printSerbian historian Srdja Trifkovic is one of the finest writers on Islam. Because he tells the truth about Islam, he also tells the truth about Israel. The latter follows from the former. Sane Serbs, Nebojsa Malic is another, have clashed with Islam’s emissaries and view Israel has having been “serbed.” The rest of the paleos are in contradiction: They acknowledge Islam’s aims but refuse to see its workings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I highlighted their inconsistencies in “Paleos Must Defend the West…And That Means Israel Too.” Trifkovic’s “Israel, the West, and the Rest” continues a tradition of three:
“… our primary interests in the Middle East … are not to defend human rights, or to promote democracy, or to build a Palestinian state, or to treat Israel as an existential American ally … Secondary and peripheral [interests] must remain subordinate to the primary interests when policy outcomes come into conflict. Should we promote ‘democracy’ even if its beneficiaries are Osama and Ahmadinejad? Should we seek ‘justice’ for the Palestinians — however defined — at the cost of risking the disappearance of the state of Israel? No, heck no!
Even if an evenhanded and generous agreement were to be offered to the Arabs — including the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, an equitable sharing of natural resources, and a generous compensation package that would resolve the refugee problem — it would be unworkable in the long term — the notion of Israel’s legitimacy is simply unacceptable to traditional Islam…”
UPDATE I (June 16) : To Derek: “Israel” does not have to mimic paleos to deserve a defense against those intent on extinguishing it. However, it so happens that Israelis have “Sued NATO For 1999 Air Strikes On Serbia.” Read my post about this valiant, well-directed, self-interested effort.
We know that Israel was streaks ahead, as far as paleo political philosophy goes, in terms of its relationship not only with Serbia but with the old South Africa. Read about the latter comity.
Put it this way: Israel did not attempt to destroy these nations; the USA did.
Where does that leave paleo incongruity?!
UPDATE II (June 17): The idea, hinted at in the Comments Section, that this column privileges Israel over the US for “tribal” reasons is insulting—at least to those familiar with my positions. As I wrote to Myron the other day, when he asked that I apply the Israel test to an American issue: “I’m an American commentator, first.” I’m also the quintessential individualist. I’ve never belonged or worked for any group/tribe/church.
Why does this writer fight for the Afrikaner, Gringo Malo? Tribal affiliation? What bunk. If I knew what was good for me, I would indeed conform to Malo’s insulting caricature—the book deals would role in. I’d be rewarded for becoming what in Russel Kirk’s estimation the American mind craves: the banal and the mundane.
If anything, paleos work against their “tribe” when they agitate for the Palestinians. An Israeli did not assassinate an American senator; a Palestinian did. Muslim terrorists extolling the Palestinian cause killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. Yet it is Israelis that paleos warn us against.
And don’t dare mention the vast sums of money that go to that nest of vipers known as the Palestinian Authority. We only speak of the Jewish ponces who take from the US.
Equating my mere recognition of the justness of Israel’s existence and its struggle and what it has accomplished with tribal affiliation—this is plain pathetic, all the more so considering I have not ever recommended a foreign policy that does anything other than stay out of Israel’s affairs.
UPDATE IV: THEN THERE WERE FOUR. Thanks, Daniel, for alerting us to Derb’s brilliant piece, “Taking Israel’s Side”:
“Each of us has a mental map of the world colored by partiality, some of it reasonable, some merely emotional. If we are patriotic, we will feel more warmly towards a nation that trades fairly with us, cooperates to some degree in international projects we undertake, and shares some commonality of history, culture, or values with us. Contrariwise, of course, if you believe, as a liberal once told me he actually did believe, that your country is the most evil that ever existed, you will feel affinity with foreign nations whose leaders share that view. …
It remains the case that any fair-minded person must be an Israel sympathizer. A hundred years ago there were Jews and Arabs living in that part of the Ottoman Empire. After the Ottoman collapse both peoples had a right to set up their own ethnostates. It has been the furiously intransigent Arab denial of this fact, not anything Israelis have done, that has been the root cause of all subsequent troubles. It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.It is also indisputably the case, as has often been said, that if Hamas, Hezbollah, and the rest were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in Palestine, while if Israel were to lay down her arms, the Israelis would be slaughtered.”
[SNIP]
The last very good point was one I made in LIAR, LIAR, ABAYA ON FIRE (2002), quoting Lorne Gunter:
“Cycle of violence” suggests a sequence of events that has no beginning or end. Do the media ever pause to pose the no-brainer the Edmonton Journal’s Lorne Gunter poses? “If Palestinians stopped their attacks today, tomorrow there would be no Israeli attacks. But if Israel stopped unilaterally, would you trust the Palestinians to follow?”
“I am Israel” video. Wonderful video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZprVPKi-W6s&playnext_from=TL&videos=N1cS8GCr4R0
I do not detect much gap between Wilsonians and Neocons although perhaps the Obama vs. Bush approach to Israel would qualify as a difference. But there seems negligible difference on Iraq and Afghanistan.
I prefer the term non-interventionist for my own views. The founders did not object to cultural and trade – they were not ISOLATIONISTS. Also, wouldn’t a “realist” be happy to chuck Israel under the proverbial bus – after all, the Moslems outnumber the Jews by 100:1.
Did Israel, or her staunchest backers in the USA, support Serbia in 1999? I know Paleos did.
That Israeli lawsuit looks less like a defense of Serbia than it does a political, preemptive move to dissuade the Europeans from doing the same against Israel in regards to Gaza. However, I am glad they did it.
I still feel the Paleos don’t strongly back the Israelis because of their ideological war with the Neocons. The neocons’ support of open borders, attacking Serbia and big government has caused the Paleos to lash out at the only thing they feel is near and dear to the neocons, Israel.
It’s not right, but the paleos have been supplanted and don’t really have much power or influence anymore. Because of this, I don’t see why it is such a big deal that they don’t support Israel given their lack of importance.
Off topic, I found a link to this article about South Africa on a blog post at Steve Sailer’s site. The article is critical of a certain town in SA that is all white.
Serbia was destroyed and today the united nations upholds apartheid on a rigid line of ethnic ties. Media is hypnotised as usual and I wonder how long they can enforce this sate of affairs? At the ame time the same Europeans have been turning with malice on israel: using lies and misinformation.
Watching from the new south africa:one wonders what these people are trying to achieve!?
And the kurdish plight is never up for discussion in the human rights councils: It seems the new dark ages of europe is back and the usa is being dragged in by its brain dead media mainstream
Unfortunately, many of us Serbs(not all and I doubt it’s the majority), after being victims of neoliberal/neoconservative(the difference between the two is like the difference between the bolsheviks and mensheviks, minimal and irrelevant) onslaught have taken up what you call “guilt by association with neocons” mantra when it comes to Israel.
The other day Nebojsa Malic posted the piece you linked to on a Serbian site and some of the comments were shocking. They weren’t simply”ad hominem” without any attempt to disprove what Malic has written, they were downright offensive! One person even suggested that Malic’s text has been shaped by the “pro-zionist” site Antiwar.com! No, I’m not making this up, I couldn’t even if I wanted to! On a whole, however, the coments were split even, mostly, between those supportive and dismissive of Malic, but the level of the latter was as I described above.
Thank you, Ilana. One would think that more Serbs would support Israel’s right to exist, being as they’ve been listed right next to the Jews as the “enemies of Allah” (according to the Londonistani cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri), but that’s not very often the case.
Tribal loyalties affect one’s view of these issues. I’ll admit it. For example, like most other paleoconservatives in this country, I’m an American, i.e., an English-speaking European whose sole loyalty is to the United States. Like most American paleos, I tend to look askance at government policies that seem to be of no benefit to me and my fellow Americans, or that seem to be engineered for the benefit of some foreign tribe at our expense. “The West” is an abstract concept; America is where we live. When examining any government policy, paleoconservatives consistently ask what the f— is in it for us Americans?
Naturally, I opposed Clinton’s war on Serbia, which was clearly inspired by the 1997 film Wag the Dog and intended only to distract public attention from the Lewinsky scandal and Clinton’s impeachment, because Clinton was the only American who derived any benefit from it. I question the government’s unconditional support of Israel because my fellow Americans and I derive no particular benefit from it. There is no inconsistency in these two opinions. At least, that’s the way my tribal loyalty colors the issues for me.
The paleo-conservative columnist John Derbyshire has himself written on Israel:
The rest of the article is well worth reading.
@DEREK ON 06.16.10 2:44 PM
Off topic, South Africa today resembles an outcome of Israel populated by a majority of non-Jews, as desired by the enemies of Israel. The tyranny of majority rule where the inhabitants don’t share the same basic cultural values will have as its goal and outcome the wiping out the Jewish culture, hebrew language etc.
This is what is happening in South Africa today, where the majority party has as its goal the destruction of the Afrikaans language and culture as represented in universities, schools, monuments, farms, businesses, communities, street and city names, history books etc. The goal is quite visible for those willing to spend the time to understand the issues in South Africa, as the goals are clothed in the language of democracy, restitution and majority rule.
Orania is an attempt to reestablish a pro west, and western civilization based territory in South Africa. See the link as referenced by Daniel above.
South Africa is right on topic. As the late Samuel Francis noted, South Arica’s fate might be ours. Anti-war conservative Paul Craig Roberts once asked the rhetorical question, “Should A Country That Can’t Defend Its Borders Invade Another?” Obviously, we Americans should address the real threats to our own security, and stop allowing neoconservatives to dupe us into wars “for the interests of a foreign state“.
Mr. Mark Steyn has an interesting article that ‘Girl on the right’ referenced. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/17/the-lesson-of-a-jewish-cemetery/ He has a point about the disappearing Jew. The defenders are few and far between.