Israel Lobby v. Muslims: The Middle Ground

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.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

19 thoughts on “Israel Lobby v. Muslims: The Middle Ground

  1. Harold Crews

    Bede I find myself in complete agreement. Now of course many purported conservatives say that there is a strain of Islam that is radicalised and seeks the complete destruction of the West and Christianity. Now in this they are correct. But without our meddling these people’s influence would extend no further than the cave they inhabit. It is our interventionism that gives credability to their claims of a modern day Crusade against Islam. If we were not intervening in their affairs the Islamist would have no supporters or influence. After the Revolution in Iran, the mullahs preached jihad against the West. The result, nothing. They were pretty much ignored.

    As to Israel, for many years I was a Zionist. It was what I was taught. But now I think that our current policy is a curse to Israel. What kind of blessing is it to have someone encourage you in your errors and wrongs. Such a friend is a curse, not a blessing. The Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to some sort of just arrangement. But through our ‘support’ we are putting that day further off and making it less attainable.

    Those who give Israel their unconditional support should stop and ask themselves, what will come of Israel when the US no longer has any strategic interest in the Middle East? For the answer they should ask the south Vietnamese, the Hmong or the Afrikaneers. When that day comes, what will happen to Israel? I think we all know the answer.

  2. ERIC

    “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.”

    I agree 100%.

    “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.”

    I agree that there are some that deny the Muslim threat.
    And I believe that BOTH Muslims and Israel are threats in different ways.
    And I believe that we should “butt out” of the Muslim/Israel conflict, or another way of putting it, mind our own business.
    Muslims and Israel have been fighting each other for a long time, anyone who thinks that spreading democracy in the middle east is going end the Muslim/Israel conflict, is nuts.

  3. Bede

    In short, if we leave the Middle East, they’ll just all go back to killing each other as they have been for the past 1,000 years. They’ll no longer have our presence to unite them.

  4. roho

    I agree with both the article and above posts. I may be a bit conspiracy oriented, but I also believe that the Wall Street Globalists NEED middleast conflict to distract from the immigration issue. The International Bankers and their Puppets of Congress were caught off gaurd when a scream against immigration happened in the middle of the Iraq/American conflict! I was not surprised as Human Events had done a poll regarding the TOP 10 ISSUES FOR CONSERVATIVES, and immigration had edged out the Iraq/U.S. conflict as the #1 issue! As a Paleo I am constantly bombasted with “ANTISEMITE!” for not defending Israels position and actually resenting THE LOBBY and it’s power…………..I’m a bit tough skinned as a Southerner though. Being from Dixie, I’m naturaly a Rascist for thinking Jessie Jackson is a “World Class Extortionist”!…………(Ha-Ha)………I say get out of middleastern affairs and leave Israel with their 300 warheads to defend themseves!

  5. Filmer

    The problem with the debate now is that almost all discussions of the “Muslim issue” take place in the context of foreign policy. There one must be careful to concede a “problem” because the proposed remedy is bullets and bombs. So I think we need to change the subject from foreign policy to immigration, so that our cultural concerns about Islam are not fodder for the “Muslims are coming to get us” Chicken Little crowd.

  6. Andrew T.

    I do not believe that our current foreign policy is in Israel’s best interests. Israel already receives billions of dollars in voluntary monetary donations from the United States which really helps it fund itself, and does not need the inherent destabilization that western troops in the Middle East keep bringing.

  7. Jim Moore

    It’s about tiime somebody with their head on straight expressed the
    absolute truth about the Middle East, and our flawed, unconstitutional influence in their affairs. Thank you!

    Why don’t our “leaders” see this? Surprise, they do. But there is an elite and evil cabal of individuals now running this country, and because we allowed them to get into power they now have us unable to become untangled from this disastrous situation.

    This adminstration now has the power to demolish this nation and they are doing it very well. And, because of our ignorance, complacency, and do-nothing attitude, we have only ourselves to blame. And now our very sovereignty is in danger.

    Steering clear of foreign entanglements was one of our Founding Fathers main warnings. But of course we “know” better. And because we refuse to abide by that warning we can kiss this beautful idea of American freedom and independence goodbye.

  8. Richard Cummings


    What most critics of the Israel lobby overlook is that Israel is one of America’s biggest arms customers. Almost all American aid to Israel now is military aid. The money America gives Israel comes right back to American military contractors, particularly Lockheed Martin, which sold Israel its flee to F-16s and is in a contract with Israel worth over $5 billion for the F-35s that will replace the F-16s. Without that aid to Israel, America’s balance of payments deficit would be even worse and numerous jobs would be lost. You might want to check out my Playboy article, “Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” about Lockheed’s role in the Iraq war. As Ross Perot famously said, “Follow the money.”

    As for deporting Moslems, one must consider that most of the terrorists in the U.K. were born there. How do you deport them and to where? With regard to 9/11, Mohammed Atta and his associates were walking around with expired visas. How were they allowed to take flying lessons and leave a rented plane on a runway without arousing suspicion? Americans are still asleep at the switch, just as they were before Pearl Harbor.

  9. RonL


    Many serious commentators, including conservatives, attacked the smear jobs by the leftists John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt. That does not negate the existance of an Israel lobby. However, would argue that that there are multiple Israel Lobbies with differing agendas. These include Liberal Jewish and Zionist groups that support peace and liberalism uber alles, conservative mainstreme Zionist groups, National Religious Groups, and Christian Zionists.

    However, like John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt you forgot to mention the anti-Israel Lobbies that also motivate American policy including
    certain theological anti-Zionist Christians, Arab groups, pro-Arab business lobbies, the left, and Third Worldists.

    As for your proposal, what makes you think that even if the US were to follow your proposal, that European countries would follow suit?
    The Islamicization of Europe is being pushed by the governments.

    What should wh do if countries try to break from Eurabia? Shall we abandon them as you would hav us abandon Israel?

  10. Alice Britno

    Boy, are you anti-Jewish! You are OBSESSED. Don’t you have a nice rally to go to with Charles Lindbergh and the rest of that nutty crowd. Do you hold seances with Joseph Kennedy, that other Jew hater? You guys give “real conservatives” a bad name.

  11. Weaver

    He’s also anti-Muslim… why no outcry over his anti-Muslimism?

    Alice, are you an anti-Muslim?

    On a more serious note, I like Lindbergh…

  12. Bede Post author


    The left/right division does not even apply to Israel. Sure, Mearsheimer and Walt are leftists. This does not necessarily make their arguments wrong. And their biggest critic, Abe Foxman, is an even bigger leftist.

    Europe already has a much stronger anti-immigration sentiment than the U.S. I predict that they will go even farther right as time times gone (and the liberal EU is even further weakened).

  13. RonL

    Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument is wrong because they are leftist who argued in a leftist sounding chamber for years. Their stupidity is only matched by the puerile response of Foxman and Dershowitz.

    Mearsheimer and Walt argue that there is a single Israel lobby despite the diverse groups and conflicting goals and means involved. They wrote out cold war considerations from their thesis. They ignored countervaling interests and lobbies as well as the existance of other interests who will work with the Israel Lobbies at certain times but not others. And then they decided that any arguement against them was “proof”.

    Mearsheimer and Walt’s original paper would have been graded a D or worse by any thinking professor. Instead they were vetted as courageous spokesmen by the left.

    “Europe already has a much stronger anti-immigration sentiment than the U.S.”
    Yes, but much of it is run by revanchist morons and instinctive louts who preffer to argue with each other over history rather than deal with current crises. Look at Belgium today.

  14. Pingback: israel » Israel Lobby v. Muslims: The Middle Ground

  15. Weaver


    the Flemings would throw out the Muslims, no? It’s the Walloons who’ve embraced socialism and allied with the Muslims. Belgium is an artificial state and host of the EU’s capital; it deserves to be broken up.

    Without the Flemings to fight, the Walloons would [hopefully] soon realise the grave danger posed by the alien Muslim element. Wallonia would naturally join France after a breakup.

  16. RonL

    Belgium probably is an artificial construct which would be better divided between France and the Netherlands. However, that’s not my call. The argument was settled at the end of the Napoleanic Wars.

    I thought you might find this stoy interesting on how the JNF, foudned to buy land for Jewish settlement, was subverted by the left, and has now opened the way for the division of Jerusalem.
    Jewish group to blame for dividing Jerusalem?

  17. Filmer

    “The argument was settled at the end of the Napoleanic Wars.”

    Ron, arguments are not settled by wars unless you believe might makes right. That is the argument all the Lincoln disciples make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>