Terror in Europe: Rivers of Blood

Terror in Europe: Rivers of Blood

Another day, another terror attack. An elderly priest was beheaded in Normandy, while he was celebrating mass in church. In addition to that, in the past few days Muslims in Europe have attacked using a machete (killing a pregnant woman), a gun (Munich) and a suicide bomber (a first for Germany).  It is hard to tally the blows that our enemy strikes against us. Ben Shapiro, the Conservative with quasi-libertarian leanings who is staunchly anti-Trump, a stance that has drawn the ire (and villainy) of the Alt-Right, once said about Obama (not an exact quote): “The universe exists to prove him wrong”. A corollary can be added, “The universe exists to prove Donald Trump right.”

In his acceptance speech, Trump went on describing, for considerable lengths, the state of affairs in the world. He said: “... the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life.” He said further: “Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” He said other things, but you get the picture. The  Washington Post, CBS, NBC, etc etc all used the word “dark” in reference to the speech. But Trump is not wrong. Engulfed as we are in this Medieval barbarism, Trump’s darkness is justified. In fact, he was probably not dark enough.

Which brings me to Bret Stephens and his opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal (July 26, 2016). Stephens is a cosmopolitan, Jewish guy and is a typical Wall Street Journal type. At the risk of oversimplifying, the Wall Street Journal type is: loyal to the West, American Exceptionalism and a muscular foreign policy, strong believer in capitalism, moderate and nuanced on social issues, and weak-kneed on immigration. Stephens is viewed as a Neo-Con, and hated by Mark Levin from one side and the Nationalists/Alt-Right/Trumpkins on the other side. I am not sure what the Evangelicals say about him, though I am sure they love his pro-Israel stance even if he was in favor of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and is currently in favor of the two-state solution, at least theoretically.

In today’s paper, Stephen entitles his article “Is Europe Helpless?”. His answer is if they get their act together,and stop adhering to nonsensical doctrine then it is not. In other words, given where we currently stand, and are heading, Europe is doomed. The article as a whole is interesting, and hard-hitting (not nearly hard-hitting enough) but one line stood out. He writes that “the storm of terror that is descending on Europe… will end in rivers of blood.” End quote. Rivers of blood? Rivers of Blood! Is our urbane and sophisticated columnist referring to Enoch Powell’s “rivers of blood” remark, where that patriotic Englishman warned of the doom that would befall Britain should it continue to import foreigners from the Third World. Surely not. Surely Mr. Stephens is too correct to do such a thing. Why, it was not very long ago when our Mr. Stephens reprimanded Trump on his proposed Muslim ban.

***

Incidental to the main point, it might be worthwhile quoting Stephens on Israel. Writes Stephens in the same paper: “For now, it’s the one country in the West that refuses to risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights or altar of peace.” This is untrue. What is true is that Israel might at times  act more militaristic than what is expected of her, and that every time she takes any minor aggressive measure, she is criticized. But Israel does not, in fact, categorically refuse to risk the safety of its citizens. This could be seen from a thousand different things, but most illustrative is, perhaps, the 2014 Israel-Gaza War. The terrorist organization Hamas fired rockets from Gaza into Israel, and the Israelis responded on an almost tit-for-tat basis. The war dragged on and off for seven weeks. At the time some were calling for Israel to unleash the full might of its artillery and air-force, which would ended the matter quickly and decisively. Israel did not act in such a manner. As a result 72 Israelis perished and hundreds were injured. Israel did indeed “risk the safety of its citizens on someone else’s notion of human rights” be it: the UN, the EU, the US, the Geneva Convention, or the media. In fact, it seems to me, that Israel’s whole Modus Operandi involves inflicting as much damage to the enemy as possible, while maintaining some level of adherence to some outside liberal standard.

But perhaps Stephens, for all his tough-talk, would also feel uncomfortable should a civilized country open fire with artillery and aircraft, devastating the enemy with a “rubble doesn’t cause trouble” attitude. Should Israel risk the safety of its citizens on on his notion of human rights?