The Donkey Is Dead

Pages: 1 2

Saudi Arabia and the rest of the tribal oil states are good examples of pro-business Islamists, but the profits that don’t get funneled into palaces, prostitutes and bread and circuses for their people, are invested into terrorism and buying up Western useful idiots to do their bidding. A financial analysis might begin by taking a look at the economic cost of their terrorist investments to the free world, not to mention the demographic Jihad with its attendant rapes, murders and social services costs.

Most of the new acquisitions for the Caliphate are not in the same financial position as Saudi Arabia. Turkey at least had its proximity to Europe, Egypt doesn’t have a whole lot to offer. Some of its most lucrative financial interactions were with Israel and the country benefited from American aid. No matter how softly the Brotherhood starts out and even if we’re saddled with Obama for another four years, that money is going to stop coming.

For Israel the death of the donkey is a mixture of good and bad news. Bad news because it’s likely to have a war on its hands, but good news because there’s going to be a drop in interest in trying to force the Jewish state to make the donkey talk. Ever since Oslo, Israel has been expected to soothe the savage beast with the music of appeasement and if the donkey kept refusing to speak, that was still Israel’s fault. But it’s hard to expect anyone to make a dead donkey talk and the Brotherhood, which doesn’t recognize Israel, is not going to be willing to talk anything but temporary truce.

A sign of the times is that even Friedman is forced to concede that he understands “Israel not ceding territory in this uncertain period to a divided Palestinian movement”. This is one of the rare occasions where anyone in the New York Times has acknowledged that negotiating with half a wannabe state makes absolutely no sense. But Friedman being himself quickly spoils it by holding up PA PM Salam Fayyad as a pinata full of wonderful possibilities like peace, joy and sunshine.

“Israel has an Arab awakening in its own backyard in the person of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad,” Friedman insists. “He’s been the most radical Arab leader of all.” If being an appointed leader who has never run for office or done much of anything besides reorganize the Authority under the supervision of Western governments makes you a one man awakening then Tom is setting the barrier rather low.

Fayyad didn’t rise to power through popular acclaim and he hasn’t won an election. The PA isn’t holding any elections at all, which is the kind of behavior that Friedman denounces from some Arab rulers, but praises in others. Fayyadism isn’t some national movement as the Times would like you to believe, it’s the foolish fetishism of a few columnists desperate to pretend that the same broken PA is about to cast off its cocoon and fly away as a beautiful Brussels Blue butterfly.

Friedman whines that Netanyahu isn’t empowering Fayyad to do his magical best and that the lovely security services who murder Israelis on their break aren’t being given enough responsibility. But Tom is right to worry. Hamas will take Ramallah when it decides to and if the Brotherhood takes Cairo then the PA will lose any friends it had over there. And once Hamas controls all of it, then the donkey will be well and truly dead. There will be no peace process to bemoan or try to resurrect. Like the Norwegian Blue parrot it is pining for fjords of the Palestine that might have been in the minds of all the Friedmans. That wonderful democratic secular independent state that would have Oslo in the Gaza strip.

Two years ago I wrote an article suggesting that Netanyahu was playing the Caliph’s game, waiting out the demands of the Obama Administration and hoping that the clock would run out on its plans for peace. While the Friedmans hoped that the donkey would learn to speak, and many American Jews hoped that the Caliph would be forced off the throne, instead the donkey appears to be dying.

The dead donkey has implications for more than just Israel. The facade of normalcy kept the myth of a moderate Muslim world going. A world in which Iran and Saudi Arabia were the exceptions not the rule. But if sizable portions of the Muslim world were to turn into open theocracies with the attendant treatment of women, the game might well be up.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • KarshiKhanabad

    You raise some excellent points – it will be anything but a steady harmonious coalescence of the "ummah" into a monolithic Caliphate. Too many local tinpots having to secede too much power. Anyone remember the United Arab Republic 1958-61? And don't forget how Muslims love to play "more Muslim than thou!" and back it up with suicide bombs.

    And not even Mad Mo their Profit could have foreseen the capital of the Caliphate (Damascus, IIRC) or any Islamic power center having a nuclear bullseye painted on it. Besieging armies, yes, but not a single massive glassmaking pop. So the Middle East may well soon be emptied of not only its infidel minorities but of any non-Muslim visitors, tourists, or business people. What a wonderful world they'll enjoy.

  • ASG

    Their religious Zealots will eventually cause them to succeed their power. And I am sure for their cooperation they will be handsomely rewarded. Ultimately now that this Caliphate movement has control of official militaries and economies, the over-throw of defiant leaders will be a lot easier. We will see what seems like in-fighting amongst themselves when what appears like a traditional war between two Middle Eastern countries, when really it will be the hard core Islamists vs. the Power clinging dictator. The dictator’s forces will ultimately fight with half the heart of the zealots and easily be taken down. We are within a decade of the Islamist's dreams becoming a reality, what happens over the next 2-3 years is extremely important.

  • mrbean

    The tension between moderates and the Islamics is unsustainable. What happens when the Islamics push for expanding the scope of sharia a bit more? If sharia can govern banking and trade, for example, why not other aspects of life? Why not also institute Islamic punishments, such as beheading apostates? Having accepted in principle the ideal of sharia, moderates have no grounds to reject further means to that end. They can offer no principled opposition to the slaughter of infidels who refuse to submit, or of apostates who claim the freedom to choose their own convictions. In the face of the incremental or rapid advance of the Jihadist goal, the moderates are in the long run impotent. If Islam is the ideal, why practice it in moderation? In any conflict it is always the more ruthless that will win.

    • johnnywoods

      Be sure to keep your powder dry mrbean.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Saudi Arabia and the rest of the tribal oil states are good examples of pro-business Islamists, but the profits that don’t get funneled into palaces, prostitutes and bread and circuses for their people, are invested into terrorism and buying up Western useful idiots to do their bidding.

    Nah, not terrorism, as terrorism is a manifestation of Western civilization only and thus in Islam is un-Islamic and blasphemous, which is punished under the pain of death. On the other hand, Muslims wage jihad in stark contrast, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah against non-Muslim unbelievers to make Islam supreme and in stark contrast to terrorism, which can be for any number of political causes and as its name implies is always violent, can consist of both violent and non-violent means of jihad.

    With respect to buying up Western useful idiots to do their bidding, do you mean like this:

    I know this isn't politically correct or a very pleasant subject, but nevertheless eventually and sooner or later the Mideast oilfields and the vast unearned oil wealth of the Saudis and Gulf State Emirs will have to be seized and confiscated by the West. Otherwise, those assets will be used perpetually to wage jihad against all non-Muslim unbelievers forever. Hence, it's not like we have any other choice in the matter if we want to continue to survive. Indeed, they are perpetually waging war (jihad) against all non-Muslim unbelievers in the world. Thus, we should openly acknowledge their war (jihad) and in self-defense eliminate our enemies.

    In fact, if Iran gets nukes with impunity, which to me appears to be inevitable in the very near future, the Saudi funded nuclear weapons arsenal in Pakistan will almost over night be proliferated to the Sunni Islamic world in response to a nuclear armed Shi'a Iran. Hence, the Islamic world with its imperative to make Islam supreme will inevitably become armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons very quickly, and an Islamic world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons will inevitably become far more belligerent and aggressive. Hence, if you think oil prices are sky high today, just wait until after the Islamic world becomes armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, as oil prices will inevitably skyrocket exponentially once that happens.

    Friedman just like our US State Department is hopelessly mentally handicapped. Indeed, just like peace between so-called Palestinians, which are the proxy of the Islamic world, and Israel is impossible, secular and liberal Western-style democracy in the Islamic world is also impossible. As the freedoms and liberties secular and liberal Western-style democracy embodies leaves the door wide open for its inevitable demise, as Islam doesn't make allowances for any other forms of governance other than Sharia. Which is why all governments in the Islamic world sooner or later end up in the long run becoming authoritarian. Indeed, they either become authoritarian or they become dead.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Who will be crying for the days of the gas guzzling V8 and Corvettes, all of the
      liberal communist rats of tomorrow and why pray tell, Nuclear Islam. What a
      nasty contradiction to the leftist agenda, they are supporting the global warming
      that will leave half the world dead and a return to the dark ages. The capitol
      of the Western Caliphate will be Washington DC or Dearborn Michigan. Obama
      has to go and so do his Islamist cohorts, slow boat to Indonesia seems good
      to me….Send Friedman with them……………………………………………..William

  • Jim

    So, how many Imams are there? 12 or 13

  • Ben

    of course Obama tries hard for the khalifate creation and leftists all over the world look at Islam as the ally but not only leftists. To cave under the force is humane,even the archbishop of Canterbury wishes some sharia. The USSR`s lesson show that backward totalitatian state can survive for a long time.These Friedmans embody not only leftist media but the Jewish communities that have big leftist parts.

  • Mark McDonnell

    Apparently what we're going to need, is an American version of Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House. Someone with a thorough working knowledge of the Islamists, their tactics and ultimate goals. One, having the will and the resolve to use whatever means are necessary to stop them, using initially, the least destructive means possible to achieve them, with a view towards own survival being preeminent in those calculations. This is indeed a tall order, to say the least. This isn't going going to be a picnic in the grass. It's a
    backwoods barbeque, plenty of napkins will be required for the cleanup!

  • Flowerknife_us

    Odd-referencing a Jackass that both talks and writes.

  • Debanjan Banerjee

    Well the Islamic World is much more varied now since the time of the last caliphate.

    But the real problem in countries like Egypt are not Muslim brotherhood , it is the hunger as Spengler says so many times.

    SO according to Spengler , there is only one way for Muslims to survive. They must at all cost force those Billion dollars that their corrupt elites stashed in Western bank accounts to be used to purchase much needed cultiviable land in places like Canada , Australia and US and move there.

    That accoreding to Spengler is the only solution to the problems in ISlamic World. I support that view.

  • popseal

    The caliphate genie may be out of the bottle, but there's a joker in the Muslim deck in regards to that subject. Sunni and Shi'ite will kill each other before one accepts the other as caliph. Aint it grand?

  • ASG

    Hell of a ride indeed!

  • StephenD

    My friend Chez, Welcome back.

    "we should try in every way possible to foster national and confessional division in the Muslim realm…at the same time that we work towards unity with the rest of the non-Muslim world. " 

    My problem is I can't see a way clear to work toward unity with the non-Muslim world. When we have extreme Left countries, Communism, Socialism, etc., that have more in common with Islam than with our Republic how can we work toward unity with them? 

    I would suggest our first priority would be to acknowledge on a National Level that our problem is with Islam. Then, with all those that make the same acknowledgment, we can look to foster unity of cause with them. 

    Unless and until we see the political world view of Islam balanced against our ideas of Personal Liberty and Individual Responsibility with Equality under our laws, we won’t see it as the enemy of this way of life that it truly is. Political Correctness not  withstanding, we must start to call a spade…a spade.

  • Mark

    Chez, an intellect that promotes respect. I found your comment and exchange with Stephen very insightful and refreshing. Thank you!

  • StephenD

    Again, my simple mind looks for simple solutions. I say, Term Limits (among first strikes). Secondly, I'd say there ought to be a law that says you cannot vote on how tax dollars are spent if you don't pay taxes. Period. When the votes dry up, there will be less likelihood of politicos clamoring for them. And, truly, doesn't this just make sense? Why should I have any say over how your household treasures are spent unless I've contributed to it myself?
    The SS System and the folks that have paid into it aren't the problem. The raping of it by Congress is the problem. Revamping the system won't affect those about to or those in the system as it is today. We can adjust retirement age gradually and thus increase the solvency of the program. Say from age 55 and over ~ no change. Add a month to the retirement age for every year under 55. So instead of retiring at 67 (if you are 54) you now must wait until you are 67 + 1 month and so on up until a max of 68 yrs. old. This measure alone would keep the system functioning long past our grandchildren retire.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    Term limits and extending the retirement age are both viable, do-able, and make perfect sense. Personally, I would accelerate your timetable for extending the retirement age.

    I'm not sure about the constitutionality of excluding non-taxpayers from the voter rolls…but even if it were constitutional, I seriously doubt it would ever become law…just too exclusionary (though I happen to agree with it in principle). A much simpler approach would be reform of the tax code so that everybody pays at least SOMETHING.

    Anyway, thanks for taking a stab at it.

    I wish to God a statesman would come along who could articulate the necessity of sacrifice…ala Churchill's "blood, sweat and tears". But he'd have to be a silver tongued sonofabitch to be able to effectively sell it at the same time that he lowers the tax and regulatory burden on investors.

    I'm not sanguine about our prospects.