Wilders

As the Bush administration enters its final days, we still hear talk from Secretary of State Condi Rice about the “opportunities for a peace settlement” between the Palestinians and the Israelis. She talks of a “process” that will somehow cause a coalition of murderous terror organizations sworn to the destruction of Israel to see the light and accept a two state solution. I’d call Condi naïve, but she’s way too smart for that. And I can only wonder what path Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration will take after January 20th.

But before Hillary and Barack make any decisions about the Middle East, it might be worthwhile for them to ponder the words of someone that just about everyone on the Left despises. The MSM never mentions him without the adjective “right-wing” preceding his name and condemns his work and his words as inflammatory. His name is Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who created the movie Fitna, a considerably less than flattering depiction of Islam that resulted in violence and threats throughout the Moslem world.

It is true that Wilders is a Dutch nationalist who believes that the Netherlands and Europe in general are threatened by a rapidly growing Moslem immigration resulting in parallel societies that are antithetical to one another. Some of his rhetoric is over the top, but his message is worth pondering.
In a recent speech in New York, Wilders, who like many critics of Islam is under death threat by Islamic extremists, comments on Islam’s view of Israel:

Now, I would like to say a few things about Israel. Because, very soon, we will get together in its capitol. The best way for a politician in Europe to lose votes is to say something positive about Israel. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I, however, will continue to speak up for Israel. I see defending Israel as a matter of principle. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

Samuel Huntington writes it so aptly: “Islam has bloody borders”. Israel is located precisely on that border. This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam’s territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.

The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. Therefore, it is not that the West has a stake in Israel. It is Israel.

And yet, much of the West’s academics and intelligencia, a non-trival percentage of the West’s political class, and most of its glitterati readily condemn Israel and embrace Islamist Palestinian organizations that would, if given the chance, eliminate the most basic freedoms that all of them hold so dear. If it weren’t so dangerous, it would be farcical.

Like all administrations for the past 50 years, the Obama administration will develop its own stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since both Hillary and Barack are very smart people, they should ask themselves whether Wilder’s words have any merit. If they think not, then they are fools, and if they believe (privately) that Wilders has a point, US policy should be crafted to be sure that the reality he states is not ignored.