Skip to main content

Israel, the Terrorists and the West


To say that war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means is to say that diplomacy may be, when circumstances are ripe, a continuation of war by other means. The object of both war and diplomacy is – to get what you want in the long run; the short run is often tactically confusing.

What does Israel want?

Immediately, it wants an end to the death and destruction showered upon it from military emplacements in the southern part of Lebanon, land from which Israel withdrew as a part of a peace process several years ago because a) a long Jihad with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization supported by Syria and Iran, had exhausted it, and b) Israel had bought into “peace for land” arguments advanced by diplomatists who are now suggesting that further diplomacy is the solution to recent attacks by Hezbollah launched from territory surrendered to them. The highlands in South Lebanon were swapped for an illusive peace, and before you could say “diplomacy is war by other means,” missiles were raining down on Israel.

In the long term, Israel wants what any nation minimally must have to be a nation: peace and security from terrorists and their Arab facilitators.

What does Hezbollah want?

Like most Arabs, the terrorist organization wants the complete and utter destruction of Israel, as well as any outcroppings of democracy in and around the Middle East. In the long run, a resurgent Islam wants a caliphate in the Middle East ruled by Sharia law as understood by Salafists, and a serious assault on what has come to be known in the West as the fruits of the Enlightenment period, the crucible of ideas that has allowed the West to flourish since the post-Renaissance period.

Both Israel and pan-national Islamic fundamentalists regard diplomacy as the continuation of war by other means. Hezbollah’s strategy to accomplish its aims involves calling on peacekeepers to intervene and enforce a truce should their Israeli enemies win a decisive military victory. Despite pacifist fables to the contrary, decisive wars bring peace in their bloody wake. The peace following World War II was deep, rich and abiding because that war – unlike World War I – was decisive; World War II decided the shape of Europe for years to come.

The shape of the future is now being decided in the Middle East. And the most important question before the West is: What would a successful war, both military and diplomatic, against the enemies of the West look like?

The bombing of Israel has caused Al-Qaida’s number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, to declare that the fighting between Israel and Islamic terrorists will not end with “cease fires and agreements.” Salivating in a recently released Al-Jazeera video, al-Zawahri said, “It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq. We will attack everywhere." A helpful textual note from the Associated Press tells us that “Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims until they were driven from power at the turn of the 16th century.”

The Muslims were driven from Spain around the time that Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue and discovered a land mass he thought was India. Boabdil, the last Muslim leader of the Moorish stronghold of Granada, surrendered to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella on January 2nd, 1492, but the decisive battle that prevented an Islamic incursion into Gaul was fought and won by Charles Martell at Tours on October 10, 732.

A military leader of uncommon valor and brilliance, Martell was regarded by those who fought against him as unusually vicious; he would not have passed the Geneva Accords sniff test.

There is no one like him in modern day France. Martell is the sole reason why al-Zawahri did not say that the Jihad – the struggle of Islam against the West -- will last until Islam prevails from France to Iraq. Martell’s decisive battle checked the advance of Islam before it could penetrate Gaul.

Today, Islam already has penetrated a sleeping Europe. Only a few months ago, much of France -- but happily not Paris -- was set afire by unassimilated, second generation French Muslims who had not been absorbed by western culture. The fires in Tours, some Islamists hoped, would light the way to a decisive victory.
Isabelle and Ferdinand expelled the Jews from Spain around the same time they accepted the surrender of Boabdil. Al-Zwahri, no doubt, has similar ambitions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...