by Hugh Fitzgerald (May 2007)
The peoples of Western Europe and the United States, as members of the oil-consuming nations, have had to pay a very large share, over the past third-of-a-century, of the ten trillion dollars that has been transferred from oil-consumers to the oil (and gas) producers of the Arab and Muslim nations of OPEC, and who are now paying, on top of those amounts, huge sums for security to protect themselves against the acts of their local Muslim populations, including the cost of monitoring such populations, and the cost of police, lawyers, judges, and then of course prisons for all those Muslims who are caught engaged in the kind of activities, from robbery to rape of Infidels -- that are not seen by the Muslim perpetrators as criminal, but rather what the Infidels deserve, what they have coming to them, by presuming to lord it over Muslims, presuming to think that Infidel laws and institutions and social arrangements have any value, and should be protected from Muslim demands.
And then there are, in addition, the vast sums transferred through all the benefits that sometimes absurdly generous welfare states, set up by, and with the money of, Infidels, and which welfare systems are now being milked for everything they can by the burgeoning Muslim populations of France, of Spain, of Great Britain, of Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, and Italy.
And if all those ways of transferring Infidel wealth to the Camp of Islam, both in Dar al-Islam and to those Muslims now settled deep behind what they have been taught to regard as enemy lines were not enough, European governments, and for that matter North American ones, persist in thinking it is they, it is their Infidel taxpayers, who should be transferring still further billions, siphoned off so often in corruption, to Egypt, to Pakistan, to Jordan, and to the local Arabs, renamed post-1967 as the "Palestinians," who are merely the shock troops of the Arab Muslim siege, that is without end but can be managed through the principle of Darura. That is, ensuring that Israel is not only stronger, but perceived as overwhelmingly stronger, so that the principle of necessity or "darura" will permit or even require Arab states not to go in for the kill, through military means, but to merely continue to wage war through economic, diplomatic, and demographic pressure -- which an aroused Israel, with a government and people properly informed and with the rest of the Infidel world alarmed about its own prospects for withstanding the menace of Jihad not quite as cruelly miscomprehending and hostile to Israel than it has been, will be able to handle.
On what possible basis do the "Palestinian" Arab "refugees" now lay claim to Infidel wealth, the disguised Jizyah of the endless Western-supported welfare system that keeps the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank on a permanent dole, costing tens of billions of dollars since 1948, and monopolizing the U.N.’s attention, to the great detriment of real refugees, who did nothing to deserve their status, and who are not given sufficient attention because of the manic, Arab-and-Muslim prompted, attention given those who until 1967 were called “Arab refugees” and then became the soi-disant “Palestinian Refugees.” After all, those Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank did not leave during the 1967 war – that war was over in six days, and there was no possibility nor, as they soon discovered, with the Israelis offering them a rule far less harsh, far more intelligent, than that of either the Egyptians who had ruled Gaza or the Jordanians who had ruled the West Bank. As for the “Arab refugees” who began leaving in late 1947 and continued to do so through the pre-war period and then during the war, because they fully expected to return with the triumph of Arab armies, they moved in some cases just across the river Jordan, or across the Litani, and in the main lived among those just like them, who shared the same language, religion, culture, worldview, and dreams of Muslim Arab conquest. If the governments of those countries deliberately refused to grant citizenship to those so-called Arab "refugees" -- those who for the past forty years, in a deliberate campaign to disguise the Lesser Jihad against Israel as a clash of two "nationalisms” have been called “Palestinians” – should they therefore have the right to lay claim to infidel wealth?
The Two Tiny Peoples Argument, with one people being called not the Jews but the "Israelis" and the other "people" being called the "Palestinians" rather than the Arabs, has had a long run. Notice, however, that in Iraq we all speak about Arabs, and Kurds. And we speak about Darfur, and Arabs and black Africans. And we speak about Morocco, or Algeria, and in those countries, about Arabs and Berbers. Why then, why only in the case of Israel, do we speak not of Arabs but of something called the "Palestinian people"? Are they special in a way that the Arabs of Iraq (as in "Arabs and Kurds") or Arabs of Algeria and Morocco (as in "Arabs and Berbers") or as Arabs in the Sudan (as in "Arabs and black Africans") are not?
Could that way simply be correctly identified as a political campaign, a campaign designed to re-present the war on Israel, the endless siege by hundreds of millions of Muslim Arabs (and supported by hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Arabs, because Islam does not permit a non-Muslim sovereignty on land that was once controlled by Muslims, and while ultimately the whole world must be subjugated to Islam ("Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated"), in the Muslim view those lands that were, for whatever length of time, under Muslim rule -- not only Israel, but also Spain, Sicily, Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria and Rumania, even southern Hungary, much of Russia, and almost all of India -- have a certain priority. But that does not mean if a territory never controlled by Islam -- such as the Netherlands or Great Britain or France (at least above Poitiers) were through demographic conquest to be dominated by, hence ruled by, Muslims, that the world's Muslims would refuse because it had taken place, say, before other areas on the To-Do list above, had not yet succumbed.
A great deal of attention has been given at this website to the two most obvious fissures in the Camp of Islam that can be seen, and exploited, in Iraq. These are the ethnic fissures, between Arab and Kurd, and the sectarian fissures, between Shi'a Arab and Sunni Arab. Both kinds of fissures are not limited to Iraq, and their widening within Iraq would almost certainly have effects -- from our point of view good, from the point of view of Muslims bad -- on other countries where there are clashes between Arabs and non-Arab Muslims, and on those Muslim lands where Sunnis and Shi'a live, and with both sects large enough so that they will fight back rather than simply fearfully endure the dominance of the other side. Shi'a may make up only 10-15% of the world's Muslims, but in Bahrain they are 70-75%; in Saudi Arabia they dominate the Eastern Province, with the oilfields; in Yemen they make up 45%; in Lebanon they are now the largest sect, having outbred the Christians, the Druse, and even the Sunni Muslims; in Pakistan they may be persecuted, but there are tens of millions of Shi'a, and they are capable of fighting back; in Afghanistan, the Hazara, whom the Taliban tried to wipe out, still exist and may now be better prepared, or better supplied with arms, to resist. On the other hand, in Iran there is a Sunni minority, especially in Baluchistan, and if that simmering revolt were to be encouraged by the example of restive Kurds (who would have responded to the existence of an independent Kurdistan) in the north, and Arabs in Khuzistan, and possibly even restive Azeris, who might not wish to remain under the control of their Persian masters in Teheran, then it is possible that the Shi'a will repress the Sunnis, purely as a defensive measure in light of the Sunni-Shi'a clashes next door in Iraq.
But there is a third fissure, within the Camp of Islam, that has not been discussed as much, because it does not present itself in Iraq for the purposes of exploitation. That fissure is the economic divide between the rich Muslim states -- i.e., those with oil -- and the poor ones, that is those without (Tunisia and Turkey, having managed to tame or constrain Islam, have managed to make economic progress, certainly far more than one sees in those countries such as Egypt, or Jordan, or Pakistan, or certainly than the apparently permanent recipient of Infidel manna, the "Palestinians").
The Western countries have fallen into the habit of keeping up payments to these Muslim states and peoples, no matter how obviously stupid or unhelpful to the West those payments may be, because the classic psychological stance of non-Muslims forced to pay the Jizyah under Muslim rule, has come to be exhibited by Western governments, afraid to cut their aid to Muslims for fear of what the Muslim reaction might be. In other words, that Western aid to Muslims has become a kind of "protection money." And if that were not bad enough, the Muslim recipients are not one whit grateful, but demand that aid as of right. Just look at how the "Palestinians" appear to believe that they have a right to Western aid, and that the brief denial of that aid, because of some temporary attempt to demonstrate, however pitifully, that Western states will not give financial aid to a terrorist group, Hamas, that runs the "Palestinian" Authority. The fiction is maintained by these governments that Hamas and Fatah are quite different. In fact, Fatah is for the Slow Jihad and Hamas for the Fast Jihad, and they agree completely on the ultimate goal -- that of erasing Israel as a Jewish, i.e., Infidel state, and differ only on matters of tactics and timing.
Just look at how the Arabs, especially the "Palestinians," describe the suspension of foreign aid from Infidels. They call it an "economic embargo" or a "boycott." They are genuinely indignant. They regard Infidel taxpayers not coming through with more billions, even though many of the previous billions simply disappeared into the private coffers of Arafat, and his "wife," and of course into the pockets of the PLO leaders, who bought themselves villas, and have large bank accounts, in France and elsewhere in the Western world -- the money coming from ordinary Infidel taxpayers who were not consulted on where their money should go.
The “Palestinian” Arabs now complain that the Infidel states of the West, by withholding the aid those Arabs have gotten used to and the receipt of which they regard as theirs by right, have imposed an “economic boycott” or an “embargo.” Their use of such inappropriate terms is revealing. For it is not an "embargo" nor a "boycott" to cease to support the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad against Israel. All Western transfers of wealth to Muslims, other than those of necessity (oil and gas purchases) should cease. And again and again, publicly, Western governments should say that those rich Muslim countries, the ones that have "received ten trillion dollars in oil revenues" (this figure should be on every politician's lips in the Western world, until everyone else knows what the rich Arabs have taken in), should be "sharing their wealth" with "fellow members of the Muslim community." Keep embarrassing them. Force the "Palestinians" and others to go hat in hand to Riyadh, or to the Emirates. Or perhaps not hat in hand -- perhaps a little more threateningly. It doesn't matter.
Then one of two things will happen. Either the rich Arabs and Muslims will give money to the poor ones, or they won't. Either way, resentments will naturally follow. For if they don't give the aid, the poorer Arabs will be enraged and begin to talk about "the Arab wealth" that "must be shared." And that can only make the Saudis and the people in the Emirates and Kuwait and Qatar nervous. And if some money is forthcoming, then it will never be enough, and there will be constant demands for more, and inevitably there will be resentments on the side both of those who give, and those who take. And those resentments will grow -- why should not the Arabs generally, the poor ones will think, have equal shares "in Arab wealth" which is merely manna from Allah.
And from that realization, and those resentments, the economic fissure within the Arab and Muslim world can have a spotlight placed on it by intelligent Infidels, and the trouble it will cause within the Camp of Islam will be, or could be, considerable.
Meanwhile, just stop the Jizyah to the "Palestinians. " If Europeans want to feel guilty about something, they should be more intelligent in their choice of whom to feel guilty toward. In the Middle East, it is not the Arabs and Muslims who should be the recipients of their support of any kind. But there is one tiny country, under permanent assault, with whatever weapons come to hand, by far more powerful, richer, more numerous fanatical enemies, in the Middle East, toward whom the countries of Western Europe have not only a right, but a duty, to feel guilty about --the very country they have been maligning (or allowing others in the media to freely malign and misreport about), and slowly abandoning, for the past forty years. And that tiny country, of course, is Israel.
The Jizyah never died. It lives on. It lives on in the attitudes of both Muslim recipient and Infidel donor of aid. And it can be seen even in the supposedly secular state of Turkey. During the Cold War, many were willing to believe that Turkey was permanently on the road to ever more secularism, ever more Kemalism. The historic Turkish mistrust for, and hostility toward, Russia was misunderstood as stoutly pro-Western attitudes. But Turkey received much, by way of diplomatic, economic, and military support from the United States. And so those who made policy were content, content thinking that all Muslim states were necessarily “bulwarks against Communism” and nothing else needed to be known about Turkey, with its splendid generals (better than the meretricious Pakistan generals whom the Pentagon also favored). Kemalism, its systematic constrains on Islam, and the need to keep pushing the Kemalist effort and not allow for any backsliding, was not understood by Americans who made policy, and not sufficiently appreciated by the secular class of Kemalism’s beneficiaries.
But inside Kemalism, despite its being recognized as constraining Islam, it adoped, but did not do away with, Muslim systems of thought. For the Cult of Muhammad the Cult of Atatruk was substituted. It was his words and sayings that came to dominate Turkish life, not the words and sayings of a seventh-century Arab.
And the old attitudes toward non-Muslims did not disappear. During World War II, the Turkish government under Inonu, Ataturks’ successor, imposed a special tax, the crippling Varlik Vergesi, that was in effect a kind of Jizyah imposed on non-Muslims (and on this, see the conclusions of a study by Faik Okte, who had been put in charge of collecting the tax). And the Jizyah remains. It remains, in hidden or more open form, wherever there are non-Muslim populations that are not treated as equal citizens under the law. And that is true in almost every Muslim country. The most egregious example may be that of the disguised Jizyah in Malaysia that is imposed on the non-Muslim Chinese and Hindus, who are the engine for economic development, and who are required under the “Bumiputra” (“Sons of the Land”) system, to guarantee jobs and even equity in their enterprises to Muslims, for being Muslims. For more on the “Bumiputra” system, google “Jihad Watch” and “Bumiputra.”
And it remains in the behavior of all Muslim states that have received Infidel, and especially American, aid. They take it not gratefully, not in a spirit of thinking they might just possibly owe their generous donors something, even a change in attitude, but grudgingly, resentfully, arrogantly – and are furious if anyone ever suggests the aid be cut. Why that cannot be, they seem to be saying, that would not be right, that would be outrageous. And the same goes for the attitude of the donors, especially the American donors who seem fearful of doing anything that might make the government and people in Egypt (having received more than $60 billion), and Jordan (billions and a Most-Favored-Nation status that has merely allowed Arab textile owners to bring in and exploit non-Arab workers, in conditions that are now an international scandal), and the “Palestinians” who have killed American diplomats (including Ambassador Cleo Moore in Khartoum), and aided others to abduct and kill American intelligence agents (such as William Buckley and William Higgins), or helped – see Emad Mugniyeh – to bomb American Marine barracks in Beirut, or even to kill American government employees arriving in Gaza in order to announce the award of Fulbright scholarships. None of it appears to matter. Nor does anyone in the American government dare suggest that all aid to the “Palestinians” should stop, stop because they are working for the destruction of our loyal ally, an ally that, furthermore, deserves the support of all Infidel nation-states, no matter how its reputation is cruelly blackened, in a drip-by-drip campaign of malevolence and clear antisemitism, Fatah is the Slow Jihad, and Hamas the Fast Jihad; they differ not on ultimate goals, but merely on tactics and on timing. That should be clear, and clear, too, should be the inefficacy of all treaties made by Infidels, including Israel, with Muslims who take as their unalterable model for treaty-making with Infidels that made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A. D. at Hudaibiyya.
End that Jizyah. It buys us nothing. It does psychological damage. It does damge to our energy policy, for the same attitude of obeisance toward the Jizyah recipients has carried over to our attitudes toward other Muslims and Arabs, especially the oil-rich countries, such as Saudi Arabia, which for more than 30 years the American government has assumed it must placate – when no placating at all need take place, in order to buy oil at market prices. The most resolute declared enemy of Saudi Arabia can buy oil on the world market at the exact same price as the most fawning and appeasing of Western nations. The Jizyah mentality needs to end, and the best way to end it, is to end the payment of the disguised Jizyah.
Besides, we want to force the oil-poor Arabs and Muslims to go, when they can no longer get tens of billions from the Americans and Europeans, hat in hand to the rich Arabs and Muslims. Let them invoke Islamic solidarity, and the loyalty owed to fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya. Let them get something. It will never be enough, and they will resent the donors among the oil-rich Arab and Muslim states. And the donors will come to resent them, and possibly deny them their requests, or the full amount of those requests. This situation can only lead to good things for Infidels. First, it may force Saudi Arabia to use up some of its discretionary income that would otherwise go to paying for mosques and madrasas and campaigns by Tablighi Jamaat to spread Islam around the globe. Every dollar that is given for staples in Egypt or Gaza or Jordan is a dollar less to be spent spreading Islam in the Western world. Second, the intra-Arab and intra-Muslim resentments will build, and along with the sectarian and ethnic fissures, the third great fissure in the Camp of Islam is the economic one.
It is there to be exploited, by those who recognize such fissures, and believe they can and should be exploited.
Stop the Jizyah.
A catchy little t-shirt or bumpersticker motto. Three little words that if repeatedly used, will force the introduction into Infidel consciences of the Jizyah itself – the Jizyah as historically imposed, over 1350 years of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands, and the suppression of those non-Muslims, the forcing them to accept, to avoid death or immediate forced conversion to Islam, the permanent status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity that was known as that of the “dhimmi.” The most important of the legal and economic disabilities placed on all non-Muslims, the one easiest to grasp, was that of the Jizyah.
That word is ready for its closeup.
Stop the Jizyah. In repeating that phrase, you will have smuggled it right on to the world stage, into the world’s consciousness, the consciousness of its Infidels. And done more to bring the "Jizyah" forward, but also raised, by implication, other disabilities imposed on non-Muslims under Muslim rule, and the largest question of all: how Islam divides the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel.
So keep saying it: Stop the Jizyah.
To comment on this article, please click here.
If you have enjoyed this article and want to read more by Hugh Fitzgerald, click here.
Hugh Fitzgerald contributes regularly to The Iconoclast, our Community Blog. Click here to see all his contributions, on which comments are welcome.