experts disagreed. One thing is clear: we have lost count of our world wars. That's sad, but hardly surprising. When was the last time this planet enjoyed even an hour during which people didn't shoot at each other anywhere in the world? I'll tell you when: exactly one hour before shooting was invented, and that was a very long time ago. Not that there was peace before that either.

Of course, nobody calls it a world war officially. Officially, we pretend that armed conflicts that flare up wherever Muslims see a chance to wrestle something from non-Muslims are unrelated to each other. The fact that Muslims participate in every single one of those conflicts, can mean one of three things. First, it can be a coincidence; second, it can be an expression of extreme Islamophobia widespread among the “infidel”; and, finally, it can be jihad on a planetary scale. You must be an idiot to believe the first hypothesis. You must be a Muslim or a liberal to believe the second. Therefore, if you are not an idiot, or a Muslim, or a liberal, you must know by now that all these conflicts are various fronts of jihad. There are simply no other possibilities.

A clever reader wrote to me once that if the nations attacked by Hitler had not resisted his invasion, World War II would have never happened. This is a perfect reflection of the point of view aggressively promoted by peacemongers. The peacemongers define peace as the absence of war. Those who accept this point of view usually usually tend to believe that the Bill of Rights includes the right to an equal income. I don't accept their definition. European Jews did not resist Hitler, but their emulation of Gandhi did not save them from extermination. You may hope that the six million dead Jews have been enjoying their peace ever since they were murdered, but the truth is we don't know. They may be forever frozen in the last moments of their agony. Or they may simply no longer exist. They would have been better off if they had died fighting, like the Jews of Warsaw did. I strongly prefer an all-out war to this kind of peace.

Every culture has its own definition of peace. Muslims, for instance, divide the world into two zones: Dar el Islam, which translates as the domain of Islam and encompasses the parts of the world ruled by Muslims, and Dar el Harb, which translates as the domain of war and comprises the rest of the world. They equate peace with Islam while designating everything outside it for conquest and destruction. Of course, it would only be destruction from our point of view; from theirs it would be bringing us into Dar el Islam, the domain of peace. Actually, it's even better than that: they believe it would be bringing us back since the entire world belongs to their deity and every human being, beginning with Adam, comes into this world as a Muslim. As you can see, Muslims do not lie when they call their abominable superstition a religion of peace: according to their definition, it is. We find their definition unsuitable based on statistics rather than religious arguments. According to statistics, most Muslims who die a violent death are killed by other Muslims. I don't want their kind of peace either.

Despite my utmost contempt for Islam and the abysmal way of life it has generated for its followers, I still believe in the sacred right of Muslims, along with everyone else on this planet, to live the way they see fit for themselves as long as they do not interfere with other people's right to do the same. This is how I define peace: the freedom of a nation to live according to its own ideas of right and wrong, without imposing those ideas on other nations or having other nation's ideas forced on them. I don't approve of “honor killings”, of genital mutilations, of public executions for deeds that aren't even considered crimes in our society. However, I don't believe I have a right to object to them as long as I am not forced to participate. Unfortunately, Islam directs the faithful to force me into participation. It's called jihad. It's mandatory. And it's upon us. And practically every armed conflict that goes on earth today is a front of jihad.

Islam assigns different priorities to these fronts. The most important of them all is the genocidal war of Arabs against Israel known around the world as the Middle East peace process. Although, at first glance, the term may seem Orwellian, it makes perfect sense according to the peacemongers' definition of peace. Without Israel, Arabs would not have been forced to conduct their genocidal war against Israel, and, therefore, there would have been peace in the Middle East. Therefore, the process of destruction of Israel is a peace process according to their definition. As you can see, it is, as always, Israel's own fault, even though Israel is probably the only country in the world that has not committed an act of aggression in the last 2,000 years.

There is a reason why even the US-led invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq are not as dangerous to Islam as the peaceful wellbeing of a tiny Jewish state. Of course, the United States wields sufficient military might to direct the wrath of Allah on the heads of the believers. Compare, for example, the Gulf War of 1991 with the recent tsunami. In both cases, the majority of the dead were Muslims, although, according to some sources, the death toll of the war was greater. But while the tsunami was an act of God (and those who feel like blaming it on the Jews only demonstrate that even in the eyes of anti-Semites, Jews are closer to God than they are), the war was entirely our doing. And we didn't even use our most fearsome weapons. I often think that if we could conduct exit interviews for Iraqi soldiers killed during their hasty retreat from Kuwait, the Islamic theology would be changed forever. But even without it, Muslims have a huge reason to fear the United States of America. At the same time, if the superpower never uses the most feared weapons in its arsenal, not even to retaliate for the most devastating attack it has ever suffered, the existence of such weapons can no longer serve as a deterrent. Besides, Muslims know that no power can remain a superpower forever. Superpowers come, make lots of noise, replace rulers, redraw borders, shed some blood, and, eventually, fade away, unable to even scratch the surface of the eternal stagnation of Dar el Islam.

Israel is a different matter. Arabs outnumber Jews to such a degree that one would expect them to be able to stamp Israel out by simply walking across it unarmed. And yet, they have miserably failed to win any of their wars against it. Israel survives in their murderous midst, vibrant, prosperous, democratic, attracting tourists and immigrants even during its hardest times, while Arabs, no mater what happens to them, remain essentially the same savage tribesmen they were many centuries ago, before they deprived themselves of any hope for a meaningful future by opting to follow their pedophiliac non-prophet. Arabs and Jews sharing common genes and living next to each other should be living similarly. Instead, there is a contrast more striking than the contrast between a cancerous growth and the sound of Yehuda Menuhin's violin. No matter how you may prefer to explain the disparity, as long as Israel is alive, it remains living proof of the pathetic impotence of Islam in all areas of life that extend beyond murder of the defenseless.

There are two ways to win a competition: one is to excel, the other is to eliminate the competitors. That presents Muslims with a difficult dilemma: on the one hand, other people's excellence is perceived by them as an insult to their religion; on the other, Islam dismisses excellence in earthly affairs as sinful vanity. The only way to solve this dilemma for a faithful Muslim is murder, or, even better, mass murder. It is important for us to understand that the Arab war against Israel is not a temporary thing. It is a manifestation of Dar el Islam's inherent incompatibility with Dar el Harb. It won't stop by itself. It cannot be stopped by giving the Arabs something that shouldn't be theirs, like the annual stipend of $2 billion dollar paid by the United States to Egypt since 1973 for not attacking Israel, or handing Gaza, Judea, and Samaria to a terrorist organization that should have been eliminated to the last member decades ago. A military victory of Israel over the Arab terrorist organization or any country supporting that organization, uncluding even France and Germany, won't stop it either. Jihad, the war against the “infidels”, is the core of Islam. The most hated “infidels” of them all are Jews. Therefore, there will be no peace in the Middle East until either Israel is erased from the map or Islam is globally defeated to the degree that will forever make jihad an impossibility.

I wish there was a third alternative. I wish it was possible to reform Islam into something peaceful. That would inevitably mean forswearing jihad. Unfortunately, it you take away jihad out of Islam, all that will be left is a collection of rituals as meaningless as Sh'ma Yisroel delivered by a parrot. Islam is the ideology of jihad just like Nazism is the ideology of conquest and enslavement. The two express their ideas in very different terms, but conquest and enslavement are nevertheless the essence of both. There are two major differences between them: one is that Islam is much older, the other is that while Nazis saluted their idol by raising their arms, Muslims do it by raising their behinds. What matters however is that, given the opportunity, both of them will kill you, your parents, and your children and will do it with a righteous glee, as if doing a mitzvah.

I know how difficult it is for a Western reader to take this literally. I am an enemy of Islam the same way and for the same reason that I am an enemy of Nazism; you might be right to doubt my objectivity. Frankly, I am not even trying to pretend that I am being objective; under the circumstances, it's perfectly enough to be truthful. That's why I urge you not to limit your reading to my articles. There are plenty of great authors that are more familiar with the facts than I am: Hugh Fitzgerald, Daniel Pipes, and Alyssa Lappen are the first names that come to mind. But they are also enemies of Islam, so don't trust them either. Read the Koran and Hadith; go to Islamic web sites; read online English editions of their newspapers. I promise you, what you will find there is hundreds of times more grotesque than anything I can possibly bring to your attention. I urge you to do it: we must know the enemy.

If I am right and the only alternative to the destruction of Israel and our entire civilization is the global defeat of Islam, the next most important question is: How practical is it to expect it to happen. I will try to answer that in the second part of this article.