Blair: Israel is the Problem!

So, Bush won. My friends are either enraged, shocked, or depressed. I feel terrified that Kerry -- an internationalist/defeatist if there ever was one -- got so close. But that's for another time. More interesting right now is the reaction on the other side of the pond -- Blair, our "staunchest ally" in the war on terror. Bush wins, and what does Tony Blair want to turn to now? Maybe the tide of Islamist violence that in one day shot, stabbed, and cut the throat of a liberal film documentarian in the streets of Amsterdam? And attempted to blow up a stadium in Madrid (they didn't get the memo about the appeasement, I guess!)? And just beheaded a Thai village leader who happened to be a Buddhist infidel? Naaaaaaaaaah. Not really important right now. For Blair, what is important is -- you guessed it -- Israel! That's the problem. Here's the Jerusalem Post's take on Blair's immediate demands from a victorious Bush:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair devoted much of a brief speech congratulating President George W. Bush on his reelection Wednesday night to a call for a new coordinated effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Describing the need for such a solution as the "single most pressing political challenge in our world today,"Blair urged the president to seek peace "between Israel and Palestine" with the "same energy" that he has pursued his agenda in Iraq. Blair placed this quest in the context of "resolving the conditions and causes on which the terrorists prey."

Blair's dramatic emphasis on the issue, and his pledge to work with Bush to advance it, underlined the British prime minister's desire to be seen as seeking a dramatic Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough in order to pacify the vast contingent of critics, inside and outside his own Labor party, of his firm alliance with Bush over the Iraq war.

What to say? One, that Blair is said to be Israel's "best friend in Europe" shows how outlandish the pro-appeasement views on the continent must be. Two, what kind of global strategist is Blair who takes advantage of a great tactical victory in the ongoing terror war -- the Bush victory -- by signalling that perhaps it is now time to turn on the pressue on the vulnerable beachhead of democracy in the Middle East, Israel? Third, that by coming out with his "demands" so quickly, Blair
signals that a fundamental misreading of the enemy has taken hold even in the power centers of those nations which actually have proven they have a will to fight. And that's disturbing.

This is what one has to ignore if one claims that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is the "root cause" of Islamist terror:

1. Al Qaida's OWN declared ideology of Total War on the West, of pushing America out of the MidEast, forming an Islamic Caliphate on the ashes of today's middle-eastern and Islamic nations, of having a "right to kill" millions of Americans, is actually covering up their real desire, which is a two-state solution in Israel and the territories.

2. That Indonesian jihadis who attack Bali nightclubs and roast hundreds of people alive, that Chechnyan jihadis that take over a school and shoot babies in the back, that Nigerian muslims that burn Christian villages, that Moroccan jihadis who attempt to blow up trains and stadiums and railroad tracks, that Pakistani jihadis that car-bomb Shiite churches, and a host of other Islamic terror throughout the world is ACTUALLY a cry for a two-state solution in Israel and its territories.

3. That a Wahabi network of charities, mosques, and schools built up throughout the entire globe which preaches a feral anti-Westernism, a total rejection of the non-Muslim, calls Christians and Jews sons of pigs and dogs, and inveighs against the infidel West and all their secular immoralities will suddenly change course with a two-state solution in Israel and the territories.

4. That by appeasing Palestinian terrorist gangs using a death-cult ideology and suicide-bombers to wreak havoc on civilian populations, that death-cult ideology will dwindle and disappear -- instead of, say, draw strength from its great success.

Ahh, but that is what the post-modern European elitists believe, who have no patience for the Christian "faith" of our president, but who have endless faith in the essential goodness of the terrorists who, after all, are really only fighting for the terribly oppressed people of Palestine, even if they don't actually come out and say it.

Why would Blair, at the beginning of a war which is seemingly going badly for the enemy -- with elections in Afghanistan, Bin Laden's strangely conciliatory video released last week, and the failure of any arab nations to fall to Al Queda-inspired coups -- announce that what we really need to do now is pay the enemy tribute? It's as if after the battle of Midway, Churchill demanded that Roosevelt remove the economic blockade on Japan to give the moderates more breathing space. Or, more precisely, it mimics the European reaction to Hitler's open demands in 1938 to be given the "Sudetenland" in Czechoslovakia. here is William Shirer on this strange European habit of appeasement:
Thus the plight of the German minority in Czechoslovakia was merely a pretext ... for cooking up a stew in a land he coveted, undermining it, confusing and misleading its friends and concealing his real purpose ... to destroy the Czechoslovak state and grab its territories .... The leaders of France and Great Britain did not grasp this. All through the spring and summer, indeed almost to the end, Prime Minister Chamberlain and Premier Daladier apparently sincerely believed, along with most of the rest of the world, that all Hitler wanted was justice for his kinsfolk in Czechoslovakia.3
The parallel is not perfect, of course. In 1938, Hitler assured the French and British that all he wanted was the Sudetenland. Al Qaida and the jihadis have made no such assurance this time around.

But no matter. The Europeans demand appeasement even when they get no "assurances". Their reflex is to feed the beast lest it become hungry. We shall see if the Jews will once again pay the ultimate price for the sophisticated sensibilities of the Europeans.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where in his speach did P.M. Blair use words that
amount to saying that "what we really need to do now is pay the enemy tribute"?

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a bit rich for an American to preach about appeasement. Britian bit the bullet over Poland. Her very existance was on the line - and she fought Germany to a stand-still in the skies over Kent. Where was America? Sitting on her fat arse until the Japs dropped bombs on her.

Oh Yes, and where the hell were you in 1982? Trying to convince us to let the Argies have the Falklands.

Most Brits sympathise with Palestinians for good reasons. There lands are occupied by military force, there children killed by soldiers, there houses bulldozed etc. All by a group of people who believe thay can do this because their religion gives them an ancient and overriding interests in the land. If only North American indians had the same overwhelming military might... But the distaste isn't just academic. The Israel army recently distinguished itself by taking pot-shots as visiting British MPs. I wonder how the US would react if soldiers of a British-backed country took pot-shots at visiting US senators.

My distaste for Israel is only surpassed by my distate for the nasty Arab countries that surround it. But I'm quite sure that if I was an arab though, Israel would leave a bad taste in my mouth, and that makes it that much easier for someone like Bin Laden to influence people. Blair is spot on - he just doesn't have the power to do anythign about it.

3:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home