'Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute'
Funny enough, this phrase, uttered on June 18, 1798 by one Robert Goodloe Harper, a Federalist representative to the U.S. House and Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, was not about Islamist pirates off the Barbary Coast of Africa but against the French who were trying to extort a £50,000 bribe and force the U.S. to make a large loan to the French government for the French to cease attacks on U.S. vessels. (http://tinyurl.com/65wk55e)
According to Islam's War Against The West, the expression gained new popularity by 1800 when the attacks on U.S. vessels was carried out by Islamist terrorists of the era. (http://tinyurl.com/3guufl4)
Nothing new
The "Millions for defense..." phrase came to mind as I was reading an article titled Palestinians' Shoe-Throwing Extortion by Khaled Abu Toameh (http://tinyurl.com/64o9wko).
Both Toameh's article and Islam's War Against The West (ibid.) take note of the fact that in regard to Moslem mentality, nothing has changed - in centuries.
Islam's War Against The West takes Islam's history back to 640 CE, long before the current crop of Islamists took up the banner of jihad.
As Solomon allegedly said, אין שם חדש תחת השמש (there's nothing new under the sun).
Toameh wonders why governments allow their representatives to be abused by beggars.
The current crop of extortionists, the so called "Palestinian Authority" terrorist organizations, is, Toameh opines, telling the U.S. that "If you do not endorse our position and if you cut off financial aid, we will turn against you."
To the shores of Tripoli
Do I hear an echo of Solomon's words?
""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás was right when he said that and he is correct today.
The United States, particularly under recent administrations, seems to think that it can "westernize" the Islamists they way it and its allies "westernized" - less or more - the Japanese.
The difference is, the Japanese after World War 2 were absolutely crushed, and when they did start to recover, they realized they were part of a commercial world that they could extort "within the rules." That is about China's position today; modifying a steel company's slogan by changing one letter to "Steal when you want it."
Some mentalities are hard to change.
The Moslem mentality is one. The German mentality - at least in the "homeland" - is another.
A correspondent wrote the other day regarding the increasing demands of Islamists in France (and the foolishness of that country's political leader) that the Muslims want their own courts, that they want Halal food in public schools or to have their own goveernment-funded schools, that they want their own domestic and criminal courts, and they want to live in their own communities.
I responded that we - Jews - want basically the same things.
The Moslems simply are aping Jewish desires. Even sharia - Islamic law - is based on Torah and rabbinic law, but with the vast difference that Jewish law has progressed from its ancient ways. Even in Israel, where Jews could implement laws of the Torah, stoning, beheadings, garroting, and 39 lashes are only matters of historical interest, not modern jurisprudence. Sharia drags primitive punishment into the 21st century.
My non-Jewish correspondent pointed out that while my presentation of (observant) Judaism is correct, the people who practice it are tolerant of those who do not (Jews and non-Jews alike) and we - Jews - have, less or more, integrated into the societies in which we live. Unlike the Islamists, we are not isolationists, certainly not by choice.
I fail to see any way to identify an "Islamist" from a "moderate Moslem" - are moderates the ones in the street protesting outrageous Islamist behavior? No, but only because there are no moderate Moslems in the street protesting.
The question remains
Why, given the lessons of history - a very long history at that - does the U.S. try to appease the Islamists.
Why does the country's chief executive bow to Saudi royalty? (Oil, of course, and maybe a dose of fear of a country to which the U.S. sends its soldiers to protect.)
Why does the country, despite threats, insist on supporting - financially if not completely politically - a non-entity that has as it's primary goal to wipe an ally - one of a very few trusted allies - off the map and drive its non-Moslem population into the sea ... that means Jews, of course, but also Christians and Buddhists and whomever else Israel has extended sanctuary?
Will the U.S.' leadership ever find the intestinal fortitude to stand up to extortionists and to make the phrase "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" once again the watchword of a proud nation.
