Reading Giraldi’s last paragraph was like listening to the leftist anti-war protesters. Giraldi - if he’s not an actual liberal whose article is included in the magazine - seems fundamentally incapable of comprehending the nature of the enemy. The unstated premise of his article is essentially liberal: Mohammedans will act reasonably and morph into liberal democrats if we would just let them have their way in Israel and the Middle East. The West keeps tryinig this strategy over and over, somehow thinking the result will be different each time and the result is the (surprise!) always the same - failure.

And, continuing Carl’s point, if the paleocons and Buchananites adopt this liberal appeasement strategy with regard to Muhammadans abroad, where will it stop? Will the antiwar right be able to turn around suddenly and say, “We’ve eagerly appeased our civilization’s mortal enemies on THAT issue, but we’ll stand firmly against them on THIS issue”? It’s not likely to happen. That’s why I said to Buchanan in my Open Letter to him at Front Page, do you really think that if you sell Israel down the river to the Muslims, that that will STRENGTHEN the moral fiber of the West in its struggle for survival?

Yes, I concur generally with Mr. Giraldi. I hope the readers will favor an analogy in a sort of “woodsmans” vein:

Suppose there is a brown bear sleeping in the woods thirty-six miles from your residence. Do you have an “enemy”? Probably not.

Suppose there is a brown bear sleeping in the woods thirty-six miles from your residence and you make a decided effort to seek him out and repeatedly kick him in the face. Do you have an “enemy”? Almost certainly.

Roger’s argument and illustration seem plausible at first. One wishes that the world were like that, and that our problem were as simple as our not going out of our way to provoke the bear. There are of course all kinds of ways that we could reduce irritating contacts with the Mohammedan world, including less or no immigration of Muslims, including less involvement in the Mideast. But would it have been possible to reduce the contacts to the point where the bear would not have been angry at us? After all, it’s not just America they attack, it’s any country in the world. All along the borderline between Islam and non-Islam there is continual Muslim agitation and violence. As Muslims feel their numbers and power swell, their ambition for conquest—which has been on hold for the last three hundred years—returns. Islam has been about world conquest since its beginnings. To say that we must lock ourselves up in our own country, that we must avoid foreign relations with other countries, avoid having embassies in other countries, avoid business investment in other countries, even avoid travel to other countries (because all these things bring us into contact with Islam and therefore both annoy the Mohammedans and provide them with targets), is not reasonable and would not end the fundamental threat of Islam to us and the rest of the world.

The antiwar right is simplistic in its thinking, just like liberals. Just as liberals believe that all problems of inequality could be ended if we just stopped discriminating against people, the antiwar right believes that all problems of Islam would be solved if we just isolated ourselves. In the highly interconnected world we live in, with all kinds of international relationships, business activities, and so on (I’m not speaking of globalist organizations which I’m against, but of the ordinary interactions of people and countries), isolation is not a real possibility, and would not make the Islamic threat go away. Isolation—as least as it’s been used so far by the antiwar right—is a formula for the avoidance of thought, not a policy.

The United States needn’t “isolate” itself from anyone. The United States would do well to cease forcing “democracy” on those that would not (or cannot) have it.

I have never gotten an answer to this question, from either camp within the blame-America-for-jihadism faction (i.e. the camp that says it is all about our involvement with Israel and the rest of the Middle East, and the camp that says it is all about our modernist attributes such as wealth, capitalism, high consumption, obnoxious consumer culture that we export to the world, etc.) Still, I will ask the question again:

How do we explain the Mohammedan violence against non-Mohammedans in the Sudan, Nigeria, and India, just to name three examples? None of the non-Mohammedans in these places are conspicuous supporters of Israel, and none are particularly affluent, consumerist, modernist, etc.

The bigger point is that, regardless of location or environment, Mohammedans cannot get along with anyone else. This does not lead me to think that leaving the Middle East alone is some sort of panacea for the USA.

Roger’s reply illustrates the simplistic thinking on the antiwar right that I was talking about. The antiwar right is against any American policy of spreading democracy to other countries. Fine, I generally agree. However, the antiwar right doesn’t stop with that reasonable position, they make an _ideology_ of it. And so, in the fashion of ideologues, they assume (1) that any problems that occur to us are caused by our spreading of democracy, and (2), if we stopped spreading democracy, all the problems would cease. This is not thinking. This is looking at the world through an a priori filter which means the refusal to think.

Similarly, the Europeans have an ideological assumption about America, that America is the “hyperpower” and that this is the dominant, determining fact in the world. Therefore, whatever America does, the Europeans see it as another manifestion of the hyperpower. If, for example, America supports Israel against mass murdering savages, well, that is just another expression of the hyperpower. So the actual situation that Israel faces, the actual behavior of the Muslims, the actual facts in the real world, don’t have to be considered. The Europeans just fit everything that happens into their pre-conceived notion of the hyperpower, and they blithely ignore everything else. In the same way, the antiwar right fits everything into its pre-conceived notion of “neocon democracy-spreading imperialism,” and they ignore everything else.

Psalm 17, verse 10 says: “They are enclosed in their own fat.” That is a description of a perennial fact of human nature, when people are so filled with themselves and their satisfying pre-conceptions that they don’t take in the truth of the world around them. Ideology systematizes and hardens this natural human tendency.

To risk simple-minded nonsensicalities I hope the readers will favor another analogy.

Suppose there are two Indian tribes. One tribe, the Reds, are settled in Runamok Valley and have been so for centuries. Another tribe, the Bluefeathers, are shiftless and looking for a place to call “home”. In time the Bluefeathers decide to settle in the center of the Reds camp. To do so will involve bloodshed and displacement of a considerable portion of the Reds. This is eventually accomplished. The Bluefeathers resist this “occupation” and struggle to dislodge the Reds. The Reds push back.

So it is with Israel. Isreal chose a bad spot. Israel is inside a “hostile” camp. It is evident that the experiment of Israel is failing. Perhaps Israel should pick a new spot. I have heard that Madagascar is nice.

“I have heard that Madagascar is nice.”

When Roger made his first appearance at VFR a couple of days ago he said: “I admit that I am no fan of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but again, I am no fan of Palestinian terrorism against the state of Israel. They are both to blame.”

When I saw that comment, I suspected that Roger was an anti-Israelite, because only an anti-Israelite could make a moral equivalence between the Israelis and the most murderous savages the world has ever seen. But I held back saying it. But now Roger has confirmed my suspicions. It happens every time.

http://WWW.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001851.html

Mr. Auser errs. I am not saying: “I do not wish that Israel should exist”. What I am saying is that: “It is foolish to think that Israel will ever be able to peacefully exist in the Middle East”. Aside from generations of bloodshed and discord, what is to be done? Should they move?

Obviously, Israel is taking the most reasonable step short of deportation of Palestinians: Building a fence. I pray that this will drastically reduce terrorist attacks. If not, they should deport the Palestinians. With the combined GDP of all Arab nations being less than Spain’s, despite all their oil wealth, the Arab countries will never be able to conquer Israel, at least not in the foreseeable future. I believe that the Arab nations have demonstrated since 1973 that they realize this.

There will be a lot of bitching and moaning about the fence, and more about deportation if it comes to that, but I hardly see that generations of bloodshed will follow.

Nor is deportation less reasonable than asking Israel to “move”. The Arabs/Mohammedans are only in that land by military conquest; they were preceded by Jews, who have an older claim to the land; and they have places to go (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.) and the Israelis do not.

As regards the fence, Mr. Coleman will care to note that world opinion is very much against him. He may be aware that the UN voted on a resolution yesterday in which the fence was condemned 144 to 4. Now either 144 nations are wrong, or 4 are. I think the four dissenters were Israel, the United States, the lesser Newguineas and an even smaller country that has not decided on a name yet. Is this significant to anyone? Or are all 144 nations simply deluded?

I am continually amazed how anti-war conservatives like Roger and Paul Craig Roberts have suddenly embraced the UN, a globalist organiztion devoted to eradicating traditional western civilization and the advancement of the leftist agenda. The short answer to Roger’s question is that 144 countries are wrong. The vast majority of those countries (Mexico and Singapore being two examples) are quite strict about securing their own borders, yet they seek to deny this basic right to Israel. At what point did the UN gain any moral legitimacy?

I recall that Stalin set up a Jewish “homeland” in Eastern Siberia late in his reign of terror. Perhaps Roger and his UN allies would have the Israelis move there.

Roger wrote,

“So it is with Israel. Israel chose a bad spot. Israel is inside a ‘hostile’ camp. It is evident that the experiment of Israel is failing. Perhaps Israel should pick a new spot. I have heard that Madagascar is nice.”

Problem is, Israel didn’t choose that spot. Someone else did … someone who goes by the name of God. Roger may have heard of him?

What Mr. Coleman wrote is exactly right, but incomplete:

“The Arabs/Mohammedans are only in that land by military conquest; they were preceded by Jews, who have an older claim to the land; and they have places to go (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc.) and the Israelis do not.”

What Mr. Coleman didn’t mention (or he sort of did, indirectly) was that that land is Israel — no place else is Israel. Madagascar certainly isn’t. If any Jews (or any other groups) want to settle in Madagascar, go right ahead, if you think you can pull it off. But it won’t be Israel.

The other thing he didn’t mention is that Israel is part of the West. This means that if all other things were only equal — if historically, religiously, morally, etc., it was a complete wash between Jews and Palestinians — we in the West should still side with Israel. But all other things aren’t equal.

So, there’s no question about which side we should support.

Maybe the U.S. should seize Madagascar as a stratgic military base for containment of Islam.

Mr. Auster bills Palestinians as “the most murderous savages the world has ever seen?” I am not sure I detect any bias here.

No bias at all. It’s a fair description. Never has there been an entire people turned over to the ecstatic celebration of the suicide of their own youth accomplished by walking into restaurants and hotels and onto buses and blowing crowds of unsuspecting innocent people to smithereens. Never. This makes the thugees of India seem like a refined group by comparison. And we’re not talking about some weird cult here like the thugees, but an ENTIRE PEOPLE—an entire people, moreover, that is being supported and subsidized by much of the civilized world.

It is the failure or refusal of most of the world to see these horrible facts that shows bias, not my recognition of these facts.

By the way, I’m just waiting for “Lord Fluff” to reveal himself as the spiritual brother of Lord Haw-Haw that I suspect he is.

A fair description indeed! Here is a presentation on “How ‘Palestine’ Educates its Children” I finally archived. It’s in 7 slides, so as not to have to download it all at once. This is not for the faint of heart:

http://www.jtl.org/Israel/palestinian/education/slide1.html

United Nations 2003 Arab Human Development Report States:

”..Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a severe impediment for human development.” Also, “..In 2002, Israel’s government, under the guise of the international war on terrorism, attacked almost all of the Palestinian territories, destroyed farms and homes, disrupted the Palestinian Authority and used unarmed civilians for human shields, and committed, most markedly in Jenin and Nablus, atrocities and what a highly reputed NGO, Human Rights Watch, called war crimes.”

I don’t suppose the “United Nations 2003 Arab Human Development Report” was prepared by a subgroup of UN member nations that was disproportionately Arab, was it, Lord Fluff?

Do you recall that when the UN investigated the “atrocities” at Jenin it found there was no massacre, no genocide, etc., etc., as had been alleged —- and this from an historically anti-Israel organization?

Of course, they did not assign an Arab committee to investigate Jenin.

Did the Arab Human Development Report speculate as to why Egypt, which is not being ravaged by Israel or anyone else, and which receives $2 billion in aid each year from the USA, has one-fifth the per-capita GDP of South Korea, when the two countries had virtually identical standards of living in the late 1950s ? Perhaps they can figure out a way to blame that on Israel, or the USA, or maybe the Mongol invasion of the 13th century (which never reached Egypt), or the fact that Jews control the whole world?

The Arab and Muslim countries of the world are a total basket case; it is at least 99% their own failures that account for it, and I am really sick of hearing their excuses. Quite obviously, their religion is inferior and holds them back, and they cannot handle the truth so they find scapegoats. Who cares what they say, individually or through UN puppet committees?

Mr. Coleman could be on to something. Most people in America should know ad nauseum about how scapegoating makes monsters of people. Arabs are a “small people, silly and cruel,” according to Lawrence of Arabia. (The quote is way off but close enough.) Regardless of whether or not this is true, the Arab world is backward compared to the West, and the Arabs cannot help but notice. Rather than deal with the truth, Arabs perform the human trick of picking an evil object to deal with instead of dealing with the evil within. There are probably many Arabs that recognize this and that it is no one’s fault but their own. But such Arabs are drummed into silence just as enlightened Blacks, blue collar workers, and intellectuals are drummed into silence in America for saying the same thing about Black culture, blue collar culture, and the intelligentsia.

“Lord Fluff,” who seems to resemble Lord Haw-Haw more and more with each comment, repeats the already exploded lie of the “Jenin massacre” almost two years after the fact. How could anyone forget the global hysteria generated about the “Jenin massacre,” and the way the whole thing turned out to be a big lie? Has Lord Fluff just became interested in Mideast issues in the last month or two perhaps, and never heard of it? In any case, I advise him that we have better things to do at this website than spend our time responding to this kind of ignorant trash.

Mr. Fluff, you simply must see the movie with the brilliant actors Ed Norton and Elliot Gould. Knowing the hideous subject, I avoided it until recently. Sorry I can’t name it, but it concerns a neo-Nazi that is sent to prison for criminal behavior. In prison he works closely with a black inmate, who unforgettably satirizes neo-Nazis and, impliedly, all hatred. The black inmate erects a KKK hat and says, approximately, “Yea I hate niggers. I hate niggers all the day and all the night. That’s what I do. Hate, hate, hate. Yea I hate niggers….” You will be relieved to find it is a humorous but powerful scene.

Mr. Coleman has stated an important truth regarding the sheer backwardness of the Arab/Muslim world. Their scapegoating is the motivation behind the terrorism of al-Qaeda and others. But we hence have the paradox of a civilization in its death throes being our deadly enemy. The Muslims have the Koran dragging them under; the West has liberalism. Of course I am all for helping Islamic civilization reach their longed -for state of honorable defeat, but it will be interesting to see which civilization first succumbs: theirs or ours.

“… it will be interesting to see which civilization first succumbs: theirs or ours.”

Interesting. On one hand, as I’ve said before, Islam and the West are perfectly complementary in that Islam wants to conquer the world and the West wants to include and surrender to the Other. Which suggests Mohammedan victory. But, as Gracian points out, there is another and different complementarity between the two civilizations: the Mohammedanns want to die a martyr’s death and we Westerners want to live. Which suggests Western victory.

Maybe someone can point the way toward reconciling these two statements.