Obama is Dangerously Naive About Global Jihad


By Robert Spencer

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are
not your enemy.” So said Barack Obama in his first interview as
President, which, in a highly significant symbolic move, he gave to the
Dubai-based Al-Arabiya network.

For the new president, it amounted to little better than a preemptive surrender to jihadist ideology.

emphasized what he perceived as a break with the past in relaying the
instructions he gave to his personal envoy to the Middle East, George
Mitchell: “What I told him is start by listening, because all too often
the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these
issues -- and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved.”

Yet Obama himself has not thus far demonstrated any awareness of -- to
take just one of many available examples -- the fact that one of the
foremost Islamic groups in the world, the Muslim Brotherhood, is
dedicated in its own words to “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that
it is eliminated and God’s religion” -- Islam -- “is made victorious
over all other religions.”

Does Obama think this imperative
was caused by the United States being dictatorial and ignorant? Does he
believe it will be turned aside by some judicious listening by George
Mitchell? Will Obama himself listen to anyone who will tell him about
the deep roots that jihadist aggression and Islamic supremacism have
within Islamic theology, law, and history? Or will he continue to
assume that the conflict between the Islamic world and the West is all
the West’s fault?

Blaming the West looks more likely at this
point, given the moral equivalence he indulged in during the interview,
when of the Israel/Palestinian conflict he declared: “I do believe that
the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they
are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security
for their people. And that instead, it’s time to return to the
negotiating table.”

Both sides need to realize that? And what
exactly is Israel doing that isn’t “going to result in prosperity and
security” for its people? Withdrawing from Gaza? Dismantling
settlements in disputed areas? Or maybe not allowing rockets from Gaza
to be lobbed indiscriminately at Israeli civilians?

Here again
Obama makes the very common assumption that that the top priority for
both sides is security prosperity and security for its people. Has he
considered the possibility that the majority of Palestinians would
prefer to see Israel destroyed -- which continues to be the declared
intention of the jihad terrorist organization Hamas -- than to secure
prosperity and security? Isn’t there an abundance of evidence for that?
There is the election of Hamas itself. And don’t forget the destruction
of the greenhouses in Gaza that Mort Zuckerman and others paid $14
million to give to the Gazans, and their use not as businesses but as
arrival points of weapons smuggling tunnels.

misapprehension here stems once again from his failure to take into
account that the jihadists may have beliefs of their own that lead them
to hate us -- beliefs that are independent of anything the U.S. is
doing or has the power to change. Yet he seemed to demonstrate some
awareness of the unifying belief system and ideology of the jihadists
when he said: “I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in
terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of
what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and
Pakistan. These things are interrelated. And what I’ve said, and I
think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that
if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message
to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a
new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I
think that we can make significant progress.”

These conflict
areas are indeed interrelated, but not in the way Obama thinks. They
are interrelated because of the jihad doctrine. And in repeating a line
from his inaugural  speech about the need to restore “mutual respect,”
Obama again implies that the respect has only been lacking on the
American side. The U.S. has been showering money on Pakistan for years,
and Pakistan has been taking it and then aiding the jihad terrorists it
was supposed to be fighting. Who’s disrespecting whom?

revealed yet another misapprehension in speaking of the jihadists
themselves, when he said that “their ideas are bankrupt. There’s no
actions that they’ve taken that say a child in the Muslim world is
getting a better education because of them, or has better health care
because of them.”

The President seems to be banking everything
on the notion that the ideas that bring one the most material
prosperity are the ideas that everyone in every case will choose.
Unfortunately for him (and us), this isn’t always the case. The
followers of Osama bin Laden and the rest have other goals, other
priorities -- ones that no amount of American largesse will make waver.

apparently much more of that largesse will have to be showered upon the
Islamic world before this home truth begins to dawn upon our supremely
confident new President.



Popular Video