Speaking of the ability to think... welcome back, MuslimPundit! In his April 17th posting, Adil writes:

As Horowitz points out, Islam has indeed provided a basis for the virulent anti-Semitism that, unfortunately, is now one of the main motivating forces trying to shape the Middle East. Although the roots of the conflict were stooped in political differences, Islam has played no small part in the development of this conflict, and befuddled Arabs now view the current conflict with the religious fervour of the Crusades, albeit with a different set of unbelievers this time around. The question is, why?

Good question.

The remainder of Adil's long but very worthwhile article is devoted to answering that question. I recommend it highly.

Some key excerpts follow, along with my comments:

"...The Arab armies expected to succeed, not simply because of their power in numbers and resources, but because their basic religious view of Jews was that they were up against an inferior, weak and contemptible people, a view that for them had stood the test of religious sanction in the past."

Pride goeth before the fall, as the saying goes. But why pay attention to Aesop, who after all was an unbelieving Greek?

"...Arabs were incredulous, and they desperately tried to somehow rationalise their humiliation."

Ah, that word again. Remember what this really means next time you hear about Arab "humiliation" on TV.

"Clearly, the Muslim conventional "wisdom" of Jews, which had existed for centuries now, was not sufficient to explain these events. The Muslim vision of God’s redemption had been overturned, and shattered by a player who had been previously sidelined as irrelevant and not originally included in the game between competing rival world empires, on account of their alleged feebleness."

MuslimPundit, you've hit the bulls-eye.

Click here to read this exact thinking and rationalization process in action, from none other than Georgetown University Professor Halim Barakat.

A culture that sees nothing new in the world beyond the idols of its doctrine can only lash out in rage when those idols are cracked. For those idols carry their very identity, and the loss of identity leads inexorably to violence. This characteristic is not unique to Islam, and can just as easily be seen on any "progressive" university campus.

Which brings up an interesting point. Until now, conservatives have seen the (one way) sympathy and winking between the university's radical left and Islamist jihadists as ideological in nature: a pinch of Marxism, 2 tablespoons of reflexive anti-colonialism, a quart of victimization politics as a sop to the failure of their doctrines to create anything but brutal slums and pest-holes.

Maybe we were wrong. Maybe the real bond is not ideological, but cultural in nature. Facing their cracked idols, lashing out at the common messenger of their failure, these two movements agree only to borrow what they can from each other in order to wound the common object of their hate. America is surely the most prominent messenger. Israel, with no oil but a per capita purchasing power twice that of Saudi Arabia, is another.

"In an environment where it is impossible to draw on any other source of enlightenment, such historical notions feed the Muslim vision of an inevitable Palestinian redemption along with the unconditional subjugation of Israel. This vision has locked itself into place, and now will not be moved."

...and this is where it becomes truly dangerous to us all. Israel is a nuclear power. There is no way to fulfil this fantasy without provoking a nuclear Armageddon that will leave the entire Mideast a wasteland for generations and kill hundreds of millions of people.

History unfortunately suggests that MuslimPundit is right. Once attitudes like this become so entrenched, in general there are only 3 ways to change them:

1. Catastrophic failure in war
2. A revolution that brings opposing ideas to power
3. Civil or local wars lasting so long and costing so much that all sides eventually modify their belief systems.

Option #3 only works in a pre-nuclear situation. We haven't the time, and we haven't the luxury. If the vision of Israel's subjugation really is too locked to move, it must be broken. If it is not, the deaths of hundreds of millions becomes something close to a long-term certainty.

Professor Halim Barakat of Georgetown wrote on April 4, 2002: "And in all pride, I say that Jenin is the city of the Arab future."

One thinks of ancient Cordoba, and one must weep. Alas, Barakat is probably right. And if not Jenin, Hiroshima.

The problem lies with the nature of the entrenched... public discourse that is so prevalent in the region - with the sole exception of Israel.... In the Arab regions, static public perceptions have lasted for an inordinately long time, and in the absence of any critique... those anti-Israel notions, as well as a whole host of other anti-modern reactions that feed this public perception, gradually gain genuine acceptance through a process of population renewal.

"Population renewal" is a fancy way of saying "teaching the next generation in elementary school to be suicide bombers."

For an concrete example of "entrenched public discourse," remember that "take your daughter to work" picture from the Berlin demonstration? Well, German authorities are unamused and want to talk to the parent involved. Can you imagine the same reaction in any Arab country?

Until you can, the war on terrorism isn't over.

In fact, for the same reason that "collaborators" in Palestine are publicly executed, Arab leaders have every reason to block efforts that try to establish an unconditional dialogue with the Jewish state. Thus, for those who ask Israel to stay put while the incitement of hatred continues to abate and intensify have entirely misread the seriousness of the situation, and the direction in which such animosity is constantly developing.

I agree entirely.

I'll say it again. If the vision of Israeli subjugation is locked, it must be broken. If we don't, we face growing odds of an Armageddon in which millions would die. Arab regimes who demonstrate an interest in feeding this vision create a stark strategic choice, therefore, since allowing them to continue in power will only increase the likelihood of Armageddon.

Hearken back to Ali Safuri's quote in April 16th's "Jihad Revelations," and Iranian leader Rafsanjani's similar words. The fact that they are willing to sacrifice millions of their own people in order to achieve the desired Second Holocaust does not make them less evil than the Nazis.

If anything, it makes them morally worse. I hadn't believed that was possible, but here it stands before us.

Thus, to continue to avoid the implications of fully eliminating Palestinian terrorists is not simply just a case in engaging in an act of silent complicity with those Palestinians endorsing the unparalleled destruction of more innocent lives, both of Jews and Palestinians, but also signifies an acceptance of the exponential increase in the level of incitement that otherwise cannot be removed through any peaceful way. It is self-evident that to be pro-Hamas... and pro-Arafat, or even to act in tacit complicity with such people, is not to be pro-Palestinian at all, but to be in complicity with unconditional evil, immorality and wickedness.

Wish I'd said that. Grateful Adil did.