The Second Islamic Revolution

Jun. 25, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

The watching world well understands the young, pro-Western aspect of the ruthlessly countered post-election revolt in Iran. But what makes this outburst different, says The Jerusalem Post's Sabina Amidi, just returned from Teheran, is that many pro-Islamists have turned on the regime as well.

Way back in the days of the Shah, Sabina Amidi tells me down the phone in one of the few lighter moments of our conversation, it was easier for Iranians to get visas to Tel Aviv than to Mecca. So lots of Iranian Muslims came to visit the Jewish state.

"This friend of our family, a middle-aged woman, was telling me last week about how she'd come to Jerusalem in the mid-1970s, gone to the Western Wall, and seen all the Jews there praying to God and leaving messages between the stones," Amidi went on. "She felt left out. She also wanted to leave a message for God. So she told me she too went up to the Wall, and wrote a plea: that she would find a good husband. Six months later she met the love of her life, they've been deliriously happily married for more than 30 years, they have three children... and she - this very conservative Muslim lady - still talks excitedly about that trip to Israel, and about how God answered her prayers at the Western Wall."

And this lady too, Amidi continued, in serious mode now, this devout Muslim friend who lives in fealty to Islam and its laws, today shares the widespread sense of betrayal that so many Iranians feel with regard to the regime of the ayatollahs. She's not been out on the streets, risking her life to scream "Down with the dictator." But she's watched the brutally suppressed protests from her apartment window, and she hopes, sooner or later, that they'll have their effect.

THE AMERICAN-based Amidi is a courageous young reporter who flew to Teheran a few weeks ago to cover the presidential elections forThe Jerusalem Post. She had anticipated a fascinating but thoroughly nonrevolutionary sequence of events - expecting that she would reconnect with friends and family there, report on an expertly manipulated exercise in mullah-style democracy, and leave the country much as she entered it: increasingly frustrated by the government's stifling of freedoms, but quietly seething rather than openly defiant.

Instead, by the time she got out of Teheran midway through last week, Iran was in turmoil, the regime had resorted to shooting its own people in the streets and branding its own former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi "a criminal" for daring to challenge it, and Amidi was understandably fearful that the fact of her writing for the Post was putting her own life in real danger.

In our lengthy conversation this week, she highlighted aspects of the Iranian reality with which many of us are far from cognizant, most notably regarding the unlikely combination of civilian forces that has fueled the opposition to the ayatollahs.

"I think people recognize that the anger and bitterness at the regime is acute among young Iranians. I'm talking about youngsters who've been watching Western TV for years, on the little satellite dishes everybody hides in their air-conditioning units, and want those freedoms. Youngsters who know that, under [former president Mohammad] Khatami, they could meet friends from the opposite sex out in public, but dare not under ["reelected" President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. Well-educated youngsters, graduates, who can't find work."

What the outside word hasn't quite understood, Amidi goes on, is that this youth-led, pro-Western opposition to the regime has been joined by many religious conservative Iranians, "Iranians who supported the Islamic Revolution 30 years ago, Iranians who wanted the Shah out, Iranians who want to live according to Islamic law. Many of them have turned against the regime too because they feel it has betrayed Islam.

They're aware that the Revolutionary Guards, the military face of the regime, are becoming increasingly powerful - that Iran is tending toward military dictatorship. They've heard the rumors - everything in Iran is rumor - that in cases where women have been arrested and sentenced to death for political activism or some other crime, if it turns out that they're virgins, a Basiji [security operative] will rape them, because it is against Islam to execute a virgin."

These erstwhile regime loyalists are also angry because of their economic situation, Amidi says. "There's real poverty in Iran now. I was approached in a market by a woman who was begging for money for her children, but kept stressing that she wanted me to know that she was not a drug addict, that she had 'her dignity intact.' She didn't want to be begging, but she couldn't help it. When I gave her a little money, she knelt and kissed my hand; I had to stop myself from crying. People who used to get by, can't anymore. And orthodox Muslims or not, they don't understand why the regime is giving money to 'other countries' - to Hizbullah and Hamas - and ignoring its own people, who are all but starving in some cases."

"And then, of course, these past two weeks, they've seen peaceful protesters, their fellow civilians, being beaten and shot in the streets." They know that thousands of people, according to many reports, have been arrested, for the "crime" of having supported an honorable political candidate whom the regime had sanctioned. "They're seeing mourners who want to hold burial ceremonies for the victims being barred from the mosques - the rank and file forcibly separated from their God. That's unthinkable.

"And this all burst out now because they saw that the regime had lied - it lied about the election results. It announced that Ahmadinejad had won long before it was remotely possible that the votes could have been counted. That's un-Islamic. Islam prizes honor? Well the regime dishonored their votes.

"And that," Amidi stressed, "is why the marchers out on the streets, and the less courageous Iranians joining in at their windows and from their rooftops, haven't only been shouting 'Death to the Dictator.' They've also been shouting 'Allahu Akbar.' These are the slogans of the revolution from 30 years ago, now directed at those who were supposed to be the guardians of the revolution. This wasn't only a pro-Western outpouring of frustration and a desire for change. It's been carried, too, by some of those who fought to oust the Shah. It is a pro-Islamic protest, as well."

Amidi, like the more sensible commentators, is disinclined to predict how this upsurge in public anger will now be channeled. But she is adamant that although "the riots have been dying down" in the last few days, unsurprisingly, in light of the regime's demonstrable readiness to use murderous force to quash them, "they'll rise again," and the more force the regime uses to deter open opposition, the more widespread that opposition will gradually become.

"Ten years ago," Amidi notes, "there were student protests here, and they did not achieve change. Today's opposition is different, wider." Ten years ago, the Amidi family friend who prayed at the Western Wall was not siding with the protesters. She is now.

AMIDI NOTES that the limitations on personal freedom have become increasingly stringent in the Ahmadinejad era. She herself was stopped in the street a few years ago when out walking with her male cousin, and this prompted police inquiries until the family was able to prove that they were relatives and not flirtatious youths who ought to be married.

All schools are single sex. Universities have separate sex seating. More and more bus routes are single sex too. A top local actress whose sex-tape leaked out onto the Internet last year had to pretend that she was the temporary quasi-bride - sighe - of the man with whom she was clearly intimate, says Amidi, because otherwise she might have faced execution for her shameless public display.

"Broadly speaking, the would-be more Western people live these two conflicting lives. There's life outside, where the women have to wear the hijab, and where you can't talk openly about anything, because you fear that undercover policemen may be eavesdropping; a friend of mine was sent to jail for two weeks because he was reported for discussing politics with his friend at a Teheran restaurant. You only get some relief from that suffocation if you go to gatherings in basements in the remote areas of the cities, or far out of them into the middle of nowhere, where youngsters organize parties, and drink and dance.

"And then there's inside, at home, where people can really be themselves. Where they can watch satellite TV. Where they can play the 50 Cent CD or the Charlie's Angels DVD that they furtively bought from the youngsters who sell them in the long waiting lines at the gas stations. The home is the sanctuary - more so than a couple of years ago, when people's homes used to get raided, and 'Western' items were seized. That doesn't happen too much anymore."

What was striking in the run-up to the elections, however, was that, briefly, those disconnected worlds became one, she says. "In Teheran, everyone cut loose - outside. The people just didn't care. They were playing loud Persian pop music. Mousavi supporters were dancing in the streets. Men and women. That may sound banal to you, but it simply hadn't happened before."

Then came the shock of the results, and everything that we saw happening next. "You should know," says Amidi, "that CNN and the BBC are now blocked. The Internet is snail-paced. I reported all the communications clampdowns. The regime is pretty sophisticated. There are anti-Ahmadinejad clips - clips that mock him - on YouTube. Well. you can get YouTube in Iran, but you can't get those anti-Ahmadinejad clips. There's some impressive filtering going on." (Indeed, it has been reported this week that Iran, with German and other European assistance, has developed some of the world's leading technology for Internet control, censorship and monitoring.)

But sooner or later, Amidi says, the regime will have to restore greater communications capacity, to enable the country to start to function again. "And when communications improve, the opposition will reorganize."

HOW DID the regime get itself into this mess, how did it allow its iron grip to slip, how did it fail to effectively stage-manage elections for which it had already filtered the candidates, elections it had already rigged?

Amidi believes it underestimated Mousavi, a seemingly grey candidate who had been reliably hardline in the 1980s and had been out of the public eye for so long. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei emphatically did not want Khatami to run again - "the rumor is that Khamenei warned Khatami he wouldn't survive if he ran" - and alighted on Mousavi as a presumed nobody whose candidacy would allow a little healthy public venting.

"He did say he'd give society a bit more breathing space, that he'd give the young people a voice again. But the regime didn't take those promises too seriously, and I'm not even sure how seriously he meant them. But the people? The people got excited. Khamenei underestimated this. The campaign took off. It was clear Mousavi had attracted really wide support."

Still, Amidi points out, nobody was certain that Mousavi had won the elections. "They just knew that he'd become very popular, that the results might be close, that maybe there'd have to be a second round run-off between him and Ahmadinejad. But then the regime really rubbed Iranians' noses in it. I mean, the possibility that they could have counted all those votes - hand-written ballots, remember - in just a few hours... It was ridiculous," Amidi laughs in disbelief.

"This is Iran. Disorganized Iran, where polling stations ran out of ballots, and some closed early and others didn't open at all! Disorganized Iran, where you can't get from one side of town to the other!"

And that, reflects our correspondent, is one of the particularly wry ironies of Iran's current turmoil, its shaken regime, its galvanized opposition. For it is entirely possible that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who campaigned extremely effectively across Iran, handing out grants and initiating infrastructure projects, dominating state media coverage and basically using the clout of incumbency to secure another term, actually did win the contested June 12 presidential elections.

It's just that the regime didn't have the confidence, or the patience, to see through its exercise in controlled quasi-democracy. Which begs the question: Can it regain control of its betrayed people in the long-term, when even on election day, especially on election day, it couldn't control its repressive, dictatorial instincts?

Iran's "Election": What Happened? What Does It Mean?

PolicyWatch #1537: Special Forum Report

Iran's 'Election': What Happened? What Does It Mean?

Featuring Mehdi Khalaji, Mohsen Sazegara, Patrick Clawson, and Michael Singh
June 18, 2009

On On June 16, 2009, Mehdi Khalaji, Mohsen Sazegara, Patrick Clawson, and Michael Singh addressed a special Policy Forum at The Washington Institute to discuss the disputed reelection of Iran's incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad on June 12 amid a wave of mass protests and charges of vote rigging.

Mehdi Khalaji is a Washington Institute senior fellow, Patrick Clawson is the Institute's deputy director for research, Michael Singh is the Ira Weiner Fellow at the Institute, and Mohsen Sazegara is an Iranian dissident and political activist. Following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.

Mehdi Khalaji

Iran has been going through a quiet revolution for some time, in which the nature of the regime has shifted from a clerical-civilian administration to a military government. The United States is no longer confronting an Islamic republic, but rather an autocratic, totalitarian regime represented by leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad, and backed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

What is happening in Iran today is part of a twenty-year power struggle between Khamenei, who assumed power in 1989, and the other veterans of the Islamic Revolution, such as former presidents Akbar Rafsanjani and Muhammad Khatami, as well as current opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. Khamenei has never been comfortable working with the leaders of the 1979 revolution; he prefers that leadership positions be held by individuals he elevated to power, that is, those who owe their political careers to him. The nature of this power struggle was made clear by Ahmadinezhad in the televised preelection debates, when the president stressed that he was not just competing with Mousavi, but also with Khatami, Rafsanjani, and those around them. Within this struggle, Khamenei's recent election manipulation represents a new level of self-confidence and a new determination to suppress his rivals.

In the coming days, as the government resists calls to hold a new election, protests will grow in size as more and more onlookers join the demonstrations. The United States will soon face either an emboldened military government in Iran or witness tremendous changes in the Iranian political system.

Mohsen Sazegara

The democratic struggle happening in Iran today is a reaction to four years of the nation's humiliation and oppression by the government of Ahmadinezhad and Khamenei. The popular street protest on June 15 was the first time in the 120-year struggle for freedom in Iran that there was such mass mobilization without the clergy, and the first such mobilization focused on a democratic, rather than a religious or revolutionary, demand. The ideals of the utopian Islamic Revolution have been converted to the democratic demands of liberalism, civil society, and human rights.

European countries and the UN secretary-general have issued positive responses to the Iranian public's call for democracy. Now the people of Iran are waiting for the United States to act. Rumors among the younger generation report that the United States has given Khamenei the green light to suppress the Iranian people, in return for engagement and compromise on the nuclear issue. To counter such rumors, the U.S. government should tell Iran it will not recognize any government that does not represent the will of the people. What President Barack Obama said on June 15 was not enough; he should promise the Iranian people that their vote will be respected.

Patrick Clawson

For twenty years, Khamenei has warned of the dangers threatening the Islamic Republic, particularly what he refers to as post-modern imperialism through the West's cultural invasion. He has warned that the West would provoke a "velvet revolution" similar to that in Czechoslovakia in 1989, which witnessed the very rapid overthrow of an apparently rock-solid government. Czech dissident Vaclav Havel praised the key role of U.S.-sponsored radio broadcasts in the velvet revolution, much as Polish dissidents spoke of the key role of U.S. support for the Solidarity trade union in the overthrow of communist rule in Poland.

From Khamenei's perspective, the developments of the past few weeks demonstrate his prescience. The initial campaign efforts of Mousavi, a rather uncharismatic figure, were "pathetic," yet today hundreds of thousands of people are wearing green and treating him like a rock star. To the conspiratorial mind, this is evidence of powerful forces behind Mousavi. Indeed, forces are behind him, but they are former presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani, not the West. In response, Khamenei decided to crush the hopes of change through an election with vote rigging so blatant as to show that no election would be allowed to change the system. Furthermore, the hardliners blame the foreign media for the protests that have erupted. In short, Khamenei was so afraid of a velvet revolution that he has provoked one.

The protests will only confirm in Khamenei's mind his oft-stated view that the nuclear issue is just an excuse used by the West to advance its plot to overthrow the Islamic Republic. He will be more convinced than ever that if the nuclear issue were settled, the West would find another excuse with which to advance its true goal. To him, any compromise on the nuclear issue will only feed the West's efforts to overthrow him. No matter how often the U.S. government says it is willing to live and work with Khamenei's Islamic Republic, he will not believe a word of it. And, of course, all of this makes it more difficult to negotiate an agreement on the nuclear issue. A realistic policy needs to be based on this unfortunate fact.

Michael Singh

The United States is approaching the Iranian election crisis with the knowledge that Khamenei will likely retain control of Iran's most troubling policies, regardless of the outcome. Nevertheless, the crisis has four national security implications for the United States.

First, the brazen way that the regime handled the voting suggests that it may be quite insecure, rather than cautious as many suppose. If so, this implies that Iran is less likely to brook any openings to the West that would accompany engagement or a potential U.S.-Iranian agreement.

Second, the reselection of Ahmadinezhad indicates that engagement with the United States is not the Iranian regime's top priority. He campaigned specifically against detente with the West, and Khamenei's own comments supported this line. These first two points underscore the need to bring pressure to bear on the regime rather than relying exclusively on engagement.

Third, the growing power of the IRGC and Iran's drift toward a military dictatorship are both reflected in this crisis. This is troubling for the United States, as the IRGC is responsible for some of Iran's most unwholesome policies. Furthermore, the mounting concentration of power in this military elite suggests that the regime may be increasingly insulated from international pressure. This suggests that the threshold for changing the regime's cost-benefit calculation is high, and American leaders will require steel nerves as they try to induce Iran's leaders to engage.

Fourth, the United States needs to tread carefully, but it must be quite clear in its support for the Iranian people. It must condemn the killing of demonstrators and demand free and fair elections without picking winners. While this may seem to run counter to U.S. efforts to engage Iran, multiple examples from U.S. history show there need not be any contradiction between standing with the people -- and their legitimate desires and aspirations for freedom -- and achieving U.S. strategic objectives with Iran.

This rapporteur's summary was prepared by Cole Bunzel.

Israel's Rare Opportunity

Jun. 19, 2009
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

Israel finds itself in unfamiliar territory today. The revolutionary atmosphere building in Iran presents Israel with a prospect it has rarely confronted: a safe bet. With the Obama administration refusing to back the anti-regime protesters, and the European Union similarly hemming and hawing, millions of Iranians who are on the streets, risking their lives to protest a stolen election and a tyrannical regime, have been cast adrift by those they thought would support them. To date, Israel has joined the US and Europe in rejecting the protesters. This should change.

In refusing to stick their necks out - and so effectively siding with the mullahs against the pro-democracy activists in the streets - US President Barack Obama, like Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Mossad chief Meir Dagan, have all rightly pointed out that Mir Hossein Mousavi, Iran's former prime minister and the titular head of the protest movement, is just as radical and extreme as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom he seeks to unseat.

Moreover, Western officials and analysts point out that Mousavi's primary backers from within the regime - former presidents Muhammad Khatami and Akbar Rafsanjani - are themselves anything but anti-regime revolutionaries.

What apparently motivates these men is the sense that through Ahmadinejad's heavy-handed attacks against the revolution's "old guard," the presidential incumbent has shunted them aside. They feel slighted. And they are doubly humiliated by the fact that Ahmadinejad has acted with the open support of Iran's real dictator - so-called "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei. The likes of Mousavi, Khatami and Rafsanjani don't want to overthrow the regime whose aims they share. They just want to restore their power within the regime.

It is these twin assessments of Mousavi and his backers that stand at the center of Western leaders' decision to give a wide berth both to the presidential race and to the protests that have arisen in its aftermath.

For Israel, the arguments for staying clear of events in Iran align with those informing much of the rest of the Western world. Israel's primary concern is Iran's foreign policy and specifically its nuclear weapons program and its support for anti-Israel terror groups. There is no reason for Israel to believe that a Mousavi government will be more inclined to end Iran's race to the bomb or diminish its support for terror groups like Hizbullah and Hamas than Ahmadinejad's government is. As prime minister in the 1980s, Mousavi was a major instigator of Iran's nuclear program and he oversaw the establishment of Hizbullah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Beyond that, there is the fact that Israel - like the US - is the regime's bogeyman. If Israel is identified with the protesters, the likes of Khamenei will use this connection to justify their brutal repression.

Finally, there is the distinct possibility, indeed the likelihood, that these protests will go nowhere. They will be brutally repressed or fizzle out of their own accord. So what would Israel gain by sticking its neck out?

While reasonable on their face, these arguments for doing nothing all ignore the significance of recent developments. Consequently they fail to grasp the new opportunities that have arisen - opportunities which left untouched will likely disappear in short order.

The fact of the matter is that with each passing day, Mousavi's personal views and interests are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Whether he realized it or not, Mousavi was transformed last Friday night. When Khamenei embraced the obviously falsified official election results as a "divine victory" for Ahmadinejad, Mousavi was widely expected by Western observers to accept the dictator's verdict. When instead he sided with his own supporters who took to the streets to oppose their disenfranchisement, Mousavi became a revolutionary. Whether he had planned to do so or not, a week ago Mousavi became an enemy of the regime.

The significance of Mousavi's decision could not be more profound. As Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies wrote Wednesday at the Pajamas Media Web site, last Friday night Mousavi tied his personal survival to the success of the protesters - and pitted his life against Khamenei's. In Ledeen's words, "Both Khamenei and Mousavi - the two opposed icons of the moment, at least - know that they will either win or die."

For their part, by the end of this week, the protesters themselves had been transformed. If last week they were simply angry that they had been ignored, by Thursday they had become a revolutionary force apparently dedicated to the overthrow of the regime. This was made clear by a list of demands circulating among the protesters on Wednesday. As Pepe Escobar reported in Thursday's Asia Times, the protesters' demands include Khamenei's removal from power, the dissolution of the secret police, the reform of the constitution under anti-regime Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri, who has been living under house arrest for the past 12 years, and the installation of Mousavi as president. These demands make clear where the protesters are leading. They are leading to the overthrow of one of the most heinous regimes on the face of the earth and its replacement by a liberal democracy.

As far as Israel is concerned, this is a win-win situation. If the protesters successfully overthrow the regime, they will have neutralized the greatest security threat facing the Jewish state. And if they fail, Israel will still probably be better off than it is today. For if the mullahs violently repress the pro-democracy dissidents, the Obama administration will be hard-pressed to legitimize their blood bath by embracing them as negotiating partners.

Were Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to publicly announce Israel's support for the protesters, Israel would stand to gain politically in a number of ways. First and foremost, it would be doing the right thing morally and so would earn the respect of millions of people throughout the world who are dismayed at their own governments' silence in the face of the brave Iranian protesters risking their lives for freedom.

Moreover, by acting as the loudest and first democratic champion of the protesters, Israel would catapult itself to the forefront of the campaign for democracy in the Muslim world. Doing so would make it far easier for Israel's representatives throughout the world to defend against false accusations by self-described human rights organizations that Israel is a human rights abuser.

Beyond that, Israel would be building an important alliance with the Iranian people themselves. Contrary to what the mullahs would have us believe, Iranians by and large do not share the widespread hatred of Israel and the Jews that their regime promotes and the Arab world embraces. Over the years, Iranian regime opponents - from the students to the trade unionists to women's rights activists to minority Kurds, Azeris, Ahwaz Arabs and Baluchis - have all appealed to Israel for support. Israel Radio in Farsi, which broadcasts into Iran daily, has more than a million regular listeners.

Were Netanyahu to explain that the same mullahs who seek to disenfranchise and repress the Iranian people seek to destroy Israel with nuclear bombs; were he to call for Iran to stop financing Hamas and Hizbullah terrorists who are reportedly now deployed in Iran to brutalize the protesters, and instead invest in the Iranian economy for the benefit of Iran's people, he would be sending a message that already resonates with the people of Iran.

Finally, Israeli outreach to the Iranian people now struggling to overthrow the regime would expose the Obama administration's effective support for the mullahs against their people in all its absurdity and moral blindness. What's more, the administration would be unable to launch a counterattack. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama would be in no position to attack Israel for supporting Iranian dissidents demanding freedom. And their stammering reaction would make their attacks against Jewish building in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria look ever more ridiculous.

Although Israel is far away from Iran, it has significant capacity to help the demonstrators. It could use its communication satellites to break through the communications blackout the regime has attempted to enforce. Its Internet capabilities can be offered to the protesters to reopen closed networks. Israel could temporarily expand its radio broadcasts into the country and allow its airwaves to be used to broadcast events on the ground in real time so that protesters won't have to rely on word of mouth to know what is happening or where things are leading.

Again, it is more than possible that Khamenei will move to crush the dissidents or successfully buy enough of them off to subvert them. But in the meantime, Israel has a clear interest in keeping the Iranian cauldron boiling. The mullahs can only concentrate on so much at once. If they are preoccupied with domestic dissent, they will have less time to devote to Hamas and Hizbullah. If they are busy quelling armed insurrections by Kurds or Azeris or Baluchis, they will have less time to devote to negotiating the purchase of the S-300 anti-aircraft system with Russia, or keeping tabs on their nuclear scientists. Strategically, Israel stands only to gain - either marginally or massively - from the ayatollahs' discomfort.

In an interview this week with National Review Online, Iranian expatriate Amir Taheri explained that Iran suffers from a divided psyche. On the one hand, the mullahs view Iran as a revolutionary vanguard of Islam. They do not see Iran as a nation-state. For them, the normal things that make up a life - economic stability, public safety and the hope that one's children will do better - are of little use as they march forward under the flag of jihad. Israel and the US are necessary enemies.

On the other hand, the vast majority of Iran's people wish to live in a normal and free nation-state. For them, the revolution means nothing but privation, suffering, repression and death. They do not hate America and they do not hate Israel. They do not seek nuclear weapons and they do not support the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah.

As Taheri put it, "When we consider Iran as a nation-state, we see Israel as its natural ally. The reason is that Israel, like Iran, is opposed to an exclusively Arab Middle East. Both want a pluralist Middle East in which there is room for diversity; a Middle East where one finds Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Christians and Jews, as well as Arabs."

If Israel extends a hand in friendship to these Iranian patriots, the worst that can happen is that they fail to overthrow the mullahs and we are left to acknowledge that we wished them well. There is no shame in that.

Indeed, if they fail to overthrow the regime, and Israel is compelled to attack their country's nuclear installations, it is hard to imagine that they will take it personally. Rather, recalling that it was Israel that stood with them first, they would no doubt understand why we were forced to act, and perhaps be inspired to try again to free themselves from the shackles of their hideous regime.

caroline@carolineglick.com

A Consensual Vision

Jun. 19, 2009
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Truly, an astounding speech on Sunday. Remarks that left Israelis dumbfounded. A dramatic shift to the most unexpected positions.

No, I'm not talking about the prime minister's Bar-Ilan University appearance - the landmark lecture in which Binyamin Netanyahu described a demilitarized Palestinian state as a central component of "my vision of peace, in this small land of ours."

I'm thinking of the brief address to reporters by Jimmy Carter earlier that same day. Having spent two hours chatting in the Neveh Daniel living room of Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein, with a small group of (evidently highly persuasive) local Jewish residents for company, the former president - he of Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid notoriety - emerged to declare that the Etzion Bloc "settlement area is not one I ever envision being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory."

Was this April 1? Purim, perhaps? Surely it had to be one of them, for this was truly a world turned upside down. Isn't it the likes of Carter who are supposed to be trying to force Palestinian statehood upon wary Israelis in general and an implacably opposed Israeli Right in particular, and the likes of Netanyahu who are supposed to be making insistent speeches about the permanent retention of major settlements, and minor ones too for that matter, in Judea and Samaria?

And surely, were a Likud prime minister to suddenly veer away from the traditional policies at the heart of his party's platform, and start trumpeting the Labor manifesto "of two peoples" living "freely, side by side, in amity and mutual respect," each with "its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government," then the Likud Knesset faction and its rank-and-file supporters would rise as one in angered tumult and demand that leader's resignation?

But no, it was neither Purim nor April Fool's Day, just plain old June 14, and the coincidence of Netanyahu's and Carter's "reversed" positions says much about the failures of Israel's political leadership over recent years and the self-defeating superficiality of our partisan internal climate.

BICKERING AND sniping across party lines, sinking to political assassination at our lowest point, we have continually allowed our differences to skew our national interest, depriving ourselves of the capacity to find a consensus on the basic contours of the Jewish state we seek to maintain and the means to guarantee our long-term security.

Not so many years ago, Labor-led governments argued, incorrectly, that Israel could achieve a viable permanent accord with the Palestinians and still retain 10 percent, or perhaps even more, of our biblical, historic heartland in Judea and Samaria. And Likud-led oppositions lambasted those governments for sanctioning the very notion of Palestinian statehood at all. As we ripped ourselves to political pieces, and discredited ourselves internationally, the Palestinians exploited our differences and, at the moments of diplomatic truth, rejected our peace overtures and skillfully deflected blame onto us.

Increasingly desperate, Israeli leaders, heading collapsing coalitions, offered the Palestinians still more territory with fewer discernible security safeguards - culminating in what amounted to a 100% West Bank withdrawal under prime minister Ehud Olmert just months ago: relinquishing almost all of the territory, offering land-swaps for the remaining few percent, going so far as to reportedly sanction a limited influx of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Still, as Mahmoud Abbas confirmed to The Washington Post three weeks ago, the Palestinians said no.

So inadequately has Israel grappled with the question of where its territorial red lines really must run and what other protection a shrunken Israeli reality would require, so debilitating have been the domestic disputes, that we have now reached the dismal low where a former US president's endorsement of our right to maintain land that was privately purchased by Jews before the establishment of the state is received with surprise and pathetic gratitude.

Twenty years ago, even 10, few in Israel would have conceived that the international community would doubt our long-term claim to the Etzion Bloc. Yet today, after four decades in which we failed to reach a unified position on which settlement areas were vital and which were not, the current American president, Barack Obama, has essentially adopted a mirror image of our disinclination to differentiate. In his vision, all settlements must go.

Watching the street protests in Teheran this week, the vicious constraining of democracy there, one can only lament the negligent abuse of our ample democracy here - the self-interested fights and hypocrisies that have left government after government incapable of effectively representing the wider good of our state.

How much partisan vitriol was poured out down the years, and how much consequent damage done to us all, over the "crime" of endorsing the principle of Palestinian statehood, when our united focus should have been on formulating and articulating to a wearied, often uncomprehending watching world our essential needs, the dimensions of the Palestinians' rejectionism and the need for their reform as a vital condition for any accommodation?

And why, now, for that matter, the ongoing superfluous divisions? The Israeli electorate, in its utterly confused vote four months ago, gave no single party real political weight. It made a wide coalition a political necessity. It provided party leaders with the perfect framework within which to seek consensus. To date, they have failed us again.

BUT TODAY, now that Netanyahu has put aside the debating society arguments of recent weeks about "we won't say 'two states' because they won't say 'Jewish state'" and taken the pro-Palestinian-state-in-principle plunge, what's required is domestic cooperation and partnership. We need to galvanize the best minds, representing the widest proportion of the political mainstream, to ensure that the Israeli government's goals are carefully and competently formulated, and then are recognized as truly representing Israel - the better to try and realize them.

Netanyahu has internalized and given public expression to the fact that if we want to salvage Israel as at once an overwhelmingly Jewish and a firmly democratic state, we have to seek a path to separation from the Palestinians - for our sakes as much as, if not more than, for theirs. That separation, he has sensibly made plain, can only be achieved under terms that do not threaten our physical safety. Bloodied and battered by the terrorists who have thrived in Palestinian areas - and only too aware that endemic Arab hostility to Israel predated the 1967 war and the capture of the additional territory that the Arab world now claims lies at the root of our conflict - Israel dare take no chances with its security.

There was much for all Israelis to applaud in Netanyahu's speech - not least his emphatic response to Obama's false depiction of Israeli-Jewish sovereign legitimacy stemming from the Holocaust rather than from our historical connection to this land.

But there are also reasons for Israelis, from their differing perspectives, to feel misgivings about the new Netanyahu vision - skepticism that stems from those decades of bitter experience with Palestinian intransigence, concerns about the viability of mechanisms to ensure demilitarization, reservations about the prime minister's capacity to hold to his positions when pressed from all sides, questions as to whether this was expedient rhetoric or heartfelt strategy.

Those on the Right who criticize Netanyahu because they believe he capitulated to American pressure and sold out the Likud; those who would prefer to sacrifice our democracy rather than relinquish territory; those who believe that Israel should expand sovereignty across Judea and Samaria and seek to restrict the Palestinians to some form of autonomy - all have good reason to feel abandoned by their presumed champion, though few will have been surprised.

Those on the Right who enthusiastically applaud him are in murkier waters. Critics to the left can ask why it is that Palestinian statehood, a veritably treasonable conception when expressed by some of his predecessors, is now acceptable, uniquely, when endorsed by Netanyahu?

There are numerous ways to justify the shift - among them that Netanyahu is trying to make the best of an immensely complex situation, some of whose complexity is a direct consequence of poor policies and mishandled negotiations in years past. Then there is the fact that Netanyahu's attitude to the settlement enterprise remains markedly more supportive and empathetic than that of others who have filled his post. And, of course, there is the insistence on recognition of Jewish Israel and the military constraints he has made central conditions of Palestinian statehood - though quite how demilitarization could effectively be enforced is wide open to question.

Less credible are the claims by those who defend Netanyahu by arguing that there was less to his speech than met the eye - that the prime minister doesn't really mean what he says, that he was simply getting the Americans off his back, and that the Palestinians can be relied upon to doom any substantive negotiations anyway. This echoes the initial, rather desperate response of some of Ariel Sharon's supporters who tried to reconcile their support for Greater Israel with his abandonment of it.

Certainly, Netanyahu can be expected to take a more cautious negotiating stance than certain former prime ministers. Certainly, too, one of Netanyahu's imperatives was indeed to reduce tensions with the Obama White House in order to better work together against Iran's nuclear program. And certainly, the hysterical Palestinian dismissal of Netanyahu's new policies confirms the ongoing rejection by even the "moderate" Palestinian Authority of our most basic legitimacy here.

But the prime minister's Sunday speech was not a grudging, indeed deceptive, acceptance of Palestinian independence. It was not, if measured by his own words, the enunciation of a route he has absolutely no intention of following. It was, rather, an avowed delineation of a vision - a road, as he put it, to "reconciliation with our neighbors."

And even if Netanyahu believes it will lead nowhere, it is a road that the energized Obama can be relied upon to do his utmost to strong-arm both sides into traveling.

We might reasonably ask ourselves why we couldn't have unified around this goal - a cautious, consensual approach to a model for Palestinian statehood that does not threaten Israel - years earlier?

Better, though, to now unite behind a prime minister who is speaking to the mainstream, work together to forge consensual positions and revitalize the arduous process of coopting the international community to our legitimate cause. That way, the Palestinians are exposed in their abiding, resolute, benighted intransigence. Or, just possibly, slowly, insistently, they are pressured, in a partnership belatedly unifying Israel and the international community, to come to terms with the fact of our existence here and to gradually accept the terms of viable reconciliation, now espoused by Netanyahu, that would make all of our lives better and safer.

"These two realities - our connection to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population living within it - have created deep divisions in Israeli society," the prime minister said on Sunday. "But the truth is that we have much more that unites us than divides us. I have come tonight to give expression to that unity, and to the principles of peace and security on which there is broad agreement within Israeli society."

However belated, and however complex the road ahead, a heartfelt "Amen" to that.

Haggling over the Price

Jun. 18, 2009
Sarah Honig , THE JERUSALEM POST

As anecdote has it, George Bernard Shaw once asked an attractive socialite whether she'd sleep with him for a million pounds. After she answered in the affirmative, he offered her a mere 10 shillings. Outraged, she railed: "What do you take me for? A prostitute?" Shaw reputedly replied: "We've already determined that. We're just haggling over the price."

Now substitute Barack Obama for Shaw and our own Binyamin Netanyahu for Shaw's peeved female interlocutor. We're not saying that Bibi is a prostitute, not even in the loosest polemic sense. Indeed, given our current political setting, he's perhaps the best prime minister we can hope for. He's the lesser of available evils. What we're saying is that he had willy-nilly cast himself in the prostitute's role when agreeing to a Palestinian state, albeit demilitarized (demilitarization being eminently reversible). Netanyahu established the principle that his principles are for sale and all that's left is to fix the conditions.

It's not that Netanyahu blithely sold out his ideological virtue. He's under seemingly inexorable pressure to demonstrate "moderation." However, moderation isn't all it's cracked up to be and in itself is hardly what we should automatically aspire to. It may work in certain circumstances but bomb in others. Moderation, moreover, isn't necessarily synonymous with pragmatism.

And pragmatism isn't always wise and mustn't be confused with levelheadedness. History is replete with examples of calamitous and cowardly choices paraded as pragmatic. All too often the road to disaster is paved with pragmatic considerations. Conversely, sometimes bold and nonconformist responses prove in retrospect to have been actually pragmatic. On the eve of World War II it was hawkish Winston Churchill who was realistic and popular dove Neville Chamberlain who was the dupe.

Pragmatism is akin to focusing on specific potholes in our national path rather than sometimes lifting our eyes from the ground to scan the horizon, survey the sweep of the land and behold the full track ahead. Pragmatism is getting bogged down in details and neglecting the whole. It's quibbling about issues and forgetting the basics.

THAT'S WHAT Ariel Sharon did in 2003, when he wouldn't reject the road map to supposed peace. Instead he composed 14 reservations - like Netanyahu's reservations vis-à-vis a Palestinian state. But who today remembers Sharon's footnotes? America disdainfully ignored his 14 objections. These mattered temporarily only in our internal self-deceptive discourse. Same goes for Netanyahu's Palestinian state footnotes.

The blood-soaked map continues to obligate us despite Sharon's provisos. Similarly, the Palestinian state will continue to plague us after the limitations Netanyahu set for it are discarded, as they surely will be. Sharon's stipulations are down history's unforgiving all-devouring sinkhole. It would have been wiser to tear up the disastrous map (post factum deemed holy gospel) than to accept it with conditions (post factum deemed illegitimate).

Some of us benighted sorts said so in real time but were maligned as rabid fiery-eyed nutcases, foaming at the mouth for good measure. We were roundly derided for recalling how in 1967 nobody in the White House could find the 1957 document spelling out US assurances that Egypt wouldn't blockade the Tiran Straits again. American infidelity made the Six Day War unavoidable. Washington could have preempted that showdown and its derivative so-called "occupation."

ANYONE WHO ever counted on clever formulations and American promises wasn't a pragmatist but a fool. Remember US undertakings not to deal with the PLO? Count on Obama to just as cynically overlook more recent declarations against powwowing with Hamas. Obama, we must bear in mind, is less sympathetic to our cause than even his least savory predecessors. Hence his feigned ignorance of George W. Bush's understandings with Sharon regarding settlement blocks. Assurances Obama might offer Netanyahu on a Palestinian state would be just as fleeting.

Obama after all has just redefined terrorism as pesky "extremism." The corollary is that Israel's emphasis on its enemies' terrorist proclivities instead of on Jewish rights is wasted breath. It only serves to magnify the inimical trendy perception that we're in the wrong and that those who would annihilate us are desperate insurgents against injustice.

Instead of being reduced to prostitute status, we're better off going back to basics, proclaiming loud and clear that the Arabs only conjured Palestinian nationality in order to stake rival claims to ours; that a Palestinian state never existed (i.e. we certainly didn't conquer and subjugate it); that we were attacked; that we didn't drive out hapless refugees (who themselves started the war); that they caused their own downfall by plotting genocide and ethnic cleansing against us; that our only sin is surviving. We might as well remind the world of the Nazi legacy of pan-Arab/Palestinian hero Haj Amin el-Husseini.

Arabs launched a war against the two-state solution and brazenly now continue that very war under the two-state banner. If the world misrepresents this bloody dispute as being about a Palestinian state, we must protest that it's really about denying the right of a Jewish state to exist. Otherwise, to please our critics, we concede the Palestinian argument.

Israel's latest misguided position - about natural growth in the settlements - is equally damaging. It's counterproductive to stutter about the right of Jews to reside everywhere in the 22 percent of Eretz Yisrael west of the Jordan. The remaining 78% should satisfy the aspirations of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians (resorting to an epithet invented by the Romans to humiliate defeated Judea). That 78% has been renamed Jordan, primarily to further Arab irredentist designs to wrest from Jews the little left them, slice by slice.

No Obama can imperiously deny us our rights in our homeland - just as Titus Vespasianus couldn't. When we humbly implore to be permitted to make room in select settlements for baby Jews, we seem to confirm that our very presence is offensive, that we're interlopers, that Jews may not move to the Jerusalem suburb of Ma'aleh Adumim. We only beg that supplicant parents already in Ma'aleh Adumim please be allowed to keep their babies there and that Obama let them build nurseries for said newborns, even if Obama doesn't welcome their birth.

We gain as much respect via ignominious compromises as did the woman whose asking price George Bernard Shaw attempted to lower. As soon as we turn our existential struggle into something that resembles negotiations about the prostitute's remuneration, we forfeit everything because promises made to a prostitute are never kept. No one owes her a thing.

The assumption is that everything she does is illicit, that at most she can expect a little condescending pity mixed with disgust, that she resides outside normative society and cannot expect what others perceive as their natural due. Most of all she can be endlessly pushed around and her prices pushed down.

Just like Israel.

Six Percent See US Administration as Pro-Israel

Jun. 19, 2009
Gil Hoffman , THE JERUSALEM POST

Only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of American President Barack Obama's administration pro-Israel, according to a newJerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll.

The poll, which has a margin of error of 4.5%, was conducted among a representative sample of 500 Israeli Jewish adults this week, following Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech in which he expressed his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state.

Another 50% of those sampled consider the policies of Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, and 36% said the policies were neutral. The remaining 8% did not express an opinion.

The numbers were a stark contrast to the last poll published May 17, on the eve of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama at the White House. In that poll, 31% labeled the Obama administration pro-Israel, 14% considered it pro-Palestinian and 40% said it was neutral. The other 15% declined to give an opinion.

Israelis' views of Obama's predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, are nearly the opposite. According to last month's poll, 88% of Israelis considered his administration pro-Israel, 7% said Bush was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.

One possible explanation for the Obama administration's plummeting approval rating among Israelis is its opposition to building for natural growth in settlement blocs and its refusal to differentiate its policies regarding construction in unauthorized outposts, settlement blocs close to the Green Line and suburbs of Jerusalem.

The poll found that Israelis, by contrast, emphatically distinguish between outposts, isolated settlements and settlement blocs in the West Bank. Regarding outposts, 57% favor removing them, 38% are against, and 5% did not express an opinion.

When asked about freezing construction in "far-flung, isolated settlements," 52% were in favor, 42% were against and 6% would not say. But when it comes to "large settlement blocs like Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel," just 27% said they were in favor of stopping building, 69% were against and 4% did not express an opinion.

Netanyahu's advisers and aides offered different explanations for Israelis' negative opinion on Obama. One said the media had exaggerated its portrayal of a strained relationship between the administrations in Jerusalem and Washington, and that Israelis overwhelmingly sided with Netanyahu.

Another adviser said polls have consistently shown that Israelis believed the Arabs were at fault for the lack of Middle East peace and they reject perceived attempts by Obama to blame Israel or take an even-handed approach.

The advisers suggested that the positive atmosphere regarding Netanyahu after his speech also had an impact. They said polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of Israelis agreed with Netanyahu's vision and believed he was speaking for a consensus of Israelis in his response to Obama's speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

Netanyahu's external adviser Zalman Shoval, who was speaking for himself, questioned whether the Obama administration could mediate the Middle East conflict due to the numbers and its recent statements and actions.

"Some of the indications we have seen in the last few weeks make it more difficult for Israelis to see the US in its traditional role as an honest broker," said Shoval, a former ambassador to the US, who will head a committee on Israel-American relations that national security adviser Uzi Arad will form soon. "The vast majority of Israelis don't blame the prime minister for a confrontation with the US. They are putting the onus on the Obama administration."

Shoval is in Washington as a guest of local think tanks. He will meet with top American officials in the National Security Council and the State Department - not as an emissary of Netanyahu, though he will report back to the prime minister.

Europe's Last Stand- a speech by Geert Wilders

Below is a speech by Geert Wilders, chairman of "Party for Freedom" in the Netherlands. The speech was sponsored by the Hudson Institute, delivered at the Four Seasons, New York, on September 25 2008 and announced the upcoming "Facing Jihad Conference" in Jerusalem. 

Dear friends, 

Thank you very much for inviting me. Great to be at the Four Seasons. I come from a country that has one season only: a rainy season that starts January 1st and ends December 31st. When we have three sunny days in a row, the government declares a national emergency. So Four Seasons, that's new to me.

It's great to be in New York. When I see the skyscrapers and office buildings, I think of what Ayn Rand said: "The sky over New York and the will of man made visible." Of course, without the Dutch you would have been nowhere, still figuring out how to buy this island from the Indians. But we are glad we did it for you. And, frankly, you did a far better job than we possibly could have done.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the Old World. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This is not only a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself; it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe. In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: who lost Europe? Patriots from around Europe risk their lives every day to prevent precisely this scenario form becoming a reality.

My short lecture consists of 4 parts: first, I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. Thirdly, if you are still here, I will talk a little bit about the movie you just saw. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks: the Eiffel Tower, Trafalgar Square, Rome's ancient buildings and maybe the canals of Amsterdam. They are still there. And they still look very much the same as they did a hundred years ago.

But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world, a world very few visitors see – and one that does not appear in your tourist guidebook. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.

All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighbourhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. Mosques stand on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighbourhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore." Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France, school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can, in many cases, no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England, Sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.

Muslims demand what they call "respect." And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in – to give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept Sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.

Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence – for example, against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim Intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers," because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mention is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries.

Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping Sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.

Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.

Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.

The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim; Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.

The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed, the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a paedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.

Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence, Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means "submission." Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is Sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to Communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims, the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guides every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world," and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

Which brings me to my movie, "Fitna." I am a lawmaker, and not a movie maker. But I felt I had the moral duty to educate about Islam. The duty to make clear that the Quran stands at the heart of what some people call terrorism, but is in reality jihad. I wanted to show that the problems of Islam are at the core of Islam, and do not belong to its fringes.

Now, from the day the plan for my movie was made public, it caused quite a stir, in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. First, there was a political storm, with government leaders across the continent in sheer panic. The Netherlands was put under a heightened terror alert, because of possible attacks or a revolt by our Muslim population. The Dutch branch of the Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir declared that the Netherlands was due for an attack.

Internationally, there was a series of incidents. The Taliban threatened to organize additional attacks against Dutch troops in Afghanistan, and a website linked to Al Qaeda published the message that I ought to be killed, while various muftis in the Middle East stated that I would be responsible for all the bloodshed after the screening of the movie. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Dutch flag was burned on several occasions. Dolls representing me were also burned. The Indonesian President announced that I will never be admitted into Indonesia again, while the UN Secretary General and the European Union issued cowardly statements in the same vein as those made by the Dutch Government. I could go on and on. It was an absolute disgrace, a sell-out.

A plethora of legal troubles also followed, and have not ended yet. Currently the state of Jordan is litigating against me. Only last week there were renewed security agency reports about a heightened terror alert for the Netherlands because of "Fitna."

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel, because, very soon, we will get together in its capital. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: "Islam has bloody borders." Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behaviour, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

It is very difficult to be an optimist in the face of the growing Islamization of Europe. All the tides are against us. On all fronts we are losing. Demographically the momentum is with Islam. Muslim immigration is even a source of pride within ruling liberal parties. Academia, the arts, the media, trade unions, the churches, the business world, the entire political establishment have all converted to the suicidal theory of multiculturalism. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as "right-wing extremists" or "racists." The entire establishment has sided with our enemy. Leftists, liberals and Christian-Democrats are now all in bed with Islam.

This is the most painful thing to see: the betrayal by our elites. At this moment in Europe's history, our elites are supposed to lead us, to stand up for centuries of civilization – to defend our heritage. To honour our eternal Judeo-Christian values that made Europe what it is today. But there are very few signs of hope to be seen at the governmental level. Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown, Berlusconi; in private, they probably know how grave the situation is. But when the little red light goes on, they stare into the camera and tell us that Islam is a religion of peace, and we should all try to get along nicely and sing Kumbaya. They willingly participate in, what President Reagan so aptly called: "the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom."

If there is hope in Europe, it comes from the people, not from the elites. Change can only come from a grass-roots level. It has to come from the citizens themselves. Yet these patriots will have to take on the entire political, legal and media establishment.

Over the past years there have been some small, but encouraging, signs of a rebirth of the original European spirit. Maybe the elites turn their backs on freedom, the public does not. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat to our national identity. I don't think the public opinion in Holland is very different from other European countries.

Patriotic parties that oppose jihad are growing, against all odds. My own party debuted two years ago, with five percent of the vote. Now it stands at ten percent in the polls. The same is true of all similarly-minded parties in Europe. They are gaining a foothold in the political arena, one voter at a time.

Now, for the first time, these patriotic parties will come together and exchange experiences. It may be the start of something big, something that might change the map of Europe for decades to come. It might also be Europe's last chance.

This December a conference will take place in Jerusalem. Thanks to Professor Aryeh Eldad, a member of Knesset, we will be able to watch "Fitna" in the Knesset building and discuss the jihad. We are organizing this event in Israel to emphasize the fact that we are all in the same boat together, and that Israel is part of our common heritage. Those attending will be a select audience. No racist organizations will be allowed. And we will only admit parties that are solidly democratic.

This conference will be the start of an Alliance of European patriots. This Alliance will serve as the backbone for all organizations and political parties that oppose jihad and Islamization. For this Alliance I seek your support.

This endeavor may be crucial to America and to the West. America may hold fast to the dream that, thanks to its location, it is safe from jihad and Sharia. But seven years ago to the day, there was still smoke rising from ground zero, following the attacks that forever shattered that dream. Yet there is a danger even greater than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.

Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom; it was offered to us on a silver platter by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe American cemeteries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.

This is not the first time our civilization is under threat. We have seen dangers before. We have been betrayed by our elites before. They have sided with our enemies before. And yet, then, freedom prevailed.

These are not times in which to take lessons from appeasement, capitulation, giving away, giving up or giving in. These are not times in which to draw lessons from Mr. Chamberlain. These are times calling us to draw lessons from Mr. Churchill and the words he spoke in 1942:

"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."