CKNW Editorial
for September 17, 2001

The backlash is starting. It always does. And, as always, the backlash has plenty of history to back it up.

Columnists are now popping up with the explanation that the United States got what it deserved. After all, isn’t it Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse and the Big Mac that has permeated the culture of much of the world and perverted hitherto high standards? The morals of the youth of the world of Islam, these non Islam writers are now saying, have been corrupted by the American Satan.

Worse than this, did not American troops come onto the soil of Islam countries during the Gulf War? Didn’t President George Bush Senior corrupt Islam governments surrounding Iraq into thinking that Saddam Hussein was a bad man for taking over Kuwait? And wasn’t that really all about US oil interests and not a ferocious, sadistic dictator who gassed his own people?

But, most importantly, doesn’t this really all go back to the founding of the State of Israel, which might not have happened had President Truman strangled her at birth as he might have done? And isn’t this the expected if not the justified result of America’s support of Israel, monetarily, militarily and morally over the past five decades?

As always, one can find historical justification for these views. The battle between Christian and Muslim goes back to the Crusades. The anger against the European and American is also based on clear exploitation of Arab peoples by westerners (when they weren’t being exploited by the Turks and their own greedy leaders that is). That Muslim Turkey dominated and oppressed much of southern Europe is, of course, overlooked.

We’ve been through this before. The two world wars represented a thousand years of history coming to a head. In the run-up to the Second World War it was said that when Germany abrogated treaties and naval agreements it was entitled to do so because the Peace of Versailles had been a monstrous diktat. When Germany entered the neutralized Rhineland, contrary to the Treaty, why she was just entering into her own backyard. When Germany annexed Austria many thought this quite reasonable – after all, the post World War I breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire had left Austria a mostly German rump state. When Hitler demanded and got the Sudetanland, part of Czechoslovakia, why that was just bringing German folks back to the Fatherland. When Hitler broke the Munich Agreement and took over the rest of Czechoslovakia, incorporating Bohemia into the Reich and creating the puppet state of Moravia there will still voices, though by now fewer in number, prepared to let this slip by unnoticed. When Hitler invaded Poland voices were raised that there was justification – he was entitled to Danzig back and to unite East Prussia to the Reich and anyway, hadn’t Poland jumped in at the time of Munich to take her share of Czechoslovakia? Even after war had been declared and France had fallen there were still voices saying that peace might be made if Britain agreed that Alsace-Lorraine – after all, Alsace is more German than French - go back to Germany and that she now be given a free hand to attack the common enemy, the Soviet Union … thus, it was said, ending the threat of world wide communism.

You could make these arguments for each strand of the conflict went back into the mists of time. All had some claim to legitimacy.

What happened, of course, is that Hitler became seen more and more as a monster – something other than a Kaiser Wilhelm or even a Napoleon. Here was a man who didn’t want to re-arrange matters to suit some historical theories but wanted to utterly destroy that which he considered to be his enemy, and thus evil. A new definition of evil came upon the scene – to the Nazis it was whatever their enemies thought was right. Mostly the enemy was free, open societies.

There is no question but that at the heart of last Tuesday’s attack is the state of Israel. It is argued that it should never have been allowed to get started. That Lord Balfour in his declaration gave away land that wasn’t his. That Israel was founded on the work of terrorists who later became its leaders. That the modern day Israel isn’t really the land of the Jews historically. These and other arguments like them are, in a philosophical and historical sense, debatable matters. What is not debatable – and isn’t even debated by Israel’s neighbours – is that whatever the equities of the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel has a right to exist. It is a state recognized by all but a handful of nations, is a child of the United Nations and, when it comes down to a threat to its existence, is entitled to the world’s support and protection.

This doesn’t mean that Israel is entitled to do as it pleases. Nor does it by any means imply that their policies and ambitions are not without a great deal of controversy. Nor indeed does it mean that the Palestinians don’t have their case.

What all this means is this – there always have been and always will be a multitude of issues going back into history capable of supporting, in the minds of some, the most drastic of action. But overriding all these issues and sub issues is one truth – their solution cannot be at the expense of the safety of the world. When the safety of the world is at stake the pre-eminent threat to that safety must be dealt with by those able to do so.

It is to the eternal credit of Winston Churchill, who as all great men do made many mistakes, that he was right on the main issue. He saw Hitler for what he was when no one else wanted to. He saw Naziism for what it was. He knew all the arguments and knew more than most about the injustice of the Treaty of Versailles. Over a drink, he could probably have made either side of all the historical arguments which were used to justify Hitler’s claims. But he knew, as we must know now, that the evil had to be exterminated before civilized people could address any issues, however ancient and however serious.

Today’s Hitler is the terrorist – the hidden menace that lashes out when you least expect it, rarely at military targets. There are appeasers today who would even sacrifice entire countries to keep some temporary security for themselves.

Does anyone suppose for a moment that even if, God forbid, the entire population of Israel were sacrificed to pacify the beast, that its appetite would abate? As Churchill famously said, "everyone feeds the crocodile in the hopes that the crocodile will eat him last."

After the Munich Agreement of October 1938 – when Britain rejoiced that Chamberlain, by settling one of these grievances I spoke of, had avoided war, Churchill, not for the first or last time, stood against the tide and said these words about the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia which, though admittedly in a somewhat different context, eerily ring pretty true today.

" …do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."..