By Ted Belman
Everything I read about the negotiations leading up to Annapolis and the event itself suggests that a deal has been cut whereby Israel assumes its rightful (according to Islam) role as a Dhimmi in exchange for Saudi acceptance of the existence of Israel.
To understand what this role or status is, I recommend you read this synopsis distilled from Bat Yeor‘s seminal book The Dhimmi.
-
It is unthinkable for Muslims that conquered peoples should rise up and throw off the yoke of Islam or that land once in the domain of Islam should ever be lost to that domain. According to Islamic thinking, once a region has been conquered for Islam, it is always Islamic and must be re-conquered from the infidel, regardless of the passage of time.
They [Dhimmis] were doomed to remain second-class citizens, living, it seemed, for the sole purpose of demonstrating to all, the superiority of Islam over conquered religions.
This is the core of the conflict. Palestine “must be re-conquered from the infidel, regardless of the passage of time”. Israel must submit to Islam. Muslims have been waging Jihad against Israel, both before and after its creation. They employ all tools at their disposal; economic boycotts, propaganda aimed at demonizing and deligitimating Israel just as the Nazis did, propaganda aimed at revising facts both past and present and finally armed struggle.
As Andrew G Bostom, The Legacy of Jihad, noted in Passover and the Ignored Liberation
-
These uniquely Islamic systems—jihad and its corollary institution, dhimmitude—have shaped events in historical Palestine—modern Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jordan—from 634, through the present, setting in place archetypal patterns still quite evident today.
He goes on to discuss the central role of both Jihad and Dhimmitude in Islam.
In my article The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel I quoted Kissinger’s remarks to an Iraqi diplomat in 1975,
-
“We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world [..]
“We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions.
[..] “I don’t agree Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.”
Essentially Kissinger was assuring him that Israel’s dominance would be short lived and the US would help to bring this about. The Arabs couldn’t stand the idea of being dominated by Israel or Jews.
Thus the nature of the negotiations heretofore is that Israel must submit to Arab demands. Thus no negotiations at all at least not on the basics. Master and supplicant do not negotiate, The master dictates.
One of these basics is the Temple Mount. It is inconceivable that Islam, as represented by the Al Aqsa Mosque, be subject to Jewish sovereignty. It must be the other way around.
Israel must be so weakened that Arab dominance and Israel inferiority in security matters must be palpable. Israel must appear to exist under Islamic sufferance.
Dhimmis are also inferior to Muslims and thus are accorded no rights or respect. This was demonstrated at Annapolis by requiring Israeli delegates to enter through the “servant’s door” and by the refusal by the Arab delegates to shake Livni’s hand. This is more than petty; it is a demonstration of dominance and the US enabled such treatment thereby showing its own dhimmi status.
Bat Yeor observed, that jihad remained,
-
…the main cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since Israelis are to be regarded, perforce, only as a religious community, their national characteristics – a geographical territory related to a past history, a system of legislation, a specific language and culture – are consequently denied. The “Arab” character of the Palestinian territory is inherent in the logic of jihad. Having become fay territory by conquest (i.e. “taken from an infidel people”), it must remain within the dar al-Islam. The State of Israel, established on this fay territory, is consequently illegal.
And she concluded,
-
…Israel represents the successful national liberation of a dhimmi civilization. On a territory formerly Arabized by the jihad and the dhimma, a pre-Islamic language, culture, topographical geography, and national institutions have been restored to life. This reversed the process of centuries in which the cultural, social and political structures of the indigenous population of Palestine were destroyed. In 1974, Abu Iyad, second-in-command to Arafat in the Fatah hierarchy, announced: “We intend to struggle so that our Palestinian homeland does not become a new Andalusia.” The comparison of Andalusia to Palestine was not fortuitous since both countries were Arabized, and then de-Arabized by a pre-Arabic culture.
The Arabs realize that they cannot at this point wipe Israel off the map and so they are prepared to live with a greatly truncated and humiliated Israel, temporarily. But we must understand that Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive. Israel is only postponing the day it will have to fight for its existence.
Since the West is accepting Dhimmi status even before it is conquered why shouldn’t it demand Israel do likewise.
Hertzberg
There is no reason Israel must be like Canada or the US. You want a constitution and Bill of Rights in order to ensure minorities of certain rights. In essence you are denying Jews the right of self determination. You are against Zionism. You have an air of superiority. You think there is only one way, your way. Where’s your tolerance of alternative governances.
Jews have a right to have a Jewish state. Minority rights to equal treatment will be protected but that doesn’t mean Israel can’t be a Jewish state.
If minority rights are your cause why not focus on the lack thereof in all the Muslim countries. When you have secured their rights to the extent that they equal the rights accorded to Arabs in Israel then you can focus on Israel.
If you prefer a multicultural society you have many to choose from. But the Jews who prefer a Jewish state are entitled to have it.
Hertzy even if true that there is no real interest by most of the inhabitants in the region; who asks them or pays them any mind? All of the regimes around here are either dictatorial and at best autocratic. A little secret, they do so enjoy conflict, if not against us then with ea. other.
I learned way back in 6th grade civics, Mr. Chris Greasau -Teacher: that the only ideas worth anything are those that stand the test of time and by that I do not refer to American pop culture of 10 min. attention span and of reality TV and violence as the cultural norm. The American constitution was based on the ideas of lock, Roseau and that hated book of ideas called the Hebrew Bible. Most of Americas founding fathers unlike you were not only believers but also spoke fluent Hebrew. Why because those ideas and concepts withstood the test of time and were considered to be Truth. the importance of the Hebrew Bible to the early American settlers, it is important to note that, of course, the “New Testament” was revered as well. However, the Hebrew Bible was seen as the original and pure source of Christian values, and also as a legalistic and ritualistic guide, something which the New Testament was not.
In addition, there was a political agenda involved in this special focus in the Old over the New Testament. Many New Englanders viewed the New Testament as an instrument of justification, used by powers-that-be in Europe, to preserve the existing order. Had not Paul written in his letter to the Romans (13:1-2):
Every person must submit to the authorities in power, for all authority comes from God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him. It follows that anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they receive.
That sure smacked of the divine right of kings and condemnation of the rebels of the Puritan revolution. No wonder that the Hebrew Bible, with its message of obedience to God alone, of personal responsibility, and of freedom from tyranny, was far more in tune with the mindset of these Protestant splinter sects of America.
Focusing even further on the issue of individual responsibility, the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted legislation requiring parents to teach their children to read and understand the basic principles of religion and capital laws. All towns in New England with a minimum of 50 households were required by law to establish schools and appoint teachers.
In 1670, British commissioners making a survey of conditions in the American colonies reported that in Connecticut fully one-quarter of the annual revenues were set aside for free public education. Universities were established (the first being Harvard University founded in 1636 as training school for Puritan ministers), and many printing presses were imported for the printing and dissemination of books.
In insisting on education for all, the Puritans were following Jewish law. (Had not the 12th century Jewish philosopher Maimonides admonished: “Appoint teachers for the children in every country, province and city. In any city that does not have a school excommunicate the people of the city until they get teachers for the children.”)
Education for all thus became a hallmark of early America and not just New England. In addition to Harvard, many other colleges and universities were established under the auspices of various Protestant sects: Yale, William and Mary, Rutgers, Princeton, Brown, Kings College (later to be known as Columbia), Johns Hopkins, Dartmouth etc. The Bible played a central role in the curriculum of all of these institutions of higher learning with both Hebrew and Bible studies offered as required courses. (See Lawrence A. Cremin, American Education: The Colonial Experience 1697-1783, p. 16.)
Many of these colleges even adopted some Hebrew word or phrase as part of their official emblem or seal. Beneath the banner containing the Latin Lux et Veritas, the Yale seal shows an open book with the Hebrew Urim Vtumim, which was a part of the ceremonial breastplate of the High Priest in the days of the Temple. The Columbia seal has the Hebrew name for God at the top center, with the Hebrew name for one of the angels on a banner toward the middle. Dartmouth uses the Hebrew words meaning “God Almighty” in a triangle in the upper center of its seal.
So popular was the Hebrew Language in the late 16th and early 17th centuries that several students at Yale delivered their commencement orations in Hebrew. Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Pennsylvania taught courses in Hebrew — all the more remarkable because no university in England at the time offered it.
Many of the population, including a significant number of the Founding Fathers of America, were products of these American universities — for example, Thomas Jefferson attended William and Mary, James Madison Princeton, Alexander Hamilton King’s College (i.e. Columbia). Thus, we can be sure that a majority of these political leaders were not only well acquainted with the contents of both the New and Old Testaments but also had some working knowledge of Hebrew. Notes Abraham Katsh in The Biblical Heritage of American Democracy (p. 70):
At the time of the American Revolution, the interest in the knowledge of Hebrew was so widespread as to allow the circulation of the story that “certain members of Congress proposed that the use of English be formally prohibited in the United States, and Hebrew substituted for it.”
Their Biblical education colored the American founders’ attitude toward not only religion and ethics, but most significantly, politics. We see them adopting the biblical motifs of the Puritans for political reasons. For example, the struggle of the ancient Hebrews against the wicked Pharaoh came to embody the struggle of the colonists against English tyranny.
Numerous examples can be found which clearly illustrate to what a significant extent the political struggles of the colonies were identified with the ancient Hebrews. The first design for the official seal of the United States recommended by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas in 1776 depicts the Jews crossing the Red Sea. The motto around the seal read: “Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” The inscription on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall in Philadelphia is a direct quote from Leviticus (25:10): “Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof.” Patriotic speeches and publications during the period of the struggle for independence were often infused with Biblical motifs and quotations. For example, Benjamin Rush, in his editorials denouncing the Tea Act, drew on inspiration from the Hebrew Bible:
What did not Moses forsake and suffer for his countrymen! What shining examples of patriotism do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, Maccabees and all the illustrious princes, captains and prophets among the Jews.
Likewise, Thomas Paine’s anti-monarchial pamphlet Common Sense cited the Hebrew Bible and words of the Prophet Samuel concluding:
These portions of the Scriptures … admit no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchial government is true, or the Scriptures are false.
Even the basic framework of America clearly reflects the influence of the Bible and power of Jewish ideas in shaping the political development of America. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Whereas, these words echo the Enlightenment’s — specifically John Locke’s –idea of “the inalienable rights of man,” without a doubt, the concept that these rights come from God is of Biblical origin.
This and the other documents of early America make it clear that the concept of an God-given standard of morality is a central pillar of American democracy. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in his The State acknowledges the obvious:
…it would be a mistake…to ascribe to Roman legal conceptions an undivided sway over the development of law and institutions during the Middle Ages… The Laws of Moses as well as the laws of Rome contributed suggestions and impulse to the men and institutions which were to prepare the modern world; and if we could have but eyes to see… we should readily discover how very much besides religion we owe to the Jew.
Thus we see that it is with the birth of American democracy that we have the next milestone in the process of the spread of Jewish ideas in civilization. For the first time in history, Jewish ethical ideas were legally enshrined into the laws of a non-Jewish nation. That country, the United States, would, in turn, become a powerful model to be emulated by numerous countries around the world.
Celia what is your grand vision for the future?
As to being very old? I feel like 25, how old are you? The truth now!! Lol
Belman: I cited, U.S.,Canada, and Australia as democratic countries that at the very least operate under a constitution, as imperfect as it it might be. You completely ignore my arguments and provide European examples, and then use the usual tired and very old fear tactics of evil Mullahs desiring to destroy Israel. We have our own evil mullahs (called Rabbis) as well as backward old people with outdated, racist attitudes, that might eventually do that very same thing. Israel must progress internally or it will crumble from within. Most Jews are in favor of democracy and would much rather have a future state that is more like America than what you have in mind. Ethnic cleansing ia not the answer to Israel’s future well being. What we have now is a state that is flying by the seat of its pants. No clearly defined border aspirations, no clearly defined set of civil rights, no clearly defined religious rights, and most important no constitution. I don’t regard this as normal.
Herzberg
What do you mean by normalization? Like they have in Europe where the locals are intimidated by the Muslims and have lost their self respect. Or do you mean accepting dhimmitude as being normal.
Europe aside, what do you see as normal in the Middle East. Perhaps you agree with the Arab including the Mullahs desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map. That way it would return to normal.
Or perhaps you consider it normal for Israel to accept dhimmi status. That’s what the Arabs consider normal.
In any event what do you rely on for your ideas, history, reality to conclude what Israel can expect by capitulating to the demands of the West dictated to by the Arabs.
A Herzberg, Post 20. I think you have it correct. Belman, Yamit and company are very old people with old ideas. They see the world through a rear view mirror. Their outlook is dinosauresque.
Ted Belman: You can kiss a one state solution good-buy. It is dead in the water. There is no real interest by most of the inhabitants in the region for the perpetuation of endless conflict and war.
A good future for Israel is to work towards normalization. Israel is one of the few democracies in the world today without a written constitution and something like a bill of Rights. That eventually must change. There are very strong forces in the nation that are working for an Israel that will accomodate all its inhabitants. Just like in the U.S., Canada and Australia. Those who are wishing that Israel model its future on that of some dismal theocracy like Iran, or Saudi-Arabia might think of leaving the country. I am certain that is not where Israel will be in the next 20 or so years.
email rec’d
It is tough enough to achieve what I want to achieve let alone what you want to achieve. I do not trust in G-d nor rely on his word.
Yes 1/3 Arabs are too many. I support inducing them to leave with compensation. Should they leave as a result of a war, I would have no problem with that.
An article by the same name, viz., “A Mandate for Israel”, was published in 1992 by the distinguished jurist Doug Feith. This paper is well worth the read:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n33/ai_14538698
The Arabs believe we took their land. No amount of propaganda would change the fact that their dunes have become our gardens. “Their” is more important than “dunes.” There is not a single example in history where conquerors (and to Arabs, Jews took over their land) lived peacefully with the conquered. The victims were always eliminated to insignificance. Otherwise, acting in the very human (“inhumane”) manner, the victims revolt. They don’t believe in conqueror’s benevolence but read it as moral or physical weakness, and see it as an opportunity to prevail.
Peace negotiations lead to peace only when the argument is not essential for the warring parties; both France and Germany would love to annex Alsace-Lorraine, but can also live without it. When the argument is over the essential territory, the soul of the nation, it is not amenable to negotiations. The only way to live in peace is eliminating the threat. This truth is simple, but not nice, and so many imagine that somehow the history has stopped in our time, and all which was true before is false now, and wolves lie with lambs, and nations negotiate the core issues. That mindset is apocalyptic; our days are hardly the last days, and the human mentality does not change. If anything, the wars become bloodier.
Few understand that enemies are indeed like us, and their goals are like ours – and that is exactly the reason we fight, because both of us critically want the same tiny piece of land. Each of us wants to be a master of his life rather than depend on the possibly benevolent rule of aliens.
Assimilated Jews know a single line from the Torah: “You shall love the alien.” Many even imagine it runs as in Christianity, “Love your enemy.” But there is Exodus 23:31: “And I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall expel them.” The aliens whom we shall love are those who accepted basic tenets of Judaism. They are either full converts or God-fearers, but in any case we are mandated to love them because they are loyal and strive to be good citizens of Jewish state. Nothing can be farther from Israeli Arabs who identify with Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians – not with Jews or Israelis.
The Torah is practical. We cannot come to an agreement with sworn enemies, or live peacefully with those who consider themselves rightful inhabitants (and therefore sovereigns) of the land. There is no peace process, but there is a process that brings peace: namely, cleansing the land of our enemies.
The pragmatic and cowardly Arabs readily give way to force. They demand Jerusalem now only because Israel seems to concede. If, however, Israel flatly refuses negotiations, removes any Muslim presence from the Jewish Temple’s site, and bans Muslims from Jerusalem – the issue will go away. Create a situation where the Arab states can do nothing and they can retract honorably. Then the Arab dictators will shrug their shoulders and could well sign peace with Israel.
email
Agreed on all points.
love & kisses,
Mahmoud Abbas
p.s. Happy Chanukah!
email rec’d
email
email rec’d
With all due respect it is you that have your facts wrong. The original decision at San Remo in 1920 included Transjordan as did the Mandate. I did not mean to suggest otherwise.
Wikipedia provides,
Under the terms of the McMahon-Hussein and Sykes-Picot agreements, the land east of the Jordan was to be part of an Arab state or confederation of Arab states. Article 25 of the San Remo Convention recognized that treaty obligation. It permitted the mandatory to ‘postpone or withhold application of such provisions of the mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions’ in that region.
After further discussions between Churchill and Abdullah in Jerusalem, it was mutually agreed that Transjordan was accepted into the mandatory area with the proviso that it would be, initially for six months, under the nominal rule of the Emir Abdullah and would not form part of the Jewish national home to be established west of the River Jordan.[39] [40]
That agreement was formalized before the mandate officially went into effect. In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved on 23 September. A clause was added to the charter governing the Mandate for Palestine which allowed Great Britain to postpone or permanently withhold all of the provisions which related to the ‘Jewish National Home’ on lands which lay to the east of the Jordan River.[41][42]
From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan, 23% of the entire territory, as “Palestine”, and the part east of the Jordan, 77% of the entire territory, as “Transjordan.” Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents referred to them as if they were two separate mandates. Transfer of authority to an Arab government took place gradually in Transjordan, starting with the recognition of a local administration in 1923 and transfer of most administrative functions in 1928. Britain retained mandatory authority over the region until it became fully independent as the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan in 1946.
Transjordan was never intended to be the national home of the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria. But these Arabs were never given political rights there.
email
email rec’d
Yes. Our rights were first determined at the Sanb Remo Conference. The matter is res judicata.
email rec’d
Based on this study, I believe Dr. Wahid Abd al-Magid is misinformed.
Furthermore, if Israel allows Palestine to be created, how is it going to prevent another Gaza on the Westbank.
If the Jewish One-State Plan is adopted, the Israel Arabs will settle down because the idea of Palestine will be dead and buried.
email rec’d
email rec’d
I replied that there will be no Bantustans and that everyone will have the right to become a citizen.
Moshe Aumann replied by providing me with the following letter to JPOST which has not yet been printed.
He co-authored with Dr Israel Eldad a number of books which can easily be found by searching his name.
Moshe came to see me in Ein Kerem last summer and we spend an interesting evening. I am looking forward to seeing him again when I return.
Email recieved
You should study the demographic study. As standard of living goes up, the birthrate goes down.
and another
and another
I didn’t mean to suggest that the lands originally included did not include Transjordan.
and another
and another
The Jews making the same mistake over and over again. Our mandate can be found in the very first commentary on the Torah by Rashi, Genesis 1:1:
You can proclaim this and that British mandate or League of Nations resolution till you’re blue in the face. It won’t help.
Salomon
I fully understand Jewish rights stemming from the Mandate. But rather than putting our trust in legal opinions, I am putting it in action.
Victor
The Jewish rights obtained at San Remo and in the Mandate were always understood to be national rights.
Unfortunately both the Mandate and the Balfour declaration do not say that Palestine will be the Jewish national home. They mention a “Jewish National Home in Palestine”. The UN clearly understood them this way when it passed the partition resolution in 1947. So I wouldn’t hitch my wagon to either of these documents.
The best case for Israeli control of Judea and Samaria is one based on Palestinian actions and intentions.
Ted, I am glad you came to realize the ultimate validity of the Mandate. But we shouldn’t introduce the term “Mandate for Israel”, since any mandate implies an external, temporary mandatory power.
Also, I have always been skeptical about the euphoria generated by the “new demographics”, the more so if the “permanent residents” of Judea and Samaria are given the opportunity to “plegde allegiance to Israel” and become citizens. Given their predisposition to “taqqiyya”, they will all jump on this right to better dislocate the state from within and turn it into a “state for all citizens.”
Let us just avail of the rights conferred to the Jewish people by tha original Mandate of 1922 and tell the world that the title to the land of Judea and Samaria is not negotiable. This will put an end to the nonsense of another Palestinian state. Let us also tell the world that until there are 20% of Jewish citizens in Arab countries, Israel is not prepared to extend its citizenship rights to another group of Arabs.
Hi Felix, I’ve not read any of Bat Yeor books. Could you elaborate on your comment “she throws illusions about the place regarding the US Establishment. It is the US Establishment, with the EU following behind, and the juggernaut of NATO which is the BIGGEST danger to Israel and the Jews.”
Thanks
Joe writes
Ted: Your analysis is brilliant and compelling. I too have come to these conclusions after many years of wrestling with middle grounds and consensus thinking. Our indoctrination in western liberal thought weakens us in dealing with this eternal “take-no-prisoners” threat.
How do we get Israeli and western leaders to realize that if you cannot or will not defend a very defendable current Israel [with the Golan and Judea/Samaria), how are you going to defend a “mangled Israel,” geographically, politically and morally. If historic Jewish Jerusalem cannot be morally defended by the west, how or why should Tel Aviv?
The establishment of a second palestinian state, 9 miles from the Med. coast, will bring every jihadi from around the world to a final orgy terror-fest. Thanks to the appeasers and leftists.
Following Bat Yeor gives a distorted vision of reality.
She is right about Islam. From my reading of her, however, she throws illusions about the place regarding the US Establishment. It is the US Establishment, with the EU following behind, and the juggernaut of NATO which is the BIGGEST danger to Israel and the Jews.
Excellent article, one every Israeli needs to read and especially their leaders.
So few people in the world know anything about Dhimmi status and think that by accepting the Islamic stand they are being accommodating and diplomatic. Muslims love to be appeased, that is victory for them and they will connive, scheme and manipulate until they get what they want.
Israel needs to stand firm for without firm faith in ADONAI ELOHIM they will not stand up against their enemies. Israel is the apple of God’s eye but they act like Dhimmi, cowering to the Muslim demands instead of laying down her demands. I wrote what I thought Israel’s response should be to the world, probably too much to expect but unless Israel makes her demands Islam will continue to badger her. Israel’s Peace terms to the Arabs and the World.
1. Give Israel all the land that belongs to her from the river of Egypt to the Great River Euphrates. Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 1: 7 (When Messiah Yeshua returns He will ensure the world does exactly that Ezekiel 47:13 to 48:29)
2. Cease all aggression, terrorist attacks and slander against Israel.
3. All Islamic nations must recognise the State of Israel.
4. All so-called Palestinian refugees to be returned to the Arab nations they or their ancestors came from.
5. All nations must recognise Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city, the Holy City of the God of Israel and Israel will NEVER agree to dividing it.
6. Deal ruthlessly with all who threaten Israel’s existence, especially Iran.
7. Compensate Israel for the billions of dollars the world and Arabs have cost her over the past century.
8. Remove the mosques from the Temple Mount; these are an abomination to the God of Israel.
Israel’s salvation or peace does not lie in the hands of the US or any other power; Israel’s salvation and peace can be found alone in her God, ADONAI Tzvaot.
Isaiah 2: 5 & 22 puts it straight.
“Descendents of Ya’akov, come! Let’s live in the light of the ADONAI… Stop relying on man, in whose nostrils is a mere breath—after all he doesn’t count for much, does he?” Quoted from the Complete Jewish Bible (David Stern).
Ronald Hume
Agreed 100% regarding the psychological and historical Dhimi issue. Has anything other than overwhelming force ever worked anywhere against Islam?