Just so you don't think that I worship the fellow, I'm going to have to say that the second paragraph of this particular post is out of line. The post (which started to be about improving Israeli/Indian relations, then segued into an odd - and to my mind, unsupported - allegation* that the Intifada is a 'proxy war' between the EU and the USA) ends with this:
I've thought for quite a while that "proxy war" was the appropriate characterization, and indeed I've used that term here before. Europeans should worry, though, about what will happen if Israel -- or America -- decides to return the favor. Providing financial aid to terrorists who target European civilians would be uncivilized -- but, then, the Europeans are supposed to be the civilized ones, no?
Glenn Reynolds, I'm sure that you've used the phrase 'proxy war' before, although I can't remember offhand the last time you've used it. However, those last two sentences are offensive. Europeans should not have to worry about us 'returning the favor', both because it's not going to fragging happen and because the entire idea is not what this country is all about**. And I don't buy this tit-for-tat bit, either - and I find that I don't really like the tone of that last line, either. Too close to deniably advocating in the classic Henry II fashion.
Retract, please.
*Yes, I'm aware that it's based off of remarks made by a EU MP. I have some sympathy with MP Schroeder's belief that anti-Zionism represents a polite form of anti-Semitism, but really, jumping from that to allegations of an actual war and everything is too much.
**And anybody gearing up to say something snide about George W Bush right now can kindly shut the Hell up unless they've got documentary evidence that this specific administration has ordered the creation of terrorist organizations that target civilians.
And, no, Israel doesn't fragging count, either.
Okay, so basically both Glenn Reynolds and MEP Ilka Schroeder join the ranks of the loony for believing this is the case. I mean, how could anyone imagine that the European Union would sponsor Palestinian terrorism? Or want US citizens/Israeli citizens killed? One of the things 'Europeans', as ideological units, pride themselves on is their view of a global brethren.
Is Reynolds getting so caught up in the Grr! The French! The Germans! meme that he equates the EU with them? And thinks that just because they disagreed on Iraq (but not Afghanistan), they want to kill the US?
Yes, the French would love to be a world power. But they are not evil.
Oh, and as if the UK, having lived under IRA terrorism for decades, would be a party to something like that - with the EU! If we did it, we'd do it quietly, on our own! What country is going to sponsor terrorism in league with several others?!!
Anyway, the UK is pro-US! So are several others in the EU!!!
And, Moe, you're quite right; even if this was the case, the US wouldn't respond in kind. I mean, you'd have the moral high ground for half a century if we did something like this.
But wait a minute:
"I've thought for quite a while that "proxy war" was the appropriate characterization"
Instapundit has thought for quite a while??? Doesn't that jar with his policy of just reacting without thinking? The People Need To Know.
Wouldn't you hate to be one of his students? "Well, James, here's your essay back, I've not actually read it but Tim Blair was making a snide comment recently about anti-war types and I believe you once went on a march so I've decided you're automatically wrong."
Posted by: James Casey | December 27, 2003 at 10:50 AM
Providing financial aid to terrorists who target European civilians would be uncivilized --
Too right.
American financial support for terrorists who target English civilians was regarded in the UK as... distinctly uncivilised. But it happened.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 27, 2003 at 12:43 PM
"But it happened."
Individual contributions to the IRA by Americans do occur (and I've been on the record as being in opposition to such things since college*). But it was not official American policy to support the IRA... which is what the European Union's essentially being accused of re the Palestinians.
Moe
*Fourth generation Boston Irish Roman Catholic, btw.
Posted by: Moe Lane | December 27, 2003 at 12:56 PM
I thought we were talking about governmental entities? I'm sure there have been nominal citizens of European nations that have contributed to terrorists, too. But its a far leap to say "some guys down at Paddy's bar donated some cash to terror" to "the American government gives cash to terrorists."
Sheesh.
Posted by: Neolith | December 27, 2003 at 12:59 PM
Sorry - no, I didn't intend to imply that the US government ever directly supported the Provisional IRA. "Americans" is ambiguous, and I was responding to Glenn's quoted post.
That US citizens have given money to terrorists who target English civilians is fully documented certainly as late as the 1980s. That the US government never moved to prevent this is also a known fact. (Take a look at what the current administration is doing to prevent the remittence of monies to Muslim organizations even vaguely connected to terrorism, and look at what they didn't do to prevent the remittence of monies to the Provisional IRA....)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 27, 2003 at 01:53 PM
Thank God Glenn proudly asserts that he's not a conservative, otherwise I'd hate to have to explain why a conservative thinks this way. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the EU, but Reynolds and Schroeder are drinking the paranoid Kool-Aid here.
Posted by: Matthew Stinson | December 27, 2003 at 02:35 PM
It's hard for me to actually believe that it's even necessary to point out why his suggestions are a bad thing. Think about that. These folks have gone that far down the Euro-Hatred path?
If the much hyped "anti-americanism" in Europe doesn't yet have a counterpart, it's quickly finding one in folks like Glenn and others. I had hoped that the soft bigotry of the isolationist wing had finally died but this is really the reverse version of that same bigotry. It's a half-baked response to complex policy issues that suggests not only laziness but reactionary tendencies. Whats worse is that it's my guess that quite a few of those who are shouting loudest don't even really believe what they are saying, but they know it stirs the pot and saves them the difficulty of actually tackling the issue, or tearing down the House of Cards world view they are trying to build.
Posted by: Waffle | December 28, 2003 at 03:18 PM
Reynolds doesn't exactly seem to have a clear grasp of the English language, which no doubt explains his having missed that the MP making the observation of a 'proxy war' is against a range of policies that she chooses to term a 'proxy war' (perhaps he thinks she's declared proxy war on the U.S?); he should also probably have troubled to note that this particular 'proxy war' uses proxies on both sides, according to the MP, on the European side (or more specific a European side run by her political enemies) the Palestinians are the proxies, on the American side, the Israelis.
Reynolds seems to want to use proxies to kill Europeans, but the Europeans are not defined as being proxies for anyone in his post - perhaps he's "thinking" (square quotes, because the idea of Reynolds doing that particular activity is the true meaning of terror) the Europeans will be proxies for Arabs.
No doubt he will soon explain how he was just kidding. I hope that I have here explained how he is a degenerate asshat.
Posted by: bryan | December 28, 2003 at 05:08 PM
Bryan - you need a blog, sir. That was funny and trenchant.
Posted by: Mithras | December 28, 2003 at 09:39 PM
The U.S. has given plenty of money to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. THe governments of both of those countries almost certainly funded both Al Qaeda and the Taliban for years. Hence, the U.S. must be fighting a proxy war against...itself.. logic chips melting down....
Posted by: MS | December 28, 2003 at 11:24 PM
There are people who don't care one way or another about anybody except in their immediate lives.
If they can make a buck selling weapons they will do it regardless of the consequences as long as those consequences are far away from them.
Posted by: Federation of Metro Tenants Associations | January 17, 2004 at 03:48 PM
The postings here by "Federation of Metro Tenants Associations" are not from the Toronto organziation that I work with.
They are posted maliciously and pop up on google searches.
Posted by: Dan McIntyre | February 08, 2004 at 03:40 PM
The postings here by "Federation of Metro Tenants Associations" are not from the Toronto organziation that I work with.
They are posted maliciously and pop up on google searches.
Posted by: Dan McIntyre | February 08, 2004 at 03:41 PM