click here to jump to start of article
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

The Significance of the Spanish Elections

The Significance of the Spanish Elections

Another unfortunate example of classical appeasement.


The March 11 train bombings in Spain were not only an immense human tragedy, with more than 200 killed and over a thousand wounded, but a disaster for the Western world. They demonstrated that Al Qaeda retains the ability to mount highly coordinated and lethal operations in the heart of Europe, despite the killing or capture of most of its top leadership over the past two years.

But the prime importance of last week's events in Spain lies in what they reveal about the state of the Western mind. Finding themselves the target of terrorism, Spaniards' primary reaction was not to direct their fury at the terrorists but at their own government. Their first question was, "What have we done to make Al Qaeda angry?" And the answer they gave was to blame Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar for allying with the United States to liberate Iraq and stationing Spanish troops there. In short, the reflexive response of classical appeasement.

The timing of the attacks leaves no doubt that Al Qaeda's immediate goal was to influence the outcome of the Spanish election. And in that they have been entirely successful. Prior to the bombings, all Spanish polls showed the Popular Party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar well ahead. In the aftermath of the train bombings, however, the Socialist Party, which opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom and pledged to bring Spanish troops home from Iraq, swept to victory. (The government's clumsy attempts to blame the attack on the ETA Basque separatists did not help its cause either.)

What the Spanish electorate, and with it most of the West, still has not grasped is that it is engaged in a death struggle with radical Islam.

Terrorists have thus succeeded in determining the election results in a major Western democracy. That dramatic success -- almost as dramatic in its own way as 9/11 -- can only confirm the jihadists' contempt for the weakness and the cowardice of the West and whet their attempt for further attacks at the heart of Europe.

What the Spanish electorate, and with it most of the West, still has not grasped is that it is engaged in a death struggle with radical Islam. Whatever minute plausibility there was to the view of radical Islam as a movement with defined, rational objectives when Osama bin Laden was still ranting about the defiling presence of infidels in the Land of the Two Mosques (Saudi Arabia) disappeared along with the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia.

In the war of Islam on the West, the jihadists are willing to overlook everything else. That is why Al Qaeda cooperated with secular Baathist elements in Iraq both prior to Saddam Hussein's overthrow and afterwards.

Hatred of the West is a natural outgrowth of the twisted worldview of the jihadists. They view the world in terms of an epic struggle between two religions, with the wrong one presently winning. This religious component adds the lethal element to the normal hatred of the weak and poor for the strong and rich.

In the war declared by the jihadists, nothing short of returning the Iberian Peninsula to its former Moslem rulers and accepting dhimmi status would remove Spain from their sights. The failure of Spaniards this week, and virtually the entire West in the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, to recognize what is at stake is a truly ominous portent for the future.

Daniel Pipes wrote four years ago, apropos of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, that history shows that victory usually belongs in the long run not to the side with greater military or economic power but to that with the greater will and belief in its cause. The will of the West is today being tested in place after place. And the preliminary signs are far from encouraging.

The evidence grows daily that Iran seeks to be the second possessor of an Islamic nuclear bomb, and yet the response of the West to this threat remains at best sporadic and faltering. Even as the examples multiply of Iranian deception concerning the advanced state of its plutonium enrichment efforts, the Europeans continue to opt for a policy of "constructive engagement" rather than one of tough sanctions against Iran for fear of losing lucrative contracts. That focus on short-term gain without regard to the long-term risk is characteristic of the appeasement mentality.

The one nation whose leader has consistently understood the need for a powerful response to the threat of radical Islam and the necessity of projecting strength and resolve is America. And even here, the picture is not unmixed.

Establishing any semblance of a stable, representative government in Iraq will neither be quick or easy, and it may not be achievable at all. Yet the maximum effort must be made. No other Arab state provides a comparable opportunity to reverse the pattern of endemic failure that characterizes the entire Arab world, and which makes it one large festering sore producing a pus of hatred directed at the West.

Nothing strikes more fear into the hearts of the jihadists than that a modern state with Western freedoms might emerge in Iraq. The recently discovered letter by top Al Qaeda honcho Abud Musab al-Zarqawi in which he laments the emerging gap between Islamic radicals and the people of Iraq, which would be sealed for good by the emergence of democracy, is a case in point.

Yet bringing such a state into being will take time and vast resources. As Bernard Lewis pointed out in a lecture at the Hebrew University last week, if America contents itself with quick elections and early withdrawal, without laying the basis for a civil society, the likeliest result will be something like the murderous decade long civil war in Algeria, which was triggered by the victory of Islamic parties in the nation's first elections.

On this score, there are worrisome signs concerning the Bush administration's determination in the midst of an election year. The eagerness to turn over supervision of elections to the U.N., never a body noted for its commitment to democracy, and the concern with establishing an expedited schedule of troop withdrawal are not propitious omens.

For their part, the Democrats are lost in a pre-9/11 time warp. John Kerry offers the painless nostrum of improved law enforcement and better intelligence as the proper response to terrorism. The Clinton administration treated the first World Trade Center bombing as a law enforcement problem of rounding up a few bad apples, and the destruction of the WTC was the result. Kerry offers more of the same. With the sole exception of Joe Lieberman, every Democratic primary candidate either ran against the Iraq war or the large commitment to the rebuilding of Iraq.

The beneficial results of the projection of American power in the Arab world have become plainer than ever. Besides the opportunities now afforded by Iraq, the single most salutary recent development is Libya's decision to abandon its advanced program for joining the nuclear club -- a program about which the chief international inspection agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, was clueless until the Libyans themselves revealed it. The Libyan decision has one, and only one, proximate cause: fear of the American might seen on display in Iraq.

Yet the Democrats would turn America into a Gulliver willingly submitting to be tied down by the Lilliputians. How else to describe their obsession with multilateralism? To the multilateralists, represented by the Democratic Party, American power represents not the best hope for mankind but the greatest threat. They would subject America to the whims of European appeasers and the U.N.

The multilateralists mania for international treaties, which do nothing to restrain rogue states, and their endless whining about following proper procedures is based, as Charles Krauthamer points out, on a utopian dream of fashioning an international order on the model of domestic civil society in advanced democracies.

But that model is hopelessly flawed. Unlike domestic civil society, the international community lacks any central authority with the power to enforce its rules. Nor do the nations of the world -- take for instance Britain, Cuba, and Zimbabwe -- share the common values that make civil society possible.

The Spanish elections demonstrate that the Europeans have not yet comprehended the new reality revealed by 9/11. They are repeating, with far less justification, the mistake made by Chamberlain of treating those bent on their destruction as rational calculators, who can be bought off by tactical concessions. But the even greater fear is that the next American elections might show that Americans too have unlearned the painful lessons of 9/11.

This article originally appeared in Hamodia.

March 20, 2004

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 27

(26) Anonymous, May 29, 2013 4:05 PM

be good

Read and study the book of Daniel. Don,t waste ur time worrying, they,re taking over. Do ur mitzvahs, talk with God. Be good.

(25) John, May 21, 2004 12:00 AM

Not simple appeasement

Don't underestimate the spanish. If anything a country rallies around it's president when there is a catastraphe. This country was forced to wake up and to vote for someone who stood for what they really wanted in the first place.

(24) Richard Garcia, May 2, 2004 12:00 AM

Am I missing something?

One of the mantras of the international left is that Al Qaeda had no ties to the Saddam Hussein regime. We have even heard that Osama and Hussein were mortal enemies. Now these same people are insisting (and they are in this case right)that the reason for the atrocious bombings in Spain was that Al Qaeda was punishing Spain for its involvement in Iraq.

Furthermore, these people are saying that Spain should not have been distracted from its participation in the War on Terror (which those on the left contend should only be directed against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan)by getting involved in this "unrelated" war in Iraq.

Now I must be missing something. If Osama and Hussein were foes, Al Qaeda would have welcomed, or at the very least would not have reacted to Spain's involvement in Iraq. But wait a minute,
it seems that Al Qaeda is a little upset at Spain's participation in Iraq (go figure.)

Now we are told, Spain will focus on fighting Al Qaeda. But we now know that Spain can be intimidated, and if Chas v'Shalom, the terrorists commit some other atrocity in Spain, one can only expect that Spain will follow the path of least resistance.

(23) Anonimatta, April 16, 2004 12:00 AM

Like everything there's more behind the story

I'm getting really annoyed by US columnists or wherever who just sit comfortably and form opinions on whatever.
It's not appeasement to Islamic terrorists. Many people were already disgusted with the ruling party's policies not just because of Iraq. The statistics show many people were going to vote for PP but there were many people who weren't going to bother to vote because they felt that PP was going to win anyhow so they didn't bother. But the attacks motivated them to vote.
Another thing that is never mentioned in the US is that 90% of the spanish population were opposed to going to Iraq and that includes voters of the PP. Already before the attacks, people were not happy. I think what's going on is one side sees blue and the other side sees red. Each is judging the other from their own point of view. There are fundamental differences between the US viewpoints and European viewpoints. The Spanish do not see Iraq and Islamic terrorists as the same thing,they see them as different issues the US thinks they are the same thing. So the US feels this is appeasement.
The Spanish will not appease terrorists whether Islamic or not. They've been fighting terrorism for far longer than the US and do not appease terrorists. It's with a profound misunderstanding that many Americans say this. The Spanish are not fearful.

sharon, May 29, 2013 12:10 PM

more than 20 years as a jew in spain

Yes, it's true, over 90% of the spanish population were against the iraq war and about 94% of the population protested against it! But, altho spain doesn't appease it's own terrorists, which are nothing compared to the terrorists israel faces...most socialist during zapateros ruling, were bending over backwards to appease and appear non racist to all, except of course jews and gypsies!! Basically, as an arab you got full respect, but as jew you were to be argued with, told you were a fascist and distrespected! The author is not underestimating the spanish, the spanish overestimate their intellectuallity, while not getting there at all! Most venerate arrafat and feel their arab blood, while ignoring their jewish blood and history concerning the jews absolutely!! There are many things i love about spain, but not their pseudo intelectuals, zapatero and the like!!

See All Comments

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment