Pages: 1 2
Civil war broke out in the country in 2002. The “rebels,” whose support base is the Muslim north, challenged the “government,” whose power base was the non-Muslim south. Atrocities were committed on both sides. Each side accuses the other of using mercenaries. French military forces in the country participated in some of the fighting, increasingly on the side of the “rebels.”
The elections that were to have taken place in 2005 were postponed repeatedly until 2010, in part at the initiative of the UN. A power-sharing arrangement between the two main sides in the conflict went into effect in 2007 but did not hold for long. None of the forces in the country seemed to want new elections to be held, since electoral forces were evenly matched between the two halves of the now “bi-national” state. When they were eventually held in 2010, Gbagbo lost by a thin margin. But he refused to accept those results as conclusive and compelling. Aside from claims of widespread fraud, Gbagbo insisted that the victory of the party of Ouattaro was entirely thanks to the votes of the millions of illegal immigrants participating in the election!
Other African countries, led by predominantly-Muslim Nigeria, have been backing the “rebels.” A number of African countries have called for armed intervention on the side of those “rebels.” After a period of respite, violence began to escalate a few weeks ago. New Forces, now renamed the Republican Forces of Côte d’Ivoire (RFCI) have been beating Gbagbo’s army in the field, took the country’s capital city, and are now holding parts of Abidjan. Gbagbo is under siege in his headquarters and expected to fall any day now. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the battle zones, seeking refuge in neighboring countries, especially Liberia.
The conflict is too complex for a simplistic assignment of forces into categories of “good buys” and “bad guys.” There are solid bases for skepticism about the true commitment to democratic rule by either side.
Nevertheless, the conflict in the Ivory Coast shows what happens when massive illegal immigration leads to the demographic eclipse of a native population. The same Western powers so ready to strip the Serbs of their heartland to create a second Albanian nation-state in Kosovo have been unwilling to sustain any nation-state for indigenous Ivorians, and indeed have backed the aliens. Evidently the Western countries still adhere to Wilsonian principles about ethnic states and self-determination only when it is to the liking of Muslims.
But the even more obvious lesson from all this is the instability of “bi-national” states and the impossibility of preventing them from morphing into killing grounds. This should have been obvious from the experiences in Rwanda.
Yet this is precisely the fashionable “solution” to the Middle East conflict being promoted by the Bash-Israel Lobby. The bigots and boycotters demand that Israel agree to be demolished and enfolded into a larger “bi-national state,” one that would be dominated by Arabs and Muslims. Such an experiment in “bi-nationalism” would end in the best-case scenario as a civil war resembling the one in the Ivory Coast, and in the worst-case scenario in a Rwandan-style genocide. Ultimately, a new genocide against Jews is exactly what the Anti-Israel Lobby seeks. It is also the hidden agenda of the “BDS” (or Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement of economic aggression against Israel, and its close ally, the “Israel Apartheid Week” Hitlerjugend.
Massive Muslim immigration is also transforming Europe demographically, in ways strikingly similar to the influx of immigrants into the Ivory Coast. France, Belgium, and other parts of Western Europe may soon find themselves the European Ivorians, the “Other,” the stranger and disenfranchised inside their own home countries.
Pages: 1 2