ISRAEL AS CRUSADER

Mark Corby argues the similarity between the Jewish state and another polity which the West once set up on the same land AS the dust settles over the golden jubilee celebrations of the Israeli state, few recall that we will shortly be celebrating the 900th anniversary of the foundation of the Crusader state. There are many similari- ties between the two, and a strong sense that history is repeating itself.

On 15 July 1099, much to their own astonishment and against all the odds, forces of the First Crusade broke into and sacked the Holy City, Jerusalem. They then established a Western, Christian, quasi-military state that survived for two centuries, despite the hostility of the indigenous Islamic population.

On 2 November 1917 — also to the astonishment of many — Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, in an open letter to Lord Rothschild, stated that Great Britain would support the establishment of a Jewish `national home' in Palestine. This became a reality on 14 May 1948. Thus for the second time in this millennium a Western, quasi-military state was established in Palestine, despite the deep hostility of the Islamic popula- tion.

The Crusaders and Zionists both invoked God as a justification for their actions. The Crusaders, inspired by the aged French pope, Urban II, rallied to the cry of `Dios lo volt!' — `God wishes it.' The religious Zionists rely on the `covenant' made by God to Moses in the Book of Exodus and the secular ones on raw emotion.

The papacy and Mother Church provided the moral, intellectual and financial backing for the Crusaders. A combination of Hollywood, Wall Street and the media have provided the same for Israel.

In 1098 Islam was in crisis as the Egyptian Fatimids struggled for supremacy with the Seljuk Turks, and was in no position to oppose the Crusader invasion. Between 1917 and 1948 Islamic Palestine lay prostrate, first under the Ottoman Turks, then under the British Mandate, and likewise was in no position effectively to oppose the Zionist 'silent' invasion.

Having established themselves by con- quest, both the Crusaders and Zionists/ Israelis set about transforming the land into a pastiche of their respective 'home- lands'. For the Crusaders, northern France seems to have been the inspiration. The Israelis appear to have chosen California. In both cases, little regard was paid to the wishes of the Islamic host population, the Crusaders placing them at the very bottom of the feudal pile, whilst the Israelis employed the tactics of 'ethnic cleansing' to drive 800,000 of them from the land.

In retrospect, both Crusaders and Israelis were to find that the 'conquest' was to prove relatively cheap and simple in comparison to the costs and complexities of occupation. To maintain an alien Western state in the face of almost continuous opposition requires enormous military and financial effort. In the Crusaders' case this umbilical cord was provided by the spiritual and temporal rulers of Christendom. The Israeli lifeline is provided, almost without qualification, by the United States.

However, even in mediaeval Christen- dom there was some opposition to the Crusades. This was effectively stifled by the papacy and such intellectual heavy- weights as Bernard of Clairvaux and Fran- cis of Assisi. The ultimate sanction was, of course, to be accused of blasphemy, which carried a 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Today, the Israelis rely on the replacement for blasphemy (at least in the United States), political correctness, to maintain their position. The penalty for disobedi- ence might also be described as 'cruel and unusual'.

In 1144, nearly 50 years after Urban II gave the first 'call to arms', the Crusaders suffered their first major setback. The city of Edessa, coincidentally their first con- quest in the Levant, fell to Islam. Their immediate response was to push the panic button. Pope Eugenius III, assisted by Bernard of Clairvaux, obligingly launched the Second Crusade. A coalition army of Frenchmen under King Louis VII, Ger- mans under Emperor Conrad III, and smaller gangs of Flemings, Italians, English and others descended on the Holy Land. Although this crusade, like many others to follow, proved a military fiasco it did demonstrate that Christendom at this stage still possessed the will and resources to intervene in the Holy Land, whatever the cost.

Unfortunately for the Crusaders, this cost rapidly began to escalate as Islam finally began to unite under the Kurd, Saladin. Uniting Egypt and Syria, he virtu- ally destroyed the Crusaders at the battle of Hattin in 1187. His death brought some respite, but the Crusaders were now restricted to a coastal strip with their capital at Acre. Other crusades followed, most famously that of St Louis against Egypt, but ultimately to no avail. The death blow came with the fall of Acre to the Mamelukes in 1291. The final embers, at Gibelet and Ruad, were snuffed out in 1302.

The harsh facts were that it was militari- ly and financially impossible to maintain indefinitely an alien Western state at the far end of the Mediterranean against the wishes of the resident population.

Since 1917 the United States and others have launched six covert and overt cru- sades in support of Israel. In addition, the United States has maintained an almost ceaseless supply of weapons and finance, including full nuclear technology, to its unruly offspring.

Eventually the United States will tire of this burden, just as 13th-century Christen- dom tired of the Crusader states. In Chris- tendom's case the decline in the prestige of the papacy, the early stages of the devel- opment of the nation state and 'easier' crusades in the Baltic, Spain and Gascony all contributed to the lack of support for what originally had been God's work.

The United States will fear the unifica- tion of Islam under a new Saladin. Eventu- ally the fundamentalist masses will throw up something considerably more impres- sive than the lite Gamal Abdel Nasser or the ridiculous Saddam Hussein.

The new Saladin, unlike his predecessor, will probably take the struggle to the United States, in an attempt to sever the `umbilical cord'. In any event he will have to use nuclear weapons, probably the tacti- cal or micro variety: they have the supreme advantage of not requiring a conventional delivery system, being virtually hand-held. The ability of the United States to absorb such punishment is impossible to calculate, but is unlikely to exceed the two centuries set by the Crusaders.

For Islam it is a question of patience and endurance, nourished by the memory of their previous triumph. The possibility of compromise is not an option. As before, one side will have to go down fighting, perhaps taking the rest of the known world with it.

The author is a City stockbroker and former soldier. As 'Alice von Schlieffen' he initiated a well-known correspondence in The Spec- tator last year.