Even if you’re not a one-world conspiracy theorist, you’ve got to
admit that the current leaders of many major Western states — the
United States, Britain, Germany, etc. — are philosophically joined at
the hip with an internationalist mindset. This mindset is generally
unsympathetic to the traditional nation state and its right to
territorial and political sovereignty.
You see it in Tony Blair’s eagerness to surrender much of his
nation’s sovereignty to the European Commonwealth and in Bill Clinton’s
willingness to subject the United States to the environmental fascism of
certain international bodies. Being no respecter of nations, this
mindset readily champions the cause of independence for ethnic groups
living within other nations, such as Kosovar Albanians within Serbia and
Arab Palestinians within Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, no globalist himself,
describes this mindset in his 1993 book, “A Place Among the Nations.” In
the book, Netanyahu eerily recounts the events leading to Czechoslovakia
being forcibly subsumed by Hitler’s Germany while Western Europe was
preaching appeasement and “peace in our time.”
Netanyahu explains that Czechoslovakia, being in the heart of Europe,
was central to Hitler’s plans to conquer Europe. But the Sudetan
Mountains formed a physical barrier to external attack, giving even
Hitler pause about an overt offensive. Instead, Hitler devised a scheme
whereby he could annex the Sudetenland with its formidable mountains and
overcome the Czechs’ natural defenses.
Conveniently for Hitler, those living in Sudetenland were
predominantly German and he worked them into an ethnic frenzy to the
point that they were demanding independence — even though they enjoyed
prosperity and full civil rights. Through propaganda he was able to
convince the West that Sudetenland should be returned to the Germans,
ignoring the fact that it had never been part of Germany.
Astonishingly, Hitler and the West coerced the Czechs to accede to
Hitler’s demands and relinquish this territory. Less than a half year
later, no longer deterred by the mountain fortress, Nazi armies overran
Netanyahu draws a parallel between Hitler’s designs on pre-World War
II Czechoslovakia and the Arabs’ ambitions with respect to Israel.
Israel, like Czechoslovakia, possesses natural physical barriers to
outside attack. Like the Western nations before World War II, today’s
Western nations are pressuring Israel to surrender its land for peace.
Today’s Oxford peacehawks have been sermonizing to conservative
forces in Israel to adopt as a sure avenue to peace, the Rodney King
Doctrine: “Why can’t we all just get along?” Netanyahu’s Israel, like
yesteryear’s Czechoslovakia, has been subtly demonized by the West as
the obstacle to peace. The Arabs within the Israeli nation, they say,
deserve the right to self-determination and Israel must surrender its
strategically vital real estate to its sworn Arabic enemies in exchange
Clinton, ultimately unable to prevail upon the determined Netanyahu
to acquiesce to his “peace-plan,” decided to intermeddle in the internal
affairs of our fervent ally, Israel. This time, however, instead of
using military force to achieve its ends, he decided to intermeddle in a
forum where he has no equal: the electoral process.
Just as surely as Bill Clinton personally dispatched Carville, Flynt
and Lenzner into war against Ken Starr and his witnesses, he sent his
triumvirate of Carville, Greenberg and Shrum to ensure the electoral
defeat of “peace-blocker” Netanyahu by Labor Party leader Ehud Barak.
With Barak’s resounding victory, the internationalists are a step closer
to “peace in our time.” Barak is decidedly more moderate than Netanyahu
and less dogmatic about retaining much of the territory Netanyahu deems
essential to Israel’s security.
While pretending detachment from these events, Clinton could barely
contain himself with exuberance over Barak’s victory. So anxious is the
legacy-hungry lecher for the Nobel Peace Prize that he is already
counting on resurrecting his Wye River peace accords: “We have an accord
at Wye to implement, and we have a lot of work to do on the final-status
It is one thing for Clinton to seek to intervene in the internal
affairs of a sovereign nation with the ostensible purpose of preventing
ethnic cleansing. It is altogether another for him to do so for the
purpose of imposing his worldview on the sovereign nation of Israel.
Clinton had the audacity to announce that Israel’s election
represented a victory for peace. How utterly predictable for liberals’
poster boy to calculate that peace is better achieved through
appeasement and weakness than through vigilance and strength. Bill
Clinton seems hell-bent on turning a blind eye to history’s lessons:
with his Serbian Vietnam and Israeli Czechoslavakia.