Saturday, December 28, 2013

Nationalism For Me, But Not For Thee

Commentary is doing the two-step again.  Strong defense of Israel's right to exist and to act in its own interests as it sees fit.  However, that is not allowed for Japan.

Contentions December 27, 2013 by Max Boot 
Shinzo Abe’s Provocation 
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan is making predictable waves with his provocative visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which honors Japan’s war dead–including a number of war criminals from World War II. He is trying, half-heartedly, to pass this off as a normal visit akin to a U.S. president visiting Arlington National Cemetery, but anyone who has ever been to Yasukuni knows that’s not the case. Right next to the shrine is a museum commemorating Japan’s 20th-century wars, which are presented from an imperialistic and militaristic slant in which the Rape of Nanking is not mentioned, the U.S. is blamed for provoking the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the kamikaze pilots are glorified for their devotion to the nation.

Of course, no American museum mentions the firebombing of Dresden in 1945 when the war with Germany was all but over.  But having been to the Yasukuni Shrine and the attached museum, I can say that the museum is hardly revisionist in any way, especially given modern scholarship that clearly shows that the Roosevelt Administration knew of the upcoming attack on Pearl Harbor.  Yes, it is nationalist in presentation, with the best English language support for its exhibits than most major museums in Japan.  Boot also seems to forget that the Chinese were even more brutal to their own countrymen during their internecine struggles of the twentieth century than what Japan inflicted on them, including the atrocity at Nanking.

In fact, the Yasukuni museum is quite moderate in its tone, hardly triumphalist about even the wars Japan won over China and Russia.  It has no reference to the modern scholarship that shows Roosevelt Administration was provoking war with Japan and knew about the expeditionary force sent under Admiral Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor.  Nothing about the code breaking, nothing about the PBYs sent to the UK as lend lease from their original posting at Pearl Harbor as long range reconnaissance, and nothing about the plan to provoke war by sending an American vessel into the waters around the Home Islands.

A better critique would be of the one significant failure of the Douglas MacArthur regency in Japan; the suppression of patriotism and the demilitarization of Japan.  For the decades after the Second World War, Japan's rebuilding of her military was restricted by the MacArthur "No War" Constitution that resulted in a minimal investment in the military structure, such as it was.  Unlike in Germany, which rearmed within 10 years of her surrender, Japan never reached its natural level of military power.  This restriction on Japan's natural expression of nationalism and the restrictions on her acting as a full partner in mutual defense during the Cold War allowed this artificial belief by Korea and China that Japan was not a normal nation with military and political interests, and inherent patriotism.  Now that Japan is relearning patriotism, some are upset with that normal situation.

Koreans and Chinese may have an interest in a pacified Japan, free of patriotism, but what is the interest of Jewish Americans who support legitimate Israeli nationalism and self-interest?  A free, independent and powerful Japan is no threat to anyone, much less Israel.  In fact, a strong self-confident Japan acting in its own interests, especially against a nuclear power such as Red China, lends legitimacy to a strong, self-confident, and independent Israel.  However, an attack on Japanese nationalism is an ill-disguised attack on nationalism itself.  A deracinated Japan unable to act in its self-interest due to international pressure from hostile neighbors sets an example against Israel's survival against hostile nations.  So why is Commentary seeking to subvert the principle of national self-interest and patriotism?  Perhaps, like the radical left, it does not apply the principle to others, only to itself. Which suggests that Commentary is not that far removed from when it was controlled by the radical left.  It cannot continue to attack expressions of patriotism and self-interest without that same attack leveled against Israel.  

Which makes me think that Commentary will not be supporting a nuclear armed Japan, which in the face of a nuclear Red China, is axiomatic if Japan wants to remain independent.  Given the Israel example, one would think that Commentary would support the principle of a right to nuclear arms for those threatened by overwhelming numbers of enemies.  But what is good for the goose is not good for the gander in Commentary.  They may soon regret establishing such a double standard some day for it may be used against Israel.  In fact, incessant demands for apologies from Japan is similar to Barack Hussein Obama's incessant apologies and attacks on America.  We know he hates America and those whites who built this country.  But why is Commentary following this same tactic against Japan?  It makes no sense except that Commentary supports the tearing down of the traditional American nation.  But without America, there will be no Israel.  But if one thinks about it, perhaps the eggheads at Commentary just don't get it.  Remember, they support amnesty for rabidly anti-Israel illegal aliens, whether they be Muslim or MEChAists.

No comments: