The Anti-Independence War

Cindy Sheehan and Dylan Avery (maker of the 9/11-denial film Loose Change) both recently referred to Islamic terrorists as “freedom fighters”. It takes either a lunatic left-winger with a feeling of being on a mission to save humanity, or the anonymity of the Internet, to say it out in the open, but inwardly the consideration of Muslim mujahids to be freedom fighters is almost universal in the Left. What are the causes of this, and how can it be countered?

In postmodern thought, brought into full flower by the Vietnam War, it has been self-evident that “indigenous peoples” have precedence over the right of self-determination, are victims of the oppressive, colonial, imperialist West and are justified in any action for resisting oppression and gaining independence. The Algerians, for example, were justified in deporting thousands of French residents from their lands as part of the noble movement of decolonization. In contrast, for Jews to deport a handful of Hamas “activists” would be unjust and atrocious, for those are of the “indigenous people” of the land, while the Jews are Western colonials (no mention is made of the fact that more than 50% of Israeli Jews are from Islamic lands).

The Islamic terrorists are compared to the resistance fighters of Algeria in the 1950’s and 60’s and to the Jews who bombed the King David Hotel in 1946. The Palestinians, say the Leftists, are fighting a legitimate war of independence against Israel, just as the Jewish militias did against Britain for the independence of Israel.

Once again, I have to congratulate the Muslims for their knowledge of the postmodern, left-wing Western mind and their success in working it like a lump of clay in a potter’s hand. Such a package is extremely attractive to the Leftist mind and is guaranteed to be opened without a second thought. It counts, however, to look inside the package, to see the deception.

In all cases of anti-colonial resistance, the goal has always been the independence of the occupied state, and nothing more than that. Gandhi struggled for the independence of India from Britain; the Algerians (then still operating from secular motives) fought for independence of Algeria from France; Congo got its independence from Belgium; and so on. In all the examples of decolonization, there is no notion of the occupied people fighting against the independence of the occupying state. The Algerian resistance of the 50’s and 60’s never fought to bring France under Algerian control, to wipe the European, Western, Christian country called France off the map and substitute a North Algeria in its stead. The Jewish resistance in British-occupied Palestine, whether more moderate like the Palmach and Haganah or more militant like the Etzel and the Lechi, had only the goal of ending the British occupation in order to make room for an independent Jewish state—not to end the independence of Britain and set up a Jewish state in its place. The IRA, even when launching terrorist attacks on London, did so for the Northern Irish cause, not for driving the Saxons out of Celtic Britain.

All the decolonization struggles beloved of the Leftists, then, were wars of independence. The struggle (Jihad) of Islamic terrorism, on the other hand, is a war against independence—against the independence of Israel first, and against the independence of non-Muslim humanity from shariah law ultimately.

It is written in black on white or big letters on placards for all to see: Hamas and Hizbullah both have it in their constitutions that the “Zionist Entity” (the independent Jewish state of Israel) is illegitimate and must be dismantled, and an Islamic state of “Filasteen” be substituted on its ruins. Osama ben Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini have both spoken of instituting Islam on the entire world. “Islam Will Dominate”, say the signs. But there is none so blind as those who won’t see, and that is the Left. Speech after speech given by Muslim imams features commands to bring the world on its knees to Islamic rule, and to exterminate the “sons of pigs and apes”. The Left shuts its eyes, stops its ears and seals its lips. While the “primitive rednecks down in Bush country” understand the danger crystal clear and are ready to confront it, the learned denizens of academia still think that the engagement with the Islamic challenge can provide for an interesting and fertile loch in kopdialectic.

What part of that don’t you understand?

The Islamic “resistance”, therefore, differs from previous, anti-colonial struggles not only in the depths to which the fighters sink—bombing themselves with civilians in malls and pizza parlors, with ball bearings in the death vests in order to inflict the greatest number and hardest degree of casualties—but in its goal: the cessation of the independence of an opponent state. All means are justified toward that end: if, they say, we can dress it up as an anti-colonial war of independence against an oppressive imperialistic Western invader, thereby garnering sympathy from the West-loathing Left, then all the better. In the end, even a second Holocaust (G-d forbid) following the “liberation from Zionist oppression” will be overlooked by the Left as a just reparation for the mistake the Brits and the UN made in “promising the Jews the land of another nation”.

I think it is not rash to say that all but a few of the West-hating, appeasing Leftists will wake up only when, like pastor Martin Niemöller, the Islamic imperialist rulers come for them.