America and the World

Daniel Pipes reviews Samuel P. Huntington's Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity and gives this framework of different ideologies look at the world.

Along the way, Mr.Huntington observes that Americans can choose among three broad visions for their country in relation to the outside world.

Cosmopolitan: America "welcomes the world, its ideas, its goods, and, most importantly, its people." In this vision, the country strives to become multiethnic, multiracial, and multicultural. The United Nations and other international organizations increasingly influence American life. Diversity is an end in itself; national identity declines in importance. In brief, the world reshapes America.

Imperial: America reshapes the world. This impulse is fueled by a belief in "the supremacy of American power and the universality of American values." America's unique military, economic, and cultural might bestows on it the responsibility to confront evil and to order the world. Other peoples are assumed basically to share the same values as Americans; Americans should help them attain those values. America is less a nation than "the dominant component of a supranational empire."

National: "America is different" and its people recognize and accept what distinguishes them from others. That difference results in large part from the country's religious commitment and its Anglo-Protestant culture. The nationalist outlook preserves and enhances those qualities that have defined America from its inception. As for people who are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, they "become Americans by adopting its Anglo-Protestant culture and political values."

Mr. Huntington sums up this triad of choices: "America becomes the world. The world becomes America. America remains America."

The left tends to the cosmopolitan vision; the right divides among imperialists and nationalists. Personally, I have wavered between the latter two, sometimes wanting the United States to export its humane political message and at other times fearful that such efforts, however desirable, will overextend the American reach and end in disaster.

Which brings us back to Iraq and the choices at hand.

Cosmopolitans reject the unilateralism of the Iraq campaign, despise the notion of guiding the Iraqis to "a free and peaceful" country, and deeply suspect the Bush administration's motives. They demonstrate on the streets and hurl invectives from television studios.

Imperialists are guiding American policy toward Iraq, where they see a unique opportunity not just to rehabilitate that country but to spread American ways through the Middle East.

And nationalists find themselves, as usual, somewhere in between. They sympathize with the imperial vision but worry about its practicalities and consequences. As patriots, they take pride in American accomplishments and hope U.S. influence will spread. But they have two worries: that the outside world is not ready to Americanize and Americans are unwilling to spend the blood and treasure to carry off an imperial mission.

QOTD: Clausewitz

QOTD: Clausewitz

Philanthropists may readily imagine there is a skillful method of disarming and overcoming an enemy without causing great bloodshed, and that this is the proper tendency of the art of war. However plausible this may appear, still it is an error which must be extirpated; for in such dangerous things as war, the errors which proceed from a spirit of benevolence are the worst

Understanding Arab anti-Americanism

Understanding Arab anti-Americanism

The difference between Arab leadership and the Arab people is the key to understanding Arab anti-Americanism. When Arabs say that they like Americans but not American policies, they are saying they do not understand the basic principle of representative government: The American people are their government. When we disagree with the policies our government enacts, we hire a new one. Arabs do not enjoy this privilege.

Arguing from Sharon's Own Words

Benny Begin is about to debate the Gaza surrender.

"I think it is very hard to compare that which occurred in Sinai, or what we could have achieved then, with what we face now. Sinai was a land far from our population centers, and we were able to reach an agreement that an area 200 kilometers wide would remain free of Egyptian military forces forever. In addition, we signed an agreement with a sovereign country that controls its territory - and not with a terrorist organization that cannot and does not want to control terror organizations, nor even its own internal factions that continue to employ terrorism. In addition, Egypt had no other territorial demands (other than the areas we transferred to them), and this is different than the present situation."

Dr. Begin [in an upcoming debate on the surrender of Gaza] will thus be able to say, in Prime Minister Sharon's name, that there are at least four reasons why even those who justify the Sinai evacuation would have to oppose the disengagement plan Mr. Sharon is now promoting:
* Gaza is close to Israeli population centers.
* No agreement on demilitarization has been reached.
* No agreement has been signed with a sovereign country, or with any entity at all.
* The entity that will take control of the area still has major territorial demands upon Israel.

Arens on Surrendering Gaza

Former three-time Defense Minister Moshe Arens weighs in the Gaza surrender.

We are in the midst of a 3.5-year war against the [Arabs of the Palestinian Authority], and as such, the most important considerations are those of security. We are right in the middle of the war, and we're making gains - we're even hearing various Arab spokesmen say that terrorism is not gaining them anything, and the like - and therefore this is not precisely a smart time to retreat. As the Chief of Staff said, a retreat from Gaza will strengthen and encourage the terrorists. Even President Bush has said that the main thing is to dismantle and destroy the terrorist infrastructure. - so now we should give them territory?!"

Arens said that the way the plan is being presented, "as if we're disengaging from and leaving Gaza," is not quite correct:
"Until 1994, we were really in Gaza - our forces were in Gaza City and Dir el Balah and Jabalya, and all the rest. In 1994, we left Gaza. The question now, therefore, is not whether to leave Gaza, but whether to uproot the Jewish communities in Gush Katif, which are mostly in southern Gaza and basically separate from the Arabs... I see no reason why land [such as the Golan and Gaza] from which attacks were launched against us, and which we then captured and settled, should have to be returned to the attackers... In any event, the main consideration is whether it will help our war against terrorism, and in my opinion, a withdrawal from Gaza now will merely encourage terrorists and will cause further terrorist attacks." [Emphasis mine]

Details of the Gaza Surrender

Avigdor Lieberman (National Union) on the Gaza pre-emptive surrender of Gaza.

He said that the plan is one of "retreat and flight" that binds Israel to Gaza more than ever.

The official letter by [Sharon's aide] Dov Weisglass states

Israel will pay the Palestinian Authority 40 million shekels per month

Israel will supply the PA with fuel, electricity, and water

Israel will be responsible for roads connecting Gaza to Judea and Samaria

Israel will increase the amount of workers entering pre-'67 Israel from Gaza

"Who will receive the Jews' homes? The families of the murderers?! And will the synagogues turn into mosques!?"...

"Where is the disengagement here?!"

QOTD

Mark Steyn

There is no point entering into negotiations predicated on not disturbing the fantasies of one side.

What Israel, America, and Britain Face

Excellent editorial by Janet Daley

Anybody who saw the unretouched photographs of the Madrid train bombing will know that this is not hyperbole. This is a fight to the death with forces who - quite explicitly - have no regard for the value of human life and who make no demands coherent or consistent enough to be comprehensible.

This is not politics as we know it. It is not war - or even terrorism as an act of war - as we have previously understood it. It is a kind of mystical nihilism. Defeating it is going to take all of the organised energy and commitment that the rich, decadent West can muster. It will also involve quite a few concessions with what we regard as our ancient freedoms. But that's how it is. The right to live is not just the most important entitlement in a free society: it is the one on which all the other rights are predicated. There are no civil liberties in the grave.

...

Their goal is not, as the anti-Zionist media lobby believes, the extinction of the Palestinian cause in the interests of US-Israeli imperialism. It is the eradication of an international terror network that uses the fate of Palestinian refugees as a pretext when it suits, but is actually dedicated to a transcendental vision of Arabic conquest of historical territories.

...

The closest parallel in modern history to this blood and soil dream of reclaiming ancient lands from the usurper was the Nazi dream of Aryan reclamation of those parts of Europe with Germanic roots. The Wagnerian, German romantic mythology of expulsion from homelands leading to a sacred Teutonic mission of rebirth, has an uncannily similar ring to the new Islamist claims of Muslim displacement and injustice. Europe (and especially Russia, whose behaviour in the current crisis has been ignominious) should have learnt its lesson about dealing with this kind of insanity - and about what happens when you try to pretend that it is somehow capable of rational containment.

...

When an enemy tells you in so many words that he is beyond reason, then the rule of law that is itself dependent on reason becomes useless. But force does not.

Reform and Eugenics

Stephen Prothero reviews a book about the history of eugenics. This is what I find interesting.

The period in which eugenics became faddish is typically remembered as an era in which science and religion were at war. (Think only of the clashes over Darwinism.) But as Christine Rosen notes in "Preaching Eugenics," (Oxford University, 286 pages, $35) liberal Protestants and reform Jews were aligned from the start with the progenitors of this pseudo-science.

...

In fact, the long list of clergy who plumped for eugenics -- among others, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the Free Synagogue of New York... -- reads like a "Who's Who" of American religious modernism. [Emphasis mine]

Prager Looks At the World

Dennis Prager takes a step back and looks at the world.

I have contempt for "the world." I cherish and admire countless individuals, but I have contempt for "the world" and "world opinion." "The world" has never cared about evils inflicted on human beings. The Communist genocides meant nothing to humanity. The Holocaust meant nothing. With almost no exception, the mass atrocities since World War II have likewise absorbed humanity less than the Olympics or the Miss World Contest. I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Its moral record — outside of a few specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization — is almost entirely supportive of evil and condemnatory of good. It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world — those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Communists during their heyday and African despots. It appointed Libya, a despotic, primitive state, to head its Human Rights Commission, whose members include China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Neither the United States nor Israel sits on the Commission. I regard the European Union with similar revulsion.

With little opposition, Europe murdered nearly every Jewish man, woman and child in its midst, and a half-century later provides cover for those in the Middle East who seek to do to the Middle East's Jews exactly what the Nazis did to the European Jews. For the European Union to condemn Israel's killing of a Hamas leader, when Hamas's avowed aim is another Jewish genocide, is so loathsome as to board the incredible. For Germany and France (who, unlike America, have almost never shed blood for the liberty of others) to do everything they can to undermine America's attempt to liberate Iraq is similarly repugnant.

As for the international news media and journalists, I regard most of them as aides to evil.

Gaza III and American Promises

Cal Thomas on why even American promises cannot be trusted.

What should be troubling is the number of promises made by previous American presidents that were not fulfilled, either because the United States failed to uphold them, or an Israeli prime minister did not press the matter.

In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower made commitments in order to get Israel to withdraw from the Sinai. In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson failed to implement those commitments and the Six-Day War followed.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon made promises to end the war of attrition between Israel and Egypt. Egypt violated the agreement, and the United States failed to live up to its commitments. The 1973 Yom Kippur War followed, which killed 2,800 Israelis.

In 1996 and again in 1998, President Bill Clinton promised to refrain from pressuring Israel into making further concessions until the Palestinian Authority altered its Charter that calls for the elimination of Israel. The Charter was not altered, but Israel was expected to honor its promises.

In 2000, Clinton committed $800 million in special assistance to induce Israel to withdraw from Southern Lebanon. Israel withdrew, and Hezbollah quickly filled the geographic and military vacuum, increasing terrorist attacks. The promised U.S. assistance never arrived.

Gaza II

Another excellent article on Gaza, this one by Nadav Shragai in Ha'aretz.

It was the withdrawal from Lebanon that created the Palestinian awareness that led to the second intifada, which should be known as the "Oslo War." Former Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samiya, thinks so, as do a long list of distinguished past and present senior IDF officers. The disengagement from Gush Katif will be perceived by the Palestinians as an Israeli escape, and will refill the sails of terror with wind. More densely populated areas in the south of the country will be exposed to long-range Palestinian weapons - not only the Gush Katif and western Negev, but also the area encompassing Sderot to Ashkelon. When that happens, will we reconquer Gaza?

Another terror region will open up in northern Samaria, and Israel will find it very difficult to preserve its intelligence and operational capabilities in the territories that are evacuated. Those who doubt this should take a look at recent history, the history of "Oslo," which still smashes us in the face nearly every day. The terror state that already exists in the Palestinian Authority areas will only upgrade its capabilities. And if that's not enough, then according to the disengagement plan, Israel once again agrees that in coordination with it, "the Palestinian security forces will be granted guidance, aid and training for fighting terror." If that's not an illusion, then what is?

But the mother of all these illusions is the cornerstone on which Sharon is basing his public relations strategy against the disengagement opponents. Evacuating Gush Katif, he says, will save the large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. In other words, we're cutting off a branch or two to save the entire tree from dying.

The truth is the precise opposite. It won't take long, maybe weeks or perhaps months, after the evacuation (or perhaps the destruction) of one of the most successful settlement areas in the country, until the pressure on Israel to evacuate more "blocs" increases. That evacuation, as far as the Palestinians, the U.S., and certainly some leftist elements like Peace Now are concerned will grant legitimacy to the demand to evacuate more settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. For those who have forgotten, Gush Katif is also a settlement bloc.

Surrendering Gaza

Excellent analysis on the proposed Gaza pre-emptive surrender by Reuven Koret of Jewsweek.

What will Israel get for expelling thousands of its citizens from their homes and handing those homes over to a terrorist-led regime?

It had better be a lot. To put the country through the spectacle of seeing soldiers breaking down doors, bulldozers crushing living room walls, bedrooms being shattered and emptied. To see security forces beating and dragging Jews from their homes.

Or to see the images of Palestinian terrorists, or whole Jew-hating families, moving in to these red-roofed houses and pleasant towns, shooting in the air, burning Israeli flags, declaring victory over the Zionist enemy. That's not even consider the long-term suffering and dislocation of the families, who may or may not be compensated for their expropriation.

Not the Loyal Opposition

Via Israel Foriegn Ministry

The following are statements by Rantisi (source - Hamas internet site, 26 January 2004):

"There will be no concession of one inch of Palestine, because it is Islamic Land."

"There will be no recognition of what is called the 'State of Israel.' "

"Any solution which includes recognizing what is called the 'State of Israel' or concession on one inch of historic Palestine is unacceptable and void, and doesn't obligate us at all."

"[Violent] Resistance is the only option for the restoration of our stolen rights."

In an interview on April 9, 2004:

"We say to the Muslim people of Iraq, we are with you in your struggle against American terror and destruction, we are with you in your war in defense of Islam. We say to the fighter and commander Mokutada A-Sadr: Hamas stands by your side and blesses your Jihad (holy war) and wishes you with the help of God, that you will win and be victorious."

A Monster's Death

Barbara Amiel has an excellent article on the smackdown that the IDF laid on Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi.

Moral indignation over the deaths of Yassin and Rantissi remains impossible to fathom. One would be relieved if the Independent or Robin Cook were shedding crocodile tears but their weeping seems perfectly sincere. The existence of monsters such as Yassin and Rantissi only forces more civilised people into measures that spill blood on decent hands. That is a tragedy indeed, but that is about all one can mourn. Trying to serve a judicial warrant on Hamas leaders, deliberately living among the civilian population, would cause scores more innocent deaths than targeting them from a helicopter. None of us likes "extra-judicial" measures, but it is hypocrisy laid on with a trowel to suggest that psychotic beings such as Yassin and Rantissi are anything other than murderers in cold blood.

QOTD: Ghostbusters

QOTD: Ghostbusters

Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

Why Sharon Chose to Give Up

William Safire quotes Ariel Sharon on why the Prime Minister came up with his pre-emptive surrender (Gaza Withdrawal) plan.

"Back in November, so many plans were around," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told me yesterday just before heading back to Israel, "from the Saudis, from Geneva, from the Arab League, and I saw we could not resist those pressures without a plan of our own.

"What could I do — destroy the Palestinian Authority? No — Israel cannot take on its shoulders the lives of three and a half million Palestinians. Sign a peace agreement? No — terror would only begin again. Leave as is? No — I've seen everything in Israel since the War of Independence, and it's my responsibility to deal with it now.

The Sum of All Facts on the History of Islamo-Fascism's War on America

Ann Coulter sums up our history with terrorism from Carter ("Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage. Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas.") through W ("Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel.")

Sharon's Options---In His Own Words

Ariel Sharon gives the options he considered for dealing with the territories. Summary courtesy of the Daily Alert bulletin of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

Sharon said the current impasse presented him with four possibilities.

The first option was to essentially annex the territories, taking over responsibility for the 1.8 million Palestinians living there. "Israel has no interest in taking responsibility for and ruling over the Palestinians' lives. I do not think we should allocate billions of shekels from our budget at this time to deal with the Palestinians' education, welfare, and sewage."

The second option was a complete withdrawal from the territories "in return for vague promises." He said this option would be "a disaster for Israel in terms of security, as well as practically impossible to implement."

The third option is to maintain the status quo. But the status quo is dangerous for Israel because "a deadlock cannot last forever. The world will not allow the impasse to continue. A dead end will, sooner or later, bring about political initiatives which are dangerous to Israel."

The fourth option is unilateral disengagement. Its basic principles include:

Establishing a security line along which the IDF will be deployed, "in areas essential for Israel's defense"

Erecting a physical obstacle to make terrorist infiltration into large population centers more difficult

Withdrawal from areas which will clearly not be under Israeli control in any future permanent agreement and which are sources of great friction, "such as the Gaza Strip"

Obtaining the political support of the U.S. and other "friends around the world" for the plan.