Reflecting on Israel: haven from terror.

Powerline has a fascinating selection of reader's views: some of them echoing my own which I expressed earlier (I really should link them sometime! Basically I have seen Sharon's moves as a military commander's tactic of war which only really looks like a retreat). Krauthammer is a little more downbeat than I am, but I don't disagree in principle. What worries me is agreeing with so many people.

Sadly the threat to Israel is still current. I suppose that completing the wall will reduce is further.

But meanwhile, and I think related, it seems not only that the Sinn Fein village idiots have given themselves away, but that politicians on both sides of the border have decided to help them to destroy themselves- or at least bring them down a peg or two.

For an excellent survey of the subject matter outlined in the below post, the very meaty Eursoc can fill you in.

Key word that unlocks the future

Richard North has it right about Bush when he says there is a 'key word: democracy'. Although he's talking about Bush's words to Putin, I think the reasoning holds for much else too.

This cornerstone of W's philosophy helps decode everything he says (and unlike, say, Justin Webb, I do think that Bush's words need interpreting. The only reason they're not being interpreted is that the idiot Left likes to remain in a patronising, beatific daze, deluded into thinking the Texan has no designs, preoccupied with their own, lesser, designs, and then run screaming to the 'court of international opinion' when he does something to upset their complacent applecart. They think they can stop unpleasant things- unpleasant things as far as they see things- happening just by pretending the possibility doesn't exist. Ironically, Webb makes a comment about the US' desires for Nato assistance over Iraq, and the obvious French insult which was Chirac's response: 'Some of the contributions are very small. France will send one officer to help support the mission from here in Brussels. Luxembourg is making a financial contribution of around a hundred-ninety thousand dollars, but the Americans say it is the symbolism that counts.'. According to Webb it's the US who likes silly symbolism from the Euros.)

Proof that W's words may need decoding comes not only from the ability of the Left to delude themselves he's been successfully neutered, but from the Right's tendancy to launch attacks against what they perceive as his softness. Though I sympathise with the latter, which I found interestingly, and challengingly, expressed by A Tangled Web recently, I don't think that Bush is about to become a softie.

No, what Bush said to Europe was really not that difficult. He praised moves towards 'democratic unity'. Did he mean the EU I wonder? I don't wonder, actually.

To quote from Bush's recent words:

'America supports Europe's democratic unity for the same reason we support the spread of democracy in the Middle East because freedom leads to peace.'

Bush approves of a democratic European unity- ergo he doesn't approve of the Franco-German alliance which seeks through clever Euronods and Eurowinks and Eurotiddlywinks to run the show.

Notice how he linked his approval of European democracy with his pursuit of democracy in the Middle East? It's the same creature, not a different one.

Another bit of controversy seems to have occurred over Mark Steyn' remarkable article which ends so dramatically: 'This week we're toasting the end of an idea: the death of "the West".'

Austin Bay thought he was wrong, but I couldn't understand what Austin was saying- practically speaking.

For my part where I think Steyn is definitely right (never bet against him being right is my advice) is in his assessment of Bush's assessment of Europe, and the kind of figure W. cut while it seemed to him to be over, over here (anyone thinking at this point that I just made a typo needs to read some of Mark's backdated work- or his books). In other words, Bush's trip was token, and everything about it needed to be seen not for what it was on the surface, symbolically, but for what it meant in actuality.

The President's carefully measured trip was designed to do the right thing by his enemies, not to embrace their treachery.

The BBC Muft it

A man after Aunty's own heart is the Mufti of Bosnia- who also merited a mention in my last post but for different reasons.

No, Aunty hadn't heard of him either but he sounds like a jolly nice fellow to entertain the natives with a tale of wholesome multicultiism.

He's such a nice fellow that when he thinks of a hot debate, like 'is Islam secure in Europe?' he doesn't just ram it down your throat, he thinks of a third way-

'"We have two extremes of approach. One says that Muslims are not secure and that Europe is an anti-Islamic environment. The other extreme says Europe is a haven for Islam and Muslims," he says.

"I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle because we are all in a process of learning."'

Despite all this flannel, we do get to find out what he thinks about the Jews-

'at first outsiders, they later became part of the fabric of society but have defended their identity and world view. In turn, that world view influences decisions of the state and international relations.'

Indeed- but of course they don't 'control the world'.

Dangerous Brew

Chrenkoff has an interesting post on Eastern Europe and its impact on the EU, amongst other things (via Instapundit). It tallies with the BBC article I noted yesterday.

What Chrenkoff envisions is a shift of wealth from West to East in Europe. In principle I would welcome this, except that of course I would prefer not a shift sideways but a levelling up, which looks unlikely.

However, Chrenkoff begins by pointing out the rise in Russian espionage, which seems all of a piece with stealing Yukos, suppressing dissent and 'coordinating' elections.

Meanwhile we have a declining, increasingly authoritarian Western Europe intent on centralising powers in an unelected politbureau.

So, we have an ascendant Eastern Europe (yes, that may be a little premature, but I think it's inexorable as they learn some tricks of capitalism), but without, I would argue, either properly shrunken authorities or an evolving tradition of individual rights (this I have witnessed first hand), and we have a Russia that is still so far behind that it sees its future, as Chrenkoff says, in modernisation rather than liberalistion. I guess Russians are pretty sore at the sudden loss of Empire, too.

To acknowledge another twist that history is insisting on, to that we must add the rise of Islam in Western Europe, the concomitant rise in anti-Jewishness, and the confused stance of people like Prince Charles on Europe's 'historic Muslim presence', and we have a pretty dangerous brew (Incidentally, at the link the BBC ask what surely must rank as most farcically inverted question of the week, nay, era, 'Is Islam secure in Europe?'.)

It's not that I think the coming century will be the century of Europe, any more than I think it will be the century of China (less, actually). It's just that I think that the powers being stirred in Europe are increasingly potent, and dangerous. It doesn't have to be 'your' century for you to ruin it for everyone else, as both the Germans and the Russians jointly proved last time round.

On the theme of Europe's sleepwalk Richard North gives yet another graphic illustration, explainnig part of the divide that exists between the US and Europe in terms of philosophy and direction. I think a resounding rejection of the EU Constitution would be of great assistance in Europe's awakening.

Sharon: Still on Track

Just restating my views about Ariel Sharon. Nicholas Vance has another excellent post critical of the BBC's James Reynolds for saying things like '"It's very simple, today's been all about Israel deciding which bits of occupied land to give up, and which to hold on to."

I agree with Nicholas' arguments about the lack of balance here (eg. 'occupied land' with its catch-all moral pejorative), but as is sometimes the case, BBC journalists are at their most peevish when they can see their little castles in the air disintegrating. Sharon really has the initiative, so much so that Mahmouud Abbas can't keep up. Israel lets go of the prisoners it wants (ie. 'non-bloody' ones), lets go the land it wants, reroutes the barrier as its own courts dictate, and retains the vast majority of the West Bank settlement, all the time with Abbas in tow. Not saying it's easy or pleasant to make concessions to a potentially barely concealed enemy of the state, but I think that Sharon is in charge, and he knows what he's doing. I've always thought that, but recent days (and a little forthright Sky coverage) have help revive that belief. Contrary opinions will be welcomed in comments, as none of my views on this are set in stone, if you feel like having a go at contrariety.

On the other hand (see Steyn below), strong growth from new EU members would create the temptation for the UK to burn its boats with the US and commit to EUtopia in a truly serious relationship (well, knowingly serious, anyway). Of course the BBC do tend to favour such a scenario, so who knows whether the report is reasonable or just puff.

I think Steyn's main concern is not the growth, but the demographics behind it- and what that means for Europe's historic values, more atrophied daily.

Laugh out loud truth, from Steyn:

'in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser.'

Can't help wondering whether it's laughter that's appropriate, or tears.

The Other Side.

It's traditional, I believe, for BBC journalists from time to time to write saccharine little tributes to the country they have insulted so solidly for several happy years. Still, this from Rob Watson (helpfully offered by Marc of USS Neverdock fame) is unusually friendly, and not wholly empty. There's the usual post-modernist dash, designed to express the writer's a) lack of bias or b) humility when faced by grand issues, but some things he says are nearly true.

However, I can't help but feel that though he makes a good point about US nationalism not being of the dangerous kind (to be honest it's depressing that people here need to be told about this), his expression lays the US open to charges of mindlessness, which the BBC in other contexts exploits fully.

'It is not the unhealthy nationalism of "our country is better than your country", after all most Americans have never stepped outside the place, but rather an expression of "life here is good, whoopee".'

'Life is good, whoopee' is a short step from Voltaire's Pangloss, but a long way from the grit which underlies the US' real character- as demonstrated by their outstanding response to 9/11. I also notice the sideswipe made at insular Americans, yet do BBC correspondents ever consider that many a European has never stepped outside his/her own country (eg.Slovakia, Poland, probably France too) above a couple of times at best?

This, however, is better:

'As a European, what I found most refreshing here was the remarkable lack of envy in American society.

When Americans see someone doing well, they do not grumble about it being all right for some, instead they say, one day that could be me.'

If someone thinks I should here be pointing out the BBC's pro-US, anti-Europe bias, I would say that envy is what I would call a natural human condition. The US is an exception to this and Watson rightly points it out. That's not disparaging Europe but noticing what's there, what's notable.

Oh, but last among the post-modern touches I'll note is this example:

'It may all go back to Thomas Jefferson's claim in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that the pursuit of happiness is among life's unalienable rights.

Whether it is or not, I have no idea, but certainly most of the Americans I know are in hot pursuit of the happiness thing.'

Now did we really need that bit about Watson's non-plussed reception of the principle of the pursuit of happiness? Do we really care what he thinks about it? Would we be happy to hear if Watson said 'I don't know what I think about the right to freedom from torture'. If he'd read his dystopian North American novelists as BBC US correspondents are supposed to have, he'd have recalled what Margaret Attwood wrote in the Handmaids Tale (notable for its depiction of a society succumbing to very European-like birth rates) about there being two kinds of freedom: freedom from and freedom to. The US chose the latter and that's as rational a thing to do as to choose the former, yet not to BBC/European minds.

I think, as the old Crusader said to Indiana Jones at the end of the trilogy, the US has 'chosen wisely', and, by observing at least some of the consequences of that choice made by the Founders of the USA, Watson is halfway to knowing it.

Ian Duncan Smith: true to form

Actually, despite what you may be thinking (apart from Ian Duncan Smith- who he?), I mean this to be complimentary. I felt fairly lonely in my opinion that IDS had both principles and vision. Worldly wisdom, no. Charm, not really. But the rest was admirable, and I can honestly say I was sad the Conservatives got rid of him in what was a effectively a sneaky little putsch.

So it's a pleasure to be able to recommend IDS writing, of all places, in the Guardian (actually, where else?). The fall guy of the Conservatives' doldrums is saying that the Internet, and humble bloggers, may provide a way of salvation for the British Right. I think he overstates the case, although his article is impeccable both in its understanding of the phenomenon in the US and in its logic. He's surely right that there will be surprises for the establishment coming from the emergent sphere of Britblogos. Unfortunately I think that blogging of the kind of quality we've seen in the US (as opposed to flashes in the pan) relies on a disciplined and knowledgeable community with some coherent shared values- perhaps even a quality of friendship- which I think will be hard to come by in the case of UK Conservatives (small or big c), on or off-line. (via Instapundit)

Somewhat related, the BBC quotes a lot of people on the blogging phenomenon, in an article with a balanced feel but a whiff or two of establishment defensiveness (for example I'm sure they blur the Eason Jordan issue).

Meanwhile, it has to be said (in response to Justin Webb's windy mental wanderings detailed below), BITRW

Sack this man, NOW!

I'm not sure that is exactly the way to get what I want, but it felt good to type it. I am truly furious at the BBC and at Justin Webb, seriously jaded correspondent in the US.

I should first say I understand exactly what he is saying in an article which deals with the US/EU division- if you will, a division of consciousness. It's something I've thought about a lot through close dealings with both Europeans and Americans (though I've only encountered a wide variety of US expats in various locations, rather than visited the country itself. Saving the best..., is how I would put it).

But it's soo0 banal- I wouldn't blame you if you took one look and gave up on Webb's blatherings, but I feel I should mention them.

Let's start with the most obvious factual calumny. According to Webb the US response to the Tsunami illustrates their lack of reality by comparison with Europe. Did he bother to find out that France, to take the most prime example, was so ill-equipped in their effort to help that they had only one helicopter to administer their aid effort, and that loaned to them? As one Frenchman exclaimed on TV with a notable European flourish of realism, 'It is as though France no longer has the means even to express its emotions.' or as a reporter was reported saying , '"The good will of the rescuers is not in question," says Pujadas. "This is well and truly a foul up."' If he thought that Europeans were on the ball regarding the Tsunami it is Webb who is the fantasist, wilfully failing to notice failure. Frankly I couldn't give a damn who saw what pictures- I am interested to see who was on hand to help. So were the Indonesians.

According to Webb

'America is fast becoming a nation of faith not fact. A nation where the unpleasant aspects of human existence are simply airbrushed away.

Television coverage of the Asian Tsunami was a case in point. In Europe it was covered as an unrelenting tragedy, in America, one television network promised "incredible stories of lives saved in near miraculous fashion".'

...


'While Europeans fret about what they regard as real life, about poverty and social justice and about combating AIDS, Americans find it easier to rally round a vision, however otherworldly it might be.'

Like the 'vision' Bush has about donating billions of dollars to help Aids victims in Africa, I suppose.

Not only does he demonstrate ignorance bordering on complete dishonesty, stupidity is also displayed. Setting aside the assumption that the best measure of the reality of a nation's worldview is the extent to which they show violence of different sorts on their television, or the assumption that the nature of TV in various places is a good measure of anything at all, did it occur to Webb that the reason for a greater sense of 'reality', so-called, in Europe, could have been their much greater involvement in the casualties that were recorded? If the US' population had been hit by the tsunami like, say, Sweden's, I think there would have been more direct coverage, at the very least in terms of interviews with victims' families questing to have bodies discovered and returned.

Webb goes on to tack this observation to an observation about the numbers of Americans who believe in what is technically termed 'The Rapture'. Well, this teleological prediction may not be true, but it is certainly something about which Europeans are largely ignorant but Americans are comparatively well informed. It is Webb's automatic presumption that belief in certain things indicates unreality, which he also links to ignorance. In fact of course there are people in the US highly educated in the field of theology for whom such concepts as The Rapture are matters of robust debate. Debate- you know, the thing we don't have about our central idea for the future, the European Superstate. I'm willing to bet the populous of the US know more certifiable facts about different theories of the End-times than EU citizens know about their political masters' political teleology.

As if his massive simplification and condescension weren't bad enough, he adds a note of true absurdity, which nevertheless does approximate a truth- if I can explain.

'No wonder then, that in international affairs America is so willing to smite its enemies.

Or to hold firm to a principle even when practicalities get in the way.

It has been happening for years.

'Atlantic chasm'

Witness President Reagan's arms build up in the 1980s, which helped to destroy the Soviet Union, or the first President Bush's decision to press for German re-unification, when even Mrs Thatcher was nervous.'

The way this shadows, but does not represent, reality, is that, yes, America stands out by its willingness to consider the possibility that it might have enemies, to conduct foreign policy with this in mind, and to act when it views it necessary to act, or, if you prefer to use Biblical language, 'smite' the self-proclaimed enemies of the United States. This would, in a non-fantasist's lexicon, be known as 'diplomatic reality.' I can only think that Webb lives in a bubble that is not simply post-modern, but post-reality, and certainly pre-Sept 11th 2001.

But judging from this article, and others, Webb would only be comfortable in a pre-1989 world, and even that would have to be in a privileged post editing Pravda.

Sorry- no time equalled no posts yesterday. Today I have spent an amiable time surfing. I realised, among many other things, that I'd followed the Belmont Club from less than 20,000 registered visitors to over 5 million. I also realised how essential it is to have a simple memorable registration for the Spectator, solely for the purpose of reading Mark Steyn's lit crit, and lines like this one about Arthur Miller:

'He wasn’t amiable enough to be an amiable dunce but he was the most useful of the useful idiots.'

Speaking of useful idiots, Powerline chose this time to launch several posts about Jimmy Carter. There's something in the last paragraph of this one that seems to suggest a translation from an Iraqi paen to Saddam Hussein.

'O great poet, novelist, artist, builder, seer, peacemaker, thank you. Thank you because I am joyful. Thank you because I am well. Centuries will pass, and the generations still to come will regard us as the happiest of mortals, as the most fortunate of men, because we lived in the century of centuries, because we were privileged to see you, our inspired leader. Yes, and we regard ourselves as the happiest of mortals because we are the contemporaries of a man who never had an equal in world history.'

This kind of brings me back to Steyn's view of Miller:

'a man of such unbounded self-regard judged the health of nations and political systems in the same way he did the health of the American theatre — by how fulsomely they acknowledge his genius.'

Meanwhile, all this talk of cosying up to dictators (a British artform, I'm afraid, that was marred only by two or three world wars) brought to mind someone else. Austin Bay has an excellent post on why Eason Jordan's resignation was not honourable. Thanks to Roger Simon for several interesting links.

Understanding Ken. Melanie Phillips, well placed as a London journalist throughout Ken's rising and falling, does a pretty good job- and highlights a potentially dangerous trend of synthesis between radical Islam and the Left, in this case between Ken's anti-Jewishness, and Al Qaradawi's.

Incidentally, defenders of Ken tend to highlight the Daily Mail (Standard's sister paper)'s association with Oswald Mosely in the Thirties. Well, they don't call Ken 'Red' for nothing. If I didn't find it idiotic to compare despot with despot the way we used to play Top Trumps, I'd wonder what the body count comparison would be between Mosely's heroes and Kenneth's.

The BBC at work: Building 'em up; knocking 'em down; rallying the troops. After all- it's in a good cause.

Says Linda Burney of the Aborigines (last link),

'"[Aborigines] can look forward to being sick, unemployment, racism and a very, very early death," said Linda Burney, the first indigenous member of the New South Wales state parliament.'

So, what's the downside to Abo. life, I wonder?

Nicholas Vance gets better- not that he ever really needed to, but it's all to the good when it comes to incisive comment on the BBC's biases, or sheer incompetences.

He reports on Matt Frei's pursuit of the sinister Christian Right in the US which is said to underlie the great satan.. er, sorry, the capitalist leader of the world's economy. Funny how a secularist comes to see the worship of mammon as a kind of identifiable sin (the BBC journalist funded from the public purse, that is).

Anyway, a great post about a fool's journalistic errand. What strikes me is that we won't be hearing about the sinister phenomenon of the spread of the Islamic banking system any time soon from the BBC.

Meanwhile, Steyn produces gem after gem of hard edged prose to scythe into the UN's scurrilous ranks, eg.

'UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city council estates with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord.'

or

'But, if Lynndie's smashed to pieces our entire morality with just one tug, Bush's Zionist neocons getting it on with Congolese kindergarteners would have the Independent calling for US expulsion from the UN - no, wait, from Planet Earth: slice it off from Maine to Hawaii and use one of those new Euro-Airbuses to drag it out round the back of Uranus.'

Way to go. Sometimes I wish that hatemongers like those at the Indie would take such analogies and think about them until their jaundiced minds burst.

He's Back! Steyn I mean, at least in terms of his too long hiatusing website. He's back and he's controversial as ever, as in this extract from an article to which I don't have full access (maybe you do?), but I can at least guess where he's going with it from the excerpt.

If I lived in Britain, I'd vote for Tony Blair's Labour party. Yes, yes, I know he's a nanny-state control-freak and you can hardly pull your pants on in the morning without filling in the form for the Public Trouser Usage Permit and undergoing inspection from the Gusset Regulatory Authority. But on the One Big Thing — the great issue of the age — he's right, and he's reliable. And, sad to say, the British Conservative party isn't. Their leader, Michael Howard, has been a cheesy opportunist on the war, supporting it at the time, backtracking later, his constantly evolving position twisting itself into a knot of contortions even John Kerry might find over-nuanced.'

It's a sentiment I almost agree with, and I could go along with, but I don't expect much from Mr Blair on the WoT from here onwards. Has Steyn not noticed all Tony's talk of learning from mistakes? Isn't that a similar kind of twisting in the wind to that which he accuses Howard of? Besides, Blair may be right in his grasp of the WoT, but he can't carry his party with him in that understanding. If anything Blair may be a fifth column ally for the US, carrying his socialist freight with him as he does- for instance over Iran. At least Howard would only have the same pontificating idiots to deal with that he already has to deal with over Europe, eg. Clarke, Hezza, Rifkind and Brittan.

Update: darned Blogger is delaying posting my posts, hence this one's late arrival.

Barone Balance. Michael Barone analyses blogs (via Instapundit) and their political effects. He makes a lot of spot-on points, and struck the biggest chord for me when he said 'the right blogosphere was different from the left. There was no one dominant website and no one orthodoxy'

It's very much my impression that Kos is the darling of the US Left. In the UK the situation is different, but in the States it seems like being part of an overwhelming movement, submerged in a mindset and worldview of moral indignation, is the only way to be for the Left- hence Kos's success, which has coincided with the Left's failure. This authoritarian tendancy is the natural consequence of the ideological fixity which is inseparable ultimately from socialism.

Here in the UK the blogosphere is less developed, and really the most recurrent thought I have is that with Blair we're going through what I feel to be our 'Clinton years'. With the rest of Europe so weak economically, and no stained dresses on Mr Blair's conscience, and no 9/11 wake up call conceivable for so many reasons (and let's hope we never have to deal with such an event), perhaps we'll never realise- but I am sure we'll see the Blair years as a time of political lethargy, waste and missed opportunities.

I'd say the blogosphere in the UK actually leans leftwards, in a lukewarm sort of way, and that, even absenting a Conservative Kos, the Conservative perspective is held more emotionally than rationally. It's at the point when hard-headed Conservatism makes a return that we might see the kind of reversal that would synchronise us with the US blogosphere.

I think that will happen over the next ten years- too long but worth waiting for.

I am a fan of cricket, and though I rarely mention it, I just found amusing this little excerpt from one of those running commentaries the BBC provides on their website.

In the 33rd over: 'Just 17 overs remain and at 89-6, England are merely hoping they can bat out the overs.'

Here's the latest, livebloggin' here!:' Eng 208-7 46.1 ovs v SA'

Bit of a turnaround, methinks, courtesy of our South-African born Pietersen. However, they'll probably still lose so I'm not over-excited; I have learned to create a zen-like calm when it comes to investing interest and hopes in sporting affairs.

Couple of Items

First of all CNN was the liveliest I've seen it in ages (I am a fairly frequent watcher of this channel) in the wake of Eason Jordan's resignation. The need to self-justify dragged up an interesting item (no, fascinating)about Sudan's rapprochement with the South, but also a whiny David Kay to warn about the dangers of getting Iran's WMD capabilities wrong (this is the man I am convinced has made a plea bargain with the Liberal media: 'don't destroy my professional life and I'll say anything you want me to'). The Sudan item was an interview with one of the former rebel leaders of the South, who now plans to enter a powersharing arrangement with the North. These were just two of the desperate stabs that CNN made to distract from their unease over Eason.

Meanwhile, LGF noticed Red Ken's antisemitism- or should that be anti-Jewishness?- in the light of his support for al-Qaradawi.

And by the way, this article about Argentina's emerging anti-US position and alliances with Cuba and Venezuela from the American Thinker is fascinating.