-
Here is what is “delusional”: the belief that American principles — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality before the law — have a natural place as “universal principles” in a culture grounded in Shariah principles.
I almost forgot how the Pundit Right smacked down Glenn Beck over his wholly rational concern that out of Tahrir Square a new caliphate might arise in the Islamic world until I read William Kristol’s op-ed this week.
Earlier this month, Weekly Standard editor and Fox analyst Kristol had led off the anti-Beck attack with a heated column accusing Beck of “hysteria” for his “rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East” and connections to the American Left. Kristol was seconded by National Review editor Rich Lowry. The New York Times’ David Brooks entered the debate lambasting Beck for his “delusional ravings about the caliphate coming back” while “the conservative establishment” saw Mubarak’s fall as “a fulfillment of Ronald Reagan’s democracy dream.” (Count me out.)
For the next week or so, taunting “delusional” Beck became a regular feature on cable TV. The Pundit Left congratulated the responsible Right for “addressing” the Beck “problem.” And maybe a solution was near. “I’ve heard, from more than a couple of conservative sources, that prominent Republicans have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes about the potential embarrassment that the paranoid-messianic rodeo clown may bring upon their brand,” Time’s Joe Klein blogged. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a mirror-Olbermann situation soon.”
Somehow it all slipped my mind.
And then I read Kristol’s Wednesday lament in the Washington Post over what he sees as President Obama’s dithering over what he also sees as “Arab spring.” This is a jarringly dainty euphemism for a blur of regional events that now includes: the triumphal return to Egypt of the poisonous Yusef al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s favorite cleric who just drew 2 million Egyptians back to Tahrir Square where he prayed for the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem; panicky EU promises of billions of dollars in aid (protection money?) to its “Southern neighborhood”; emergency preparations for as many as 300,000 Islamic “migrants” washing up on just Italy’s shores any day. By the way, one disastrous effect of mass Islamic immigration (hijra) to Europe to date may be gleaned from the current political climate in which a new edition of Jean Raspail’s 1973 novel “Camp of the Saints,” the prophetic account of France’s inability to survive massive Third World immigration, is expected to land the 85-year-old author and his publisher in French court on “hate speech” charges.
But I digress, sort of. What is noteworthy about the beef against Beck is the rock-hard certitude with which his critics, Right and Left, dismiss the caliphate concept as though it were a mythological beast, not a historical system of Islamic governance still revered and yearned for by most Muslims. Speaking of Tahrir Square, a 2007 University of Maryland/WorldOpinon poll indicated that 74 percent of Egyptians favor “strict Shariah,” while 67 percent favor a “caliphate” uniting all of Islam.
But woe to anyone who takes notice. Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, for example, was recently accused on a noted blog of “(slinging) caliphate tripe” when Ferguson pointed out that the Muslim Brotherhood “remains by far the best organized opposition force in the country, and wholly committed to the restoration of the caliphate and the strict application of Shariah.” “Hilariously stupid” was the not-so-hilariously stupid comment.
But even if “Arab spring” should fail, Kristol writes, “there would be still be a case, for reasons of honor and duty … to stand with the opponents of tyranny.” Doing so, he continues, would not only “vindicate American principles and mean a gain for American interests but because we claim those American principles to be universal principles.”
Here is what is “delusional”: the belief that American principles — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, equality before the law — have a natural place as “universal principles” in a culture grounded in Shariah principles. This is the pure fantasy that has driven our foreign policy through a decade of “nation-building” wars. Meanwhile, the only way I know how to get to anything you might call “universal principles” into the Islamic world is through the establishment of … a caliphate.
Not even on the same planet. In geopolitics, Gaza is a clear precedent for the West Bank, unfortunately.
My point is I don’t care WHY they choose to weaken the Israeli-American alliance – the effect is that it would jeopardize Israel’s security because they have no other allies.
My assumptions are based on observable facts, not wishy-washy emotions.
You can talk like a pretzel but the fact is that it has been a long-standing alliance based on the support of the American public, which limits what the changing leadership can do as we are seeing with Imam Obama.
The only point I am interested in winning on this forum is to support Israel and oppose those who I see as endangering it – whatever their motivation and reasoning may be.
In geopolitics something that has been “dormant” for 64 years or more is “dead as a door-nail” especially based on all the events, agreements, concessions and actions that have been taken or agreed to by successive Israeli govenments since then, known collectively as precedents.
What a load of camel manure. If the Palestinians had accepted Israel in 1947 that would have been the end of it – you would have had two Semitic states alongside, possibly in an economic union as well. The Jewish founders of Israel had accepted the partition but unfortunately the Arabs did not.
The Mandate is not dead, but dormant.
This Administration has studiously and systematically avoided using the word “illegal” in regard to the Jewish communities in the unincorporated territories and the eastern sector of Israel’s capital city. It has never — not one single time — used that word thus. Now, why do you suppose that is?
I mean, they use the term “legitimacy” with considerable regularity,
but NEVER, ever “legality.”
They twisted themselves into knots trying to get the Pali’s (and the Lebanese Govt sponsor) to change the wording of the Feb. 18 UNSC resolution [settlement “illegality”] to “legitimacy” — so that Susan Rice wouldn’t have to veto the damned thing.
You think they liked being odd-man-out [14-1]? This Administration is not a crew noted for its ballsyness, y’know.
So, how come, huh?
I’ll tell you why.
If they did try challenging the legality of the “settlements,” they would never hear the end of it, because at that point the Mandate — which effectively restored the Jewish National Home & created the foundations of the State — acknowledged rights of an unalienable nature to the Jewish People THROUGHOUT the Mandated territory — would be put in play, because:
the US signed on to the Mandate in an international treaty ratified by the US Senate: the Anglo-American Convention of 1924.
Senatorially-ratified treaties become part of US domestic law, and are thus protected by the US Constitution, which they become part of as the Supreme Law of the Land. A US President is bound by his solemn oath of office to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” [Art. 2, Sec. 3]
And the principle and doctrine of ESTOPPEL prevents this country from reneging on that endorsement. What I’m telling you is that at that point, the US govt would be sued in federal court.
Howard Grief:
“This doctrine [estoppel] prohibits any state from denying what it previously admitted or recognized in a treaty or other international agreement. In the Convention of 1924, the United States recognized all the rights granted to the Jewish people under the Mandate, in particular the right of Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine or the Land of Israel. Therefore the US government is legally estopped today from denying the right of Jews in Israel to establish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which have been approved by the government of Israel.
“In addition, the United States is also debarred from protesting the establishment of these settlements, because they are based on a right which became embedded in US domestic law after the 1924 Convention was ratified by the US Senate and proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5, 1925.
“This Convention has terminated, but not the rights granted under it to the Jewish people.
“The American policy opposing Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a fit subject for judicial review in US courts, because it violates Jewish legal rights formerly recognized by the United States, and which still remain part of its domestic law.
“A legal action to overturn this policy, if it was to be adjudicated, might also put an end to the American initiative to promote a so-called “Palestinian” state which would abrogate the existing right of Jewish settlement in all areas of the Land of Israel that [would] fall under its [i.e., the contemplated ‘Palestinian’ state’s] illegal rule.” [emphases added]
[Howard Grief, “Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine Under International Law,” NATIV Online: A Journal of Politics and the Arts, Vol. 2, 2004]
http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/02-issue/grief-2.htm%5D
“Who gives a crap” about sincerity? You do, quite obviously.
You’ve accused other bloggers here of “pretending” [#45] to be Israel supporters; the clear implication is that they are insincere in that posture. (Was “pretending” just a poor choice of words? If so, consider this your opportunity to correct that choice.)
I don’t think they are pretending; I don’t believe they are “moles” (though we have had some here in the past). In some instances those whom you characterize as “pretending” may be COMPULSIVE in their approach (or even counter-productive on occasion); and yes, there may be some “hubris,” “arrogance,” etc., attendant to that. But those things are another matter entirely.
They are a far cry from insincerity — which carries with it implications of a decidedly sinister nature, given the general subject.
Maybe I’m a mole too?
Do I indeed?
You read that somewhere?
Somehow I can’t recall having written or implied anything of the sort.
But then, we’ve already covered the subject of your proclivity toward making assumptions.
The problem with the “relationship” — I won’t dignify it with the name “alliance,” which implies a partnership of equals (and which is sadly not at all the case) — is that Israel is thereby rendered dependent on the US State Dept and the transitory occupant of the Oval Office. But these latter have their own priorities.
Free men are accustomed to saying “no.”
They say it regularly and often.
Vassals have no such option; for them, the very proposition is a luxury they cannot afford.
Perhaps no one can understand that better than an American.
Can you?
Hoo hah, is it ever! (I wonder if, even now, you realize what you’ve said.)
The trouble with you, Eagle, is that you’re far more interested in winning “points” than in sharing views and possibly learning something new.
Everything “bounces off” of you without being first absorbed for consideration and thought, so it’s impossible to have a discussion with you without constantly having to play “one-up.” That’s not only unconstructive, it’s also tiresome.
I’m sure you can do better.
Like something straight out of Kafka.
Well put.
It IS a lot like that, isn’t it?
Compared to some of the morons on Israpundit, the answer is the affirmative.
I know that it has only one ally that provides BILLIONS in aid every year and Israel cannot afford to have such an alliance weakened or damaged. Its bad enough that we have an anti-Semitic president right now, ironically one whom 78% of American Jewish Semites voted for.
I’m working on it, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time. In case that went over your head, I can do both, work to clean up the mess in America that 78% of American Jews contributed to, and support Israel against those who would weaken it.
And of course, you have all the answers in life. You know whats best for Israel. You’re doing such a wonderful job with America that you decided to “help out” over here. Fix your own screwed up country.
That’s right – the track that exposes those who would weaken Israel.