| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald on American (and Western) policy myopia and its causes:
Every story about Muslim attacks on Buddhists in Thailand or elsewhere, like the many stories of Muslim murders of Hindu villagers in Pakistan and Kashmir and Bangladesh (in all three, the percentage of Hindus in the population has gone steadily down) and even in India itself, raises the question that the Pilgers and Fisks and Scowcrofts and Brzezinskis can never quite answer: for they have no reply to those who offer up the evidence that Muslims are not making war only on Israel (the Lesser Jihad), nor only on Israel's intermittent and often lukewarm ally the United States, but against all Infidels.It is curious that so many people, so quick to deplore the Eurocentric (or Americanocentric) view of the world as deplorably colonialist or racist or narrow-minded or what-have-you, suddenly become completely ignorant of, or indifferent to, the rest of the world's many victims of Islam. But not only is this unfair to those victims; it also keeps the American Infidels from realizing that the attack on them has little to do with what American policy is -- except insofar as it remains insufficiently appeasing to Muslims, and rather, is merely a specific case of the general problem.
And that general problem is the one which Dr. Andrew Bostom has informed me was identified long ago by Samuel Zwemer, the long-time editor of "The Moslem World." Long before America even knew where the Middle East was, long before the Muslims had acquired their unmerited oil wealth that funds the Jihad, long before millions of Muslims were allowed to settle within Infidel lands, behind enemy lines, long before the rebirth of a Jewish commonwealth now known as Israel, Samuel Zwemer (d. 1952), an American scholar of Islam, and former editor of Moslem World, wrote the following in 1920 (in "Moslem World," Vol. 10, pp. 154-155):
“Its [Islam's] intolerance and persecuting spirit have been revealed within the past few years, the blood of a million martyrs testifying to the failure of Islam, its absolute failure to understand the words that open every chapter save one of their Sacred Volume: ‘God the Merciful and Compassionate’. A few years ago one of the leading Moslems of Baghdad wrote an article for a French journal entitled, The Final Word of Islam to Europe : ‘For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers; love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers. Amongst the unbelievers the most hateful and criminal are those who, while recognizing God, attribute to Him earthly relationship, give Him a son, a mother. Learn then, European observers, that a Christian of no matter what position, from the simple fact he is a Christian is in our eyes a blind man fallen from all human dignity.’…Can a religion which inculcates such principles make the world safe for democracy?""For us there are only believers and unbelievers" -- that is the key. That is what the Administration, helping one set of Believers (the Shi'a) against another set of Believers (the Sunnis) -- so singularly fails to understand. It does not want to understand. Like Jack Straw, like Dominique de Villepin, like Javier Solana and Chris Patten, many in this Administration -- and especially, it seems, those who still rule the roost in the State Department – refuse to consider these words or even acknowledge that they have been uttered. They construct policy on what they wish were true rather than on what is actually true.
Islam is more than a collection of rituals -- of shehada, zakat, salat, Ramadan, and hajj. It is a Total Regulation of Life, a Complete Explanation of the Universe. And central to Islam, running all through Islam, through the canonical texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and running through the lives of Muslims and the attitudes and mental makeup of Muslims, is an assumption of superiority and a will to dominate. This is borne out by the history of Muslim conquest, the history of Muslim subjugation of non-Muslims in those conquered lands, the history of Muslim enslavement of non-Muslim blacks and non-Muslim whites, whether taken in slaving parties in Africa (where black African boys were castrated on the spot), or raiding parties up and down the coasts of Western Europe (see the recent book by Giles Milton on one such victim, Thomas Pellow of Cornwall), or into the lands of the Slavs, or into Circassia and Georgia (both places suppliers of women for the slave-markets of Islam, and the harems of Muslims over many centuries).
And central to Islam is that division noted by Samuel Zwemer, and expressed by that "Moslem from Baghdad" whose article "The Final World of Islam to Europe" Zwemer quotes, which makes the point unembarrassedly clear:
"For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers."
The division of the world, according to the Muslim view, is that between Believers and Infidels. Give Muslims all the aid -- the disguised jizyah of aid -- you want to give them. Give them water-treatment plants. Build them schools and hospitals. Repair power grids. Keep repairing, and re-repairing, oil fields. Spread the tens of billions of dollars in aid like confetti; if the usual corrupt locals manage to make off like gangbusters (even fleeing Iraq with a billion or so in American loot), just "redouble those efforts." Use up your own political capital to relieve their external debt by one hundred billion. And don't forget other Muslims. Give the Egyptians several billion a year, and ignore the fact that Egypt has failed to fulfill a single one of its solemn commitments to the Infidel state of Israel under a treaty brokered by, indeed forced down the throat of Israel by, the deplorable Carter and the clueless Brzezinski. Ignore the fact that Egypt is now a world center of both anti-Americanism and antisemitism. Keep paying that disguised jizhay of aid to the "Palestinian" Arabs, those shock-troops of the Lesser Jihad (that against Israel), who were the earliest foreign supporters of Khomeini (Arafat and his retinue proved so valuable to the resistible rise of Khomeini). Turn a blind eye -- no, turn two blind eyes, one for each face of Janus-faced Pakistan -- the Pakistan of "Dr." A. Q. Khan, the Pakistan that helped create and then foster, for its own purposes, the Taliban, the Pakistan of a hundred Islamic groups and tens of thousands of madrasas -- and keep that aid to Pakistan, that debt relief, those planes and guns, coming.
The Ur-source of the problem with American policy in Iraq is not that the government has been too bold, but too timid, afraid even synecdochically to allude to Islam, insistent on parroting until no one of any sense can stand it, that silly phrase about a "war on terrorism" with no hint, no hint of a hint, that "terrorism" is merely one instrument of Jihad, that "Jihad" means a struggle, and that all over the world this duty of Jihad to spread Islam, as old as Islam itself, is being pursued in various ways of which terrorism is only one, and not even necessarily the most effective.
The American government, or many people in it, failed to understand two things when they went to Iraq. They failed to understand the history of Iraq itself, with its long-standing ethnic and sectarian divisions that in the case of the Sunni-Shi'a split go back to the fourth of the rightly-guided caliphs, a split that in the history of modern Iraq only widened, rather than narrowed, since the days of Sir Percy Cox and Gertrude Bell. They failed to understand that the Kurds were hot for independence, and that a Kurdish state might usefully be exploited in order to raise the consciousness of non-Arab Muslims everywhere, beginning with the Berbers of North Africa (subjected not to the mass murder that the Kurds endured under Saddam Hussein, but rather to Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism). Paralyzing fear of Turkey, perhaps, or a belief that Turkey could still be described (as Richard Perle did in an interview in 2004) as "secular" as if Kemalism were permanent, Islam transitory -- instead of, as we all now know, the reverse.
And there was just one other little thing, one other intelligence failure, that characterizes the American effort in Iraq, and the madness of the effort to create out of these three vilayets a moderate, rational, democratic nation-state that will prove a Light Unto the Muslim Nations. And that other little thing was Islam. There was not in 2001 an understanding of Islam; there was not such an understanding in the spring of 2003, when three American divisions in a few weeks conquered Iraq; there appears to be no such understanding now, at the top, of the nature of Islam, or why, for example, the campaign of Da'wa, and demographic conquest of Western Europe, is far more important a matter to address, and think of ways to reverse, than whether or not the Sunni lion can lie down with the Shi'a -- well, not exactly lamb, but lioness.
That remark by the Muslim writer quoted by Zwemer -- "For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers"-- was written in 1920. It could have been written in 1120, or 1620, or of course, in 2005. Islam is based on immutable texts. Islam does not and cannot change. It can be contained. It can be weakened. It can be demoralized. It can have its own natural divisions exploited. But it cannot change -- or at least no one has yet successfully done so, and many have tried. For how would one change the text of the Qur'an? How would one declare "inauthentic" Hadith that al-Bukhari and Muslim and other muhaddithin had declared "authentic"? How would one change the facts of Muhammad's life as detailed in the Sira?And even if this or that scholar claimed to have done so, would the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world accept any of it? Why should they? To please those Infidels, those unbelievers against whom they have been thoroughly brainwashed since birth in a thousand ways? This brainwashing never lets up. It does not depend on mosque attendance, but sometimes merely on the fact that one considers oneself, calls oneself, a Muslim and has a visceral, primordial identification with Islam and with Muslims that can suddenly be summoned, in the most unlikely, seemingly westernized, Muslims, from the depths of their beings -- at any moment, set off by any number of things, both "political" and completely personal.
That's it. Only those who understand that that is the basis of Islam -- that division between Infidel and Believer -- can conceivably begin to construct policies that make sense, and that do not squander, but husband, resources for a very long campaign -- a campaign not of aggression, but of intelligent self-defense.
Posted by Robert at September 14, 2005 8:45 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"That is what the Administration, helping one set of Believers (the Sunnis) against another set of Believers (the Shi'a) -- so singularly fails to understand."
I don't believe that to be the case in all. Certainly the Administration's actions in Iraq have been completely detrimental to Sunni aspirations and empowering to Iraqi Shiites.
Posted by: Cornelius![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 14, 2005 9:02 AM
The poster above rightly notes that there is something wrong with my placement at one point of the words "Sunni" and "Shi'a" (terms that one uneasily employs a bit too easily, but when writing about political or geopolitical matters the coarseness of using group-terms (and that includes "Muslims" and "non-Muslims," "French" and "Americans," or even "Ruritanians") -- which one would never descend to otherwise -- can rarely be avoided. In my original posting, at one point I wrote "Sunni" where I meant "Shi'a" and vice-versa. This was a Greater Typo, but not the product of mental disarray or confusion. The flying-fingers mistake has now been digitally re-mastered -- that is, corrected.
Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2005 9:49 AM
After I posted, I thought about it and figured it must have been a typo.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 14, 2005 10:28 AM
Everyday folks seems to have a better grasp on the Muslim world that do most in the upper echelons of leadership. One wants to grab and shake those fools in Washington, in the State Department, and in other major leadership positions in the West. It's as if they have been blinded or mesmerized by some unknown entity.
Posted by: epg at September 14, 2005 11:04 AM
Mr. Fitzgerald - a home run blog.
If I can figure out how to email the article to John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld (G.W.'s best, apart from Ashcroft, appointments, so far) I will.
Many thanks.
It is a war in which clear vision is vital.
Posted by: dgene at September 14, 2005 11:39 AM
Condi, sadly, is out of her depth.
Posted by: dgene at September 14, 2005 11:40 AM
President Sadat showed great courage in traveling to Israel in 1977, addressing the Knesset and beginning the peace process that culminated in Camp David. He paid the ultimate price for his courage.
Hugh denigrates one of the great diplomatic accomplishments of our time. While the peace between Israel and Egypt has indeed been a cold one, it has been peace nonetheless. While there were 4 general wars between Israel and her Arab neighbors before the Camp David accords, there have been none since (the war with Syria in Lebanon in '82 was essentially a bilateral affair). Once Egypt was taken out of the military equation, the Arab-Israeli conflict was downgraded to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the immediate threat to Israel's existence disappeared.
During the Yom Kippur War in '73, Israel was on the brink of defeat, so much so that during the first week of fighting, Golda Mier sent an urgent secret cable to the Nixon Whitehouse with these words: "SAVE ISRAEL." Nixon responded with a military airflift that had no precedents in history (it dwarfed Berlin in '48-49 in terms of tonnage)...and the tide of battle gradually turned over the next week.
But over 2500 of Israel's finest were lost in battle. Almost every family in the country experienced a loss. I reiterate, since the Camp David accords, there has been nothing remotely resembling the very real threat to Israel's existence that occurred in October '73.
I urge the readers here at Jihadwatch to use circumspection in your analysis of the views promulgated by Hugh Fitzgerald.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 14, 2005 2:34 PM
PS, the reference to tonnage in comparison to Berlin was in terms of military hardware, not food and other supplies of course, in which Berlin was a much greater operation lasting a year and a half and involving thousands of flights compared to Nixon's airlift to Israel in Oct '73 which lasted just weeks.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 14, 2005 2:58 PM
"Hugh denigrates one of the great diplomatic accomplishments of our time. Hugh denigrates one of the great diplomatic accomplishments of our time. While the peace between Israel and Egypt has indeed been a cold one, it has been peace n -- from a posting above
The poster wishes to warn people not to listen to my seductive reasoning and logic -- which he fears they might. And what is it that he fears? That my view of the Camp David Accords, a view which sees them as part of a long line of Israeli diplomatic defeats, based on a failure either to recognize the nature of Arab Muslim opposition to Israel or, still more important, to articulate the nature of that opposition.
The "Camp David Accords" were part of that love-fest hate-fest organized by the deplorable Jimmy Carter and his shallow "strategic" thinker (the man not content to having used his connections to get his children media jobs, but still insisting darkly that the current administration has whipped up "fear" [about "terror" conntected to Islam] which the egregious Brzezinski believes is entirely baseless (yes, how silly to look around the world and imagine there is anything about Islam, or terrorism, to elicit fear from anyone). The love-fest was for Saint Sadat, who could do no wrong, even though he, the representative of a nation that had been defeated after repeated aggression, was preposterously not suing for peace, but rather, demanding that Israel hand over -- for the second time (the first was in 1956, under the pressure of John Foster Dulles)--the entire Sinai to Egypt.
And the hate-fest part of it was reserved for Menachem Begin, that sentimentalist, who kept pathetically insisting that "they" [Sadat, Carter] "really like me." Oh no they didn't. They were working hand-in-glove, and Jimmy "I'm-sick-and-tired-of-hearing-about-the-Holocaust" Carter later offered his services as a public relations adviser to Yassir Arafat, so visceral was Carter's dislike of Israel, so willing was he to accept every plausible and implausible demand or presentation of the case by the Arabs.
And what was the result of this so-called Peace Treaty that the poster above thinks everyone should regard with admiration, "one of the great diplomatic accomplishments of our time." Well, yes, for Egypt it was. Egypt got to pocket, over three years and three slices of territory, all of the Sinai. And not the Sinai that it had lost in 1967, but a new improved Sinai. A Sinai with three modern airfields. A Sinai with oil fields discovered by the Israelis. A Sinai with hotels built at Sharm el Sheikh, and the development of a tourist infrastructure that would be taken over for exploitation by the Egyptians, who would never have developed such beach resorts on their own. A Sinai with $16 billon (in 1978 dollars) in improved infrastrucutre.
And what did Israel ask for, handing over these tangible assets, this control of the invasion route, this desert which had provided strategic depth? Israel asked Egypt only to cease hostile propaganda, to encourage better relations between Egyptians and Israelis, to -- change things. And nothing of the sort happened. Mubarak never visited Israel -- not once, except to go to a meeting with Clinton. Israelis were kept out of film festivals and book fairs in Cairo. Egyptians who dared visit Israel were harassed, criticized, attacked in the press and on the street. And the government did nothing to discourage, and everyting to encourage, the swelling antisemitism and hysterical anti-Israel campaign that is such an obvious feature of Egyptian public life, and has been for the past two decades.
The poster above does not go into detail, because he dare not, but he sums this all up with a misleading phrase: "While the peace between Israel and Egypt has indeed been a cold one, it has been peace nonetheless."
To describe the complete failure of the government of Egypt to meet a single one of its solemn commitments, spelled out in such detail in the Camp David Accords because the Israelis wanted to nail down at least some concession, something that Egypt would do in return, with the laconic phrase "the peace....has indeed been a cold one" instead of charging the Egyptians with dealing with Infidel Israel as Muhammad dealt with the Meccans at al-Hudaibiyya, is simply absurd.
And finally, we are told, however "cold" (i.e., entirely nonexistent in any manner that makes sense, beyond the mere absence of war) that "peace," nonetheless, "it has been peace nonetheless."
But the reason there has been "peace nonetheless" between Egypt and Israel is for exactly the same reason that there has been "peace" between Syria and Israel, or Jordan and Israel, or Iraq and Israel, or Iran and Israel, or Saudi Arabia and Israel. The reason Egypt has not gone to war is because it knows that for now, Israel remains too powerful -- and that is the only reason. Egypt, that is, would lose by such a war, a war of outright military aggression, given that the surprise attack of October 1973 is not likely to be repeated with success.
The "peace" between Egypt and Israel would exist with or without those harmful agreements (harmful to Israel, wonderful for Egypt) which this poster tells us is "one of the great diplomatic accomplishments of our time. " It was nothing of the sort. It was not the first Israeli diplomatic defeat, and certainly not the last. But it did damage to Israel, and though few could see it at the time, anyone who understood Muslim jurisprudence would realize that all such agreements can only end in defeat for the Infidel side, because any of the commitments made by the Muslim side will either not be kept, or be jettisoned as soon as that Muslim side feels able to do so. And this is in fact a duty of Muslims. They are not permitted to make a permanent peace treaty with any Infidel power. Only the doctrine of "Darura," necessity, can be invoked to justify allowing a treaty not of peace but rather of "truce" (all "peace treaties" signed between Muslims and Infidels are regarded by the former as "truce treaties) to extend beyond 10 years, the length of time of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya.
The poster above finds what I say disturbing, but again and again (as in his constant attempts to undercut my arguments about why leaving Iraq soon and allowing the natural sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) and ethnic (Kurd-Arab) fissures, to widen so as to help divide and demoralize and preoccupy the forces of Islam while the Infidels buy enough time to instruct themselves, or be instructed, in the theory and practice of Islam.
But what he finds disturbing is that both logic, and evidence, and the appeal to the nature of Islam, all seem to support me, while he offers not logic, not evidence, not an appeal to the nature of Islam, but simply high hopes and pollyannish interpreations of past Infidel errors.
Go ahead -- read every damn posting he offers. Look for the argument. Compare it to what I have repeatedly, and at length, offered. Judge for yourself. Don't let him censor your reading, taking in, and weighing my words.
Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2005 3:48 PM
Hugh, in what way did I propose to "censor" the reading of your posts? I suggested only that the readers be more circumspect in analyzing what you write. Is that so wrong?
As for your supposedly impeccable logic, I don't find it so at all. You think yourself a Machiavellian genious in your attempts to pit Arab against Kurd and Sunni against Shiite in Iraq, but all you're really advocating is a bloodbath that will serve the purposes of extremism on all sides.
You've wriiten that as long as the Kurds renounce any claim to Turkish Kudistan, the Turks will gladly acquiesce in the creation of an Iraqi Kurdish polity. You even went so far as to suggest that the Iraqi Kurds could and should absorb Kurdish territories from neighboring states (presumably Iran and Syria), thus destroying the integrity of existing borders throughout the region by uniting all Kurdish regions except that of Turkey. And yet, in your infinite logic, the Turks are supposed to be fine with this because of given assurances.
Folks, this is not logic, it is wild-eyed fantasy. The Turks are not fools. They have a modern military and have incurred into northern Iraq many times before. Hugh's exhortations will do nothing but bring misery to Iraqi Kurds and end the current self-government they enjoy.
And he presumes America will use its airpower to fight for the Iraqi Kurds at the same time that he advocates cutting and running from Iraq itself. He seems to show no appreciation for the American public and our inevitable revulsion for re-entangling ourselves in Iraq after summarily withdrawing and letting the place go to hell.
As for Camp David, the Arab success in the first week of the '73 War belies Hugh's contention that it was fear of defeat that precluded Egyptian hostilities later on. Sadat made a strategic decision to cast his lot with the peace process and the Americans. He payed for it with his life. And his country paid a price too, being expelled from the Arab league for a decade and losing generous subsidies from the Gulf monarchies.
Removing Egypt from the equation is what effectively annuled the military option for the Arab world over the last quarter century. This is the logic of the situation.
Posted by: Cornelius at September 14, 2005 4:25 PM
Egypt's defeat in the Yom Kippur war signalled that the Arabs, even with surprise on their side, could not defeat Israel. Besides, what was a more important outcome then Israel's victory, was the realisation that the Middle East was no longer a region dominated by the US and the USSR, but one that was in the domain of the US.
It was this realisation by Sadat, that he could not win a war against Israel, or gain anything from Israel, as long as the US stood with Israel, that led to his famous journey to the Knesset. There was no bold reachout for peace, just a realisation that the old game was not going to work, and a new one had to be tried.
It worked out well for Egypt. It got back the Sinai and a lot of money each year from the US, without in anyway compromising its pro-Palestinian credentials. It was unfortunate for Sadat that the Jihadis did not quite understand his far more dangerous Jihad against Israel.
Posted by: DP111 at September 14, 2005 6:41 PM
DP,
Sadat expelled his Soviet advisors in 1972, a year before his "realization" that America wouldn't allow for Israel's defeat. This expulsion was confluent with his desire to rescue the Egyptian economy from socialism and to isolate his pro-Soviet opponents in Egypt's ruling politburo. Making peace with Israel was part of Sadat's larger plan to develop Egypt into a modern state.
After taking over from Nasser in '70, he found himself diplomatically and politically boxed in. Any deal he could get from Israel would never be accepted by the Egyptian people because he was negotiating from such a position of weakness.
Sadat waged war in '73 to attempt to erase the bitterness and shame of the '67 defeat. His plan all along had been to "wage war in order to make an honorable peace."
Hugh is correct when he writes that Egypt did not keep many of its commitments agreed to at Camp David. But it did honor the most important. The Sinai has remained demilitarized of heavy weaponry; Israeli tourists continue to be welcome in Egypt; the Egyptian embassy has remained open in Tel Aviv through all the ups and downs in Egyptian-Israeli relations over the years; Egypt continues to serve as mediator between Israelis and Palestinians.
Most importantly of all, there has been 27 years of peace between Egypt and Israel when there had been 4 wars in the preceeding 25 years.
at September 14, 2005 7:52 PM
From "The Final Word of Islam to Europe",
" ‘For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers; love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers.’ "
One must ask, if a person is regarded as one of "The People of the Book" by the prophet of Islam, and is specifically a follower of Jesus, how Muhammad can possibly supersede the benevolent teachings of Christ?
If Islam considers Christianity to be in the realm of approval then why would there be such a radical contravention of Jesus’ teachings?
The most conspicuous aspect of humanity is its tendency to ascribe its existence to a higher power. Whether that authority is an omnipotent being or an alien life force makes no difference, the peculiar disposition is an innate human trait. Does the ability to conceive such a notion dictate its veracity?
Humanity will argue this notion until humanity exists no more. What is interesting is how humanity incorporates these beliefs into a viable society based upon these accepted truths. If one believes the creator to be omnipotent (our view) in the design of his creations, wouldn’t that same person reasonably question the “change” from benevolence to militancy?
The logic of our minds (if a creator is agreed upon) cannot accept this contradiction. God, as envisioned or created by a thinking humanity, cannot be contradictory, for if he is then life is nothing but a contradiction. How does this thought bring peace to the mind? How will humanity bring peace to itself?
at September 14, 2005 7:59 PM
No, there was no attempt to censor what I wrote. But there was an attempt to warn readers that my views are those of someone mad, bad, and definitely dangerous to know -- "I urge the readers here at Jihadwatch to use circumspection in your analysis of the views promulgated by Hugh Fitzgerald."
Again, you repeat what I thought I had dealt with -- that there has been no war between Israel and Egypt during the past 27 years, a condition that you attribute to the "Peace Treaty" -- the Camp David Accords -- between Israel and Egypt. But I had previously noted that this is faulty reasoning. In the same 27 years, without any peace treaty, there has been no war between between Israel and Syria, between Israel and Iraq, between Israel and Saudi Arabia, between Israel and any member of the Arab League. So to ascribe the "cold peace" with Egypt as anything more than Egypt biding its time, and pocketing the vast sums handed over to it as a disguised jizya by the American government, is ludicrous.
Egypt's venom, Egypt's antisemitic poison, and the poisoning of Egyptian minds, can be seen whenever one looks at an Egyptian newspaper. Or there was the television series, this very year, that essentially dramatized for Egypt's 76 million people "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The propaganda campaign against Israel is as bad as it has ever been in Egypt -- probably even worse. And this the poster does not know, or pretends not to.
And finally there is this. Egypt is a poor country. And yet, when the list of countries spending the most on buying armaments abroad came out, Egypt stood third in the list -- after China, and India. Now both China and India have over 1 billion people. Egypt has 76 million. Chiina and India can afford arms; their economies are booming. Egypt is impoverished. Yet the Egyptians chose to spend $7.5 billion on buying arms in a single year. Libya is not a threat; Libya has given up all major weaponry, and has a population that is 1/10 the size. Sudan is not a threat -- the Sudanese government receives ill-concealed diplomatic and other kinds of cover and support from Egypt, which permit it to continue to suppress the non-Arabs and non-Muslims in the south and in Darfur.
So what is "peaceful" Egypt, the country that has not gone to war with Israel because the poster is convinced it is held in check not by Israeli power, but because of that putative peace treat it signed with Israel -- what is "peaceful" Egypt doing spending $7.5 billion on arms?
What do you think the Egyptians ultimately have in mind? Do you think they intend to keep that peace with Israel, because they signed some silly Infidel-brokered agreement with that intolerable creation, the Jewish state of Israel?
Really?
Go ahead -- you can answer that poster above as well as I.
Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2005 10:02 PM
Now to the same poster's comments on the possibility, and desirability, of an independent Kurdistan.
Here is what this poster writes anent Kurdistan:
"You've [Hugh has] written that as long as the Kurds renounce any claim to Turkish Kurdistan, the Turks will gladly acquiesce in the creation of an Iraqi Kurdish polity. You even went so far as to suggest that the Iraqi Kurds could and should absorb Kurdish territories from neighboring states (presumably Iran and Syria), thus destroying the integrity of existing borders throughout the region by uniting all Kurdish regions except that of Turkey. And yet, in your infinite logic, the Turks are supposed to be fine with this because of given assurances.
Folks, this is not logic, it is wild-eyed fantasy. The Turks are not fools. They have a modern military and have incurred into northern Iraq many times before. Hugh's exhortations will do nothing but bring misery to Iraqi Kurds and end the current self-government they enjoy."
First of all, 98% of the Kurds voted last January in favor of independence. That seems to show that they are intent on it. And the Kurdish press now contains articles critical of the Kurdish representatives in Baghdad, whom many Kurds believe have been far too pliant and yielding to Arab demands -- the demands of the Shi'a for more, not less, Islam, and the demands of the Sunnis for more, not less, centralized government, and the demands of both to have Iraq recognized as an "Arab state" and to push to one side the very existence of the proudly, self-consciously, non-Arab Kurds.
As to Turkey, again -- as so often -- I am misquoted when the poster says that "as long as the Kurds renounce" a claim on Turkish territory then "the Turks will gladly acquiesce in the creation of an Iraqi Kurdish polity."
But I never wrote "gladly acquiesce." I never implied "gladly acquiesce." That adverb is an inventive attribution to me. I wrote that Turkey could be made to "acquiesce," never "gladly acquiesce."
I noted that Turkey will never be allowed into the E.U., and that this is a new development. Turkey's behavior toward Europe becomes ever more outrageous and telling (look at the attacks on Orhan Pamuk for recognizing the obvious -- the Turkish genocide, the million Armenian victims) the Armenian genocide). And the media campaign against the United States has not gone unobserved (see Robert Pollock's article in The Wall Street Journal), not even by those former Turkophiles (and agents of Turkey) Douglas Feith and Richard Perle. They have come to realize that the phrase "Turkey is secular" is false; it hides the grim truth that Kemalism is transitory, Islam is forever, and there are more devout Muslims in Turkey than there are the -- other kind.
So the Turks are now alone, and must be more attentive to the Americans. Inviting critics to Istanbul, trying to win back American favor after having prevented that fourth division from entering Iraq from the north -- well, Turkey is in no position to deny the Americans (who are their main source for weapons, and therefore the main source of re-supplying those weapons, of keeping them maintained) on the subject of a free Kurdistan -- they will realize that extracting a promise from the Americans, who in turn can control Kurdistan, to ensure that no territorial demands are ever made by Kurdistan on Turkey itself, is the best they can do.
The poster finds this to be utterly crazy. This is how he puts it: "Folks, this is not logic, itis wild-eyed fantasy."
Again, you, gentle reader (or for that matter, any ungentle readers out there) decide if you think supporting an independent Kurdistan, looking with favor upon it because it, not the hopeless project of "Iraq," could be the true Light Unto the Non-Arab Muslim Nations, and its mere battle to survive would raise the consciousness of Infidels and non-Arab Muslims alike as to the Arab supremacist ideology embedded within Islam.
While Sunni and Shi'a are, once the Americans leave, whacking away at each other, the Kurds -- supplied with whatever the outside world and the American government deems appropriate -- can make their move. It would be good for them. It would be good for all non-Arab Muslims. And what is most important, it would be good for all Infidels.
Wild-eyed? A fantasy? What do you think? I think it is fantastical to keep looking this geopolitical gift horse in the mouth.
at September 14, 2005 10:20 PM
HUGH: In the same 27 years, without any peace treaty, there has been no war between between Israel and Syria, between Israel and Iraq, between Israel and Saudi Arabia, between Israel and any member of the Arab League.
CORNELIUS: As I stated, it was precisely because Egypt opted out of the military equation that the rest of the Arab world abandoned the military option. Egypt is the most populous and militarily powerful country in the Arab world. Without it, the Arab military threat disappeared.
(For the record, there was a war between Syria and Israel in Lebanon in 1982. It wasn't a war Syria wanted; the Syrian air force lost over 70 planes. Israel lost 2.)
As for Turkish acquiesence to an independent Kurdistan in Iraq, I maintain it will not happen. The Turks would sooner make common cause with Iran than let the Kurds have their own viable state.
As for Iraq itself, I personally feel that when we took it upon ourselves to topple Saddam, we took on a degree of responsibility for the country and the people. That responsibility is not open-ended, but it would be wrong to have upset the apple cart and then walk away with a Machiavellian grin and watch the country descend into civil war.
I feel we have a moral obligation to do what we can to leave Iraq with a viable government in place. That's just my opinion, obviously one Hugh doesn't share.
But the moral component isn't the only reason I oppose Hugh's Iraq policy. I believe strongly that leaving the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to fight it out will encourage and empower the most extremist elements in Iraq...and for that matter, throughout the region.
Posted by: Cornelius
at September 14, 2005 10:55 PM
There is not much that I can add to Hugh Fitzgerald's excellent analysis of the Camp David accords and the so-called "peace" between Israel and Egypt, as well as the madness of Brzezinski.
Before getting to Israel and Egypt, Brzezinski was interviewed after 9-11, and the interview appeared in Le Monde. He was asked, Aren't you sorry now that you encouraged Islamic fanatics to fight Russia over Afghanistan --now, after 9-11. He answered something like, Well, Russia and Communism were so evil, etc., etc. And now they're gone, thanks to modest Me. He acknowledged no mistake or bad judgement, as I recall. OK. So now it looks like we had a trade-off. The Communist tyranny and threat are gone, now replaced by the Islamic, jihadist threat, which Zbig still takes pride in having promoted in the world.
As for Israel & Egypt, Cornelius may be unaware of the Ras Burka incident. In 1985 [or 1986] an Egyptian policeman or soldier shot at and wounded several Israeli tourists in Sinai, including children. That was bad enough. Now, a physician was in the same party of tourists. The Egyptian troops/police on the scene DID NOT ALLOW --at gunpoint-- HIM OR ANYONE to approach the wounded and offer assistance. This went on for hours --until five Israelis died, not necessarily from the initial shots but from the refusal to allow aid to the wounded. There have been other attacks on Israelis in Egypt, not to mention the attacks on tourists that began after Oslo [1993]. Then we have the constant Judeophobic/anti-Israel propaganda in the Egyptian TV and print media. This is not a free speech issue, since there is little free speech in Egypt in any case, and the media are tightly controlled. Mubarak's agitprop can only contain the seeds of a future war.
On another point, Walid Phares claims that the situation of the Egyptian Copts worsened after the Camp David accords -- and even more after Oslo. The discrimination, murders, etc., of Copts much worsened after Oslo. This means that the Israeli retreats were perceived as victories for Islamic jihad, not as welcome gestures for peace that deserved to be reciprocated. And they did not usher in an era of peace, blah blah, as predicted by State Department types. As to Menahem Begin and Jiminy Carter, it is noteworthy that when Carter came to Israel on a few occasions after his inglorious presidency had belatedly concluded, he expressed a wish to meet Begin, in order to relive the supposedly exalted moments of "peace-making" at Camp David. Fortunately, Begin always refused to meet him.
Posted by: Eliyahu at September 15, 2005 5:38 AM
There is not much that I can add to Hugh Fitzgerald's excellent analysis of the Camp David accords and the so-called "peace" between Israel and Egypt, as well as the madness of Brzezinski.
Before getting to Israel and Egypt, Brzezinski was interviewed after 9-11, and the interview appeared in Le Monde. He was asked, Aren't you sorry now that you encouraged Islamic fanatics to fight Russia over Afghanistan --now, after 9-11. He answered something like, Well, Russia and Communism were so evil, etc., etc. And now they're gone, thanks to modest Me. He acknowledged no mistake or bad judgement, as I recall. OK. So now it looks like we had a trade-off. The Communist tyranny and threat are gone, now replaced by the Islamic, jihadist threat, which Zbig still takes pride in having promoted in the world.
As for Israel & Egypt, Cornelius may be unaware of the Ras Burka incident. In 1985 [or 1986] an Egyptian policeman or soldier shot at and wounded several Israeli tourists in Sinai, including children. That was bad enough. Now, a physician was in the same party of tourists. The Egyptian troops/police on the scene DID NOT ALLOW --at gunpoint-- HIM OR ANYONE to approach the wounded and offer assistance. This went on for hours --until five Israelis died, not necessarily from the initial shots but from the refusal to allow aid to the wounded. There have been other attacks on Israelis in Egypt, not to mention the attacks on tourists that began after Oslo [1993]. Then we have the constant Judeophobic/anti-Israel propaganda in the Egyptian TV and print media. This is not a free speech issue, since there is little free speech in Egypt in any case, and the media are tightly controlled. Mubarak's agitprop can only contain the seeds of a future war.
On another point, Walid Phares claims that the situation of the Egyptian Copts worsened after the Camp David accords -- and even more after Oslo. The discrimination, murders, etc., of Copts much worsened after Oslo. This means that the Israeli retreats were perceived as victories for Islamic jihad, not as welcome gestures for peace that deserved to be reciprocated. And they did not usher in an era of peace, blah blah, as predicted by State Department types. As to Menahem Begin and Jiminy Carter, it is noteworthy that when Carter came to Israel on a few occasions after his inglorious presidency had belatedly concluded, he expressed a wish to meet Begin, in order to relive the supposedly exalted moments of "peace-making" at Camp David. Fortunately, Begin always refused to meet him.
Posted by: Eliyahu at September 15, 2005 5:40 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)