The Hindustan Times earlier this year reported that France is moving to pay for mosque construction—to curb terrorism. The article reads, “Terrorism has made France consider changing one of its fundamental principles of keeping state and religion separate and accept the proposal for the state to fund the building of mosques in the country….Chirac recently welcomed leaders of the new nationally elected Muslim Council to reportedly put the suggestion of state funding.

“Mr. Chirac told them that in the past he regretted there was no organized dialogue between Muslim representatives and French authorities….This move is viewed as a bold scheme to create a French version of Islam so as to prevent the country’s second biggest religion from falling into the sway of foreign powers, notably Saudi Arabia.”

1. Uh, didn’t Bosnia have a ‘European’ version of Islam that wasn’t supposed to fall into Saudi hands? So much for that.

2. Somehow, I don’t think that a lack of mosques is the problem.

3. Bold? Is that the new word for caving?

4. This is the religion that inspires France to reevaluate its sacred anti-religionism? This is the religion that inspires them to bridge the gap between church and state? Or does the rule not apply to “mosque and state”?

Nonetheless, the idea is catching on: CNS News reported that at a meeting of European imams in Vienna last month, the head of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, Beate Winkler, “said E.U. governments should provide time for religious programs on public broadcasters and support mosque construction.”

At the same time, the U.S. and Europe will give in and continue funding the Palestinians despite their electing Hamas in their first-ever free elections. The thinking, as outlined in this Reuters article, is that “Europe and the United States do not want to push the Palestinian Authority to collapse or to seek alternative funding from states such as Iran.” Indeed, if we leave them no choice but to have closer ties to Iran, they might become…violent.

Question: Isn’t it better that Iran fund their destruction of us than we fund their destruction of us? Better Iran’s money than ours, no?

If we’d like a crystal ball into how our efforts will work out, for a precedent we can look to the recent but always and avidly ignored example of the Balkans. We helped the Bosnians and “Kosovars,” and they moved even closer to al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. Bosnia and Kosovo are today more Islamicized and radicalized than ever, and serve as a base of operations for attacks against the West, so far including New York, Madrid, Netanya, and London.

A UK Guardian article that appeared days after the attacks in London read, “Why did the Madrid cell that staged last March’s train bombings continue to plan attacks, even after Spain’s new government had begun withdrawing from Iraq?….al-Qaida has a programme that seeks to end all western presence in those lands it deems Islamic….This is the ideology that defines al-Qaida and which explains why it was in business from 1993 and not just 2001 and after. Tellingly, those who monitor Islamism in Britain say the big surge in growth of extremist groups came not after 9/11 or Iraq but in the mid-1990s - with Bosnia serving as the recruiting sergeant [confirmed by 9/11 Commission testimony]. In the same period Chechnya, Kosovo and Israel-Palestine all came into play.”

The moral of the story: the enemy’s strength and determination grow most not when you work against it, but when you work with or for it. As with the Oslo accords that catapulted the terrorists to the next level of their long-term plan, once they hit a brick wall with the infidels, they reverted back to the usual means, now from a position of greater strength. The same approach was used by Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, who sought advice from an imam before making a deal with Carter and Israel, asking how he could justify and gain the people’s support in making a deal with the infidels. The imam explained that deals can be made with the infidel as a means of buying time, when one is in a position of weakness, until he regains his strength so he can win the next round.

Today, after having leased Muslims the United States Air Force free of charge for their jihad in Kosovo, we are now being “asked” to detach the province from Serbia altogether and give it to them (explicitly not part of the deal)–or else.

As former foreign policy analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee James Jatras said in a recent interview, “The key Albanian position is, ‘Give us what we want, or there will be chaos!’ But there will be a lot more chaos if we do give them what they want.”

That is the lesson that the West apparently has yet to learn.

Jatras again: “Look at all the jihadist movements in the world–Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechenya, Palestine, Kashmir, the Philipines etc.–and ask yourself when was giving in to terrorists and pleasing them effective? Ask the Russians, Israelis or Indians. Giving in to the jihadists in Kosovo would only boost their appetites for something bigger.”

Helping our enemies buys us only more of their contempt. France and everyone else thinking about mosque construction, continued funding, etc. must learn that the enemy doesn’t appreciate it when you do for them (only liberals get a kick out of it); the enemy merely uses it against us.