Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
My Links
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Watts Up With That?
Internet Haganah
Jihad Watch
Ponder the Maunder
The Dissident Frogman
Barking-Moonbat EWS
Just Barking Mad!
The Malaria Clock
Project Valour-IT
Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...
10 Myths of Islam
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| And Then They Came After Us (We’re at war. How about acting like it?) |
| 07.22.05 (7:19 am) [edit] |
|
First the terrorists of the Middle East went after the Israelis. From 1967 we witnessed 40 years of bombers, child murdering, airline hijacking, suicide murdering, and gratuitous shooting. We in the West usually cried crocodile tears, and then came up with all sorts of reasons to allow such Middle Eastern killers a pass. Yasser Arafat, replete with holster and rants at the U.N., had become a “moderate” and was thus free to steal millions of his good-behavior money. If Hamas got European cash, it would become reasonable, ostracize its “military wing,” and cease its lynching and vigilantism. When some tried to explain that Wars 1-3 (1947, 1956, 1967) had nothing to do with the West Bank, such bothersome details fell on deaf ears. When it was pointed out that Germans were not blowing up Poles to get back lost parts of East Prussia nor were Tibetans sending suicide bombers into Chinese cities to recover their country, such analogies were caricatured. When the call for a “Right of Return” was making the rounds, few cared to listen that over a half-million forgotten Jews had been cleansed from Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and lost billions in property. When the U.N. and the EU talked about “refugee camps,” none asked why for a half-century the Arab world could not build decent housing for its victimized brethren, or why 1 million Arabs voted in Israel, but not one freely in any Arab country. The security fence became “The Wall,” and evoked slurs that it was analogous to barriers in Korea or Berlin that more often kept people in than out. Few wondered why Arabs who wished to destroy Israel would mind not being able to live or visit Israel. In any case, anti-Semitism, oil, fear of terrorism — all that and more fooled us into believing that Israel’s problems were confined to Israel. So we ended up with a utopian Europe favoring a pre-modern, terrorist-run, Palestinian thugocracy over the liberal democracy in Israel. The Jews, it was thought, stirred up a hornet’s nest, and so let them get stung on their own. ...Apparently, the hatred of radical Islam was not just predicated on the “occupation” of the West Bank. Instead it involved the pretexts of Americans protecting Saudi Arabia from another Iraqi attack, the United Nations boycott of Iraq, the removal of the Taliban and Saddam, and always as well as the Crusades and the Reconquista. But Europe was supposedly different. Unlike the United States, it was correct on the Middle East, and disarmed after the Cold War. Indeed, the European Union was pacifistic, socialist, and guilt-ridden about former colonialism. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were left alone in unassimilated European ghettoes and allowed to preach or promulgate any particular hatred of the day they wished. Conspire to kill a Salmon Rushdie, talk of liquidating the “apes and pigs,” distribute Mein Kampf and the Protocols, or plot in the cities of France and Germany to blow up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center — all that was about things “over there” and in a strange way was thought to ensure that Europe got a pass at home. But the trump card was always triangulation against the United States. Most recently anti-Americanism was good street theater in Rome, Paris, London, and the capitals of the “good” West. But then came Madrid — and the disturbing fact that after the shameful appeasement of its withdrawal from Iraq, further plots were hatched against Spanish justices and passenger trains. Surely a Holland would be exempt — Holland of wide-open Amsterdam fame where anything goes and Muslim radicals could hate in peace. Then came the butchering of Theo Van Gogh and the death threats against parliamentarian Hirsi Ali — and always defiance and promises of more to come rather than apologies for their hatred. Yet was not Britain different? After all, its capital was dubbed Londonistan for its hospitality to Muslims across the globe. Radical imams openly preached jihad against the United States to their flock as thanks for being given generous welfare subsidies from her majesty’s government. But it was the United States, not liberal Britain, that evoked such understandable hatred. But now? After Holland, Madrid, and London, European operatives go to Israel not to harangue Jews about the West Bank, but to receive tips about preventing suicide bombings. And the cowboy Patriot Act to now-panicked European parliaments perhaps seems not so illiberal after all. So it is was becoming clear that butchery by radical Muslims in Bali, Darfur, Iraq, the Philippines Thailand, Turkey, Tunisia, and Iraq was not so tied to particular and “understandable” Islamic grievances. Perhaps the jihadist killing was not over the West Bank or U.S. hegemony after all, but rather symptoms of a global pathology of young male Islamic radicals blaming all others for their own self-inflicted miseries, convinced that attacks on the infidel would win political concessions, restore pride, and prove to Israelis, Europeans, Americans — and about everybody else on the globe — that Middle Eastern warriors were full of confidence and pride after all. Meanwhile an odd thing happened. It turns out that the jihadists were cowards and bullies, and thus selective in their targets of hatred. A billion Chinese were left alone by radical Islam — even though the Chinese were secularists and mostly godless, as well as ruthless to their own Uighur Muslim minorities. Had bin Laden issued a fatwa against Beijing and slammed an airliner into a skyscraper in Shanghai, there is no telling what a nuclear China might have done. India too got mostly a pass, other than the occasional murdering by Pakistani zealots. Yet India makes no effort to apologize to Muslims. When extremists occasionally riot and kill, they usually cease quickly before the response of a much more unpredictable angry populace. What can we learn from all this? Jihadists hardly target particular countries for their “unfair” foreign policies, since nations on five continents suffer jihadist attacks and thus all apparently must embrace an unfair foreign policy of some sort. Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous “but” — as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, “Islamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.” Second, thinking that the jihadists will target only Israel eventually leads to emboldened attacks on the United States. Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple — and past time for Europe and the United States to rediscover their common heritage and shared aims in eradicating this plague of Islamic fascism. Third, Islamicists are selective in their attacks and hatred. So far global jihad avoids two billion Indians and Chinese, despite the fact that their countries are far tougher on Muslims than is the United States or Europe. In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail. Unfettered immigration, billions in cash grants to Arab autocracies, alliances of convenience with dictatorships, triangulation with Middle Eastern patrons of terror, blaming the Jews — civilization has tried all that. It is time to relearn the lessons from the Cold War, when we saw millions of noble Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, and Czechs as enslaved under autocracy and a hateful ideology, and in need of democracy before they could confront the Communist terror in their midst. But until the Wall fell, we did not send billions in aid to their Eastern European dictatorships nor travel freely to Prague or Warsaw nor admit millions of Communist-ruled Bulgarians and Albanians onto our shores. — Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His website is victorhanson.com. This man should have a high position in our government. VDH for Pres in 2008? http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson20050722 0816.asp" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson20050722 0816.asp" target="_blank"http://www.nationalreview.com... |
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.26.05 (5:47 am)
There are a few more ironies that this brings to mind. When Madrid was attacked, nobody stopped to think about Spain's history. Spain had an Arab occupation that lasted for almost 1000 years. But the Spanish never gave up. The entire time, there were Spanish there fighting for freedom. The entire time, they never gave up claim to their land. When they eventually drove the Arabs out of Spain, nobody said "Those poor Arabs. You are taking away their homeland. This is the land that their ancestors lived on."
In Israel, there has been a Jewish presence for thousands of years. When the Jews were driven out, they never gave up the claim to the land, and they never gave up the fight. In fact, they never completely left. There has been a Jewish presence there fighting the whole time. Yet we hear how they are taking the homeland away from the poor Palestinians.
Nobody stops to consider what a Palestinian even is. There was never an independent nation called Palestine. The region called Palestine before Israel's independence had Jewish Palestinians as well as Arab Palestinians. Arafat was Egyptian, yet the Israeli leaders he went up against had more right to call themselves Palestinian than he did. They were Palestinians and so were their ancestors.
People also forget that the Palestinian territory was divided. Arabs already DID get a homeland. That part of the territory is now called Jordan. Israel got less than 22% of the land.
Israel allowed the Arabs to stay and begged them not to leave. But they left in an armed resistance to join the other Arabs whose intent was to murder every Jew and thrust Israel into the sea. Those Arabs who stayed are now citizens. They can vote and have all the rights of citizens. Those who left are called refugees. But they are not true refugees. The real refugees are the Jews who were kicked out of the Arab nations. Around 1918, Baghdad was about 50% Jewish. Egypt had a large Jewish population. There were free Jews in Iran. The whole area had a large Jewish presence. Israel managed to absorb the Jewish refugees, after the Arabs created the Jewish refugee problem. But the Arabs would not absorb their fellow Arabs, even though they created that "refugee" problem too. Those in the "camps," which are actually cities, are not from that region. They are not in the historic homeland of their ancestors. Israel was mostly uninhabitable desert before the Jews went in th cultivate it, irrigate it, and turn it into viable land. That's when the Arabs moved in. Now they have about as much land as the continental US, and Israel has about as much as New Jersey. But the Arabs are asking to have it divided again.
The other irony is that with all the terrorism going on in the rest of the world, we can see the justification when people go after it. We can even overlook an innocent victim getting gunned down in London by the police. But when Israel goes after terrorists, the media still paints Israel as the aggressor. After five months of attacks on Israel, leading up to a suicide bombing that killed five and injured 90, and a deadly Hamas rocket attack that killed a civilian, Israel finally took action. And the Washington post blamed Israel for ending a five month truce.
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 07.26.05 (10:04 am)
Reply to: mblog
A most outstanding post, mblog. I have to admit, when you first started posting on my blog, I thought we were going to go round and round. However, after seeing your last severl posts, I think we agree more than disagree.
Thank you for you insights and comments.
posted by: thoolou (reply)
post date: 07.26.05 (10:05 am)
Dang, *your* insights. Wish this dang thing had preview...
