Richard Landes
In the story of the emperor’s new clothes, when the boy says, “Daddy, why is the emperor naked?” his father responds, “hush child.” It’s only when someone else in the crowd says, “No, listen to the boy,” that the spell is broken.
Is it possible that the absurdity of the knee-jerk response to the Flotilla ambush has actually begun the process, that anti-Zionism has reached such a level of absurdity and self-parody that people have begun to wake up, to shake off the bonds of self-delusion, to question the “halo effect” of the allegedly liberal, human rights advocates and media stars who have systematically poisoned us with their own delusions? Here’s a (paraphrase of a) letter written to Barry Rubin, one of (if not the most) astute and prolific analysts of the current scene:
The author loves reading Rubin’s articles, e.g., Media, Academia Destroying themselves over Israel. He’s British, not a member of the Jewish community, and has been aware of the slant / bias in the media against Israel for a very long time. Now, however, he feels it’s gotten to a stage where it is actually dangerous. Quite a few people he speaks with willing to admit that they are upset with it. He points to the plummeting readership of the Guardian, and the difficulty of NGOs like Amnesty and Oxfam (for whom Israel is a “malign obsession”) to keep up their donations. He suspects that these organizations are probably looking for a Zionist conspiracy in the increasing troubles when, actually, it’s just the case that “most (thinking) people recognise hysterical propaganda when they see it and don’t approve.”
I have been saying for years now, that in the coming five to ten years, there will be an awakening in Europe (and the rest of the West), that independent minds who are not in the opinion-making elite will begin to realize how badly their leaders have misinformed them, and that when that happens, there’s a window of opportunity whereby we can suggest to them that the anti-Zionism of their elites has operated as a form of cultural AIDS, preventing them from taking self-preserving action.
I welcome any contributions from readers that suggest either a similar response, or (alas) evidence to the contrary. Here’s hoping that the second decade of the 21st reverses the terrible damage of the first decade.
Guest Comments by readers of Prof.Landes post:2 Comments »
1.
rl,
There is so much evidence to the contrary that I supply daily here and to you via email. I don’t think an anecdotal letter to Rubin can balance all that, let alone overtake it.
Some in Europe are realizing what’s going on, but they are not the kind that will do something about it. The native population in Europe is dying and the muslim component is gaining power. it is also the component that is most vociferous and violent and it scares the elite into appeasement. Even if there was a change tomorrow, it would be too late for Europe, which also happens to be bankrupt and collapsing.
If, as Lee Smith so asutely puts it, Obama who heads a country without Europe’s problems (except bankruptcy and collapse) is throwing his lot with the islamists, what chance is there that Europe will not do it?
Both the US and EU have chosen to appease the Teheran/Ankara/Damascus axis by dumping Israel. The world did initially do the same with the Berlin/Tokyo/Rome axis and for the same reasons. They paid an enormous price for realizing the consequences late but were lucky that the Nazis were overextended and led by a complete nut (though nobody gave a damn about the jews anyway), so they managed to recover.
This time around the west is in no state from which it can recover — its era of dominance is over. It is the US which is, due to serious strategic errors, overextended and bankrupt, which is precisely why Obama is courting the axis. Israel is an ideal sacrifice in these circumstances — nobody really cares for the jews.
Comment by incognito — June 17, 2010 @ 3:12 am
2.
Here are the quotes from Lee Smith above that I posted in an earlier thread which may have been missed:
…
This is news: Moderate Muslims, the darlings of the George W. Bush Administration’s foreign policy, don’t matter, or so Obama has concluded. Ever since he was on the campaign trail Obama has promised to reach out to Iran and Syria, state sponsors of terror and Hezbollah’s patrons, and now the reason why is clear: because he believes that it’s Middle East extremists who call the shots. Someday soon, the Obama Administration is going to reach out to Hezbollah, as well as other terrorist organizations, in Afghanistan, Gaza, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.
…
In any case, Obama sees, correctly, that the real choice isn’t between moderates and extremists, but between cutting a deal with the extremists or making war against them. The fact is that a war against all the extremists in the Muslim world—Sunni and Shia, from the Persian Gulf to Western North Africa—is effectively a war against Islam. And a decades-long war of civilizations is not a war that an economically damaged United States can afford to wage. We have neither the money, nor the manpower, nor the will. A total war of the kind that appears to be on offer would change U.S. society in ways that are unimaginable and would make the Bush years look like an idyllic holiday. Our few remaining allies—with the exception of Israel—would no longer wish to fight beside us and would make deals of their own, if they already haven’t.
So, instead, we’re going to bargain with the actors who have the final say over war and peace: the extremists.
…
Looking back to the origins of the United States’ blue-water navy is a reminder that the founding fathers judged that fighting, rather than paying tribute, was what best suited the character of the American people. And there’s little doubt that U.S. citizens will again rebel against policymakers who have chosen appeasement, especially since the extremists will negotiate by killing more of us, in the streets of U.S. cities as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is unclear whether the political damage that the incumbent will suffer because his countrymen are dying is sufficient to change his thinking, which is that it is more cost efficient for a weakened United States to buy off extremists than it is to run the rest of the world at the end of a gun.
But negotiating with extremists will look like war, just that only one side will be fighting while the other side—the United States—tries to stop the bloodshed by petitioning the extremists to accept more ransom. The way Obama sees it, the upside is that it will not be a war without end, like the war on terror. All the extremists in the Muslim world want is money and the power that will flow their way as the consequence of the U.S. withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. The faster the United States leaves, the cheaper the cost. This is why the Jewish state is isolated today and why Washington stands with her only reluctantly: Distancing ourselves from Israel is part of the deal we are preparing to strike.
Comment by incognito — June 17, 2010 @ 3:34 am
No comments:
Post a Comment