The Limits Of Melanie Phillips
Melanie Phillips still supports that "mission" in Iraq. She thinks that a less unstable Iraq, a more prosperous Iraq, where assorted lions lie down with assorted other lions, the whole held together by force of Western arms, will promote Infidel interests by bringing transformative "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads," and that Shi'a-dominated Iraq can be a Light Unto the (Sunni) Muslim Nations. She fails to explain exactly why this makes sense; she identifies that Bush-Blair policy with a "muscularity" that she apparently admires, and does not stop to ask if the West would not do better to exploit pre-existing fissures in Iraq and in the greater Camp of Islam. And while she identifies the problem of Islam in the Lands of the Infidels, she still draws back, still will not reach certain conclusions, and continues to confuse her audience and herself, in her failure to think things through. She has not, I think, called for a halt on Muslim immigration, has failed to discuss the un-usefulness, and even comical unhelpfulness, of the phrase or concept of the "moderate" Muslim -- who, if that word "moderate" could be defined, could still lie about his "moderation," or could be "moderate" today and "immoderate" tomorrow.
She writes about Israel, but never about the war on Israel as a Lesser Jihad, with the two camps, Hamas and Fatah, differing not on ultimate goals but only on tactics and timing: a case of the Fast Jihadists and the no-less-unpalatable and dangerous Slow Jihadists. Nor has she pointed out that the mere swelling of Muslim numbers in the West will, in democracies, with pusillanimous politicians, inevitably swell Muslim power, and cow or overwhelm those attempting to defend against that power. She has her points. But she hasn't shown a desire to have her readers grasp the whole, to make the connections, and to begin to think about the kinds of measures that are perfectly justifiable, and made sense to such advanced and tolerant representatives of High European Civilization as the Czech statesmen Eduard Benes and Jan Masaryk.
Posted on 06/29/2007 10:11 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
29 Jun 2007
She has her limits, including a tendency to refer to Islamism rather than Islam. But Londonistan is well worth a read, and she's got Tariq Ramadan's number.
29 Jun 2007
A battle plan must have a chance of success in order to be worth the execution. I submit Hugh, that your theories have little chance of resonating with many people at this point in time, whereas Phillips has already made enormous strides in informing the Western public of the dangers that face us.
This does not mean that your work is of no value, just that it might realise its value at a later date. Meanwhile it is valid for both points of view to be aired.
Your pillorying of Phillips can only be counterproductive.
30 Jun 2007
Either Phillips is blinded by a tolerant liberalism as a religion or she is afraid of coming out aganst invasion of Muslim immigrants.
If she is blind to (the only) solution to the problem about which is constantly whining, she is a sad case.
If she is afraid and all she wants is to stay mainstream to keep money coming, there were several liberal pundits in UK who came out for restricting non-Western immigration as documented in Lawrence Auster blog.
It appears that if there is risk for calling for immigration restriction in UK, it is not that great.
What does poor Phillips afraid of
1 Jul 2007
'Phillips has already made enormous strides in informing the Western public' - not exactly. Phillips is generally regarded by most people as wierd, she can hardly be described as influential when Londonistan ranks at position 9,473 on the Barnes & Noble list.
While we're on the subject of influence I note that Hugh Fitzgerald is indexed five tmes on Netscape - each one by a contributor to NER, each article has so far received one vote and no comments! Perhaps Hugh Fitzgerald envies Phillips (relative) success in influencing opinon!