The words of a 1980 speech in Qom byÂ Ayatollah KhomeiniÂ ring clear:
- ’We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant.’
Can it be any more clear that Islam seeks only our destruction at whatever cost to itself? Can we deny any longer that Islam, and not just its radicals, are the enemy?
- “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”
â€”Hussein Massawi, the former Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago.
- Mahmud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran:Â ‘Wipe Israel off map’
Now comes Zakaria:
They May Not Want The Bomb
And other “unexpected truths.”
Readers of this blog know that Fareed Zakaria, the Indian born son of an imam, is an Islamic agent provocateur. To give this man a soapbox at Newsweek, Time or CNN is the same as allowing Joseph Goebbles during WWII to pump Nazi propaganda into American living rooms. It never ceases to amaze me that 8 years after 9/11 America is still so ignorant and naive. To allow this enemy agent to make a good living behind enemy lines while obfuscating, minimizing andÂ denyingÂ the threat from Islam is as fantastic and unreal as the Marxist Muslim POTUS. Zakaria is engaging claissic taqiyya and spins Islamic fairy tales all the while telling us there is nothing to worry about.Â Is the whole nation on crack?
- Â Fareed ZakariaÂ writes like a snake slithers:Â The Decline and Fall of Newsweek
- Obambi is a big Zakaria fan. Â He was photographed carrying his bookÂ The End of Christian America
- Newsweep Goes Dysentery Green For Fareed Zakaria…
- “Radical Islam Is a Fact of Life- We Must Live With It”
Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What’s the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime’s founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were “un-Islamic.” The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that “developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.” Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini’s statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.
- I think we have more than enough evidence that the Iranians are lying. So does Zakaria and Mohamed El Baradei. Could it be that they have an agenda?
- Â Doesn’t Fareed Zakaria, the son of an Islamic scholar, know his Koran, wherein it is written:Â …and make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allah. . . Surah 8:60.
Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran’s aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn’t need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear “breakout” capacityâ€”the ability to weaponize within a few monthsâ€”would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Iranians aren’t suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as “a messianic, apocalyptic cult.” In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran’s ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by thoseâ€”including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.
One of Netanyahu’s advisers said of Iran, “Think Amalek.” The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.
Iran isn’t a dictatorship. It is certainly not a democracy. The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy. Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the “mad mullah” who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahsâ€”which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority. Iran might be ready to deal. We can’t know if a deal is possible since we’ve never tried to negotiate one, not directly. While the regime appears united in its belief that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear programâ€”a position with broad popular supportâ€”some leaders seem sensitive to the costs of the current approach. It is conceivable that these “moderates” would appreciate the potential benefits of limiting their nuclear program, including trade, technology and recognition by the United States. The Iranians insist they must be able to enrich uranium on their own soil. One proposal is for this to take place in Iran but only under the control of an international consortium. It’s not a perfect solution because the Iranians couldâ€”if they were very creative and dedicatedâ€”cheat. But neither is it perfect from the Iranian point of view because it would effectively mean a permanent inspections regime in their country. But both sides might get enough of what they consider crucial for it to work. Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?
- So much for Zakaria’s fantasy productions.
Back to reality:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
â€“Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, one day after the nation declared its independence
“The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel … Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer.”
â€“Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 1954
“I announce from here, on behalf of the United Arab Republic people, that this time we will exterminate Israel.”
â€“President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, speech in Alexandria, July 26, 1959
“We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your (Israel’s) blood, to oust you as aggressor, to throw you into the sea.”
â€“Hafez Assad, then-Syrian Defense Minister, May 24, 1966, who later became Syria’s president.
“Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel.”
â€“President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, May 27, 1967, nine days before the start of the Six-Day War.
“The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear â€” to wipe Israel off the map.”
â€“President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967
“All countries should wage war against the Zionists, who are there to destroy all human organizations and to destroy civilization and the work which good people are trying to do.”
â€“King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, in a speech in Uganda, Beirut Daily Star, Nov. 17, 1972
“The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist.”
â€“Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi, al-Usbu al-Arrabi (Beirut) quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973
“After we perform our duty in liberating the West Bank and Jerusalem, our national duty is to liberate all the Arab-occupied territories.”
â€“Jordan’s King Hussein, Radio Amman, Dec. 1, 1973
“Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.”
â€“Zoheir Muhsin, head of the PLO Military Operations Department and member of the PLO Executive Council, 1977
“I have never met an Arab leader that in private professed a desire for an independent Palestinian state. Publicly, they all espouse an independent Palestinian state â€” almost all of them â€” because that is what they committed themselves to do at Rabat (the 1974 Arab League summit conference).”
â€“President Jimmy Carter, at a 1979 press conference
“There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country. … On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel.”
â€“Rafiq Najshah, PLO representative in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian News Agency, June 9, 1980
“The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a struggle about Israel’s borders, but about Israel’s existence. We will never agree to anything less than the return of all our land and the establishment of the independent state.”
â€“Bassam Abu Sharif, a top Arafat aide and PLO spokesman, quoted by the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986
“There are two different approaches in the Arab world: that Israel can be overwhelmed militarily, or that a military victory is impossible. The power struggle between Israel and the Arabs is a long-term historical trial. Victory or defeat are for us questions of existence or annihilation, the outcome of an irreconcilable hatred.”
â€“Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, July 11, 1986
“The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the entire territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction.”
â€“Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) interview with Al-Safir, Lebanon, Jan. 25, 1988
“This is the ideology of the PLO and of Yasser Arafat: To destroy the state of Israel and to establish a Palestinian state instead. They will accept the territories â€” but only as a beginning, as a base for further attacks to conquer all of Israel. Why give them this opportunity to strengthen their efforts to attack us?”
â€“Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, U.S. News & World Report, March 21, 1988
“The armed struggle must continue, everywhere, against the Zionist enemy and his allies. … We have no alternative but to carry out armed activity in order to vanquish the enemy and establish our state.”
â€“Salim Zaanoun, Deputy PNC speaker and member of the Fatah Central Committee, in Al-Anba, Kuwait, Dec. 23, 1988
“The PLO will not stop the armed struggle.”
â€“Yasser Arafat, June 6, 1989 at a press conference in Kuwait, Associated Press.
“The Middle East peace efforts have reached a stalemate. … The PLO now has no alternative but to escalate armed struggle outside the occupied territories in support of the uprising.”
â€“Arafat’s number two man, Salah Khalaf, Jan. 22, 1990, Associated Press
“We will enter Jerusalem victoriously and raise our flag on its walls. … We will fight you (the Israelis) with stones, rifles, and ‘El-Abed’ (the Iraqi missile)…”
â€“Yasser Arafat, reported by the Associated Press, March 29, 1990, at the start of the Gulf War
“In the name of Allah, we shall cause fire to devour half of Israel. …”
â€“Iraqi News Agency, April 2, 1990
“We say to the brother and leader Saddam Hussein â€” go forward with God’s blessing.”
â€“Yasser Arafat, the next day, Iraqi News Agency, April 3, 1990
Bat Yeor writes:
“A negative attitude was expressed in 1982 by Algeria’s first president, in a lapidary formula:
What we want, as Arabs, is to *be*. However, we can only be, if *the other* is not’. [Ben Bella, ‘Tous Contre Israel’, PI i.e. International Political Review/ Revue Politique Internationale, 16 (Paris, 1982), p. 108]