Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Lunacy of Relations between the West and IslamoFascists
National Review ^

Posted on 02/03/2006 9:25:56 PM PST by quesney

February 03, 2006, 8:07 a.m. Three Pillars of Wisdom Finding our footing where lunacy looms large.

Public relations between the so-called West and the Islamic Middle East have reached a level of abject absurdity. Hamas, whose charter pledges the very destruction of Israel, comes to power only through American-inspired pressures to hold Western-style free elections on the West Bank. No one expected the elders of a New England township, but they were nevertheless somewhat amused that the result was right out of a Quentin Tarantino movie.

Almost immediately, Hamas's newly elected, self-proclaimed officials issued a series of demands: Israel should change its flag; the Europeans and the Americans must continue to give its terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars in aid; there will be no retraction of its promises to destroy Israel.

Apparently, the West and Israel are not only to give to Hamas some breathing space ("a truce"), but also to subsidize it while it gets its second wind to renew the struggle to annihilate the Jewish state.

All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10-percent smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power.

Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad."

Now the Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.

Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled — and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies — they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy.

Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry. Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.

Then there is "President" Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it. And the rest of the Islamic world, nursed on the daily "apes and pigs" slurs, can just scarcely conceal its envy that the Persian Shiite outsider will bell the cat before they do.

The architects of September 11, by general consent, hide somewhere on the Pakistani border. A recent American missile strike that killed a few of them was roundly condemned by the Pakistani government. Although a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid and debt relief, and admittedly harboring those responsible for 9/11, it castigates the U.S. for violating borders in pursuit of our deadly enemies who, while on Pakistani soil, boast of planning yet another mass murder of Americans.

Pakistan demands that America will cease such incursions — or else. The "else" apparently entails the threat either to give even greater latitude to terrorists, or to allow them to return to Afghanistan to destroy the nascent democracy in Kabul. American diplomats understandably would shudder at the thought of threatening nuclear Pakistan should there be another 9/11, this time organized by the very al Qaedists they now harbor.

The list of hypocrisies could be expanded. The locus classicus, of course, is bin Laden's fanciful fatwas. Oil pumped for $5 a barrel and sold for $70 is called stealing resources. Tens of millions of Muslims emigrating to the United States and Europe, while very few Westerners reside in the Middle East, is deemed "occupying our lands." Israel, the biblical home of the Jews, and subsequently claimed for centuries by Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans, and English is "occupied by crusader infidels" — as if the entire world is to accept that world history began only in the seventh century A.D.

The only mystery is not how bizarre the news will be from the Middle East, but why the autocratic Middle Easterners feel so confident that any would pay their lunacy such attention.

The answer? Oil and nukes — and sometimes the two in combination.

By any economic standard, most states in the Middle East — whether characterized by monarchy, Baathism, dictatorship, or theocracy — have floundered. There are no scientific discoveries emanating from a Cairo or Damascus. It is tragic and perhaps insensitive, but nevertheless honest, to confess that the contemporary Arab world has lately given the world only two new developments: the suicide-bomb belt and the improvised explosive device. Even here there is a twofold irony: The technology for both is imported from the West. And the very tactic arises out of a desperate admission that to fight a conventional battle against a Westernized military without the cover of civilian shields, whether in Israel or Baghdad, is tantamount to suicide.

Meanwhile, millions of Africans face famine and try to inaugurate democracies. Asia is in the midst of economic transformation. Latin America is undergoing fundamental political upheaval. Who cares? — our attention is glued instead on a few acres near Jericho, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the succession patterns of Gulf Royals, and the latest ranting of an Iranian president who seems barely hinged, and without petroleum and a reactor would be accorded the global derision once reserved for Idi Amin.

So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists.

The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China. If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism.

Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both.

The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy.

Encouraging democracy is still vital to offer a third choice other than dictatorship or theocracy — especially when we now recognize the general Middle East rule: The logical successor to a shah is a Khomeini; a Zarqawi wishes to follow a fallen Saddam; a propped-up Arafat ensures Hamas; and a subsidized Mubarak will lead to the Muslim Brotherhood. Puritanical zealotry always feeds off autocratic corruption — as if lopping hands and heads is the proper antidote to military courts and firing squads.

And we also know the political blame game at home: Past realist failures at propping up dictators are postfacto reinvented as sobriety, while the messy and belated democratic correction is derided as foolery. Even the election of Hamas and the honesty it brings are welcome news: Support the process, not always the result, while stopping the subsidy and dialogue if such terrorists come to power. Let them stew in their own juice, not ours.

In the meantime, until we arrive at liberal and consensual governments that prove stable, there will be no real peace. And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable.

Yet if billions of petrodollars continue to pour into such traditional societies, as a result they will never do the hard political and economic work of building real societies. Instead their elites will obtain real nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors for even more concessions, as they buy support at home with the national prestige of an "Islamic bomb." Saddam almost grasped that: Had he delayed his invasion of Kuwait five years until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province, and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well.

In the long-term, democratization in the framework of constitutional government has the best chance of bringing relief. But for the foreseeable future the United States and its allies must also ensure that Iran, and states like it, are not nuclear, and that we wean ourselves off a petroleum dependency — to save both ourselves, the addicts, and even our enemies, the dealers of the Middle East.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Basic point -- the West has gone nuts.
1 posted on 02/03/2006 9:25:59 PM PST by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolik

A must-hammer...


2 posted on 02/03/2006 9:26:42 PM PST by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Yup. The lunatics are running the asylum now.


3 posted on 02/03/2006 9:30:13 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

This piece is a MUST READ.


4 posted on 02/03/2006 9:37:13 PM PST by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney
"Then there is "President" Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it."

That means the BOMB, people. Although Hitler did rearm under the nose of the Versailles. After breaking it, he was quite public in his intentions and discontent over the failures of the then day UN, the League of Nations.

Thanks UN and IAEA for being as incompetent has you predecessors that failed to prevent WW2!

5 posted on 02/03/2006 9:38:56 PM PST by endthematrix (None dare call it ISLAMOFACISM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Watch out for Iraq after a few election cycles if you think this is tragic.

I'm afraid we've subsidized the rise of Hamas, and have set the stage for 35 million Muslims to vote themselves into Islamic Theocracies, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As the Palestinian vote implies, two thirds of the Muslim population hates the West's (and Israel's) guts.


6 posted on 02/03/2006 9:39:11 PM PST by 308MBR (After over 20 years of GOP only, I'm voting a split ticket in 'O6 and hoping for gridlock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Well put.

And very well posted.

Thank you as this is a keeper.


7 posted on 02/03/2006 9:41:53 PM PST by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton (To those who believe the world was safer with Saddam, get treatment for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 308MBR
"
I'm afraid we've subsidized the rise of Hamas, and have set the stage for 35 million Muslims to vote themselves into Islamic Theocracies, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq. "

This worries me too. To be honest in a lot of ways having strongmen who can at least somewhat be controlled is better for our interests than the consequences of having free elections in the middle east. In things like the Hamas election, the rise of Iran's new leader, and cartoongate, Muslims have shown that they aren't ready for free institutions and that dangerous terrorists and fundamentalists do very well at the ballotbox. Creating free and open societies in the middle east is looking to be like a lot more of a task than anyone in the administration and anyone on here including myself could have possibly imagined. The amount of resources and the amount of time required to bring these people into the modern world will be tremendous.
8 posted on 02/03/2006 9:50:32 PM PST by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Bump


9 posted on 02/03/2006 9:56:44 PM PST by Eagles6 (Dig deeper, more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 308MBR

As the Palestinian vote implies, two thirds of the Muslim population hates the West's (and Israel's) guts.




As if we don't already know that... but when it happens, our press and government will be 'ever so surprised'.

Bah!

The Republican leadership is infected with the same madness as Democrats regarding the middle east.

And Condi 'Never met a terrorist I didn't like, just so long as they kill Jews' Rice will then immediately call for Israel to commit national suicide. Which, of course, Olmert will willingly do.


10 posted on 02/03/2006 10:06:57 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Raaargh! Raaargh! Crush, Stomp!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker

Yep.

Some dude called white envoy berated me on my private mail about my cartoon crack. Has that happened to anyone else?


11 posted on 02/03/2006 10:10:18 PM PST by 308MBR (After over 20 years of GOP only, I'm voting a split ticket in 'O6 and hoping for gridlock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Bump for re-read.


12 posted on 02/03/2006 10:12:40 PM PST by Draco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
To be honest in a lot of ways having strongmen who can at least somewhat be controlled is better for our interests than the consequences of having free elections in the middle east.

The implications of that statement are quite mind-boggling, even if -- no, especially if -- you are correct. It's quite bizarre for the U.S. to make this case while the most effective secular Islamic "strongman" in recent decades sits in an Iraqi jail during his trial in a legal system that is part of a fledgling democratic government that we ourselves established.

13 posted on 02/03/2006 10:20:30 PM PST by Alberta's Child (Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Great read, thanks for posting it.


14 posted on 02/03/2006 10:35:05 PM PST by lesser_satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 308MBR
I'm afraid we've subsidized the rise of Hamas, and have set the stage for 35 million Muslims to vote themselves into Islamic Theocracies, specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq.

My fear also. It is happening in Turkey.

15 posted on 02/03/2006 10:44:08 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 308MBR

Yup. Medieval savages following a anachronistic violent religion aren't fit for democracy.


16 posted on 02/03/2006 10:51:47 PM PST by Saberwielder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker

---Creating free and open societies in the middle east is looking to be like a lot more of a task than anyone in the administration and anyone on here including myself could have possibly imagined. ---

At least we tried.

That's what we'll be able to say if forced to deal with them with heavy weapons. This is not going to be a standoff.


17 posted on 02/03/2006 11:17:34 PM PST by claudiustg (Delenda est Iran!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: quesney
The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy.

bttt

18 posted on 02/04/2006 12:42:35 AM PST by Sic Luceat Lux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

-


19 posted on 02/04/2006 1:05:18 AM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney
The money quote:

Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.

Explains much.

20 posted on 02/04/2006 1:57:36 AM PST by backhoe (Sure, it's a Religion of Peace-- and They'll Kill You to Prove It...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quesney

Sure. It is here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570861/posts

And, by the FR rules, you must use the original article title

:^)


21 posted on 02/04/2006 10:05:51 AM PST by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: quesney

BTTT


22 posted on 08/29/2006 3:06:11 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

What took you so long, Mr. Mojo?


23 posted on 08/30/2006 12:04:56 AM PDT by quesney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson