Wednesday, July 21, 2010

A Fourth Approach to the Muslim World

American policy toward the Middle East has been traditionally split between the Stabilizers and the Radicals.

The Stabilizers were old foreign policy hands in the State Department, the Pentagon or the CIA, sometimes tied in with the oil industry. They advocated maintaining stability in the Middle East by putting American support behind "our friends", the dictators. The US would supply them with weapons and military backing in case they were ever invaded or overthrown, and in exchange we would have reliable access to oil. From the Eisenhower interventions to the Gulf War, the United States protected Arab Muslim tyrannies in order to maintain stability in the region.

The Radicals were often academics, part time journalists or old line leftists. They insisted that everything wrong in the Middle East was caused by Western colonialism and imperialism, and the healing could only begin when the United States stopped backing the tyrants and began backing Marxist and Islamist terrorists in taking over their respective countries. The Radicals believed that if the United States would only abandon the dictators and throw their support behind the Marxists and the Islamists, a wonderful new age would dawn in the Middle East.

Until the Carter Administration, the Stabilizers held sway over foreign policy. With Carter though, the Radicals had their first taste of power. Following the doctrine of the Radicals, the Carter Administration helped bring Islamists to power in Iran, and began providing aid to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Its Green Belt strategy was focused on creating an alliance of Islamists to ally with the US against the Soviet Union. The real result was the same one you get when you try to breed poisonous snakes in order to get a bear off your land. You might succeed in getting rid of the bear, but now you'll have a whole other problem on your hands. That's exactly what happened with the US and the Islamists.

Neither the Stabilizers nor the Radicals were utilizing new ideas in their approach to the Middle East. The Stabilizers were echoing the British Empire's attempts to maintain control of the region through puppet sheikdoms and princedoms. The problem was that it hadn't worked too well for the British, who found themselves entangled in internal Arab and Muslim conflicts and coups. Like the British had before them, United States diplomats and oil company executives would cultivate a tyrant or two, only to discover that they were also completely untrustworthy. The House of Saud wound up seizing the same oil companies, and reversing the power relationship by doling out the oil on their terms, and using the money to begin the Islamization of the United States and Europe, while bribing half the foreign policy establishment to do it.

The Radicals meanwhile were fueled by left-wing anti-Americanism, which translated into a foreign policy of "America is Always Wrong" and "Radical Terrorists are Always Right". Their claims that backing Marxist and Islamist terrorists would lead to freedom and candyland proved to be wrong every time, yet did nothing to prevent them from enabling the horrors of the Mullahs in Iran or the PLO in Israel. True to the same ideological heritage that had turned Russia red with blood, yet insisted that things were going swimmingly-- they were never capable of acknowledging a mistake.

With the Carter Administration, the Radicals increasingly began winning the argument, and the Stabilizers moved to accommodate them. Portions of the Radical agenda were incorporated into that of the Stabilizers. This was easily enough done, since the Stabilizers had never cared too much about who was in power, so long as there was no chaos or unrest. That was why the Eisenhower Administration had backed Nasser over its former allies in England and France. It was why Bush Sr could casually dismiss massacres by the Kuwaitis in the aftermath of the invasion. These were just means of imposing stability.

But the Radicals made very little headway after the Mullahs took over Iran. They could do little to shift US foreign policy away from the old line Arab regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia-- who had strong backing from the Stabilizers. Occasional nods toward democracy would come from the White House or Capitol Hill, and were immediately ignored. But they did find one weak spot. Israel.

The Stabilizers had inherited the old British antipathy toward Israel. They viewed it  as a country that should never have existed, but had now become a necessary evil. The Stabilizers had commitments to the House of Saud, and to the Kuwaiti Royals, but they had none toward Israel. They had been forced to support Israel as leverage against Soviet backed Arab regimes in Egypt and Syria. But the Camp David Accords had drawn Egypt onto the American side of the board, and the end of the Cold War made many of the old red and white maps seem irrelevant. Which meant that in their eyes, and that of their Muslim overlords, Israel was becoming a nuisance.

To the Radicals, Israel was something much worse. It was Western. It was a colony. It was an alien entity in what should have been a pure Arab-Muslim region. And if their obsession with Israel seemed downright Nazi-like at times, it was because they shared an obsession with making a part of the world Judenrein, not for practical reasons, but for ideological ones. If the Stabilizers had imbibed the Saudi contempt for Jews, the Radicals drank of a deeper and uglier well. If the Nazis had viewed Jews as genetically tainted, the Communists and the Left viewed Jews as politically tainted, contaminated by religion and seperatism. The Nazis had wanted to solve a genetic problem by wiping out the carriers of those genes. The Left wanted to solve a political problem by wiping out Jewish identity.

Israel was the intersection of the left's hatred for the reactionary Western Civilization and the even more reactionary notion of a Jewish identity. Much like Archie Bunker asked Sammy Davis Jr, why if he was already black, did he also want to become Jewish-- the idea of a Jewish state modeled on modern Western states triggered two obsessive streams of hatred from the Left. On the one hand there was H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw screeching that Jews had better give up being Jews, or go rot in Palestine, and on the other hand there was every leftist critic of Western imperialism crying out against US foreign policy in the Middle East. The results were and are almost unfathomably ugly-- as people's deepest prejudices merging with self-righteous political fanaticism tend to be.

The Stabilizers were more than willing to give Israel to the Radicals, so long as the House of Saud and the Mubarak clan and every tinpot tyrant was allowed to do whatever they wanted. And so there was finally a point of agreement between the Stabilizers and the Radicals. But into this pastoral scene, came a third party with another proposal. The Neo-Conservatives.

The Neo-Conservatives represented a break with both the Stabilizers and the Radicals. They were opposed to the status quo in the existing Muslim regimes, like the Radicals. But they were also opposed to the pet terrorists that the Radicals wanted to replace them with. What they wanted to do was to dredge the swamp, reform and democratize the region. The Neo-Conservatives were naive about the realities of the Middle East and the resources such plans required-- but for the first time a group with significant influence on foreign policy had managed to articulate something resembling a moral policy for the Middle East.

The Stabilizers and the Radicals both reacted about the way you would expect when after 9/11, Neo-Conservative ideas about America's relationship to the Middle East gained a great deal of influence. The Stabilizers reflected the panic of their Saudi masters at the prospect of bringing democracy to the region. The Radicals rejected the idea that the Muslim world needed to become civilized, instead they just wanted the Islamists to take over. The one thing both the Stabilizers and the Radicals agreed on was that the Neo-Conservatives were the devil. Which of course they were. After all unlike them the Neo-Conservatives had a proposal that didn't involve America groveling to one bunch of thugs or another.

Of course no foreign policy that was even loosely pro-American could survive for very long. The Bush Administration was undermined from the inside. The reconstruction of Iraq was painstakingly sabotaged within the military, the State Department and the intelligence community, until it dissolved into a proxy war between Baathists and Sadrists, with Al Queda bomb throwers adding spice to the sauce. The old hands like Rumsfeld, Bolton and Cheney were sent packing. Condoleeza Rice took control of foreign policy and turned it back into exactly what it had been under George Bush Sr. Appeasement. Any worries by Arab tyrants were put to rest. Roasting Israel became the top priority. The Stabilizers were back in charge. But not for long.

Obama's ascension marked the return of the Radicals to power. Outreach to the Muslim world was now the top priority. Covert contacts with Hamas and the Taliban were quietly opened. Israel was now truly enemy number one. But so was America. Iran's post-election riots were met with the same shrug that the left had used on pro-Democracy protesters in the USSR. The Arab dictators began growing nervous, as the Obama Administration took a hands off approach to Iran. And Obama's outreach had failed to win any new allies, but only alienated existing allies. Which was inevitable as Radicals are never very good at alliances, especially those that required them to think along the lines of national interest.

Where do we stand today? We've seen the three basic approaches, that of the Stabilizers, the Radicals and the Neo-Conservatives-- and all are fundamentally flawed. The Stabilizers support tyrants who covertly make war on the United States. The Radicals support terrorists who openly make war on the United States. What is even more absurd is that there is really not that much distance between the tyrants and the terrorists, since the tyrants fund the terrorists to increase their own power and popularity, and the terrorists aspire to become tyrants in the name of Islam. And both sides are laughing at the Stabilizers and the Radicals for selling out their country.

The Neo-Conservatives however dramatically underestimated the amount of effort and energy needed to reform entire cultures. Their excessive optimism led to introducing democracy in countries where the only real opposition parties that had managed to survive, were Islamists. The Bush Administration in particular treated democracy as a totem that could do anything, because it had adopted a simplistic model in which the Muslim world was not bad, only its leaders were. And once the people had a chance to vote for peace and prosperity, better leaders would emerge. Where these leaders would come from, and did people in the Muslim world really want peace and prosperity, in the American sense, were questions that went unasked. The Radicals and the Stabilizers both understood this quite well, and knew that with a few pushes in the right places, their whole project would come crashing down.

Those are the three. Which means what we now need is a fourth approach that avoids the flaws of these three. What is the primary flaw of all three? They all sought to determine who would rule in the Muslim world. The Stabilizers thought that the best way was to keep the Muslim world as it is. The Radicals and the Neo-Conservatives wanted to remake it. And all three of these approaches tangled them in the political chaos and instability of the Muslim world. But there is a fourth way.

The Fourth Way is Accountability and it is simple enough. Stop arguing over who will rule in which Muslim country. That is a decision that only the inhabitants of that country can make. And they won't make it through elections, so much as through dealmaking among their oligarchy, tribal leaders and occasional outbursts of armed force. It would take a massive project of decades to have any hope of changing that. But we don't need to. What we need to do is make very clear the consequences of attacking us to whoever is in charge.

Rather than trying to shape their behavior by shaping their political leadership, we can use a much more blunt instrument to unselectively shape all their leaders. A blunt instrument does not mean reconstruction. It doesn't mean Marines ferrying electrical generators. It doesn't mean nation building. It means that we will inflict massive devastation on any country that aids terrorists who attack us. If they insist on using medieval beliefs to murder us, we will bomb government buildings, roads, factories and power plants to reduce them back to a medieval state. We will not impose sanctions on them, we will simply take control of their natural resources and remove the native population from the area, as compensation for the expenses of the war.

Accountability means no more aid to tyrants or terrorists, and no grand democracy projects either. It means that we stop trying to pick a side, and just make it clear what happens when our side gets hurt. We gain energy independence and never look back. And when we've done that, the Muslim world will no longer be able to play America against Russia, against Asia and Europe. Instead it will suddenly find itself stuck with a predatory Russia looking for an energy monopoly, a booming China expanding into their part of the world, and no Pax Americana to protect them from either one.

America has provided the stability that kept many Muslim countries from imploding. It has protected others directly and indirectly from being conquered more times than anyone realizes. All the treachery and terrorism that has been carried out, has been done under an American umbrella. Now is the time to furl up the umbrella, and let the rain fall where it may.

It will be a cold day indeed, when Russia and China realize that they can do what they like in the Muslim world, without the US to stop them. And a colder day still, when European countries realize that there is nothing standing the way of deporting their insurgent Muslim populations, because the US will not lift a finger to protect them, as it did in Yugoslavia. That is accountability. And in both its active and passive forms it will exact a high price from the enemy, and none from us. To employ it, we must be prepared to use massive force casually without considering any collateral damage. We must achieve energy independence at any cost. And we must be prepared to realize that everything else we have tried has failed. Only by disengaging from the Muslim world, can we ever be free of it.


Michele said...

Fantastic. Exactly. But too unsophisticated for the educated left that controls the minds of the intellectuals in Europe and the USA. This is the same problem I see with parents. They think you have to discuss with a three-year old kid if he behaves badly. You want him to be a good human being? Show him the consequences. The muslim world is like a spoiled brat. It screams (i.e. murders a bunch of people), and gets candy.

Lemon said...

The left blames everything on the West. They have no other mantra.

Myriam van Antwerpen said...

As always very well written, acute analysis and presenting the only possible solution. Will it be implemented though? I do hope so. If nothing is done soon all will be lost.
I have posted this article on facebook and hope many people will see it and read it.

Ria said...

Amen. :)

Paul said...

It simply does not work to lay weakness to Islamic fundamentalism at the feet of the "leftist" "radicals". How does this explain Afghanistan? It was Afghanis who wanted to create closer ties with the Soviet Union that were opposed to the fundamentalists. And it was the "right" in the US who supported the Taliban who were known fundamentalists and terrorists too. It was Zbigniew Brzezinski who said, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" And of course the fundamentalist seperatists in the former Soviet Union and in the People's Republic of China are also well reported on. The aversion that the Muslims have to the left is also easily observed.

The intervention of NATO in Yugoslavia might easily be laid at the feet of Clinton, except Croatia and Albania and NATO itself can hardly be seen as "leftist" conspiracies.

Isn't it easy to see that there has always been something else afoot besides this endless fake war between the "left" and the "right", or "liberals" versus "conservatives"? There are simply to many actors in recent history who trace their alliances to much older and more despicable systems of beliefs than those offered up by talk radio.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

it's the common sense solution...but my goal was to point the way to it by defining and analyzing what we have been doing wrong and why

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


actually I explained that in terms of both the stabilizers, who let US the Saudis into the house, and the radicals, but the practical gap between the two on the Islamic side is often ambiguous

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who did his work for the Carter admin, is hardly "the Right"

conservative vs liberal is actually fairly ancient, going back a good deal further than the United States

SabaShimon said...

Another great piece, but unfortunately, pie in the sky.
The very same solution can be applied in Israel. One kassam, one mortar, one terrorist attack, and we erase a neighborhood......with another neighborhood for every attack thereafter.
Never happen.
Unfortunately, neither we or the Americans have anymore the clear moral vision that enabled the West to defeat evil n the '40's.
Until we regain it, this black hole only get's deeper and darker

Anonymous said...

Alas, it will not happen. The West is too far gone. But after America has fallen and Europe is a caliphate, Russian tanks rolling into Paris and London may yet save the day for Christendom.

P.S. Here is fodder for your next blog entry. The UN "court" has officially ruled that Kosovo independence is "legal", thus rewarding genocidal Islamic fanatics who started by raping and murdering nuns upon monastery altars and ended by trying to attack Fort Dix. With this endorcement of Islamic genocide, ethnic cleansing and a Moslem narcostate in the middle of Europe, the UN has officially sounded the death knell for Old Europe.

Who says that Hashem did not notice the Holocaust? Now He will pay back accounts, measure for measure. I pray that He will see fit to save the Serbs and the Danes, in the merit of those among them who showed mercy to us.

Keli Ata said...

Dumb question but:

"The US would supply them with weapons and military backing in case they were ever invaded or overthrown, and in exchange we would have reliable access to oil. From the Eisenhower interventions to the Gulf War, the United States protected Arab Muslim tyrannies in order to maintain stability in the region.

Wouldn't that make the US an accomplice is terror against the US and its allies? If so, why in the world are fighting a war on terror at all? Why fight against terrorism and put young US soldiers in danger of death or critical injureis?

It's Russian roulette with the the Muslim world. Maybe there's always a bullet in the chamber. How many is unknown.

I agree entirely. We need to cut our ties with the Islamic world.

In light of the BP tragedy...Obama has been blasted for not doing enough. As oil gushes into the sea is he making us even more dependent on Arab oil?

Will off shore oil be the future targets of terrorists?

We fight terror by supporting the terrorists?

Anonymous said...

@SabaShimon: "We?" The folks at Samson Blinded, JTF and Virtual Medinat Yehudah don't agree with your "we". Nor do the gals at Women in Green. Or the fellows in the black hats who hang out with R. Wolpe.

Pick one set and stick with it. There is no "we" left in Israel. The Jews must win and the Israelis must lose, or else we are all dead men.

Anonymous said...

I think there are cases where your plan will not work. Consider Afghanistan. It's already in the stone age. Bombing it back to the stone is impossible, it's already there. In Iran and North Korea the leaders are nuts. They don't care how the people live. There will always be enough luxuries for the elites. Unlike with a democracy in a dictatorship those making decisions won't be seriously harmed by damaging the country.

Suppose we tried this on Iraq when they plotted to kill Bush. After we bombed them. Then what? They would want revenge and try to attain it by terrorist attacks on the US. What would Saddam have to lose at that point? He would only be thinking of revenge not the welfare of his people.

Mikec said...

The left is a bunch of gullible do-gooders being manipulated by some very cunning, clever and very very evil 'High-Priests' for their own selfish ends.

It is no good dealing with the tenticles, you have to strike at the 'eye' Disney hero style; problem being 'where is the eye?'.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


good question, but the game is played this way. Officially the role of the Saudi or UAE royals in funding and promoting terror is not recognized. Instead we treat terrorism as unrelated to them or as directed only against them, and insist that we're fighting only a handful of extremists

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


I'm not talking about taking out luxuries, but destroying their ability to function as a modern country. Which ends their ability to threaten us. No roads, No bridges. No power. No cell phone towers. No airports. No planes.

It will do much less good in a place like Afghanistan, but Afghanistan isn't much of a threat. It's the terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who are the real threat.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


the eye is the source of their power, which is oil and demographics. Oil is a vulnerable target because they're feeding off us and using that money to finance terrorism

Will48 said...

So to put a catchy label on this, let's call it an IRON WALL strategy: put an Iron Wall around the islamists, and bomb any industry they try to rebuild, so they can never develop weapons to threaten the Free World with.
Iron Wall - no trade, no travel, no tourists and certainly no student exchange. No students at all.
But first and foremost - NO TRADE whatsoever.
Of course the current elites in the West are bought wholesale to the idea of "free worldwide trade", in their pursuit for unlimited profits. It is not at all inconcievable for them to actually convert to Islam and work towards Islamization of the West purposefully and in secret - in that same pursuit of profits.
It's Freedom vs. Trade/Profits right now.
Freedom vs. Profits. That's the real dichotomy we're facing today. And the governing establishments in all the Western countries are dedicated to preservation and protection of The Profit.

Will48 said...

Now, we must realize that Islam's subjects are its victims. We must not hate them. We must feel compassion to them, and try to free them from the clutches of that evil ideology of Supremacism and Domination, and Mind Control.
But while we are still weak, we shall employ the Iron Wall strategy - at first.
We might be forced to use the terrible weapons of immense power - but we must only do this if we are truly forced to do so and there's no other option.
When we have more strength, we shall begin the quest to freeing the minds of Islam's captive subjects. Possibly starting wth its children, by isolating them from the poisonous influence of that deceased society they have the misfortune to be born into.
We shall also demand of the rulers of those territories to allow free and unrestricted access of their subjects to information that we, the Free World, shall provide them - information fully truthful, non-distorted and without omission.
We shall also demand a right to emigrate for any free mind from under that oppression - and eventually, when there are more and more such souls that free themselves with the assistance of full and truthful Free World's information, we shall demand the apportionment of land mass to them instead of emigration.
But first, we must return to BEING FREE and striving for Freedom by ourselves - Freedom of the Mind first and foremost.
The ethical code can be formulated as -
The Right To Think (and have free access to full non-distorted information)
No Coercion (Freedom of Choice)
Do No Harm (except to stop those who would, and do).

Geoffrey Britain said...

I agree with the analysis but disagree with the proposed solution. Not because it wouldn't work. No, Rome proved that 'salting the earth' (Carthage) works.

Rather, I disagree because the necessary public consensus is lacking (divided electorate), so the political will is lacking (leaders reflect the electorate in a representative democracy) and most importantly, modern sensibilities; both the US and Israel practice proportionate response, which determines our ludicrous 'rules of engagement' resulting from the theory of 'just war doctrine' which has become an unchallenged meme in the public's, leadership's, media's and military's mind.

Put simply, the West is not ruthless enough for a 'Roman' solution to even be considered. At least not before the "barbarian is at the gate". Yes, by the time the public recognizes that the barbarian actually is, already at the gate, it may be far too late but that's often how civilizations collapse, by ignoring the handwriting on the wall.

Consider that only a small minority of America's conservative intellectuals are even willing to consider that Islam itself is the problem.

Until that intellectual leap is taken, and by many, no majority consensus will emerge sufficient to support a 'roman' solution.

What to do then?

I've proposed that Israel must show the way, as they are not only much closer to the threat but much further down the road than the US or any other Western nation.

There is a way to hold Islam accountable without bombing Muslims back to the stone age.


The Realities Israel Must Accept

Lisa said...

Interesting post, Daniel. However you left out one thing. In order for your proposal to work, America and the rest of the world needs to find an alternative to oil. Now you might say we should drill off shore. But that's only a short term fix. The fact is, we need to render oil worthless. That's the only thing that will take away the power of the Muslim to blackmail us.

Tracy W said...

Dear Daniel:

regarding your solution, I see several obstacles. Here are some of them:

- Our governments do not represent us, they represent business interests. Whatever decision they make will be on the basis of personal or international financial interests. They couldn't care less about our national future.

For example, the Scottish Parliament released the Lockerbie terrorist on the advice of BP, which expected preferencial treatment by Libya for their efforts.

- Threats of retaliation against individual countries would be difficult to implement because terrorist funding could be several levels removed from the governments.

Maybe an individual, (prince, cleric, warlord) unbeknownst to the government, gives clandestine aid to a terrorist. In theory, you shouldn't level the country because of that.

Or if an American decides to put the teachings of his favorite internet cleric in practice and blows up a busy bridge or something, who do you retaliate against?

And what if he comes from the UK? Or Canada?

- You write: "Stop arguing over who will rule in which Muslim country. That is a decision that only the inhabitants of that country can make."

It's no longer feasible to let Muslims sort out their differences. Some of them have the bomb already. Pakistan will have to be watched closely. And so will Iran, and then whoever is in line to get their own bomb next.

Terror may not come from the Middle East any more. It could come from London, or Malmo, or Mexico. Or Dearborn. They are everywhere.

I can see no realistic and comprehensive policy for dealing with terror. Like I said, governments are too inadequate to take up that task. Also Westerners would rather surrender than do anything politically-incorrect.

But if people managed somehow to prevail on governments TO DO SOMETHING, here are at least some temporary measures that may delay the world blowing up.

Because IT'S GOING TO BLOW UP (they've got the bomb and access to other WMDs).

I'm not religious, I just no longer have any faith in mankind.

If humans are not out to destroy, then they are too corrupt, or clueless, or disempowered, or inefficient - or just unable or unwilling to save our societies.

So these are temporary measures that could be implemented if we only we had the will to do it. No need to fire a shot.

1) Implement a moratorium on Muslim or any other immigration. We can explain that due to the recession, we can't admit any more immigrants.

2) Use any legal means available to stop the use of temples or schools to indoctrinate people into committing acts of violence.

3) Stop religious indoctrination of inmates in the US. It's bad enough that they commit crimes. Don't allow religion to mix with sociopathic tendencies.

4) Stop prohibition of street drugs. The illegal drug business is increasingly used to finance terror. It's also draining our resources and contributing to corruption at all levels.

5) Use women to fight Sharia law. Do everything possible to empower Muslim women who want to stand up for their rights. If there is any hope at all of undermining extreme Islam is women power. They are, by the way, raising the next generation.

6) And above all stop all forms of dhimmitude. Right now. Let's be proud of our democracy and our rights.

There are more ideas around but I've gone long enough with this. The common requirement of course would be a true willingness on the part of governments and citizens to fight terror, even at the risk of (GASP!!!) being politically incorrect.

Anonymous1 said...

@Tracy W "I can see no realistic and comprehensive policy for dealing with terror." You can't? I can!

Kill them all and let their Satan sort them out. That simple.

Lev said...

May be I missed something, but how this fourth way differs from what Israel just have tried in Lebanon and Gaza with the disastrous result?

Shlomo said...

Geoffrey Briten

Israel, nuking Mecca or Medina would not destroy islam, the Temple's destruction did not destroy Judaism. Its not going to destroy the Koran. However, it would be suicidal for Israel, I don't think even the great powers would survive that leave alone tiny Israel, because it would set them up against the worlds Moslim populations trade with the US would end.

It's easy for you to say that, because you Christian Zionists only see Israel as an end to a means, I mean you see as Israel as being Christian in the end, so if Israel is destroyed by the Moslim mobs after she nuked Mecca or Medina is of no consequence to you, or the fate of Jews worldwide, but even before that, the US would probably nuke Israel.

You know that very well, but you don't care, though you pretend you do. Time and again we are reminded that this is nothing more than a mutual use contract, we have.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


Israel has talked about it, but what it's done at best is mildly intimidating. If Israel had actually done what I said, there would be no Hamas TV on the air for one thing.

But Israel is not in the situation I mentioned, as Hamas is inside its borders. The US is not yet in that position.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


it wouldn't destroy Islam, but it would bring down the Saudis as guardians of Mecca, and they've done a great deal of damage in that role

Shlomo said...

If bringing down the Saudi's is the objective, the US alone can do that, like they did Saddam, why should Israel? Geoffrey doesn't want America to suffer that's why. In any case, do you think whoever took their place would then love Israel? At least at the present they are willing to let us live, with meagre borders. Israel does have surreptitious trade with the Saudi royal family.

And Geoffrey, if Israel ever did have to use nuclear weapons, we would attack all the Christian nations who tried killing us over the centuries. It wouldn't just be Mecca or islam it would be all our enemies over the centuries. Christians have killed us in greater numbers than the Moslims ever have done.

We are well aware that Christian Zionists only see us a means to an end, and you remind us, as does Pastor Hagee that we have a mutual use contract, nothing more. Such is Edom.

Saudi's havn't attacked Israel but they have attacked the US, so why doesn't Geoffrey say the US should bring down the Saudi royals?

It's because he doesn't mind Israel being destroyed afterwards,

With firends like this who needs enemies.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

the saudis use israel as a buffer, even as they're drawing the noose around israel's neck

the pressure from the US is mostly due to the saudis

if the saudi royal family goes, so do most of israel's problems

Shlomo said...

It depends upon what you mean by the noose around Israel's neck, Daniel, . I think it's fair to say, that a "Palestine" is inevitable, it's not just Saudis pressurising here, it's the world. the saudi's wouldn't attack israel, maybe try to get as much as possible for the so called "palestine" but since most israelis are prepared for that, that's hardly a saudi problem, abbas was bragging that he has american jews on his side.

The worlwide focus on saudi militiancy that you talk about has a lot of opposition amongst the moslims too, so the saudis can only put so much pressure on the state dept. They can only tighten the noose so much. They know they're hated amongst moslims more than by americans.

It isn't as bad as you seem to think, because the state dept. has managed to get the saudis to change a lot of their own teachings, or at least what they export. A lot still gets out, but more vigilance and loud noise will work.

In the end, if saudis are a threat to america, let them deal with it. it's not israel's business.

Finally, i want to say something Daniel, as an american Jew you have got it into your head, that america's problems are Israels. i'd caution against that. Israel will exist when Edom is gone.

Will48 said...

Shlomo - "Christians have killed us in greater numbers than the Moslims ever have done"

that's the meme Muslems luv to push. Just for that I would be cautious in accepting it. Moreover, on the merits, today's population of formerly Christian countries is largely secular, but holding to the ethics of Do No Harm, which is our ethics too. Not so Muslims, as you certainly know.

As for US nuking Israel, it is a REAL prospect (they can even stage it as a black op and blame it on Al Qaeda, their friends and mutual veterans of Bosnian/Kosovan campaigns). But Israel has Nes-Tziyyona option, and were matters to go so much down that hillside, should firmly imply that if destroyed, it will reply - even if from the grave, in the most non-targeted manner. You know, like the complete opposite of the targeted liquidations. How fond those memories would become! God forbid.

What should be stressed, is that nuking Mecca would be a response only to existential kind of attack, like WMD or massive invasion. A measure of last resort. Even then Western interests - oil fields - should not be harmed, contrary to Geoffrey's proposals. Why would Israel initiate the total hostilities against the West? Even if they impose embargo, it might be only temporary - but if we start threatening them it'll only serve to worsen the situation.

No, the right-minded West is our ally, even if not in power right now. Have you read the piece by Aznar? He made his country proud, by standing with Israel so firmly.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...


the Saudis don't need to attack Israel personally, they feed the hate by Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe, America and the Muslim world as a whole.

The Saudis are feeding the same things they've been feeding all along. And Obama is literally bowing to them.

Emuna said...

To Will45, today Christianity is secular yes, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is inherently anti-semitic. The Evangelicals who support us, do so for their own purpose.

Historically, Christians have killed more Jews than anyone else. It's more correct to say that some Christians like Robert Spencer seem to think their battling Islam means they are justified in rewriting their own history against us.

Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism...” Hans Küng, "On Being a Christian"

“I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

Adolf Hitler

"The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." Benjamin Disraeli
The persecution and mass murder of European Jews by Christians from 306 to 1945 CE was the longest lasting mass crime against humanity

An overview of the persecution
of Jews for the past 2,000 years

Shlomo said...


True, but as I said saudi extremism is not the only influence bad for Israel, the saudis are not behind the church backed hate against Israel.

In the end, US aid to Israel is more than reciprocated. Israel doesn't owe the USA anything but the USA gets a lot in return for aid. More than they get from Egypt that gets more aid.

From an Israeli viewpoint america's battles are not ours. Nor are Israel's battles american. Let the americans topple the saudi royal family if they want, but if they were toppled, would that stop sabeel from rallying Christians in the west? as Melanie Philips shows below, and as evidenced by Helen Thomas a Christian lebanese, and the boycotts taking root in the US, they're Christian Churches inspired.


"that's the meme Muslems luv to push. Just for that I would be cautious in accepting it."

Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Melanie Philips, Rabbi Singer and many other Jews will disagree with you. (see below) As in Rome and Europe, anti-semitism didn't exist in India until the Christian missionaries went there, only then were Indian Jews persecuted. Pastor Hagee promotes anti semitic views of Jews, under the guise of support for Israel, and for a christian Israel. How does this make his movement different to Hezbollah or Hamas? One is a physical death, and the other a spiritual death. In both cases an end to the Jew.

In a nutshell: If it ever came to the point that we had to exercise The Samson Option against the Moslim threat as a last resort, the Christian world should be in doubt whatsoever, that it will be payback time for 2000 years of Jew hatred too.
From Christian to Muslim: Christians developed the abiding tropes of anti-Semitism, (such as greediness and ambitions to world domination), and historically Christians killed most Jews. Therefore, Jews regularly fled Christendom for Islamdom.
Suffice to say, to justify my assertion, that Muslims did not engage in the sort of pogroms that were common in Christian countries from the Crusades until the 20th century.

Bernard Lewis on The New Anti-Semitism
04.03. 2006
Not surprisingly, the Arabic-speaking Christians of the Levant proved most receptive to theories of Jewish perfidy. In 1840, for example, when an Italian priest and his native servant disappeared from the Damascus, indigenous Catholics supported by the French consul invoked the ancient charge of "blood libel" against local Jewish inhabitants. Assisted by Europeans living in the region, Middle Eastern Christians played a key role in transmitting anti-Semitic notions to the Muslims.

Christians who hate the Jews
Spectator, February 16 2002
The reason, he says, is that Palestinian Christian revisionism has revived replacement theology. ‘This doctrine was key in fanning the flames of the Holocaust, which could not have happened without 2,000 years of anti-Jewish polemic’, he says. After the Holocaust the Vatican officially buried the doctrine, the current Pope affirming the integrity of the Jewish people and recognising the State of Israel. But according to White, the doctrine is ‘still vibrant’ within Roman Catholic and Anglican pews. ‘Almost all the churches hold to replacement theology’, he says.

The catalyst for its re-emergence has been the attempt by Arab Christians to reinterpret Scripture in order to de-legitimise the Jews’ claim to the land of Israel. This has had a powerful effect upon the churches which, through humanitarian work among the Palestinians by agencies like Christian Aid, have been profoundly influenced by two clerics in particular.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Liberal Christian churches. Which is to say their boycotts have more to do with being left wing, than with religion.

Catholic and the various Orthodox churches are an exception to this rule, as their hostility to Israel is theological, rather than political.

Equating all Christians is a mistake, as is Christians equating all Jews.

Shlomo said...

The body of christ being palestine is not a left wing view, it is a Christian one, Daniel. That is what is driving these people, not left wing views, which beggars why Chinese left wing, or Indian left wing or atheist left wing are not involved.

The churches behind the boycotts are conservative as well as liberal. Just like you have Evangelical left and right churches, so you have Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran, some are conservative and some liberal, and it's not a given that all the liberals are anti Israel or anti Semitic, a lot of the right wing ones are too. Pat Robertson is a right wing Christian.

Why aren't the left wing non church goers involved in this? none of the minorities that are not Christian who are left wing, don't care, like the Buddhists, or the Hindus or the atheists.

I think you tend you to think that all right wing Christians are pro Israel (they are not) and all left wing are anti Israel. Again, they are not. Pastor Hagee's movement is right wing, yet they want to make Israel Christian by deceit.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

what conservative christian churches are conducting a boycott of Israel?

Shlomo said...

Again it depends upon how you look at it Daniel. Conservative right wing Christianity is shifting left, and supporting boycotts against Israel. It could be said, that they right wing pro Israel view is not reflective of Christianity as it only exists in the US, and even there has no real influence.

Not that this will surprise anyone except right wing Jews, who tend to forget this movement is only decades old, is anti-semitic and supports Israel for their own agenda. When they realise that agenda is not forthcoming they will abandon their beliefs.

When Walt and Mearsheimer were asked why they didn't include the more numerical right wing Christian Zionists in their "Israel Lobby" screed as influencing American opionion, they said, it's because it is only a fringe movement in Christianity, and is a phase that will go without any real influence. They said, Christian Zionist churches are a recent phenomenem, and will not last. That is certainly proving to be true as more and more turn left and become anti Israel.

So to answer your question, the left wing is real Christianity, socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-semitic.

I know that all Christians are not Jew haters as you reminded me, that's not what I was saying, that's not what I meant, but Christianity is socialist, anti-capitalist and anti-semitic.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

So I take it you can't name any such church. I don't see a great many evangelical Christians turning Presbyterian or Methodist, more the other way around.

Christian Zionism is not that recent, though it is recent on the scale of Christian history as a whole.

Shlomo said...

I don't know of a right wing church no, Daniel, but which church does Pat Robertson belong to?

Indeed, Evangelicals are leaving right wing evangelism, see below for the left wing chruches, and catholicism and a not insignificant number convert to islam too.

As I said before, Walt and Mearsheimer's prediction coming true below. Seems like the know the Christian Right, though they are wrong about the Lobby.

Evangelicals ‘Crossing the Tiber’ to Catholicism
o July 28, 2010

Under the radar of most observers a trend is emerging of evangelicals converting to Catholicism.

Goodbye, Evangelicalism
March 10, 2009
Is the decline of religion in America a sign of the death of evangelicalism?

March 6, 2009
Beware the new axis of evangelicals and Islamists

Are evangelicals abandoning Israel?
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/15/2009

Cold Winds Blowing
Date: 12/14/2009

In the space of a month, I’ve had two conversations that lead me to believe that, while Israel has many friends in the U.S., there is a hardening toward the Jewish state from some surprising quarters

But Jew-hatred is an ancient sickness. It has made large chunks of the Church sick (oddly enough, quite a few Catholics now support Israel, while the evangelical world sinks into anti-Semitism).

Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding (EMEU) met last spring in Chicago; the group aims to be a more “balanced” friend to Arabs and Israelis. That’s officially. In reality they are pro Palestinian, and at best, their insistence on Israeli concessions puts the lie to their professed concern for Israel’s security. Should the Israelis go the distance in the “peace process,” which groups like EMEU advocate, they will be in very grave danger…even existential danger.

occupant 9 said...

Daniel, the fourth way would absolutely work, if allowed to. But just as Israeli Leftists/lawyers made certain the army could do not expedite the Martyrs-for-Mo in Lebanon, so as to declare the "military method does not work," the same lunatics abound in spades over here. And it IS the Marxist Left, as you say, which is not some mythical boogeyman of invented convenience so often portrayed so as to paralyze an effective response.

The real problem with the fourth way is that is would work, which would effectively end a multitude of careers, gravy trains, spin-the-wheels "think" tanks, lobbyists and the extended like.

The fourth way is not just a threat to Islam, but an effective threat against established powers (biz, gov't, media) that profit from the status quo.

The fourth way is so rooted in common sense as to make it absolute fantasy.

Mike Travis said...

I submit that disengagement alone is a delusion as the mu-slimes will never give up on their goal of world domination in which ALL people are forced to submit to i-slime or die. The ONLY answer is a multi-faceted approach of:
1) Admitting that liberalism is a mental disorder, then committing to erasing that ideology, AND
2) deporting them ALL form Western countries, AND
3) bombing their countries and civilians into oblivion if they ever harm even ONE of our citizens.

In the end, elimination of liberalism, total isolation of all muslimes in their home countries, backed by threat of annihilation (with the commitment to do it) is the only way to stop them short of just eradicating them all now which would permanently eliminate the threat.

Post a Comment