It disappoints me to see foreign policy based solely upon realpolitik be legitimized by theories that appeal to ideology and also to objective universal norms. I once saw someone stand up and scream that they could not bear to live in an amoral universe; perhaps this longing for an abstract, objective and univeral value system is what drives people to couch realpolitik in ideological and moral terms? Or perhaps this is simply passionate belief in one's rightness: if one believes that they are truly "right" than their idea of "right" must be applicable to everyone else; indeed to compromise or accept that one's rightness is merely a personal opinion is to admit possible wrongness.

 

Here it is evident that support for the State of Israel is dependent upon political convictions that are often a fusion of religious and ideological beliefs tempered by the need to reconcile these with reality, even if this requires ignorance or revision of history and self-contradiction. Because Palestinians will never concede that they are occupiers of rightful Jewish territories and because Israelis will never concede that they appropriated lands the Palestinians inhabited, there can never be peace and prosperity until one group agrees to subordinate itself or one is annihilated. In spite of disputes regarding national identity, religion, settlement (urban and rural), etc., the Eastern Mediterranean remains firmly in the grips of events from 1948.

 

I more or less agree with you, your anecdote notwithstanding.

 

In solidarity,

 

P.S. I would be vigilant against a combined Belgo-German invasion if I were you. Perhaps by appealing to the Germanic heritage of the Flemings and Germans you could turn the situation around and "deal" with the Wallonian salient once and for all. Weren't those Gallo-Romans conquered by the Franks centuries ago? Why are they still collecting welfare cheques?

@ Amsterdamsky

The Kapitein may be "pathetic" because of (a) the absurd moral equivalencies he posits, (2) his parotting of media misrepresentation on 'Irak', and (3) his manifest racism and anti-Americanism.    But, he is undoubtedly much smarter (and therefore more dangerous) than you are.   I will illustrate this further.

Both your points are non-arguments, devoid of any internal logic.

1) Fjordman's admonition to fight anti-semitism is a moral statement.  It has nothing to do with real or imagined shortcomings of the state of Israel.  It would have been equally ridiculous for you to respond to an admonition to fight racism with an irrelevant reference to shortcomings of (say) black African states.   Moreover, there is no perfect state, nor is there a perfect democracy.  Any serious state will "discriminate" against 'noncitizens'.  But, by any reasonable measure, Israel is a genuine democracy and has a free press, unlike any of its neigbours.  Finally, any serious judgments about Israel's internal legal and political arangements cannot be divorced from the geopolitical reality around it.  It is a true sign of your unwordliness in your comfortable (temporarily) exile in Amsterdam that you do not seem to realise that.  If Germany and Belgium wanted to push Amsterdammers in the Northsea, you would talk a different tune.

2)  It is downright insulting for you to tell Fjordman that he is "supporting" the personal descent in destructive behavior by an Israeli ambassador in El Salvador, because Fjordman dared to voice an admonition against anti-semitism.  How ridiculous and narrow-minded can you be?  What if he were to blame you for being a 'libertarian', because some libertarian somewhere has made a fool of himself?  You think it would be difficult to come up with an example of a selfprofessed libertarian who has made a fool of himself?  One thing is for sure, Fjordman would not do such a thing because he is clearly in a totally different class from you.    Needless to say you missed the important aspects of the ambassador story.  The story was brought to you by the israeli media, and the ambassador will face the consequences.  Now, those are the hallmarks of a true democracy, in contrast with the rantings of comfortable armchair generals in Amsterdam.  

The status of the Palestinian people is the point at which 'Arab' nationalism and Islamic supremacism collide. However, despite the use of this issue to fuel global jihad, the Palestinians remain a stateless nationality far from the ideal of Wilsonian national self-determination. Firstly, I will address those points used to combine Palestinian activism for self-determination with Islamization:

1. The Palestinians are Arab Muslims and therefore occupiers of Jewish territories; the Palestinians are not even a nationality.

The Palestinians are Arabized Levantines (like the Lebanese), i.e. Levantine peoples which were conquered and colonized by the Arabs, and subjected to learning Arabic rather than Aramaic, and practicing Islam rather than Christianity, Druze, Judaism and Samaritanism. The Jewish diaspora underwent even further genetic and cultural assimilation during its settlement throughout Europe. Thus, in spite of differing admixtures, cultures and religions, arguably both Israelis and Palestinians have rights to reside on the territory of Israel, and the successive violence is all the more unnecessary given the strong genetic links between Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, who are closer to one another than they are to other groups.

2. The Palestinians refuse to acknowledge Israel or its right to exist.

This is a common occurence where conflicts of national self-determination are concerned, especially in the "frozen conflicts" throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States (formerly the USSR).

3. The Palestinians target civilians and use tactics such as suicide bombings.

Civilians are always targets in war, even the more so when there is a disparity of conventional forces. Also, suicide attacks are not limited to Palestinians, Iranians, Germans (the Wehrmacht) or Japanese. Terrorism is merely unconventional warfare.

4. The Palestinians refuse to renounce violence.

While lamentable, it is an understandable position; however, in the absence of a transcendental force that will intervene justly in the matter, cooler heads must prevail in a peace process.

5. The Palestinians want the whole of Israel, not just the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

Again understandable and lamentable. There are two solutions to this dilemma: (a) integrate the Palestinians and Israelis in a Lebanon-like state, which may or may not survive, or (b) broker a two-state solution in which Israel has to concede some more territory incl. the Muslim section of Jerusalem.

There is a tendency amongst certain elements of the Western intelligentsia to blur the line between movements in Islamic states that are confronting Western interests out of consideration for their perceived national self-determination and movements that are supremacist; despite some overlap, and a degree of ignorance on the part of Westerners, it cannot be overruled that this white-washing is a convenient method of galvanizing public opinion against Muslim opposition by effectively labelling it supremacism. 

 

For example, it is clear that there is a global social movement of Islamic supremacists, represented by such groups as Al-Qaeda. It is also clear that a significant number of Muslims are complicit with its overall aims; even if they do not approve of its methods, their silence is evidence of complicity. This complicity fuels further activities, such as the rape waves in Sydney, Oslo, Malmo and elsewhere. Furthermore, because of Islam's intellectual development (albeit not an inevitable path) over the past centuries, that there is scant hope for change from within. At its worst, collectively speaking, the Muslim diaspora favors some degree of Islamization of their host states; at its best, the Muslim diaspora will refuse to assimilate. Thus, Islam is incompatible, in its current form, with Western civilization because Muslim immigration produces a net loss (politically, socially and economically), irrespective of the future challenges of: (a) maintaining law and order, (b) maintaining liberal or social democracy and (c) maintaining national identity (in Europe only).

Muslim immigrants to Europe have adopted Zionist tactics in order to claim Europe as their own.

 

Initially Jew's trickled into Palestine, then after WWII they came in such numbers that clashes ensued.  Once critical mass was achieved....Palestine became Israel. 

 

Europeans will be the new 'Palestinians'

Israel should defend itself.

There is a group of intelligent people that would say that there is a direct link between the people of Europe and, consequently, the people of the United States with the Jews.  I am by no means a scholar on these things, but enough smart people believe this to give some credence to the theory.

The Mormons carry this to a different threshold, believing that Native Americans are the lost tribes of Israel.  However, DNA testing seems to have made this thought defunct as no link was found.

One thing the different groups agree on is that the people we know as Jews come from only two tribes of Israel...Benjamin and Judah.  10 tribes of this mighty and fruitful people have been scattered and to think that they do not still make up a high percentage of the world's population would be crazy considering how long ago Father Abraham lived.  He had 12 sons you know.  They had lots of kids. ect... 

Naturally, the religious connection plays a huge role.  Despite believing that Jews rejected the true Messiah, Christians still consider them to be the Chosen People of God and that one day they will kneel and bow and recognize Him as the King of Kings.  This is the most visible reason for today's support from the United States.  Europeans, on the other hand, might still be supporting them on the base of guilt.

However, nothing is thicker than blood and it might be an ancient link combined with a Holy Blessing that keeps us on a similar side.  You might have to a Believer to buy completely into that, but it isn't so far-fetched to easily dismiss.

Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.

It seems very 'fitting' that a posting from 'Nansi' (the hate-speech muslim guy) gets followed by a representative of the old-style racist European paleo-right (Kapitein Andre).  Anybody, who still might think that the biggest problem in Europe is solely one of the contemporary alliance of leftist globalism with islamic radicalism, should read KA's latest 'product' and get a dose of additional pessimism. 

 

1) In his first point, KA compares the removal of Saddam's Baath regime with the Baath regime itself.  What better illustration of contemporary western moral relativism could there be?  True, the internal islamic struggle between shia and sunni is moving more and more into Irak, and Osama bin Laden himself has clearly stated that the struggle with the infidel is now primarily (and temporarily) taking place in Irak (without most Europeans even being aware of it).  But, Irakis have had 3 nationwide elections, and their government has just presided over a regional conference with all their neigbours and 'interested' parties.  Yet, the 'captain' parrots the leftist media's refrain of an American "invasion and occupation", while the American political system is discussing at great length how fast they should  withdraw their remaining troops to leave Iraki 'moderates' to the tender mercies of their more intimidating 'brethren'.   What better illustration of head-in-the-sand attitudes? 

 

2) The only westerners that are currently helping "christian negroide populations to resist islam and Arab genocide" with ONGOING current actions are....the US military.  In Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda, and a few other places.  The notion that culturally-leftist European governments, or racist paleo-rightists like KA, would lift a finger for that purpose....is of another planet.

3) In his points 3, 4, and 5, KA reiterates his ridiculous denial of the judeo-christian tradition.  It is that kind of thinking that led to the 'shoa' in central Europe two generations ago.  Furthermore, his 'moral equivalency' comparison of a democratic society like Israel with surrounding totalitarian Arab cultures, is again indicative of the current state of European (im)morality, as Fjordman apparently knows so well.

6) KA becomes not only stupid, but dishonest, where he pretends not to understand Fjordman's point about "the nazis of today" (muslims who manifestly want to wipe out the jews) who are presented as "jews" (i.e. as the persecuted ones, or the victims) etc...

7) However, it is obvious that he does NOT pretend not to understand Fjordman's argument about the intertwined fates of Israel and Europe.  He simply does NOT understand the argument.  It has absolutely nothing to do with whether "jews would be still residing in Europe".  It has everything to do with the impact of 'success' (i.e. the destruction of Israel) on the attitudes and minds of genuine comtemporary 'imperialists'.  To understand that, of course, you have to be able to identify who your real enemies are and, moreover, you have to be willing to listen to what the enemy is actually saying.   The kapitein, by contrast, is still fighting his former imagined enemies (the real jews).  

Nansi: "I mean really the Arabs inhabited that land long before the Jews even existed"
------------------------------------------

That's incorrect.
The Arabs invaded the lands of Palestine, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon around the 7th century AD.
They are not native to those counties.

Conquest of Syria and Palestine:
Britannica

History of Egypt:
presidency.gov.eg

Fjordman: "Not only because it [Islamization] is immoral and unfair to Israelis..."

 

The American invasion and occupation of Iraq was "immoral" and "unfair" to Iraqis, and if the UN economic sanctions are included, is comparable in terms of the bodycount with the Ba'athist regime. Granted, Iraq, like Yugoslavia was an artificial state imposed upon two different religious and ethnic groups.

 

Fjordman: "Hagen said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next. He felt that Christians should support Israel and oppose Islamic inroads into Europe."

 

And this man's opinion is gospel? Christians in many sub-Saharan African states are resisting Islam and Arab genocide of Negroid populations, why not team up with them?

 

Fjordman: "Most European media commentators are hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, partly because they get angry with anybody defending themselves against Islamic Jihad instead of surrendering, and partly because they want to project their own feelings of guilt from the Holocaust onto Israel by recasting the Jews as villains and the Palestinians as victims."

 

A convenient but simplistic explanation.

 

Fjordman: "Rehov believes that we are dealing with “a new form of Nazism” that it is going to spread to Europe and the United States, too."

 

Firstly, Rehov is a French Jew so he might have a slight bias in favor of Israel; secondly, if everything is "Nazism" (e.g. Zionism, Islam, etc.) than nothing is.

 

Fjordman: "Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez claims that Europe died in Auschwitz."

 

A ridiculous statement, unless one believes that Jews are integral to European identity.

 

Rodriguez: “We assassinated 6 million Jews..."

 

Who is the "we"? Neither myself or my kith and kin participated in the Shoah, yet I am supposed to feel guilty and give funds and moral support to Israeli issues?

 

Fjordman: "We thus have the absurd situation where the Nazis of today are presented as Jews while the Jews are presented as Nazis."

 

Presenting Muslims as Nazis is equally absurd: Nazis are Nazis.

 

Fjordman: "French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut thinks that Auschwitz has become part of the foundation of the European Union..."

 

Why am I not surprised?

 

Fjordman: "This found an eager audience of Europeans, who were already eager for psychological reasons to find fault with Jews so as to avoid thinking unduly about the behavior of many European peoples and states during the war."

 

Actually, because Western Europeans (esp. the youth) were rejecting ultra-nationalism and imperialism, and were supportive of decolonization and national self-determination, it is easy to see why they would criticize Zionism, considering that while the Belgians were departing the Congo, etc., the West had allowed Jewish migrants to flood a territory inhabited by Arab Muslims and had allowed the former to erect a Jewish state while never providing the latter with national self-determination, as had been promised in exchange for Arab co-operation during the First World War.

 

Fjordman: "He warns that those who believe sacrificing Israel would in any way stop the global Jihad are very wrong."

 

Who ever suggested that?

 

Fjordman: "Europeans need to understand how closely intertwined are the fates of Israel and of Europe itself." The term “Judeo-Christian” is not a cliche. We cannot defend Western civilization without defending its Jewish component..."

 

Untrue. If the fate of Europeans and Jews were so linked, Jews would be still residing in Europe, not in their own state.

"We should, however, consider it our duty to combat anti-Semitism "

 

More crap propaganda.  Arabs are semites also and not all jews are semites.  Even if they were governments have no business supporting a country that discriminates against non-jews any more than sending tax funds to the Vatican. 

This is what you are supporting:

Israel is replacing its ambassador in El Salvador after the envoy was found outside the embassy, drunk, wearing only bondage gear, officials said. Haaretz website reports that police found Mr Refael in the Israeli embassy compound two weeks ago. He was inebriated, his hands were tied and he was gagged with a rubber ball in his mouth. In spite of his drunken state, the naked figure was reportedly able to identify himself by his full name and job title. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6441461.stm

The following is from an article written by Ephraim Zuroff, director of the Israel office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Their arrival and the growing Islamic militancy of segments of this population have led to a worrying increase in anti-Semitic incidents in a country in which such incidents were practically unthinkable a few years ago. Jewish children are often the object of taunting and harassment by Muslim neighbors and there has been increasingly strident anti-Zionist rhetoric by local Muslim leaders in response to events in the Middle East.

 

Islam In Europe

 

The most fatal mistake the Muslims in my country could possibly make, is to start harassing our Jews.  That would put a definite end to Islam in Denmark.