Subject: two good reads
From: Noah Levin
A GERMAN EDITORIAL
If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here
is an opinion from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should
come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge
German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE
WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of
Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
This is a must-read by all Americans. History may well certify its
correctness.
EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your
family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your
head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as
England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before
they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless
agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet
Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for
decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as
the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and
even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans
debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally
the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do
our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European
Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now
countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore
nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated
by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue
bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest
critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS
of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of
appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic
Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really
should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German
people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim
Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical
Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain
waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring
European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political
leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies,
and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the
great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted
by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation"
but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to
be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for
Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans
know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War,
freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and
virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair,
acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy.
His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence
in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values
and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the
true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to
those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even
(Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.Why?
Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so
materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes
what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America
because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social
Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather
discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4
weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need
to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking
hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewellery when she notices a robber
breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial: Support for Israel no local liability (In 'The Australian' , 25 August 2006)
<* class="cite" dir="ltr" style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
-
August 25, 2006
-
Sixty-eight years after Munich, appeasers are again seeking concord with anti-Semitic fascists who would rule the world
-
FOR those who love peace, appeasement can be an appealing concept: give the bad guys what they want, and they'll leave you alone. The only trouble is, as history repeatedly demonstrates, whatever peace it purchases is impermanent at best. Such was the case when Europe offered up Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in 1938, hoping to quell Hitler's ambitions. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. Yet individuals like former Australian ambassador to Israel Ross Burns on Wednesday night's 7:30 Report still fall for appeasement's deadly siren song. Following up a speech he gave the previous night in which he called the Australian Government a "stalking horse" for Israel, Mr Burns claimed our close relations with Jerusalem were hurting Australia's standing with neighbouring countries, specifically Indonesia. Instead, suggested Mr Burns, Australia should revisit its relations with liberal-democratic Israel to win Jakarta's respect. This is nonsense. Although he once wrote a well-received travel book about Syria, Mr Burns's undistinguished diplomatic career suggests the former ambassador is not yet ready to sit at the grown-ups' table. With one posting to Canberra's embassy in Israel under his belt and no experience in Southeast Asia the ego-tripping Mr Burns is hardly in a position to judge how neighbouring countries feel about Australia's relations with Israel. The fact is Australia's support for Israel hardly rates as a concern for Indonesia, Malaysia, or any of our other neighbours with whom John Howard has built strong relations over the past decade. Topics such as Papuan asylum-seekers, terrorism, drug trafficking and Asian security and development drive our relationship with Indonesia; Israel has never been a feature of bilateral talks between us. And in any case one does not abandon principles for convenience. Indonesia is a democracy with as much to lose from Islamic fundamentalism as Australia or Israel. Much the same can be said for Malaysia as well. Nor would abandoning Israel help the cause of peace. For ultimately Mr Burns is suggesting Australia turn its back on a Kadima government that was created and elected on the promise of land for peace and the handing back of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians. Israel's hawks, including Ariel Sharon, had all accepted the need for peace with the Palestinians. It is Israel's foes who regularly derail the prospect of peace, most recently with the separate kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and Hamas that sparked the most recent conflict.
-
Mr Burns's ill-informed comments fall against the broader background of a Middle East where, for the moment at least, Iran and its Hezbollah proxies are holding increasing sway in the region and look ever closer to acquiring nuclear arms to cement this position. The UN has proved toothless in its dealings with Tehran, which has just announced that it is happy to talk with the Security Council but that its nuclear program is not up for negotiation. What would be discussed at any such talks is then irrelevant, especially given the Iranian regime's nature which is totalitarian and fascistic at home and expansionist and anti-Semitic abroad. Iran has also issued an unprecedented refusal of UN demands to allow inspectors to visit its uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz. Even if Iran is five years or more away from fabricating a nuclear weapon, enriched uranium could easily be fashioned into a so-called dirty bomb. Although it would be a complicated * involving relatively long distances and multiple targets, Israel would be well-placed to take out Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability - as it did to Iraq when it bombed Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981. And given Arab governments' refusal to weigh in against Israel in its recent fight with Hezbollah, such a move could likely be accomplished without unacceptable military or diplomatic backlash. Were the Israelis to demur, the job of taking out Iran's nuclear facilities would fall to the US, where George W. Bush is thought to be eyeing such a move before the end of his presidency.
-
What is most remarkable in all this is the way anti-Semitism has re-emerged as a driving force in geopolitics. Like Adolf Hitler before them, radical Islamists have resurrected ancient suspicions and hatreds of Judaism as a way to distract the world from their own fascist ends. Just as many Europeans, Americans and others were reluctant to see the rise of Nazi Germany as a personal threat in the 1930s, today the postmodern Left has welcomed the rise of Hezbollah, which has convinced them that it is the Jews - in the form of Israel - who are the real problem and obstacle to peace. This is ironic given that Hezbollah is an organisation which, given half a chance, would use brute force to do away with every liberty and freedom valued by those same progressives who march in world capitals bearing signs declaring their support for the group. Just as it was the Nazis who wanted to take over Europe and beyond, today it is fascists in the form of the Iranians and their Hezbollah proxies who want to win sway over the Middle East and beyond. The manner in which Hezbollah infiltrated Lebanon, and the way unassimilated and radicalised Muslims sympathetic to the so-called Party of God are becoming ever more separatist in Europe, suggests ambitions beyond the Middle East. Yet many Westerners still see Tehran's hoped-for nuclear capability as a good thing. If Israel can have a nuclear weapon, they say, why not Iran - despite Mr Ahmadinejad's stated intentions. Iran's President has said he not only wants to wipe Israel off the map but called for an ingathering of Jews to make his hoped-for holocaust all the more successful, suggesting that being anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic are not as mutually exclusive as Israel's critics might claim. Compare this to the 1930s when elite wisdom in Europe held that having been hard done by at Versailles, Germany should be allowed to re-arm - despite Hitler's stated feelings about the Jews and easily discerned desire for global conquest. Even old and discredited Nazi propaganda, which held that Jews were a secret and malign influence controlling banking and politics, has been resurrected (although more subtly) by those who claim that Israeli lobby groups have too much power to influence policy and stifle debate.
-
The lesson of history may not be, in the short to medium term, a happy one. But human nature has not changed in the past seven decades. Just as would-be fascists who with crazy agendas will always be with us, so to will the voices of appeasement be always at the ready to offer an easy way out, trading a few more years of peace and ease to put off an increasingly awful inevitable. Winston Churchill described an appeaser as "one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last". Those who believe offering up Israel to the likes of Hezbollah will buy peace are only fooling themselves and should consider what they are next willing to lose.
