Peace through strength

Just one of those lessons that unfortunately needs to be relearned, and relearned, and relearned:  when you have enemies, perceived weakness invites aggression.  It might not be long before comme-ci, comme-ca doesn’t cut it, even at the NYT.

VDH @ NRO in Can Israel Survive?:

By now we know both what will start and what will deter yet another conflict in the Middle East. In the past, wars broke out when the Arab states thought they could win them and stopped when they realized they could not.

But now a new array of factors — ever more Islamist enemies of Israel such as Turkey and Iran, ever more likelihood of frontline Arab Islamist governments, ever more fear of Islamic terrorism, ever more unabashed anti-Semitism, ever more petrodollars flowing into the Middle East, ever more prospects of nuclear Islamist states, and ever more indifference by Europe and the United States — has probably convinced Israel’s enemies that finally they can win what they could not in 1947, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, and 2006.

So brace yourself. The next war against Israel is no longer a matter of if — only when. And it will be far more deadly than any we’ve witnessed in quite some time.


Caroline Glick adds that the U.N is a suckers game for Israel:

But the situation is more complex. By going to the U.N., the Palestinians have shown their absolute bad faith in previous negotiations with Israel, and indeed exposed the entire peace process as a lie. The peace process was based on the assumption that a Palestinians state could emerge only at the end of a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. That is, such a state would be at peace with Israel.

By bypassing negotiations, the Palestinians seek to gain a state that will be born in a state of war with Israel.

The U.S. and European response to this initiative has been utterly shocking. The Europeans, led by French president Nicolas Sarkozy, have given their enthusiastic support to the Palestinians.

As for the U.S., by rejecting a cutoff of financial assistance and political support to the Palestinians in the face of their rejection of peace with Israel, the Obama administration has signaled to the Palestinians that there is no price to be paid for their aggressive bad faith.

In short, the EU and the U.S. are rewarding the Palestinians for abandoning the centerpiece of European and U.S. Middle East policy for the past generation — the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Also, remember: the Palestinian U.N Mission has wiped Israel of the face of the map.

This entry was posted in Foreign Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Peace through strength

  1. Paul Marks says:

    Islam (or “Islamism” if people insist) is on the rise – and this means that Israel is a target.

    But not just Israel – Christian Arabs (ordinary ones – not the pet “intellectuals” who are trotted out to denoucne the West) are a target all over the Middle East (indeed all over the Islamic world).

    And there is a another factor…..

    The world of Islam (at least according to those Islamic clerics who have a large popular following) is not just the Middle East – it is the whole world.

    That means that the Rothbardian policy of isolationism will (sadly) not bring peace for the United States. For (whether one likes the idea of not)) the United States happens to be on the planet Earth.

    If the whole world is claimed (and it is claimed) that must include the United States.

    • John says:

      I’d like to see more recent data, but the last time I checked it went something like:

      1/3 of the Muslim world are Jihadists,
      1/3 are fellow travelers who approve of the goals if not the means, and
      1/3 are modernists (who I imagine are scared to death – literally).

      With 1.2+ billion Muslims in the world… that’s a sticky wicket. Elsewhere it’s been written that Islam needs a Pope, not a Luther, since it’s already so decentralized and wild&wooly that there’s really no governing structure that could rein it in even if it wanted to be reined in.

  2. Paul Marks says:

    An Islamic “Pope” (something that, by the way, the Shia minority might be more comfortable with than the Sunni majority) would still face two basic problems:

    The nature of the Islamic texts – the Quran, the Hadith (the sayings of Muhammed), and the Sira (the biography of Muhammed). There are indeed differences between different collections of the Hadith and different versions of the Sira – but the basic fact remains…..

    This stuff is light years away from the basic philosophy of the New Testament.

    And that leads us to the second problem….

    The like of Muhammed (his actual deeds) are wildly different from the life (the deeds of Jesus. And it is NOT a matter of a bad man becomming good when he finds religion – on the contrary, Muhammed did nothing really bad as a young man. It was AFTER he started to claim he got messages from God that he started to do bad things (really bad things) – even those verses in the Quran that advocate peace and tolerance are early versus, spoken (Muhammed did not write stuff himself) before Muhammed had built up his military forces – and was able to slaughter those who would not accept his rule.

    The closest the Bible comes to a character like Muhammed is Joshua who, let us be honest, was a monster – destroying whole towns (down to the babies) in totally unprovoked attacks against long standing populations who farmed the land and lived in villages and towns (a war of aggression), because he claimed that God told him to do it (either Joshua was a liar, or the voice he was following was the voice of Satan). But Joshua does not have the central role in Judaism (let alone Christianity) it is perfectly possible for a Jew or a Christian to honestly oppose a lot of what Joshua did. Of course crimes thousands or hundreds of years ago do not invalidate land claims now (a basic principle of both Roman and Common Law – otherwise there never would be settled ownership of anything and the world would be in blood soaked choas for ever), Besides modern Israel is based on the BUYING of land from Arab owners (from the early 1900s onwards) and from claims based on DEFENSIVE wars after Israel was proclaimed in 1948 (when the Arabs at once attacked with the openly expressed intention of the EXTERMINATION of Israel).

    But in Islam Muhammed is the central figure – there can be no Islam if Muhammed is admitted to be an evil man. And an evil man is exactly what Muhammed was. And even Joshua was limited – he was trying to take over a clearly defined area of land (and kill or enslave the people already there). Muhammed accepts no geographical limits – to him (and to his followers) the whole world is their possession (from God), and all other people must submit to their authority (or be killed).

    There is a possible counter attack to all of the above……

    “You are just basing your opinions of Muhammed and his followers on the works of Robert Spencer and other critics of Islam”.

    This is, in part, true. However, critics of Spencer (and others) do not actually refute his central claims (about the life and teachings of Muhammed) they just tend to throw abuse at him. For example the endless claims that Robert Spencer is a Jew – which is not true (and would not matter even it was true).

    • John says:

      RE: the earlier verses advocating peace &etc. You may already know there’s an actual doctrine in Islam that addresses this, termed “abrogation”. In the case of “contradiction,” later verses trump earlier ones.

  3. Paul Marks says:

    Quite so. And what are considered the later verses are the nasty ones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s