Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Existential Threat, Radical Appeasement

It is not hard to find Leftist articles telling us the Muslims hate us because of our actions. (Random pick from yesterday: Prescribing World Terrorism, by Eric Margolis.) This idea, that Muslim rage is fueled by “Western imperialist aggression” meted upon Muslims, is so commonplace on the moonbat side of the blogosphere that I now hardly consider it worthy of mentioning (but see Herbert E. Meyer’s recent article on The American Thinker for a well-considered write-up). I have, however, found an article written from the self-blaming, appeasing point of view that is significant and worthy of a post of its own: US Role in Islamist Terrorism, on Antiwar.com, by Ivan Eland. The title may make it look like another one of those “our bombs made them hate us” articles, but inside there lurks a new and important kind of argument: the existential argument. The argument that says the mere being of US troops on non-Muslim lands is fueling their hatred. First quote:

To fully understand Islamic terrorism, one needs to understand what triggers this extraordinary rage. And throughout history one factor stands out above all else: the occupation of Muslim land by non-Muslim forces.

This is something else, beginning with the word, “land”. This isn’t the usual talk of bombs and projectiles and body counts; it’s about mere existence. The argument is reinforced the deeper we go down the article:

There is much the United States could do to defuse the problem, and a good place to start would be by removing land-based U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf.

Even Osama bin Laden claims he attacks the United States primarily because of its military presence in the region. Other reasons, he claims, are secondary.

This, never mind that the writer approaches it from an entirely erroneous point of view (appeasement), is perfectly true: the weapons of the non-Muslims, whether American or Soviet or Israeli or anyone else, are only a secondary affront; the real red rag in front of the Muslims’ eyes is the idea that parts that once were under the rule of Islam are now under non-Muslim control, with a non-Muslim presence in them. A core issue, an issue which makes the post-colonial rantings of other Leftist writers sound childish in comparison. Eland sees the truth on that matter. He writes also:

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after the 1967 Six Day War and its military interventions in Lebanon triggered similar reactions, as did the U.S. military presence in Lebanon in the early 1980s. Indeed, it’s fair to say that Israel’s very existence—a non-Islamic state in land claimed by the Muslims—is part of the same pattern, as is the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. [Emphasis mine. —ZY]

An accurate perception. Military intervention, “Apartheid Wall”, checkpoints and all that yang are not, and never have been, the issue—from the start, indeed from the beginning of the 20th century, the disproportionate opposition of the Muslims to the peaceful and most un-colonialist-like Jewish acquisition of land cannot be explained except by the idea, a basic Islamic tenet, that Islam is programmed for perpetual gain of land and against the smallest loss of it. The demand of the Muslims, in all times, has been nothing less than the demise of all non-Islamic polities on earth. Gains for shariah could be postponed in the case of lack of feasibility, but losses of shariah-governed lands had to be countered immediately.

Eland sees the truth of this existential struggle, but if he reacted to it the way any sane, self-preserving non-Muslim would, he would be on our side, and I would not be writing this piece. Instead, he reacts in precisely the wrong way, counseling appeasement:

Only by minimizing the permanent U.S. military presence in Arab and Islamic lands can we hope to stem anti-U.S. terrorism.

A half-truth can be worse than a lie. Eland has half of the truth in that he perceives Muslim enmity to be rooted in the issue of governance over lands, and not in military actions against them. But he is missing the other half of the truth: the vision of Islam is not limited to the Middle East or to any of the lands now currently under Muslim rule. The vision of Islam is not limited, period. He shows his error near the beginning of his article:

From the time of the Crusades, the pattern has been consistent.

Like all of this article, that sentence is a maddening combination of deep insight and sheer blindness. The deep insight is that of winding the clock back to far-off ages, something that many on the Left refuse to do because (in ironic Occidental snobbishness) they do not imagine people could retain the memory of events so ancient. And he shares with me the emphasis on Muslims rather than Arabs, a necessary step if one is to succeed in understanding the current global conflict. But he does not go far enough in riding the Wayback Machine: he neglects to go further beyond the Crusades, back to the beginning of it all—to the 7th century CE.

Go to the beginning of the 7th century and you will see two kingdoms locked in combat: the Christian empire of Byzantium, and the Zoroastrian kingdom of Sassanid Persia. The Land of Israel, Syria, Egypt, Lybia and the Magreb were all Christian lands, part of the Eastern Roman Empire; and Mesopotomia and Persia boasted of a history and culture already stretching back more than a thousand years. Then, in the 30’s of the 7th century, Arab bedouin tribesmen, motivated by the religion of Islam, took it all: the Byzantines were left with Asia Minor and the Balkans, whereas Persia fell whole to the invaders, whose religion, heritage and values they subsequently imposed upon it, in what was one of the most egregious acts of cultural imperialism in all of history.

The attacks, invasions and conquests were unprovoked; under the standard Leftist “tit-for-tat” view, they would have to be on the side of the Crusaders, excusing the Crusades as blowback for the Islamic aggression of the 7th century. But it would not fit the agenda of allying with the Muslims to defeat the hated white, capitalist, Bible-believing (et cetera) West. So Eland does as he must in order to prevent cognitive dissonance, and avoids going any further than the Crusades, thus securing their place as the first instance of Western aggression toward Muslims in his narratives. But that is not the truth.

Spain sheepishly withdrew its troops from Iraq after the Madrid terrorist attack of March 2004. Surely, pace Eland, this should have been the end of all Muslim enmity toward Spain? Ah, the difference between what we wish and what really is… No, Spain has not been freed; of the rallying cries for jihadis worldwide, less known than the “Palestinian” cause but no less real and significant, is the call for “liberating Al-Andalus from the infidels”. Al-Andalus is the Arab, Islamic name for Spain. What was once brought under Islamic rule, say the Muslims, is to stay there, and to be prevented from being taken away by the non-Muslims; and what has never yet been under Islamic rule is to be brought under it eventually. The goal of Islam is world domination. “Islam will dominate”, say the signs.

Picture: Muslim holding a sign: Islam Will Dominate The World
The crucial half of the truth that Ivan Eland missed.

The existence of any land in the world not under the rule of Islamic law is the one and only root cause of Muslim rage. Entitlement to the whole world is that which, when deprived of it, the Muslims react in anger. Reasoning is not possible here, only resistance, resistance by those who know the whole truth and wish to preserve their freedom intact. The alternative is, at best, dhimmitude—an apartheid system where non-Muslims are second-class subjects constantly at the mercy of their Muslim overlords.

Closing quote:

The lesson learned is that empire does not enhance security—it undermines it. U.S. power on Islamic soil is especially problematic.

Only a few changes are needed for the truth: “The lesson learned is that caliphate does not enhance security—it undermines it. Islamic power on non-Muslim soil is especially problematic.”

To use a Leftism in an appropriate place just for once: to resist is to exist.


[UPDATE, Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 14:17] Ivan Eland is not a left-winger but a paleoconservative—a member of the Old Right, remnants of the bad old party of Charles Lindbergh. That I could mistake him for a Leftist is testimony to today’s shift of isolationist, appeasement-supporting and fascist-sympathizing positions from the Right to the Left in the West. My thanks to Jason Pappas for the correction.

Labels: , ,

10 Comments:

Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

A slight correction. Your criticism of Eland’s position is dead right. I’ve read Eland’s work over the last few years and it is consistently anti-American and even more anti-Israel. However, he isn’t a leftist. He’s part of the paleo-right and works at the libertarian Independent Institute in California. You’ll also find Anthony Gregory there.

They write for antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com. I know they sound like appeasing leftists; it is hard to tell the difference. Antiwar.com was founded by Justin Raimondo, biographer of the libertarian Murray Rothbard, and confidant of Pat Buchanan. Expect the worse of them -- especially when it comes to Jews and Israel.

I have a brief article on the loony right.

July 11, 2007 2:06 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Thanks, Jason. It's a sign of our times that one could mistake the writings of a paleoconservative (Old Right) for those of a Progressive (New Left).

G-d bless.
ZY

July 11, 2007 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Foehammer said...

And, of course, it was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the heart of Islam, that fueled bin Laden's hatred and caused 9-11. This is why when people claim that Iraq and Saddam had no link to this current war, I scoff. If it hadn't been for S. Hussein, there would most likely never have been a 9-11 because it was he that caused the Saudis to ask for our aid.

And yet, isn't it curious how many forays into the U.S. via real estate and Wahhabi school construction, mosques and front groups like CAIR the Saudis have funded ever since the first Gulf War. Just chance or something far more sinister? Certainly the Saudis understood what having infidels protecting Mecca and Medina actually would scream to the Islamic world.

So, as your article points out so well, it never takes long for Islamists to manufacture an excuse for jihad, and the presence of infidels on Muslim land is all they require. 9-11 would simply have been delayed if U.S. troops weren't present in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Turkey or otherwise.

Again, there's no reason to be nice about all this -- true Muslims mean to make all land, including the land I am sitting on right now and pay taxes on, their own someday -- in the name of Islam. This is the fact that most non-Muslims can't seem to grasp. This is one of the primary reasons I am unflinchingly anti-Islamist.

July 11, 2007 3:58 PM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

this part encapsulates it for me ZY!..brilliant work as always my dear buddy!!!
A half-truth can be worse than a lie. Eland has half of the truth in that he perceives Muslim enmity to be rooted in the issue of governance over lands, and not in military actions against them. But he is missing the other half of the truth: the vision of Islam is not limited to the Middle East or to any of the lands now currently under Muslim rule.

July 11, 2007 5:40 PM  
Blogger Bar Kochba said...

I think that Brigitte Gabriel has the perfect explanation for Islamic aggression:
Because they hate

July 11, 2007 11:57 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Hi, Foehammer! You got kudos from me the very first time I saw your blog, for talking about "Islam" rather than using the weasel-term, "Islamism". "Islamism" has the subtext, "They hijacked a peaceful religion". I disagree, so I can't use that term.

I used to be a believer in such theories ("hijacking", "tiny minority of extremists", "reactionary strain" etc.) myself, until I saw the same patterns taking place in regions where the root causes touted by conventional wisdom don't apply: Spain and Thailand. Spain after March 2004 should be clean of all grievances by the Muslims, and Thailand has never been an "oppressive Western colonial power". I then realized the standard explanation was lacking.

The correct view is important. People must be persuaded to switch their thinking, to realize that the truth is the Muslims, not us, are the imperialists and colonialists settling on other people's lands in order to appropriate their wealth. Viewed this way, everything becomes clear.

Angel,

Thanks! I'd been thinking this post was reiterating commonly-known stuff, but I then thought Eland's article was an opportunity not to be missed. Even when repeating old points, it's always possible to achieve a greater level of refinement in the new post, and I'm glad I did that.

Bar Kochba,

But then you'd have someone asking, "Why do they hate?" And that could lead to the dreaded, self-flagellating, "What did we do to make them hate us?" So I'd say, instead: Because they believe they're commanded to hate the non-Muslim.

HaShem bless you all.
ZY

July 12, 2007 12:09 AM  
Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

hope u had a great Shabbat! :)

July 16, 2007 12:17 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Anyone who advocates withdrawal from muslim areas as a way of defusing conflict has simply ignored recent history.

Israel pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza, and in each case, the conflict escalated.

It's not the non-muslim rule on muslim land that infuriates the Islamists; it's simply the existence of non-muslims outside of muslim rule.

Shavua tov, ZY

July 16, 2007 12:31 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

Part of the problem is non-Muslims dont understand thats its impossible to ever fully withdraw from "Islamic/Arab" territory. The reason is that in the Islamic view the entire world by right belongs to the Muslims, so by the very act of any non-muslim having power over their own lands is in the Islamic view thievery of Islamic territory. For the same reason no amount of Western groveling ever appeases the Muzzies, because in the view of the Muslims it is natural for all non-Muslims to be accept Islamic sovreignty.

July 16, 2007 11:51 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Off Topic:
Haven't seen ya round in a while. Everything OK on your end, ZY?

August 09, 2007 5:54 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home