www.thornwalker.com/ditch/blythe.htm
Guest article
Editor's note
The following guest article is written from a nationalist perspective, while the editorial orientation of The Last Ditch is free-market anarchist and anti-nationalist (in the sense of supporting nation-states and their interests). However, in the current circumstances what we have in common with Mr. Blythe far outweighs that about which we disagree. I am not just pleased but downright excited to be able to post this product of his ultra-sharp pen.
Nicholas Strakon November 17, 2001
Who wants
this war and why
By GILBERT BLYTHE
In the October 29 issue of The Weekly Standard, a
leading neoconservative magazine, William Kristol and
Robert Kagan write that "when all is said and done, the
conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the
North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential
beginning on the path to victory." After what they call "but an
opening battle," they predict a war that will "spread and
engulf a number of countries" and that "could well require the use
of American military power in multiple places
simultaneously."
In the turmoil that would follow, Kristol and Kagan think it likely
that Israel could reoccupy the West Bank and depose Yasser
Arafat; that several moderate Arab governments could be
overthrown; and that America's war against terrorism could
"resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped
to avoid." They add that in a conflict of such scale, some
countries might use biological or chemical weapons. Though
they do not say so explicitly, they are telling us to prepare for
World War III.
What is most
Not even small wars end predictably. War on the scale Kristol
and Kagan envision, in an age of weapons of mass
destruction, could have catastrophic consequences, but they
tell us that such a war is necessary in defense of "the
West."
They are hardly alone in calling for all-out war. Charles
Krauthammer, Norman Podhoretz, William Safire, Morton
Kondracke, Don Feder, Ben Wattenberg, and Mona Charen
have all done so as well. In the Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz
is the most prominent advocate of a multi-front war.
Let us state it plainly: All these people are Jewish. Not all Jews
are as eager as these are to shed Muslim blood, and a few
non-Jews are equally eager, but Jews have unquestionably
distinguished themselves in their ardor for war.
Why is it necessary to point this out? In any passionate
conflict, there is a difference between neutral observers and
partisans. Participants in any fight — as well as their
relatives — can seldom be objective about who is wrong
or right. That is why we would not expect to hear the whole
truth about the Indo-Pakistani conflict if we asked only
Indians or only Pakistanis.
When it comes to the events of September 11,
Jews with access to the official media have taken a virtually
unanimous view of the events of September 11 in insisting,
first of all, that American support for Israel has nothing to do
with why so many Arabs hate us, or why 19 fanatics were
willing to die trying to kill as many of us possible. They prefer
to divorce the deaths of nearly 5,000 Americans from our
alliance with Israel because they worry — with good
reason — that gentiles might rethink that alliance if large
numbers of Americans should begin to die because of it.
Most Jews have instead argued that Arabs attacked the
United States not because of anything America has done but
because it is a symbol of freedom and democracy. David
Harris of the American Jewish Committee is entirely typical
when he says, "From the moment that the World Trade
Center toppled, I think Americans understood that this was
an attack on all of us. If Israel didn't exist, it still would have
happened." Norman Podhoretz even wrote in the Wall Street
Journal that Arabs dislike Israel only because Israel is friendly
with the United States, and not the other way around!
Shortly after the attacks, Elie Wiesel was reported as saying,
"What happened had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with
Israel, and America knows that." Such a categorical —
even defensive — statement suggests that Wiesel may
not be entirely convinced of his position. And, indeed, a
Zogby poll taken about the same time as his remarks showed
that 73 percent of Americans thought the attacks were
inspired, at least to some degree, by U.S. policy in the
Mideast. Widespread though this view obviously is, it almost
never appears in print, and it certainly has not led to public
discussion about the connection between terrorism and our
support for Israel, or the wisdom of that support.
Jewish spokesmen have promoted the view that terrorists
attacked the United States because it is a beacon of freedom.
For example, Roberta Goldstein, who will be the next national
chairman of Israel Bonds, says that "we are dealing with lunatics
who are opposed to a free society."
There is no evidence for that argument, and that fact only
highlights its partisan quality.
But even that blunt statement had little effect on most Jewish
commentators, some of whom simply claimed bin Laden was
lying. However, a terrorist generally has no reason to lie about his
motives, because if he has a purpose in resorting to terror,
that purpose cannot be achieved if he keeps it a secret.
If Arab hatred for America really did have nothing to do with
our support for Israel, and the terrorists really had launched
an attack against freedom and democracy — if Arabs
had, in effect, already begun the "clash of civilizations" Kristol
and Kagan say they want to avoid — then there might be
some justification for the multi-front war The Weekly
Standard wants us to fight. But al Qaeda is not at war with "the
West." It has announced no quarrel with Europe, which
epitomizes "the West" and was for centuries the traditional
enemy of Islam. Al Qaeda has shown itself to be a practical
organization that thinks it can use criminal violence to change
certain policies in the Middle East. It is we who will set alight a
civilizational conflagration if we do the bidding of many Jews
and expand the war.
Another common Jewish argument — Kagan and Kristol
make it in The Weekly Standard — is that Yasser Arafat
and Osama bin Ladin are perfect parallels, and that Israel is
no less justified in killing Arafat than America is in killing bin
Laden. That is a remarkable non sequitur, coming, as it
usually does, from people who have just told us Arabs hate
America, not for anything we have done but because of the
ideals we stand for. One cannot possibly believe that and then
claim Arafat and bin Laden are moral equivalents.
Jews and Arabs have not been fighting for 50 years because of
metaphysical disagreements about "freedom" or
"democracy." The bloodshed is over a very concrete question:
Who owns the land? Every single death can be
traced back to that entirely ordinary but intractable
disagreement. But if, as Jewish commentators would have us
believe, the United States was quietly promoting domestic
tranquillity only to be suddenly attacked by crazed Arabs,
there is no parallel between Yasser Arafat and Osama bin
Laden. Palestinian violence has a well-recognized origin and
cause, whereas the nearly unanimous Jewish view is that al
Qaeda's violence against America is utterly unprovoked. That
spurious parallel has the purpose of portraying Palestinian
violence as pure, unprovoked evil that justifies the harshest
forms of suppression.
And where will this Americo-Israeli fight against pure evil
lead? Kristol and
The struggle of good against evil that many American Jews
are promoting just happens to be a war against Israel's
enemies. Kristol and Kagan want us to destroy the military
capacity of Iraq, Syria, and perhaps Iran, and forcibly install
pliant governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. They
want us to fight a major, multi-front war that would root out
conservative Islam and smash every nation that has ever
threatened Israel. Maybe that would be good for Israel, but
what about us? A long, bloodthirsty campaign on that scale,
even if it appeared successful for a time, would cost the lives
of countless Americans and ensure for us the everlasting
hatred of the world's Muslims. It would raise up a dozen new
Osama bin Ladens, who would think of ever more clever and
sickening ways to seek revenge. America would become a
constant battleground.
This view of the conflict — in which our support for Israel
plays no role, in which al Qaeda's objectives are metaphysical
rather than practical, and which requires years of bloodshed
that would have the effect of making the Middle East safe for
Israel — is very damaging to American interests. But it
greatly advances a certain view of Israeli interests, which is
why it is important to examine the motives of those who are
promoting it.
If China and India were to go to war, as they have done in the
past, no one would expect Chinese-Americans or
Indian-Americans to take an objective view that reflected strictly
American interests. They would do everything they could to
make us pick sides and back their old homeland, even if it were not
in our interest. They would also
What Jewish-Americans are doing is also natural and to be
expected. They are dressing up a narrowly partisan interest in
red, white, and blue, and some non-Jews will mistake it for an
American flag. But those of us who are not Jews or Arabs, who
are not partisans in their decades-long fight, must realize that
cousins of combatants are not neutral observers. Jews have
much more influence in this country than Arabs and have
skewed the debate about how to respond to terrorism in a
direction that serves Jewish and Israeli interests more than
American interests.
It is legitimate and necessary to point that out. Jews have
every right to try to encourage the use of American military
might in ways that suit them, just as every other group has,
but we should not be blind to their motives. Unless the rest of
us understand those motives, we could find ourselves mired
in an unwinnable war against all of Islam, and under constant
attack at home from Arabs whom we have given every reason
to hate us.
It is vitally important that we understand what has caused this
war. The longer it goes on and the more countries it involves,
the more it will take on a life of its own and the more obscure
its origins will become. In every war, as casualties mount,
revenge and blood lust are increasingly what drive the killing,
and what may have been strictly political disagreements that
prompted the conflict recede into irrelevance. The more
Muslims we kill, the more likely it is that other Muslims will
see the war as an assault on all of Islam, whether we mean it
that way or not. And as Muslims manage to kill more of us in
return, Americans will increasingly see the conflict in the
same religious and civilizational terms. ***
What response to the terror of September 11 would be in
American interests? We cannot let murderers go
unpunished, so we must take action against them. However, it
is folly to pretend that Palestinian grievances have nothing to
do with the rejoicing that swept the Muslim world when the
twin towers collapsed. Virtually every nation in the world
— except for the United States and Israel — believes
that peace and justice
The United States is the only power that can persuade Israel
to accept a settlement that appears just in the eyes not only of
the Palestinians but of the entire world. If Israel returns the
land it conquered in 1967, Palestinians and other Arabs will
lose their greatest reason to hate us, and peace may finally
come to a region that badly needs it. We could have cordial
relations with all nations in the region.
A few senior members of the Bush administration understand
this, and that is why they oppose a multi-front war, and
emphasize the need for a Palestinian state. And that is why
some of them, Colin Powell in particular, have been the
targets of bitter criticism from Jews.
If we do not bring about a solution that is acceptable to the
majority of Muslims, the war on terrorism will never end and
we will never win, no matter how long and hard we fight. We
cannot root out Islamic terror unless we root out its causes.
We will never even recognize its causes if we fail to
understand the motives of those who obscure those causes,
and who no doubt believe they speak for America but whose
counsels are not in our best interests.
A broad, enormously destructive conflict can be avoided only
if we carefully limit our military targets. Al Qaeda and its
direct supporters cannot be permitted to plot further violence
against us, and it may necessary — with the support of
President Bush tells us that this is a war against terrorism.
Whether he realizes it or not, Arab terrorism will stop only
when the Palestinians have a satisfactory state. American
Jews will use their considerable influence to direct American
policies to other ends, but our leaders must recognize that in
this conflict, satisfying Jewish interests will endanger
American interests and cost the lives of many Americans. Ω
November 17, 2001
A related article by Mr. Blythe.
Gilbert Blythe is the pen name of a Washington-area
journalist.
Published in 2001 by WTM
Enterprises.
If you found this article to be interesting, please donate at least $4 to our cause. You should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to WTM
Enterprises and send it to:
Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD! Notice to visitors who came
straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You
should check out our home page and table
of contents.
If you find this article of value, please send a donation of $4 to TLD. More information appears below.
remarkable about the
essay is its unruffled tone. The authors could be offering
advice on brands of toothpaste rather than urging us into a
war that could cause incalculable destruction. How many
people do they think we should be prepared to kill? Five
thousand? Five hundred thousand? A million?
Jews are not neutral
observers; they are partisans. That is because Israel, and our
relations with the Jewish state, are central both to the terror
attacks themselves and to the way in which we should
respond to them. It is no secret that American Jews have a
passionate commitment to Israel, so it would be foolish not to
evaluate what they say in light of that commitment. On issues
related to Israel, many Jews have understandably strong
interests that are different from those of non-Jews, but the
country as a whole should be careful not to be swept up in
such partisan passions. Excessive concern for narrowly Jewish
interests could damage broader American interests.
No bin Laden spokesman or
known terrorist has ever said he hated America because it is
"free" or democratic. Bin Laden has a list of
specific grievances against the United States, one of which is
American support for Israel. In his statement immediately
after the United States began bombing Afghanistan, he gave
that reason special prominence, warning that Americans
would not live in security until Palestinians lived in
security.
Kagan calmly predict that an inevitably
broader war against terrorism could unseat the governments
of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan, with their possible
replacement by radical Islamic regimes. The implications for
America would be "enormous," they explain (of course, it is
the implications for Israel that would be "enormous," but this
they leave unsaid); and they add that "American intervention
in some form would be a near certainty." American
intervention? We don't know how to
organize a plausible successor to the Taliban, a band of
outcasts and eccentrics that had diplomatic relations with
only two countries. And yet The Weekly Standard expects us
to march into Cairo, the heart of the Arab world, and impose a
government on the Egyptians! It is folly even to imagine such
a thing.
try to convince us that
choosing sides was in our interest, and that
staying out of the fight would be a betrayal of American
values. That is natural and to be expected.
require that Israel
return to its pre-1967 borders. Instead, in violation of repeated
Security Council resolutions, Israel continues to build
settlements on conquered land. The United States is the only
country that finances, arms, and backs that process, which, to
Arabs, is a campaign of perpetual aggression.
the international community — to take further measures
to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons. However,
we must make all decisions of that kind with a strict eye to
what is good for the United States.
WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783