The Wobbly West

posted at 11:14 am on July 31, 2006 by Bryan

Bad signs.

UK PM Tony Blair denies his Cabinet is split over Israel’s self-defense. Which means it is. Commentary from Labour’s back-benchers is disheartening:

One normally loyal MP said: “Mr Blair is struggling on this. There are certainly loyalists saying he has got this completely wrong. This is the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Another loyalist added: “For Blair himself, this is seriously bad”.

One backbencher added: “There are a lot of people ­ not the usual suspects ­ deeply concerned that there seems to be no demonstrable evidence that Britain is having a moderating influence on Israel.”

And there’s no evidence at all that pretending Iran and Syria aren’t directing Hezbollah’s violence will ever have any moderating effect on any of them.

Demoted former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has come out swinging at Blair, choosing an interesting venue to air his disagreement:

In an eye-popping bold attack on Blair’s American-led foreign policy of equidistance between Israeli attack and Lebanese suffering, former foreign secretary Jack Straw fired the first cabinet salvo on the prime minister.

Speaking to his mainly Indian Muslim constituents in Blackburn, north west England, Jack Straw said that he was speaking for several cabinet colleagues when he voiced concern over Israeli tactics in bombing Lebanese civilians. (emphasis added)

If Straw condemned Iran and Syria, the reporter didn’t mention it. But given the audience Straw chose to speak to, it’s not likely that Iran and Syria came in for much criticism. And there’s a reason for that:

Senior cabinet ministers have criticised Blair for refusing to condemn Israel’s disproportionate use of force and warned that Labour would lose British Muslim votes “hand over fist”. Reports say that Blair was pressed by minister after minister at a recent cabinet meeting to break with the American view and publicly criticise Israel over the scale of death and destruction. (emphasis added)

This is dhimmitude on the march–Labour depends on Muslim votes to sustain its rule, and Muslim interests right now are counter to the Israelis and by extention the UK’s interests. This rift may lead to the premature end of Blair’s rule, and to the ascension of an anti-Israeli and anti-American government in the UK that tilts toward the Muslim point of view. Because of the Muslim vote’s effect on Labour policies. Londonistan may become more than a metaphor.

Elsewhere around the Western powers, France is slamming Israel and praising Iran as a “stabilizing element.”

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters at the news conference in France that Israel’s willingness to suspend its air strikes on Hizbullah terror targets was “only a first step, but still not enough.” De Villepin maintained that the “cessation of the aerial attacks is insufficient in light of the situation in Lebanon.”

At the news conference held in Beirut, French Foreign Minister Phillippe Douste-Blazy praised Iran as a “stabilizing force in the Middle East.” Douste-Blazy told reporters that Iran “is an outstanding country with great people and an honorable civilization. It has a crucial role in the region.”

Germany hasn’t outright condemned Israel in the style of the French, but isn’t identifying the enemy either. It does not support a NATO role in Lebanon, which is a sign of sanity in Berlin.

Russia has predictably condemned the Qana strike and called for an immediate cease-fire, even while it continues to arm Iran, which continues to arm Hezbollah in what has to be the most short-sighted and self-delusional policy of any of the major powers. Does Putin really think Iran, once it has perfected the Shahab and armed it with nuclear warheads, won’t menace Moscow? Any assurance from Tehran is just as valuable as that non-aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler.

And the US is pretending the war is between Israel and Lebanon.

All of this is occurring before Iran becomes a true nuclear power with a reach beyond the region. How will the West behave once Iran can use its terrorists and its missiles to destroy nearly any Western city?

One more: UK defeat in the Battle of Brick Lane. (h/t NRO)

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Does Putin really think Iran, once it has perfected the Shahab and armed it with nuclear warheads, won’t menace Moscow? Any assurance from Tehran is just as valuable as that non-aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler.

Either Putin’s grasp of history is extremely weak, or he is willing to risk his own country just to spite the U.S. Not only should he know from Russia’s own history what consequences of his actions could be, but he should learn from our more recent history, where we have helped Muslims in Iraq, Kuwait, the Balkans, etc., and yet have gained nothing but their contempt and ingratitude.

You lie down with Muslim dogs, you will certainly get up with fleas, and that’s a lesson Putin seems willing to learn the hard way.

thirteen28 on July 31, 2006 at 12:35 PM

Elsewhere, we also need to mind our neighborhood and its alliance with the ‘devil’:

Entelechy on July 31, 2006 at 1:26 PM

Winds of War: Shaping the Battlefield
Posted today at the Gathering Storm –

We’re losing the asymmetric war on terrorism. And in a perverse way, some good will come out of it. You’re probably thinking to yourself that I’m one sandwich short of a full picnic, but bear with me.

As I stated in yesterday’s post, asymmetric warfare is another name to guerilla warfare, freedom fighters, the resistance, or terrorism. It’s all one and the same – a military force that has the backing and support of the indigent population and/or has received material and financial support from other countries that use it as a de facto tool of their aggression. The current war that the Anglo-Saxon/Israeli forces are waging against the Islamists who use the jihadists as their military arm is an asymmetric war – and they are winning.

The Anglo-Saxon/Israeli forces are fighting this war alone. The other free democracies of the world are not willing to accept the fact that we are in the beginnings of a world war as the jihadists believe. Nothing new here. It happened he same way in the 1930s. While the world tried to accommodate the fascists regime demands of Germany, Italy and Japan, they in turn knew they were in world wide conflict with the democracies and acted accordingly. The UN can’t bring itself to define terrorism, China, Russia and France are making a profit selling weapons and military technology to the Islamic republics, the appeasers and apologists check the Anglo-Saxon/Israeli tactics at every turn, and the MSM keeps the people in the dark.

We’re on our way to losing Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon to the Islamists. That destiny has already been sealed with the two new constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan that America and its allies agreed to (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory) and the next election in Lebanon that will usher Hezbollah into power. The Islamist Shiite agenda will then be in place.

The new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan states clearly that no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam. Sharia Law will rule over any and all laws passed by the democratic assembly in those countries. As for Lebanon, the end result of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has made Hezbollah stronger and more popular that ever which will end with Hezbollah gaining majority power when next year’s elections are held in Lebanon.

The end result will be the realization of Iran’s (and Al Quaeda’s) dream. To create an Islamic Shiite Empire that spreads from Pakistan to the Mediterranean, and eventual return of the Caliphate. We could assume that Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Mullah Omar just might compete for that honor. Syria, being Sunni, will eventually fall to Iran’s plans and the more ‘moderate’ Islamic nations in North Africa and Indonesia will have to make their decisions on whether to join this new Islamic alliance.

These developments, in a perverse way is good for the final struggle against Islamism for it will shape the coming battlefield and identify clearly the enemy in the world war to come. The Islamists will no longer be able to hide behind its asymmetric warfare which we can’t to defeat for the reasons stated above, and move the conflict into a traditional conventional war where we can use our military might to win.

The question is how will this conventional war begin? That has yet to be determined. Will it be a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel? Will this new Shiite Islamic Alliance oust the sheikdoms of the Arabian peninsula and gain control of the oil fields forcing Europe’s, America’s and Japan’s hand? Will China sit still for Europe ‘protecting’ the oil fields of the Mid-East or will this create an even wider and more deadly war with China?

The future looks grim.

WC on July 31, 2006 at 7:16 PM

I’m with Mark Steyn in pinning much of our growing trouble on muslims’ higher rate of fertility. As their populaces swell and as the native, enculturated populaces of many western (or westernized) countries age and even dwindle, the influence of muslims seems likely to keep on growing.

May I try to exhaustively list the possible remedies? (a) We begin, very soon, to reproduce ourselves faster than muslims. (b) We somehow get muslim populaces to slow their reproduction. (c) We turn muslims into truly tolerant, liberal democrats faster than they reproduce. (d) We kill muslims faster than they reproduce. (e) We wait as muslims’ colonial tide continues to swell and as non-muslim populaces are converted, killed, or pressed down into dhimmitude.

Kralizec on July 31, 2006 at 9:56 PM