by Isi Leibler
 |
There is an iron law in history.
Appeasing xenophobic movements or totalitarian regimes invariably lead
to disaster, encouraging escalating demands to levels which either
culminate with surrender or make armed conflict inevitable.
Had Chamberlain not continued
appeasing the Nazis, we may have avoided World War II or at least been
better prepared and substantially reduced casualties.
President Reagan, besmirched by
liberals as a warmonger, assumed a hardline position against Soviet
expansionism which led to the collapse of the Evil Empire.
His philosophy, reflected in the following extracts from the 1964 speech (click here to listen) which launched his political career, resonates eerily with our current situation:
“There is no argument over the
choice between peace and war, but there is one guaranteed way you can
have peace – and you can have it in the next second – surrender.
Every lesson in history tells us
that the greatest risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our
well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face – that the policy of
accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and
war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate,
continue to back and retreat, then eventually we have to face the final
demand – the ultimatum. And what then?... You and I know and do not
believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for,
when did this begin – just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses
have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the
pharaohs?...
The martyrs of history were not
fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of
the Nazis did not die in vain. Where then, is the road to peace? It is a
simple answer. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies “there
is a price we will not pay”, “there is a point beyond which they must
not advance”… We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope
of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a
thousand years of darkness.”
Thirty three years ago, when the
Iranians invaded the US Embassy and kidnapped diplomats, President
Jimmy Carter, instead of confronting the Ayatollah regime, “reached out”
and sought to “engage” it. All he achieved was to embolden the radicals
and intensify the humiliation of the US, ultimately costing him the
presidency.
Now President Obama and his
acolytes are repeating the same mistakes. His first international
initiative was to address a gathering in Cairo which included members of
the then illegal Moslem Brotherhood. He undertook to reverse the
“harsh” approach of his predecessors by reaching out and engaging all
levels of the Moslem world. To further placate the Islamists, he
diplomatically distanced the US from Israel.
When the Iranian Ayatollah
regime brutally suppressed the people during the Green Revolution, Obama
remained silent. He sided with the “democratic” Islamic street mob
against Mubarak, a long-standing US ally, and then sought to “engage”
with the ruling Moslem Brotherhood regime which is far more repressive
than its authoritarian predecessor.
On the11th
anniversary of 9/11, on the pretext of outrage against an obscure and
primitive anti-Muslim film which “insulted the Prophet”, radical Muslims
launched a global campaign to inflame mobs throughout the Islamic world
to engage in riots against US embassies.
The assault on the US embassy in
Libya resulted in the brutal murder of four US diplomats including the
US ambassador who was tortured whilst the US flag was substituted by the
black flag of al-Qaeda.
The initial US response was to
grovel and repeatedly condemn the anti-Muslim film (in which it had no
involvement) rather than the riots, the slaughter of the innocents and
failure of governments to provide adequate protection to their
embassies.
This kowtowing to Moslem
violence has precedents – the 1989 Salmon Rushdie outrage, the riots
reacting to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, the killings
following allegations of US troops desecrating Korans and similar
incidents used to exploit the primitive Islamic street.
Despite the fact that the US
provides Egypt with $2 billion of aid annually, the police stood idly
whilst the Cairo US embassy was attacked by mobs chanting “we are all
Osama”.
President Mohamed Morsi, who
prior to being elected had denied that al Qaeda was responsible for
9/11, waited 24 hours before making a mealy-mouthed criticism of the
violence (on Facebook!). He also warned of future reprisals if “insults
to the Prophet” were not suppressed. In addition, the ruling Moslem
Brotherhood called for more protests and had the gall to demand further
US apologies.
Morsi will soon be hosted in
Washington by Obama. He intends to request the president to release
Osama bin Laden’s former ally, Sheikh Omar abd al-Rahman, serving a life
sentence in prison for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center.
By failing to adequately condemn
Morsi’s tepid response to the embassy outrage or postpone his visit,
Obama is signaling Islamic radicals that employing violence and killings
will succeed in intimidating infidels. As it is, the Obama
administration even prohibits use of terms like “Islamic terrorism”.
The Islamists are also seeking
to impose on us laws which would criminalize criticism of Islam. As a
Jew whose people have suffered for 2000 years from vile defamation and
obscene lies and blood libels, I am not a devotee of the US First
Amendment which provides, that unlimited freedom of expression is
sacrosanct unless it engenders immediate violence. I believe that
carefully drafted legislation should provide protection for groups or
individuals against demonstrable lies which generate incitement to
hatred and racism. This applies in many European countries and neither
undermines democracy nor meaningfully curtails freedom of expression.
However, it would be outrageous
to extend this to sharia validated blasphemy laws which would deny the
right to expose criminal behavior implemented in the name of Islam. We
would be prohibited from condemning capital punishment for the
conversion of Moslems to other faiths, stoning adulterers to death,
employing female circumcision, cutting off limbs from thieves, public
floggings etc.
We would also be forbidden from
exposing state-sponsored denial of freedom of religion, the desecration
of churches and synagogues, pogroms against Christians, Copts and Jews –
all of which are daily occurrences in many Islamic countries.
Nor would these sharia endorsed
laws inhibit Islamic state-sponsored anti-Semitism or prohibit current
demonic Arab TV dramas of lurid Jewish stereotypes employing the blood of Moslem children to bake Matzoth on Passover (click here to view). Not to mention imams in mosques repeatedly depicting Jews as descendants of apes and pigs and urging the faithful to murder them (click here to view).
Today, the forces of Islamic
extremism are testing our resolve to stand up and resist their efforts
to globally extend their evil totalitarian ideology.
If we continue burying our heads
in the sand and minimizing the threat emanating from these barbaric
reincarnations of the Dark Ages, we will be paving the way for our
children to inherit a world which has reversed the great advances of
Western civilization especially the Judeo-Christian heritage.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Some of my recent articles:
Rosh Hashanah – A Time to Rejoice (September 13, 2012)
The Futility of Relying on the International Community (September 2, 2012)
The Jewish Struggle for Universal Human Rights (August 30, 2012)
Irresponsible Israeli Politicians and Media on Rampage (August 23, 2012)
Source: http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4273
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment