You are posting a comment about...
Olmert's Needed Education
"A country cannot protect itself ad infinitum, because there would be no end to it."-- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
Which is worse? The offense to English, or the offense to common sense?
Israel not only can, but must, protect itself, as Olmert awkwardly and incorrectly put it, "ad infinitum" -- and the idea that it is an outrageous demand by citizens that the state protect it from unceasing bombardment is itself outrageous. It can do so, but it can do so best if it recognizes clearly that what it faces is not "Palestinian" nationalism but a Lesser Jihad, by Arabs. And by other Muslim states as well, to the precise degree that the peoples of those states have no other identity, and wish to be as "Arab" in their lineage and outlook as they can: see Pakistan. In a few cases -- Kemalist Turkey, and Iran under the Shah -- some Muslim regimes were able to cultivate relations with Israel, not least where the population was contemptuous of the Arabs, as is true in Turkey and Iran. But the war on Israel is indeed a war on an Infidel polity, on land once in Muslim hands, and the very idea that non-Muslims, even if they were there first, even if the land had been left in desolation and ruin by its various Muslim overlords, even if it was well on the way to being depopulated (see the evidence supplied by Western travellers to the Holy Land in the mid-19th century) until Jewish settlers revived it, the land still must be again in Muslim control.
Once this is clearly grasped, and not only by a group of scholars of Islam, but by the main figures in the Israeli government, and by the entirely inadequate Israeli media, and once it is further grasped that all negotiations that lead to all treaties are pointless because, given that Muslim jurisprudence regulating treaties with Infidels is clearly, unambiguously based on the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D. (see Majid Khadduri, "Law of War and Peace in Islam") then, and only then, will the farcical "peace processes" be stopped, or no longer taken seriously, and the only way for Israel to protect itself and, not incidentally, to make war less likely, is through recognition that only "Darura" or Necessity -- the necessity of holding back because one is too weak and the enemy too strong -- will prevent the Arabs from again massing for attack.
And only when all of the instruments of Jihad -- of the Lesser Jihad (or, more accurately, one of the many Lesser Jihads), that against Israel and that Greater Jihad which is merely the sum of all the local Jihads -- are recognized -- the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest (with different effectiveness and importance in different theatres of the Jihad-war), and finally, when it is understood that Israel cannot and should not yield any further, for a glance at the map tells one - and tells the Arabs and Muslims -- why. For if the size of Israel makes no difference to the Jihad conducted against it (Israel could be ten times as large, or one-tenth as large, as it now is, and it would not matter), then Israel must think only of how best to deter, how best to force the Arab states to invoke "Darura."
And so too must those Infidels outside of Israel -- for whatever measures Israel feels compelled to take are not different from what, on a possibly different time-line, the nations of Western Europe will have to consider.
Jihad is guerre a outrance. Every "peace" treaty is in reality a "truce" treaty; hudnas are supposed to last ten years (though they may be "re-newed").
Read Khadduri. Read Antoine Fattal. Read Schacht, and Snouck Hurgronje. You'll have to educate yourself, I'm afraid -- for Muslim apologists, and their non-Muslim collaborators -- have steadily taken over many academic departments, all over the West, and with smiles and guiles and ostentatious expressions of being "interested" in the students -- those chicken-and-pita dinners, that deep interest in those students, that they might "discover the truth about Islam, behind all the fables, and the stereotypes" -- well, what do you expect the American young, aged 18 to 22, to do? They know no better -- how could they?
So auto-didacticism is now the great national undertaking -- or should be.