Israel Lobby v. Muslims: The Middle Ground
Terrorism is an immigration problem, not a foreign-policy problem.
After reading some recent debates on the Israel Lobby, it made me realize that many people have set up a false dichotomy where one must either be pro-Israel or pro-Muslim; there is no middle ground. There is, however, that large grey area, where one can be skeptical of both, which is probably the most tenable position.
The problem with neocons is that by making “Islamofascism” a “World War,” they have skewed what is truly in the American interest (and probably in Israel’s interest too). The Wilsonian transformation of the Middle East to liberal democracy is revolutionary, not conservative. The very notion of “regime change” comes from the pages of Marxist annals, not Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk. Furthermore, there is the question whether we have any business in the Middle East at all. We do not. Less than 15% of our oil comes from the Middle East, and with alternative sources in Canada and South America, this percentage will likely decline. Even oil men, like James Baker, were skeptical of the war. And on principle, perhaps the most important point of all, we should not be intervening in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries.
Paleolibertarians like Justin Raimondo have rightly criticized the lack of conservative credentials of the neocons, exposing them for the globalist rogues that they truly are. However, in their vehement opposition to the Israel Lobby, many paleolibertarians have become apologists for Islam, in fact denying that there is any Muslim threat at all to the West. Many of them seem to have fallen into this trap that by opposing the Israel lobby, one must deny the Muslim threat.
At this point, a skeptical reader might be upset that I already have used the phrase “Israel lobby” numerous times. Think what you will, but John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt, despite the protestations of Abe “I hate Christians” Foxman, have overwhelmingly demonstrated the influence of the Israel lobby, a fact that patriotic Americans have known all along. Without the involvement of the Israel lobby, and our subsequent alliance to Israel, we most certainly would not be in involved in this lost cause in Iraq.
That being said, many of the writers at Chronicles have taken the most sensible view, that of the grey area. Americans should be outraged at the influence of the Israel Lobby, and how it has worked against the American interest, but at the same time we should not underestimate the Muslim threat – especially here in the U.S. or Europe. One only needs to walk around parts of London, Paris or Hamburg to see that this threat is real. And although the U.S. may not be a part of Europe, if Europe falls, the West is doomed.
The Muslim threat is not in the Middle East. And it is not a foreign policy problem; it is an immigration problem. Through a more sound immigration policy, Sept. 11 would not have occurred. The real problem not only for the U.S. but also for Europe, is third-world immigration. (And patriotic Americans should be most alarmed that fifth-columnist neocons like Bill Kristol think that the U.S. should spend billions to secure the borders of Israel and Iraq, while simultaneously supporting the open-borders, third-world invasion of the U.S.)
It is thus most sensible, I think, that we pursue a policy of disengagement of from the Muslim world (which is not an original idea, but a very sound one). If we truly want to end the terrorist threat here at home (as we have no business ending it in the Middle East), we should completely disengage ourselves from the Muslim world:
We should: (1) completely withdraw from the Middle East; (2) end all immigration from the Third World; (3) encourage the deportation of all Muslims from the West; and (4) end foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, including Israel.