El Mundo (Translation T&P):
His many fans consider him almost like a prophet for having predicted 9/11and his resounding discourse on the subject led many of his lectures on the subject of "Islam, terrorism and the West." But he has many enemies too: they call him "Islamophobic.
The American analyst and director of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, is more than that. His talks are followed by hundreds of people in the auditorium and thousands of others over the Internet. You can praise or criticizehim but what it's certain is that he speaks without fear. A feature alien to many leaders of the XXI century.
"The key is not what the Islamists want to do but to be aware about what they want to do in the West. I am satisfied that there is more and more people who understand what is Islam and Jihad. You can not defeat the enemy without first defining him. If you are afraid even to the extent of being fearful of defining him, how can you stop it?" asks Pipes in Herzliya, north of Tel Aviv, after participating in a Forum on terrorism.
Although some call him a neocon, he has also attacked the foreign policy of former President George W. Bush. Of course his opinion on Barack Obama is worse. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero? The U.S. national recognizes that he has no in-depth knowledge of Spanish reality but believes, to sum it up, that "the Islamists are happy with the Spanish president".
Response. There are fears about offending Islamists and about making them angry. Just see what has happened in my country with the Korans. I think that burning a book is totally incorrect and not very smart but in the U.S. is a legal act. However, there comes Obama and says, 'You can not burn this book because I have fear of the consequences". It works by strengthening the Sharia (Islamic Law) to say, 'You shall not burn because it is against Sharia".
Q. Are you calling Obama a coward?
R. Obama is very frightened. My philosophy is that 'we are who we are and you should respect us". Obama's philosophy is that 'we who we respect and understand. "
Q. At the conference, you have devoted much time to explain the roots of (Islamists') acts of terror ...
R. When the Muslims engage in violence, in the West we prefer to talk about economic reasons, that the perpetrator was insane, he had social problems, his marriage was wrong, etc. But there is clearly a factor in the Jihad. Western leaders do not want to talk about this issue because they do not want to offend Muslims and convert them into jihadists. We must call a spade a spade, that is, 'Islamic terrorism'. But we must distinguish between Islam and Islamism, which is an extremist movement that wishes to establish a law for the whole society.
Q. What differences do you see between Obama and Bush?
R. There are no major differences in particular on issues such as Islam, Iraq, terrorism, Iran, Turkey and Israel. In this case, the difference may be that Obama is focused on Jerusalem and the West Bank in addition to trying to enlist the support of Arab countries. Bush did not try.
Q. Is there a future for renewed dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians?
R. It's a joke because nobody wants it. Only Obama. The Israelis do not believe that out an agreement (peace can be achieved). Palestinians, on the other hand, neither believe in it nor desire it. Who is Abu Mazen? He controls a territory the size of this room. Hamas clearly does not want peace. It's an old movie. The definition of a fool is someone who does things wrong over and over again. If it didn't work once or twice, why should we try the third?
Q. Many blame Bush for increasing instability in the region, while Al Qaeda continues to be nourished by extremists ...
R. Attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were the right decision. What was wrong was trying to fix the chaos in those countries. We had to go in, topple Saddam and the Taliban and retire. The error was not to go but to stay.
Q. What do you think about the construction of the Mosque near Ground Zero in New York?
R. I do not care about that much but ultimately I am against. It is not a priority but rather it's something symbolic. The West continues to focus on symbols such as Islamic dress in schools in France, the minarets in Switzerland or the cartoons in Denmark. The real issue is whether we accept Islamic law, polygamy, the supremacy of Islam, that we are forbidden to express what we think for fear of reprisals.
Q. You also speak of some European Left alliance with Islamist groups ...
R. The basis of this alliance is that they do not like traditional Western civilization. They share almost nothing but have a common enemy. At first sight it can be symbolized in Israel or the United States of Bush but the enemy is much deeper: the culture and life in the West.
Q. In Europe, immigration is an issue of growing controversy ...
R. Your continent is facing a serious problem. You have three options. First, everyone freely assumes that all the people are ruled by the same law, something that I do not see close unfortunately. The second option is called Eurabia, that is, more Islamic laws, a Muslim Europe with Londonstan, Al Andalus ... The last option is to say 'enough', we do not want Sharia to dominate our societies.
Q. "In this last option, you can be call xenophobic... (¿!)
R. I only say that they should not be allowed to make ourselves live under Islamic law.
R. Zapatero is taking steps approved by the Islamists and in the long-term that could lead to the achievement of their long-term dream of Al Andalus. I'm not saying that it will soon happen, of course, but it is a very vivid dream for them. In one of his first speeches after 9/11, Bin Laden referred to Al Andalus and Hamas has textbooks explaining that their dream is to return to Al Andalus.