Refugees make good television

Submitted by Pat (United States), May 2, 2007 at 13:26

Ron,

I believe you're about the "refusal to accept" a Palestinian state alongside Israel. We have learned to love victims and this allows the Palestinians and Lebanese who initiate hostilities to cry when Israel responds with "undue" force. Bombed out "civilian" neighborhoods are great for television and only reinforce the misbegotten idea that Israel has no right to defend itself. I guess they're supposed to throw stones back.

We always hear of the many displaced Palestinians without comparing them to the many displaced Jews who had lived in other countries in the Middle East for a millenia. Israel did not expel Muslims who were willing to live under their government and they absorbed the many Jews expelled from other ME countries. but the 22(?) Muslim countries have no responsibility for the Palestinians whom they encouraged to leave Israel.

It remains most odd and weird to my mind that it was so much easier for Bush and his Neocons to invade Iraq for the supposed (albeit suspiciously late-blooming) purpose of democratizing the Middle East, when the the wiser and non-bloody policy would have been to simply say to all these dysfunctional states, "You will never know progress or peace within and among yourselves unless you follow, at least to some degree, the model of democracy and free markets, and you have a brilliant success at that right beside you, which is Israel."

This sounds like a good policy but it requires other countries to agree. We couldn't even impose sanctions on Saddam after the Gulf War without many European countries trying to get around them and make their own deals, all in the name of commerce.

Why, after 9/11, wasn't the US able to demand from each and every Arab country that they cease supporting al Qaeda and all other terrorist groups AND turn over Usama (dead or alive) on the promise that failure to do so meant that the next Islamic attack within America will make Mecca and Medina useful targets? Usama was in Afghanistan but the entire Muslim community could have been warned that they risked destruction of their own holy sites by supporting violent jihad. Pakistan might have been motivated to deal with the Taliban before we got there.

Why wasn't a total travel ban to and from such countries implemented with the idea, along your line, that until you turn to peace you will have no friends anywhere in the US? That also would be ineffective unless the rest of the world was willing to, in effect, quarantine all Muslim countries.

The Islamic faith and system of jurisprudence should be our model. Non-Muslims cannot enter Muslim countries except under tight control. It's time we returned the favor. There should be at least a ten year moratorium (I would make it fifty) on all Muslim travel and Muslim immigration to the US. Dar-al-Islam should be their permanent home. If they want a better life, they'll have to find it in their own country.

I think Muslims around the world would be surprised to know how many Americans are willing, even eager, to be their friends, but it takes two to tango.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".