Let's Not Overblame the Soviets

Submitted by Ron Thompson (United States), Jun 2, 2007 at 14:37

This is a fascinating piece of alleged history, which feels credible.

But even if true, it does not exculpate the acts of war perpetrated by Nasser before the outbreak of hostilities, nor does it exculpate the pusillanimous UN decision to remove its 'peacekeeping' force. Certainly at the time these recklessly provocative acts seemed to preclude the idea that this war was "accidental". (At the same time this new thesis leads to increased praise for Israel's war strategy in 1967, just as I think the admittedly clumsy war tactic of bombing Lebanon's infrastructure last year has been severely underappreciated)

Also this new thesis of the Soviet gamble to destroy Dimona does not successfully blame the Soviets for the decades of virulent and still increasing Arab anti-Semitism in the 40 years since the Six-Day War.

Here's an alternative thesis.

Perhaps the West somewhat overdemonized the Germans in World War I - not by much, but enough to cause guilt problems in the West over the next 20 years which, added to understandable anti-war sentiment, gave a fatal six year window to Hilter to exploit that guilt.

While it was impossible to overdemonize the Nazis, perhaps the West overdemonized the Japanese in World War II, leading to outright racism. However, extremely talented leadership on both sides in the decade after Hiroshima largely cured that problem, at least with rergard to Japanese-Western relations.

Many on the Left still feel we overdemonized the Soviets and Communism during the long and dangerous Cold War. This lingering problem is now causing the West to have a hard time conceptualizing the disaster of Putin's deeply regressive leadership of Russia, which is isolating it ever further from development compatible with Western security interests and its own deepest self-interest.

But none of these problems of the past and present hold a candle to our civilization-wide UNDER demonization (I know, not the best word to use - maybe somebody out there has a better) now of virulent and militant Islam.

It is as if the currents of multicultural and diversity scripture and sentiment are still so strong in the Western mind that we still adamantly refuse to ask ourselves if we might have to criticize the theology and rhetoric of Islam itself, and not just the supposedly completely distinct "radical" version thereof.

Therefore, while I welcome the addition of this new theory and evidence about the 1967 war, I feel more than a whiff of this continuing refusal in Dan Pipes' thesis that the (extinct) Soviets are more responsible for the Anti-semitism in the Middle East than Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

I still feel the almost psychotic supremacist ideology of Islam is the chief factor of responsibility, and that it is what must be confronted - which the West continues to fail utterly to do in the voice of the leaders of its most powerful countries, and its most authoritative moral voices.

Ron Thompson

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".