Is Israel’s existence compatible with Separationism?
, Larry G., writes:
Doesn’t the idea of separating the West from Muslims, and Muslims from the West, imply the evacuation of the Jews from Israel? After all, they could be viewed as an island in a Muslim sea, and an invader in the Muslims’ territory. Certainly the Muslims seem to view it that way. Israel would continue to be a source of conflict unless it was removed and its Jews resettled in the West.
Doing so would seem to be an act of appeasement and extreme loss of face on our part as well, and a victory for Islam as a whole and Iran in particular. The alternative of letting Iran remove them by nuclear means would be far worse for the West. As you well know, Western Jews contribute to Western civilization far out of proportion to their numbers. Even though Israelis aren’t the ones responsible for most of that contribution, I feel that the loss of this homeland would have a devastating impact on surviving Western Jews, and might result in a lessening of their contributions simply through the psychological effect. In any event, it would be bad news for the West. Your thoughts?
1. First, everyone keeps forgetting that what got us hyper-involved in Israeli affairs was not our defense of Israel (what does that consist of, other than a substantial amount of yearly military aid), but rather the “peace” process. It was the “peace” process that inflamed the Arab world more than ever against Israel, that resulted in then-unprecedented suicide bombings of Israeli civilians, and that made the Arab world hate America more than before. If we stopped all involvement in any Israeli-Arab “peace” process and quietly gave the Israelis whatever aid they need (assuming they will continue to need it, many say they will not), and otherwise stay away from Arab-Israeli issues, then our “involvement” with Israel would be virtually invisible and would cease to be an issue.
- end of initial entry -
I repeat: it was not our friendship with Israel that made us such a pushy presence in the Mideast, it was our intense involvement in the “peace process,” our constant urgings to Israel to make concessions toward the absurdity of a Palestinian state, that did that. Thus the reality is the exact opposite of what most people think. It was not our supposed imperialism that got us hated as imperialists, but our restless liberalism.
2. Since the Containment plan includes the need for forward bases in or at the edges of the Muslim world, with areas as diverse as Kurdistan, the Arabian desert, and southern Sudan having been suggested, it is understood that the plan involves some Western presence in and around the Mideast area. Therefore the continued presence of Israel in the Mideast does not contradict the plan. A Western island in the Arabian sea could be seen strategically as part of the plan’s Contain and Police aspect.
3. Israel exists. It is a reality. It has a right to exist. So let’s take the hardest case: should the U.S. stand as final guarantor of Israel’s existence? I think it should. That would not contradict the Rollback, Isolate, and Contain policy, assuming it was brought to pass. We would still be steadily reducing the Muslim presence in the West and thus making the West safe from Islam. We would still be containing the Muslims to the extent possible in their own countries, thus preventing them from waging jihad. We would still be avoiding involvement in the internal affairs of Muslim countries. Vis à vis Israel we would simply be continuing the military aid (if that is necessary) and standing as the final guarantor of Israel’s safety should its survival be imminently threatened.
4. Remember, the policy of Separationism is not about establishing some kind of regime of equality or fairness between the West and Islam. It’s about the West ordering the world for its own safety, by pushing back Islam and reducing its power and its ability to reach into the West. So the fact that Israel continues to exist under my plan is not a violation of some “fair balance” between the West and Islam. We are telling the Muslims frankly that we know that they are a mortal danger to us, and that we therefore have no choice but to confine them where they cannot hurt us. Once the Western world stops dancing to the Muslim drum (in terms of immigration, multiculturalism, peace processes, liberal tolerance, and so on) as soon as the West starts ‘splaining things to the Muslims, we’ll be living in a different world. If any genuine peace is possible, this is the way it would happen. The Muslims will know that they are not threatened in their fundamental Islamic identity, because we are going to cease intruding our ideology into their lands, and also the reduced Muslim presence in the West would remove a constant source of irritation to Muslims caused by the overarching presence of Western culture. At the same time they will know that they are powerless against us, and against Israel as well, especially if Israel removes the Palestinians from West of the Jordan (as I urge her to do) and establishes a genuinely defensible and livable land for itself.
Again, this is not U.S. imperialism or busybodyiness. We don’t want anything to do with the interior business of Muslim countries. However, I think Hugh Fitzgerald’s visionary idea could very well come to pass, that a Muslim world confined within itself, with no chance to extend itself demographically or jihadistically beyond its borders, will be so demoralized that new Kemalist leaders may rise up to establish non-Islamic regimes, just as Kemal himself came to power in the immediate aftermath of the defeat and destruction of the Ottoman empire. Such regimes, no longer organized around sharia and jihad, would have little problem with the existence of Israel.
I repeat that we have no ability to bring such regimes into being. But if they are to come into being, it can only happen through the utter external disempowerment of Islam relative to the non-Muslim world, and that is what the Rollback and Contain policy is all about.
Howard Sutherland extends my idea of standing by Israel into a larger notion that the West must not automatically accept the Muslim control of the Near East. Israel is a holy land to Christians and Jews. If it was wrong for Pope Benedict to subscribe symbolically to the Muslim conquest of Asia Minor by praying in the Blue Mosque, it would also be wrong for the West to accept any Muslim right to Israel. He writes:
This is a great entry, and I think your explanation of Israel’s role is good. We have had other exchanges about Israel, so I won’t rehash those.
The Pope’s visit to Turkey (which I still think was a mistake) got me thinking about what the true relationship is, or should be, between the West and Islam. There is an internet commenter I see (at Jihad and Dhimmi Watches, maybe) whose handle I appreciate more and more: the Constantinopolitan Irredentist. The attitude expressed by his moniker is what we should have, even though we don’t actually go on crusade to recover all the lands Moslems have seized from Christians.
The worst thing about the Pope’s visit was that, by visiting Sancta Sophia as a museum and offering a prayer inside the Blue Mosque, he seemed to give Christendom’s imprimatur to the Moslem conquest of Constantinople (and by extension the rest of the Christian East, and North Africa) and the desecration of Sancta Sophia. We should not do things like that. Without trying to be offensive (the Mohammedans will find something to be offended by, no matter what), we should never concede the legitimacy of Islam’s conquest of Christian lands – and, yes, I do mean Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine and Egypt, as well as St. Augustine’s Africa (as well as Moslem encroachment in the Balkans, which is happening right now). That is looking farther back into history than Westerners usually do, but dutiful Moslems are always looking back to the 7th and 8th centuries to see how things should be. So let’s look back to the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries, if that suits our purposes.
I’m not calling for war against Islam to liberate any Moslem-ruled country. But we shouldn’t accept it as divinely preordained that Islam should rule the Near East. Most importantly, as Moslems are sensitive to rhetoric and posturing, we should let them know that we do not consider the Near East and North Africa (or anywhere else) Moslem by divine right. Especially, we should make it clear that we don’t recognize any pre-existing Moslem right to control any of the Holy Land of Judaism and Christianity. Israel is a holy land to Jews and Christians. Is Israel really a holy land to Moslems, or is that claim deployed to de-legitimize Jewish rule of Israel? I think it is more the latter.
So, confine Islam to the lands – outside Europe; no foothold in Europe is acceptable – it controls; remove Islam as much as possible from the West; keep the power to intervene in the “Dar al-Islam” when Moslem regimes pose a real threat the West or Westerners; and keep trade at arm’s length. I put Dar al-Islam in quotes because I think Dar al-Islam versus Dar al-Harb is a concept Westerners can never accept.
It’s worth repeating what I said above. Mr. Sutherland has added a new dimension to this discussion, by taking my thoughts about how Israel belongs in the Mideast and how its continued existence is in conformity with Separationismm, to the larger idea that the West must not yield to the Islamic conquests … especially the Islamic conquest of Palestine-Israel.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Send
The idea that we ought to resist further Islamic encroachments, even while we yield to the Muslim domination of Israel, would be absurd.