Posted on 07/18/2006 2:04:21 PM PDT by knighthawk
LONDON -- When the G-8 statement on the Middle East crisis was issued late Sunday, it contained several surprises. It did not contain harsh criticism of Israel for its shelling of targets in Lebanon. On the contrary, it placed the blame for the current conflict squarely on the terrorist Hezbollah. Even secondary blame was directed at those "extremist" forces supporting Hezbollah, which, though not named, were known to be Syria and Iran.
This apportioning of blame was accurate enough. That was one reason for surprise. Diplomatic statements seek not accuracy but an account of events on which all signatories can agree. How had the United States, Russia and Western Europe suddenly agreed on what was happening in the Middle East?
Still more surprising, a statement effectively exonerating Israel was issued at a moment when Israeli jets were blasting away the economic infrastructure of Beirut and southern Lebanon. That usually guarantees strong condemnation from Russia and Western Europe. Most surprising of all, the G-8 statement effectively contradicted remarks made earlier at the summit by the G-8 host, Russian President Vladimir Putin. These had criticized Israel and the United States for the strong military retaliation against Hezbollah.
All these things are surprising because they run counter to one of the firmest trends in international politics: Western Europe and Russia have been consistently anti-Israel for the last two decades. An anti-Israel and pro-Arab orthodoxy -- dominating Europe's elite media even more than its foreign policy -- has become a fixed pole in European politics, especially left-wing politics. It has survived despite a series of attacks on Western Europe for which Islamists and/or Arab radicals have admitted responsibility, such as the London subway bombings, the Madrid railway bombings, the murders of Dutch critics of Islam, the French riots and much else. After all these events it remains true that whenever there is a discussion of the "need" for a common European foreign policy, one major justification is that it would counterbalance U.S. support for Israel.
What explains this orthodoxy? Some critics argue that it is essentially an expression of anti-Semitism. That, however, is doubtful. Great civilized nations such as France, Germany, Russia and Italy would be unlikely to base an important foreign policy on an irrational hatred for three or more decades. Other factors are more important.
The first is that the Western European foreign policy establishment feels that Israel is an obstacle to its good relations with the Arab world out of all proportion to its size and importance. Many people will claim that Europe would not be facing Islamist terrorism if the Israelis were more willing to compromise over land for peace.
The second is that diplomats tend to despair of influencing terrorists (other than by surrendering to them) but believe they can pressure nations into better behavior. They seem to see terrorism as almost a force of nature rather than a political tactic. So when terrorists attack a country -- as Hezbollah and Hamas are attacking Israel -- diplomats end up leaning on the reasonable country rather than on the intransigent terrorist group.
The third is that Europe -- especially the European media -- sees Israel as Goliath against the Palestinian David. To be sure, if the only players in the Middle East conflicts were Israel and the Palestinians, that would be a reasonable perception. Israel with its tanks, jet fighters and advanced weaponry is certainly more powerful than Hamas or the Fatah alone or in combination. But these terrorist groups are the cutting edge of an Arab and/or Islamist war against Israel that includes Syria, Iran and Sudan openly, and others covertly. In that long-term war, Israel is the David -- and has to respond strongly when attacked.
In the last week, however, all these assumptions were suddenly undermined. Israel found itself under attack precisely because it had made the sacrifices that Europeans regularly demand. Its voluntary withdrawal from southern Lebanon was seen by Hezbollah as an Arab victory and a sign of Israeli weakness. The withdrawal also brought Hezbollah right up to the border from which it could launch missiles into the heart of Israel. And somebody had given Hezbollah longer-range missiles capable of hitting major cities such as Tel Aviv.
Who? Well, as the G-8 statement makes clear, Iran.
That underlined the second new realization: Terrorism is not a natural force distinct from state policy, it is an instrument of policy for some states and a threat to other states. Iran and Syria have trained, supported, financed and protected terrorist groups to advance their state interests. Syria, for instance, was able to continue influencing Lebanese politics after the withdrawal of its own troops because Hezbollah and Hamas were its allies.
The state most threatened by Hezbollah terrorism, moreover, is not Israel. If Hezbollah is not crushingly defeated -- as Fatah was by King Hussein in Jordan in 1970 -- then Lebanon will gradually sink into an abyss of anarchy, divided and ruled by different terrorist factions. Geographically close and linked by air and sea transport, it will be a failed state that threatens Western Europe as well as its neighbors. And its rulers in Hezbollah will be taking orders from Tehran.
That, finally, undermines the complacent European belief that Israel is the only reason for its bad relations with the Islamic world. Europe would be plainly threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran that had a failed state as a training ground for its terrorists in Lebanon, links with terrorist groups in Europe, and a nuclear deterrent to render it almost invulnerable.
Europe, in short, is beginning to wake up to the Iranian threat and its terrorist aspects. Shortly after this crisis began, hard-headed European analysts such as the Daily Telegraph's Con Coughlin pointed out that Iran had almost certainly orchestrated this crisis to distract attention at the G-8 and the U.N. from its nuclear progress and wider ambitions. The sudden outbreak of realism at the G-8 suggests that Bush, Blair, Chirac, Germany's Angela Merkel and even Putin share Coughlin's analysis. Maybe they even hope that Israel will reduce their problems by saving Lebanon from Hezbollah rule and Iranian manipulation. They should.
Does this mean an end to the anti-Israel orthodoxy of European politics? Probably not. But it may be the beginning of the end.
Ping
Even the Arabs get it now.
Don't believe it, Europe is sound asleep. That's the way the Muslims want it until they reach about forty percent of the population.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of this headline. Europe is waking up to the threat Iran poses? I think the best that can be said of Europe's reaction to the Iranian threat is that they've hit the snooze button and gone back to sleep.
LOL. Had the Nazi's won WWII, anti-semitism would still be driving their foreign and domestic policies. The Soviets managed to enshrine anti-semitism as national policy for decades.
I think it's a lot closer to the truth that the Israelis, being prosperous, have come out on the short end of the old class warfare mental model that is what passes for deep thought in the European (and American) intelligentsia. They are wealthier than their neighbors and hence they are their neighbors' oppressors. Once this mental weed takes root in an otherwise empty mind it's tougher to kill than crabgrass and just as useful.
Europe might really be realizing the threat. They recognized that Hitler was a threat, too. But will they repeat history and try to coerce/bribe Iran like they tried with Hitler?
Someone should remind them of the outcome of that diplomatic venture....
Thanks for the ping--and Europe should be wary. You'd think after London and Spain, it would done on the policy makers that they (and we) are dealing with barbaric madmen incapable of diplomacy, let alone keeping agreements.
I was referring to the fact that the Saudis are not blaming this on Israel, which you would normally expect. That's because they know that Iran is behind it, and they don't want Iran to have the a-bomb any more than we do.
That really was amazing, wasn't it? I didn't expect it. Yup, I think they get it now.
There should be a pool as to which European country will be the first to enact Sharia law of some kind, even if in only a restricted Muslim area.
At your service. Problem over here is that lots of peopel still pretend terrorism is something remote. Even if our cities would blow up or they stage large scale riots like in France, half a year later people foret it ever happened.
It's not that difference on this side of the Atlantic. I'm always a little surprised (not so shocked any more) when NYers try to block efforts to keep them secure, for instance. I'm afraid it will take a much bigger strike before we REALLY get it--and maybe it's the same in Europe.
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.