Great things beckon Israel, Part 2

ANJULI PANDAVAR | 28 Dec 2024

India acted

Part 1

Had David Ben-Gurion’s Labour Zionists engaged constructively with Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionists, a broader vision for Israel might have emerged, one that interprets “a light unto the nations” politically, as protector of vulnerable civilised peoples from the barbarism of Islam, possibly even bringing the religious and the secular closer together. Under such conditions, Israel would have had ample justification for expelling the genocidal Arab Muslims, or failing that, making absolutely sure that they never get to rule over anyone.

My good friend Rafael Castro has long maintained that security for the Coptic Christians lies in their establishing the Sinai as their own independent state, no doubt under military protection from Israel. The Coptic Christians, of course, did once have a state, Egypt, just as the Maronite Christians once had a state, Lebanon. Jihad fixed that. The historic heartland of the Assyrian Christians coincides with the current geographic location of the Kurds. They are today mostly associated with Syria, the vast diminution in their number notwithstanding. South Lebanon, Southwest Syria, the Jordan panhandle and Sinai, settled by vulnerable peoples welcoming Israel’s protection, assuming Gaza and Judea and Samaria already reincorporated into Israel, is the potential core within the expanded Abraham Accords. There are, of course, other possible arrangements, but the vulnerable peoples are the key to Eretz Israel in a Middle East of her making. This is not quite the Golden Age of Israel, but the Druze have sounded a trumpet.

Israel is neither the first, nor will she be the last country that non-Muslims turn to to save what remains of themselves from centuries of Shari’a destruction in neighbouring countries. Afghanistan was once a major Buddhist kingdom (remember the Bamiyan Buddhas?). Pakistan, at time of Partition, had substantial Hindu, Sikh and Christian minorities. Bangladesh had significant Hindu and Buddhist minorities. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, the non-Muslim targets of Shari’a have suffered near-annihilation, while in Afghanistan, total annihilation. India was the only power able to save these communities from extinction and, in 2019, took action by offering them an expedited route to Indian citizenship. This act of kindness did not go down well with Muslims.

The controversial law [Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)] passed in 2019 by [Indian Prime Minister Narendra] Modi’s government allowed Indian citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from India’s neighbouring countries. It declared that Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians who fled to Hindu-majority India from mainly Muslim Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan before December 31, 2014, were eligible for citizenship. (Aljazeera, 11 March 2024)

India-Afghanistan, India-Bangladesh, India-Pakistan: in each pair, one of them, the Muslim country, either actually or latently, seeks the destruction of the other, for Shari’a mandates that a Muslim country must wage war on its non-Muslim neighbours, conquer them and turn them to Islam. Non-Muslims within their own territories, Shari’a also mandates, must either be killed, or in one way or another, turned into Muslims.

As was to be expected of Muslims, their acolytes and Western capitulators, when India acted to protect non-Muslims:

The law was declared “anti-Muslim” by several rights groups for keeping the community out of its ambit, raising questions over the secular character of the world’s largest democracy.

The three ways in which the law was condemned as “anti-Muslim” were: firstly and disingenuously, that it “discriminated against Muslims” in that it did not offer citizenship to Muslims fleeing oppression in Muslim lands; secondly, it interfered with the Muslim entitlement to do to everyone else exactly as they wished, including kill them. Such interference is what Muslims understand by discrimination; and thirdly, the law diluted the Muslim portion of the Indian population, thereby delaying the point by which they can overwhelm the Indian state’s ability to maintain order and in the resulting chaos, impose Shari’a.

The only concern that the jihad propaganda outlet, Aljazeera, quoted above, has for “the secular character of the world’s largest democracy,” is that that character is likely to be fortified against the uncontrolled influx of Muslims. In other words, Indian Muslims perceived in the CAA the potential curtailment in their room to manoeuvre around Indian laws, and in the accompanying National Register of Citizens (NRC), frustration of their plans to impose an Islamic character on India.

Muslim groups say the law, combined with a proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC), can discriminate against India’s 200 million Muslims – the world’s third-largest Muslim population. They fear the government might remove the citizenship of Muslims without documents in some border states.

As highlighted above, any restriction in Muslims being able to do absolutely anything they want, they see as discrimination. And is a sovereign state not entitled, indeed, is it not duty-bound, to “remove the citizenship of Muslims without documents in some border states,” especially knowing what the Indian government certainly knows about the Shari’a obligation on Muslims in those surrounding Muslim countries to invade India, wage war on all non-Muslims they find there, destroy the country’s “secular character”, and reduce “the world’s largest democracy” to Islam?

It is discriminatory for Muslims to be treated equally to everyone else, for a Muslim’s life is worth more than the life of a non-Muslim. A Muslim cannot in any way be less than a non-Muslim. In a court case between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, for example, Shari’a prohibits the Judge from finding in favour of the non-Muslim, regardless of anything else. He is also obligated to deal harshly with the non-Muslim and leniently with the Muslim. Western countries perpetuate Muslim entitlement when they indulge the Muslim wish for Shari’a, an error that also Israel makes, for they fail to understand that there is no such thing as Shari’a restricted to “certain carefully specified matters.” Shari’a stipulates that if even one provision of Shari’a is permitted in a non-Muslim land, then Muslims are to behave as if they are in a Muslim land. Conversely, Shari’a also stipulates that where it becomes impossible to practise any aspect of Islam in a non-Muslim land, then Muslims have to emigrate from that land to a land where they can practise Islam. We pay dearly for our ignorance.

So much for the suicidal fantasy of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who advocated for Shari’a in Britain, so that: “power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents.” In other words, the British state is to have no automatic jurisdiction over Muslims on British territory, as does no non-Muslim country that permits any bit of Shari’a within its borders. Understand what this means: allowing a single mosque, a single madrassa, a single Islamic centre, a single halal butchers, a single Muslim wedding, a single hijab, etc., and you are on your way to Germany, Sweden, Netherlands and Britain as they are today. The Muslim-orchestrated violence and destruction now ravaging the United Kingdom is the direct outcome of Dr Rowan Williams blinding Britain’s non-Muslims to the dangers of Shari’a in his 7 February 2008 infuriating Archbishop’s Lecture, and his pre-emptive capitulation. This does not absolve British Prime Ministers from Tony Blair onwards.

Westerners who know nothing about Islam almost invariably hold their opinions, dreams and squeamishness as of greater weight than the warnings of those with personal experience of Islam, be it those who were once Muslim and have since left that religion, or those who were never Muslim, but suffered under their yoke for generations, such as the Mizrahim. Israeli Jews have long been anxious about demographic threats to the Jewish majority in their state. But this is to look through the telescope from the wrong end.

The problem is not the proportion Jews in the Israeli population, but the proportion of Muslims. Any increase in the non-Muslim portion of the Israeli population over the Muslim portion, means an increase in the security of the Jewish state. Annexing the Druze involves only a modest change in the numbers, but it sets an enormously important precedent. The Druze are not the only non-Muslims whose presence within the borders of Israel will erode the Muslim portion. Threats to the Jewish character of the state comes only from Muslims and the anti-Zionist Jews who support them. Boosting the non-Muslim population, together with shutting down Shari’a, and never compromising on either, is another understanding of Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s iron wall.

David Ben-Gurion, for all his greatness, imposed his own idealistic ignorance and hubris on his new nation when he adopted Shari’a from the British in Mandatory Palestine, just as they had, in turn, adopted it from the Ottomans after WWI. At least the British colonial authorities in India, namely, the Governor-General and Council of Bengal, took the trouble to familiarise themselves with “Mussulman Law” when they commissioned Charles Hamilton to translate Al-Hidayah, published already in 1791.

Ben Gurion did not need to know anything about Muslims, to know with unshakeable certainty that they wanted to share the building of Israel with the Jews. Such ignorance and hubris continue to this day, with Jews expressing their dismay at all the money the Palestinians have “wasted” on terror infrastructure, when they could have built “Singapore-on-the-Med”. It never crosses their minds that they might be mistaken in their assumptions.

From the international community and Jew-haters, Israel can expect howls of indignation, at best, and violent riots on the streets, at worst, for acceding to the Syrian Druze plea for annexation. Far from indicating that Israel is wrong, such reactions would prove that Israel is right. If Muslims are upset at your policies, even if their reasons are unclear, know that you have just strengthened yourself against jihad.

Jihad is war; and this is jihad. It is not the time for “After you, sir. No, please, after you.” It is inappropriate to be concerned with who will be upset should Israel do this or that. We do not share, for example, Hugh Fitzgerald’s cautious approach to the Druze annexation plea, published in Jihad Watch:

It’s a request that, if Israel were to grant it, would raise holy hell at the UN at this latest “act of occupation” by the Israelis. In lieu of annexation, that Israel simply cannot grant, shouldn’t the UN take that request seriously and find a way to protect the Druze on the Syrian side of the Golan? Why shouldn’t this very small non-Muslim minority, the Druze, have a refuge on both sides of the Golan, where the IDF can continue to protect those on the Israeli side, and UNIFIL troops protect those, who have asked for such protection, on the Syrian side?

Not only has the UN and its various organs, especially its “peace keepers”, by their own very long and iniquitous track records, disqualified themselves from being taken seriously, Israel is herself in a very different place vis-à-vis the UN and the “international community”. Raising holy hell at the UN is exactly what Israel must do as the momentum is with Israel.

It is encouraging to read Fitzgerald insist: “The Druze in the Syrian Golan are absolutely correct in wanting to have their villages annexed by Israel,” but disappointing that he immediately undermines his own case with the observation, “If there were justice, that is what would happen.” On the contrary, if there were justice, the Druze would not be in this predicament in the first place. “But the ‘international community’ at the UN would never allow such a result,” warns Fitzgerald. The international community’s inclinations are irrelevant. After their disgraceful conduct over the past year, they have forfeited whatever authority they might have had to speak. There are people fearing for their lives in a lawless country run by genocidal murderers. Fitzgerald himself describes the circling wolves:

Israel managed to protect the Druze living in the Syrian Golan before the fall of [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad by making clear that the IDF would respond if the jihadi rebels in the area tried to invade the Druze villages on the Syrian side. …Now their Druze residents don’t want the Israelis to leave. They’re afraid the jihadis would otherwise come after them.

In short, the Druze would otherwise be refugees seeking asylum. When in 2018, the UN tried to impose its so-called “Migration Compact” on the West, a monumental “refugee” scam designed to delegitimise the borders of stable Western countries and facilitate jihad invasions, it made a complete mockery of both sovereignty and borders, and thereby also of occupation. By highlighting that holy hell would be raised at the UN at this Israeli “act of occupation,” Fitzgerald, unwittingly, provides an excellent reason for going on the propaganda offensive against the UN, and Israel has abundant reason for doing exactly that. This is no time for timidity, whether on the part of Israel, or of her supporters. We argued elsewhere that:

A tiny people in a tiny corner of an extremely violent land is asking for asylum in Israel, except that they will not take anything away from Israel, only add to her, by paying for their lives with their homes, their villages and their farms.

And, one might add, the blood of their young men. The UN itself, through its Migration Compact, has made its own the concept of “occupation” fluid, to say the least. There is no occupation charge that can be brought against Israel for annexing the Druze villages (not that it matters) for the ones who play fast and loose with international law is the UN, the anti-Israel “international community” and the two in collusion. The most recent case in point is Ireland’s suggestion that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) redefines genocide so that Israel might finally be found guilty of it, provided Ireland gets a piece of the action by being allowed to join South Africa in this legal scam against Israel.

The real beauty of this stitch-up was the Jewish state’s reaction. Instead of Israel responding in fear of a diplomatic backlash, and once again explaining her position, as she shamefully did before the ICJ, Israel instead went on the offensive and severed diplomatic relations with Ireland, shutting down her embassy in Dublin. Sorry, Ireland. You’re just not worth it.

This departure from hasbara is a very significant development, given the high value Israel has always placed on diplomatic conformity and international approval. After a year of darkness, Israel is, indeed, in a different place. Another accomplishment along these lines has been Prime Minister Netanyahu’s open interference in the internal affairs of Iran by directly speaking to the Iranian people in a series of televised addresses. This is a highly commendable initiative, even if he spoils it by presuming to explain to the Iranians that they are oppressed. Old habits die hard.

“We want to be free from injustice and oppression,” said the Druze. As India has finally come to accept and Israel and the West are still denying, there is no escaping that Islam is the problem. India has embraced the role of protector of people vulnerable to Islamic extermination, clearing the way for Israel to do the same. Solve Islam and the Middle East is solved. Who would have thought that the storm discharged upon the southern end of Israel on 7 October 2023 would set off a chain reaction that ends in a butterfly flapping its wing at the northern end.

Picture credits:

Msp7com – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=105415817

Banksboomer – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=103939921

OpenstreetMap