Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Five Arguments Against Conciliation

Conciliation HallPresident Bush was seen as “conciliatory” towards Islam in his speech at the UN yesterday. Pope Benedict XVI and his spokesmen have been “conciliatory”, if not downright groveling, in their most recent responses to Muslim rage over the Holy Father’s recent speech at Regensburg.

Anyone who gets his information from the legacy media — which, unfortunately, still includes most people — is reminded that the West and its leaders need to be more “conciliatory” towards Muslims, to “initiate dialogue”, to “learn more about Islam”, etc blah yak. If only we would give that extra inch, or ell, or mile, why, then Islam would turn a sunny countenance upon us, peace would reign, and all would be well.

I’m here to drop a coprolite in that particular punchbowl. I’m opposed to conciliation, and I’ll give you five reasons why it’s a bad idea:
- - - - - - - - - -
1. It’s wrong.
2. It’s a strategic blunder.
3. It will never achieve its objective.
4. It’s a one-way ratchet.
5. We harm ourselves when we do it.

These reasons run the gamut from simple moral calculus to the cold appraisal of self-interest. Here’s a more detailed elaboration for each of them.

1. It’s wrong.

When the “Muslim street” becomes enraged and demands conciliatory behavior, it’s always because someone has spoken the plain truth, usually about the Islamic propensity for violence.

Since they are irony-impaired, the enraged Muslims generally respond to such provocations with violence, and the vicious circle of the West’s interactions with Islam is elegantly completed:

“You guys tend to be violent.”

“How dare you insult my honor in such a fashion? I shall cut off your head for saying that!”

One has the option of remaining silent about such matters, in order to avoid the wrath of thin-skinned Muslims. But, having spoken the plain historic truth, it is wrong to back down. If I do so, then I either lied before, or am lying now for cowardly reasons.

Either one is wrong.

2. It’s a strategic blunder.

It’s a well-established fact that being conciliatory towards Muslims only emboldens them to make more demands. The tribal culture of the Arabs (and Muslims in general) sees conciliatory behavior as evidence of weakness, and is thus moved to press for even greater concessions.

A cursory glance at the “peace process” concerning the Palestinian territories, especially since Oslo, will underscore this fact. Every time Israel has made concessions to its enemies, it has been rewarded with more violence and carnage.

Conciliation towards the Palestinians means more dead Jews. It’s as simple as that. The behavior of successive Israeli governments in the face of this evidence has a kind of perverse obstinacy about it.

3. It will never achieve its objective.

Islam has historically been an aggressive and violent political force. It is relatively subdued only when it is outgunned.

Being conciliatory towards an irredeemably aggressive negotiating partner can only bring temporary and illusory advantages. Your interlocutor will make the right noises, smile, and wait for the opportunity to put the knife at your throat again.

Our mistake is to see the Islamic enemy as basically like ourselves. These chaps may look different and have some strange customs, but we’re all the same under the skin, don’t you know?

No, we’re not. The well-entrenched mental, social, cultural, and political system evolved by Islam over the last fourteen hundred years relies on the combination of aggression and deceit to gain its objective, which is to expand until it fills the entire earth.

The only restraint it will recognize is overwhelming force on our part, and the obvious willingness to use it.

4. It’s a one-way ratchet.

Whenever a concession is made to Islam, another waits in the wings, ready to be rolled out onto the stage to take its place. It’s like the Sudetenland in 1938, over and over again. Lop off one piece and give it Hitler, and then another, and another, but somehow it’s never quite enough.

And, if you watch carefully, the Muslim negotiating partner never manages to carry through with his half of any compromise.

This process has been painfully evident, once again, with the Palestinians. Israel always has to complete its obligations under the terms of any agreement, regardless of the fact that the Palestinians never manage to implement their half of the bargain. In order for them to do that, Israel must jump through yet another hoop, and then another and another…

That’s why, thirteen years after the Oslo agreement, the PLO has never amended its charter to allow for the existence of Israel. Somehow they never quite manage to get around to it.

Concessions to Islam are a one-way ratchet in Islam’s favor. It’s a racket, and it’s time we acknowledged it.

5. We harm ourselves when we do it.

Every time we perform another act of abasement, every time we fall all over ourselves apologizing for insulting Muslims, every time we publicly pretend that Islam is the Religion of Peace, we are doing damage to our collective psyche. All these efforts fly in the face of the obvious truth: historically speaking, right up to the present moment, Islam has been the Religion of War.

The Demonic Convergence is drawing the Left and radical Islam into bed with each other, so that there are very strong forces in our public life which strive to convince us otherwise, that we are bad, bad people, racists and Islamophobes, for thinking such things. It produces a cognitive dissonance in the collective psyche of the West, because the average person, deep down, knows the truth.

We’re like a co-dependent in an alcoholic marriage. “Joe doesn’t drink very much. He’s not drunk; he’s just tired. He needs to unwind after the stress of his job. He’s just a social drinker.”

No he’s not: he’s an alcoholic. And Islam is violent.

Any further conciliation is crazy-making behavior on our part.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Changing this situation is going to be a long and difficult process, because you and I, the average people, do not own or have influence over the megaphones of public communication. The media are effectively in the hands of the enemy, and, as a result, many more people will die before we stop trying to appease the Islamic tiger.

But, futile though it may be, I’ll say it again: it’s time to hear conciliations from the other side. No more conciliatory behavior until we do.

By their fruits ye shall know them.


Andre_Szara said...

The Baron: “Conciliation towards the Palestinians means more dead Jews. It’s as simple as that. The behavior of successive Israeli governments in the face of this evidence has a kind of perverse obstinacy about it”


Have you considered the following alternate explanation?

For a good many years western governments, including sometimes the U.S., have sought to win the favor of the Arab/Muslim world by demanding concessions of the government of Israel. Israel has no strategic rear. It has an export driven economy. These Western/U.S. demands are backed by the implicit threat of reductions/cessations of arms sales, diplomatic support, and unrestricted trade with Israel. When the U.S./western countries feel that the stakes are very high the threats become more direct and overt.

The following two articles give some support to my argument (I'm sorry the second article is so long but I couldn't find an easy way to link to it).

1. (see comments by Zelikow to Washington Institute).

2. U.S. Support For Israel Has Never Been ‘Unwavering”
By Morton Klein & Daniel Mandel
The Jewish Press, April 7, 2006
The recently published 83-page so-called study “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Stephen Walt makes a fundamental claim - that the U.S. has given ”unwavering support” to Israel. This is demonstrably untrue. History shows that while the US record on Israel is better than that of any other country, it still is quite mixed.
For example, the U.S. actually imposed an arms embargo during Israel’s 1948-49 war of survival against six Arab nations. In the 1950’s, when the U.S. was refusing to supply Israel with fighter planes, France became the supplier to Israel of critically needed Mirage aircraft.
In 1956, Israel conquered the Sinai from the Egyptians following six years of constant attacks by terrorist bands (fedayeen) sponsored by Egypt. Nonetheless, the Eisenhower administration insisted on Israel withdrawing completely from Sinai without any peace treaty or recognition demanded from Egypt and threatened Israel with sanctions if it failed to comply.
In 1967, Egypt imposed a blockade on Israel’s southern port at Eilat. Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban asked President Johnson to honor U.S. commitments made in 1957 to ensure free passage of Israeli shipping and break the blockade. Johnson refused.
The U.S. supported UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions that prevented a bigger defeat for the Arab belligerents in the Six Day War and when Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria in 1973 the US pressured Israel into ending the war prematurely when Israel forces were on the road to Damascus and Cairo. This again prevented Israel from reaping a more decisive military victory.
During the Carter administration, the U.S. voted for UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon following an Israeli incursion in 1978 — despite the fact Lebanon had been the launching pad for major terrorist attacks on Israel — and condemning Israel’s annexation of eastern Jerusalem.
Annual US aid to Israel rose from some $700 million to 3 billion after the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty only to make up for Israel relinquishing over $2 billion in annual revenue Israel was receiving from Sinai oil wells it had developed and ceded to Egypt. (It is practically never mentioned that at the very same time Egypt also began to receive 2.2 billion in American aid and still does without any complaint from the Israel bashers or anyone else! - Jsk).
The US condemned Israel’s 1981 air strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak even though a nuclear-armed Saddam would have been a mortal threat to Israel.
The Reagan administration not only sold surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia despite strong protest from Israel and pro-Israel groups in America, but also held up arms supplies for several months when Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin rejected the Reagan peace plan as “national suicide” for Israel.
Successive U.S. administrations have opposed Israeli settlement in the territories in 1967 leading to tensions and crisis in the relationship. In 1992 the first Bush administration withheld loan guarantees to Israel in protest of Israeli settlement policies. The first Bush administration also insisted on convening the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, despite deep Israeli misgivings and opposition.
During the Oslo peace process (1993-2000), the Clinton administration often pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions of territory, arms, assets and release of imprisoned Palestinian terrorists while ignoring Palestinian failure to comply with its obligations to stop terrorism and end the incitement to hatred and murder that feeds it. Securing new agreements was preferred to holding Palestinians to past ones, as U.S. chief negotiator Dennis Ross subsequently admitted.
Far from giving Israel unconditional or unqualified support in the midst of a terrorist offensive against it, both the Clinton and Bush administrations regularly criticized as excessive, provocative and unhelpful legitimate Israeli counter-terrorism measures, including roadblocks, withholding revenues from the PA and targeting terrorists — all measures that have been utilized by the U.S. in the war on radical Islamic terrorism.
Both President Bush and Secretary of State Cohn Powell criticized Israel’s killing of Hamas terrorist leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, describing it as “deeply troubling” and calling for “maximum restraint.”
The U.S. has criticized Israel’s security fence and both Bush and Powell pressured Israel to curtail military incursions against terrorist strongholds, most notably during Israel’s offensive in Jenin in 2002.
Despite U.S. understanding that the PA has been a haven and launching pad for terrorists, the Bush administration continued to pressure Israel to resume negotiations and make concessions to the PA. Most significantly — and despite Israeli objections on 14 points - the U.S. joined the EU, UN and Russia in endorsing the 2003 Road Map peace plan, which seeks further Israeli concessions.
In fact, speaking to a pro-Israel audience at the AIPAC policy conference shortly after the road map was introduced, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly demanded that Israel accept it, fundamentally ignoring Israeli reservations on matters of vital interests.
Finally, despite U.S. law, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have used successive presidential waivers to defer re-locating the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In this context, the Clinton administration also refused to veto Security Council resolutions repudiating Israeli authority in Jerusalem.
Although U.S. support for Israel has been important, it certainly has not been “unwavering.” The fundamental premise of Mearsheimer and Walt’s error ridden report — that American Jews and others have been successful in forcing total, unequivocal U.S. support for Israel — is thus simply untrue.
Morton A. Klein is national president of the Zionist Organization of America and editor of “The Dangers of a Palestinian State” (2002).
Dr. Daniel Mandel is director of the ZOA Center for Middle East Policy and author of “H, V. Evatt and the Establishment of Israel: The Undercover Zionist” (2004).

corsair the rational pirate said...

It is actually refreshing to see someone (other than LGF and me and a couple of others) calling a pig a pig. Islam is violent. Always has been and always will be (unless put in it's place).

Keep up the good work.

David S. said...

Ok, so the US does not do the every absolute bidding of Israel in every situation. Has it ever actively supported or pursued the victory of the other side in a conflict?

Unwavering support does NOT mean total, unequivocal U.S. support for Israel. It is a simple fact that the US has assisted, promoted, or desired every action by Israel for the past 50 years.

Don't get me wrong; I am not saying this is a bad thing. I am simply saying that acknowledging the strength of the alliance between Israel and the US - which would include acknowledging the influence of the Israel Lobby - is not some strange new form of rabid anti-semitism. It can be construed that way, but let's not start conceding the facts to such people.

Beach Girl said...

Corsair, "a pig is a pig" is a pig, no doubt, but so saying will lead to a rout. Again, proving the point. Enjoyed you anology.

Baron Bodissey said...

Andre_Szara --

I will acknowledge that the US support for Israel hasn't always been full -- Bush 41 and with James Baker calling the shots is an example -- but that doesn't invalidate my case.

I'm thinking of the most recent war, the one between Olmert and Hizbullah. If you believe sources (which I do in this case), Rice and Bush wanted Israel to press Hizbullah harder and keep on fighting for longer, but Olmert was weak and vacillating and wanted a ceasefire. He has thereby guaranteed that Israel will fight a much nastier war later.

Carl in Jerusalem (Israel Matzav) had the lowdown on this one at the time. I'll see if I can get him to come over here and back me up.

Arthur Parry said...

Hmm. It seems to me that the relationship is quite conciliatory, if not downright symbiotic.

The Pope, by the tenets of his faith, is impelled to offer the other cheek. The Muslims, accordingly by theirs, are compelled to slap it.

Andre_Szara said...


I thank you for your reply.

My point was not to paint the U.S. as a villain. In fact, I believe that line, “last, best hope”. My post was just a simple attempt at an explanation of Israeli behavior.

It is not sufficient to blame this recent Israeli softness on an affinity for the European post-modern pacific attitude (post-Zionism in Israel). Neither Rabin nor Sharon would have made a convincing turtle-neck wearing, espresso sipping European. I believe that this pattern of concessions, dating back to at least Rabin, was born from a recognition that the world would not permit Israel to engage in decisive warfare against its Arab enemies. Consequently the Israeli establishment decided to bow to world pressure by making incremental concessions in hopes of winning support (counter-measures or pre-emption) against the emerging threat of Arab/Muslim WMDs (a clear emerging threat even in the 1980’s ).

Unfortunately, it seems that the process has gotten away from the Israelis. For example, I doubt that either Rabin or Sharon anticipated a post-Gaza U.S. demand for some sort of corridor to facilitate Palestinian traffic between Gaza and the West Bank (the territorially “contiguous” Palestinian state).

Regarding acknowledgement that support was “not always full”, well a threat does not have to be used constantly to be effective. I think the U.S. pressure on Israel in 2002 for dangerous restraint of counter-terrorist operations, as well as the U.S. scolding for targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders such as Yassin, argues for my point. This U.S. pressure was especially hypocritical because the U.S. was engaged in much more intense operations against Al-Quayda at the same time.

Concerning Olmert and Lebanon, I agree with you that he seems to have practiced self-restraint. But he is the end product of 20 years of responding to pressure, sort of an example of evolution into a jelly-fish.

On the other hand, do you believe that the U.S. would have supported Israel taking truly decisive action in Lebanon this summer (such as striking Syria as advocated by Mark Steyn). The U.S. seems to be bending over to appease Iran (visa for Katami, continued support for European negotiations, discussion of only vague “consequences” if the WMD program goes forward, no strikes into Iran or Syria, minimal support for Iranian dissidents, etc.).

I am grateful for your wonderful blog and comments section. It is a beacon in the night. I’ve taken the time to write rather than lurk because I fear the result of the U.S. developing the various rationalizations and sedatives of the moral sense to allow the body politic necessary to compel Israel slowly walk the plank. I expect that the result will be a U.S. incapable of resisting the Jihadis (the destruction of Israel would also, of course, be a tragedy for the ages).

We must all hang together.

Average Family Guy said...

Assalamu Alaikum?

The Beast of Revalation DEMANDS WORSHIP!

A book by Bruce Bawer, "While Europe Slept", is a more in-depth look at the mindset that we are contending with. Instead of the west responding with one voice to the Islamofascists, we are neutered by the Kumbaya chorus out of the EU and the UN. How do these institutions affect US citizens. The Liberal Elite thirst for approval from the members of these two organizations.

I am utterly amazed at the lack of understanding the Lefties have of the Islamists. They seem to be willfully blind. Wakie, Wakie! The Islamofascists are using you and your moral equivalence doctrine to further entrench themselves in western culture. If you keep expecting the Islamists to stop their hate and voice their love and admiration for liberal democracy and personal liberty, you are deceiving yourselves. OPEN YOUR EYES!

This is not hysteria. This is reality. They see us as the demons. Not just conservatives. EVERY non-islamist is a demon. It is not a religion of peace. It never, EVER, has been. Read your history. Read about the Jews and Christians and their treatment in these societies both today and over the centuries.

Look up the terms: dhimmi, jizyah, and taqiyya. Learn. The average Muslim on the streets of Europe believes that the Quran is supreme over the laws of Europe. Research what honor killings are. Research the practice of vaginal mutilation. These people are absolutely devout (insane).

To claim moral equivalence between Christians and Muslims is absurd. Do you see Christians en masse screaming for blood? Christians demanding death? The truthful answer is no. Madonna is going to desecrate the cruxifiction of Christ in an upcoming event. Christians around the world will be disgusted. But, Christians around the world will not declare a Fatwah on Madonna. It won't happen. Ever!

Bubba's Pravda

Profitsbeard said...


"By their fruits..."

Some trees produce other things than fruit.

In the case of militant Islam, the minor Muslim prophet Isa (Jesus) would have to be rephrased to say:

"By their nuts, ye shall know them."

Mahmoud and the Mad Mullahs are one handful.

And the Ummah has many more batches of hard-shelled looneys.


The Pope, Bush, Rice, et al...

You cannot apologize to maniacs.

Especially when they are in the wrong, for going bananas and becoming violent, and not you, for uttering mere words... ones that criticize their dogmatic tendencies to use violence to promulgate their intolerant 'religion'.

The Pope and Bush are pussyfooting us to the edge of the Pit.

Email them both:


Il Papa at:

Tell them that suicide is a sin.

(Especially a Civilization's.)

ipw533 said...

The Islamic approach to conciliation kinda reminds me of US Army bayonet training. We were taught to advance and fight with fixed bayonets, but none of the moves we were taught involved any kind of a retreat. Every step was a forward one....

Carl in Jerusalem said...

Well, since you asked me to comment....

I think you need to distinguish two different periods. Until the 1967 War, the US was not very supportive of Israel. But for Harry Truman overruling the State Department, it is doubtful whether the US would have recognized Israel in 1948.

After 1967 - and especially after 1973 - the US became much more supportive. Yes, Bush 41 and Baker were an exception. And sometimes Presidents and administrations did things that were not to my liking, but they never purported to be doing it in anything other than Israel's best interests. And Bush 43 has probably been the most pro-Israel President ever.

In the most recent war, the US was willing to have Israel go much further than the Olmert government was willing to go. See this article from late in the war.

But most of the 'peace initiatives' have come from the Israelis and not from the US in the last thirteen years. Oslo was an Israeli 'accomplishment' - the US was not even involved. Since Oslo, Israel's left has believed that "since we want peace, there can be - will be - peace." They have gone out and done whatever they felt needed to be done to make that happen, often ignoring the other side's actions completely. For example, as soon as the gunfire stopped in Lebanon, the Olmert government started trying to give away territory again. The US didn't ask them to do something - they came up with it on their own.

Andre says I believe that this pattern of concessions, dating back to at least Rabin, was born from a recognition that the world would not permit Israel to engage in decisive warfare against its Arab enemies. Consequently the Israeli establishment decided to bow to world pressure by making incremental concessions in hopes of winning support (counter-measures or pre-emption) against the emerging threat of Arab/Muslim WMDs (a clear emerging threat even in the 1980’s ). But how can you know whether the world will 'let' you wage a decisive war unless you try to wage it? The world would have let Israel wage a decisive war this summer. The government didn't have the guts to do it. Sadly, it may have been our last chance to wage a decisive war, because by the next war, there will likely be Arab nukes.

Baron Bodissey said...

Andre_Szara --

Thank you for your kind words.

No, I don't believe that the U.S. would have backed Israel in the situations that you mention, and many others. We have twisted Israel's arm in the wrong direction too many times to count.

It's really perverse, because so many of the actions that Israel would undertake on its own behalf would be in our interest, too. I think the "stability" freaks at State and maybe in the NSC still call a lot of the shots -- any other explanation is too distressing to think about.

What comes to Israel will come to us, too, eventually. Only a fool would think otherwise.

The current administration has been better vis-a-vis Israel than any other in my memory. But Olmert seems to have blown his big opportunity. Hizbullah should have been ground into pumice.

Vicktorya said...

All, well said, great dialog.
I have a question. Something prompted at the end of the initial post, by Baron:

Changing this situation is going to be a long and difficult process, because you and I, the average people, do not own or have influence over the megaphones of public communication. The media are effectively in the hands of the enemy, and, as a result, many more people will die before we stop trying to appease the Islamic tiger.

Agreed. My earliest training (not so much my profession) was in broadcasting, radio, and film. I was so disillusioned by the investment in failure and cynicism in the media (southern California, early 1980's). Those I met definitely had political agendas. So, I skipped the profession and went to a harder job, military spouse (USMC Fighter Pilot hubby, yes ... okay okay ... all way past history now; I'm in New Zealand and out of harm's obvious way, and I'm online all day 'trying to help'.

The blogs are great; they already are making the MSM -- not irrelevant, but ... wary. They should be. Blogs are voice of the people. I have hesitated for a few years to blog myself, although I have recently got mine going, because there is always a niche and unique voice.

However, my question: how can we, with this intelligent and strong force that we are, focus this into those type of activities that can make the change and difference that we are speaking about? Certainly a portion of that is supporting various leaders and policies through political process. Yes, as we are doing, putting the opinions and perspectives and great analysis out there is another.

What else? I'm feeling a ... gosh, I dunno ... type of ... blog-morph happening, there is already so much networking of the blogs, so we have all of these online conferences and meetings of the minds that are very vital --
yet how can we, moreso, shift the consciousness, and therefore action, into practical change?

I've never thought of myself as an activist, and wouldn't care for the title, but I do "get it", and can read the writing on the wall, and KNOW that the MSM (aka left-leaning media) is killing us. There are some bright spots, of course. But the propaganda work is so pervasive and strong. (my blog, is called Liberating Propaganda, to some extent thereby) -- and yes, my job now is to tidy up my rants, or keep 'em short.

But I'm asking, what can we do, moreso, together? I wish to leverage our intention into effective action, and invite hints, suggestions, cooperation ...

and, no ... no conciliation with evil. It's not a negotiable option in my world.

Papa Ray said...

Heavy questions Vicktorya and they require hard answers.

Starting from a lighter side of what can we do?

Well, we can get computer mfgs to start selling their computers cheaper, much cheaper and the cable and phone companys to do the same with their high speed connections.

Then we can start free computer classes in local communities for the adults in the families (and there are millions, upon millions of them) to learn how to at least get on the web, find stuff, and protect their systems from hackers.

Then we can try to convince them that reading and writing on the internet is fundemental in their families survival.

There are millions now in this country who have computers that they hardly use, other than maybe porn surfing, recipe gathering and online shopping.

There are many that are not used that much because the users work from can to can't and still have to raise a family.

The kids now are a different story, my 5 1/2 year old Sweet Sarah, is a surfing expert, she can't type much but she tells me what to type when it needs to be done. Including search terms.

Then maybe once we have the nation "on line" and paying attention, we can really maximize the impact of blogs and other websites (such as our Militarys).

Just my thoughts

Papa Ray
West Texas

Voyager said...


These 5 arguments are perfectly sensible. I find it odd that even though the media is so soft on Islam I still see only its flaws (I think it's hard not to). If the media became anti-Islam it would be interesting to see if anyone would be crazy enough to be conciliatory at all.

Vicktorya said...

Thanks Papa Ray. Agreed, getting more folks online and turned on would help. And, for those who are already on -- is the political process or next best area to support? Is this the most leveraged use of our energy, in finding and supporting those leaders and policies, in various countries, that 'serve the good'.

One thing I've started to do on my blog is try to identify (with a category tag) areas to 'support' or 'negate'. I'm just starting, but as I interface with several folks who have been of the more non-political or even non-news light and love crowd, they are either ignorant or congenitally pacifistic, and not inclined towards even addressing things such as (ick) war. However, among a certain sector of the founding movements of the new age (Blavatsky and Theosophy, Bailey, etc.), there is definite and specific advice for dealing with evil (oh yeah), and so clear information about 'the situation as it is', is helping to advise these good-hearted folks, and they wish to be practical. Most of the community I've been involved with are in the educational arenas, which also tends towards liberality, yet, again, especially among this (sometimes even called) 'fundamentalists' of the new age movement, there is a recognition of a necessity to know 'whose side you stand on'.

So, what can we do -- immediately. Most of us are no longer needing debate about what is, but want to put our energy towards what could and what must be. If it is political action, then how can we accelerate our understanding and support of various platforms, cooperatively? It's a lot of research, but most of it must be already done. Who are our best advisors of the political realm, and how can we support necessary international initiatives, as citizens of various countries?

And, with a wide open mind on the possibilities, what other ways are our most immediate and effective courses of action to help the world cheese not slide off its cracker.



John Sobieski said...

It's all part of that denial rut we are stuck in. It's going take more than the Pope to pull us out.

george said...

The discussion about the relations between Islam is complex and difficult.It must be stated that Islam is not the religion of peace they present it to be-it has a long expansionist history and the gazi, the conquering hero is an integral part of its' mythology.The LIberal elites of the West are wrong to use atheistic humanism as a foreign policy instrument. Muslim societies are theocratic and not humanitarian. Many of their leaders belong to cleptocratic factions eager for expansion and no image of noble savage is going to whitewash them. The Arabic tradition of learning hardly means many things for the average Arab.The level of Western civilization is higher in all respects and Western civilization has invented the idea of respecting otherness if not always practising it. In Islam there exists the dominion of the faithfull and the dominion of War- therefore the unfaithfull are tolerated as a source of income. The morality is tribal and the good of the tribe is the criterion of right and wrong, not the good of society and certainly not the good of the average American or European. The idea of peacefull coexistence between the rich, tolerant and ageing West and the Islamist factions eager for power and the masses of young poor that follow them is a dangerous illusion. Peace had not been achieved even between european empires with comparable culturally middle-class populations, how can it be achieved between the West and the Islamic world,separated by every conceivable moral,intellectual and other aspect and whose civilizations represent different forms of collective existence. Peace nad mutual respect can be achieved only through balance of power.