UPDATE: I thank you all for an interesting range of comments; there’s plenty of good discussion to read. However, I think most of you may have missed my primary question, which is NOT about what is likely to happen, but whether partition is a viable option in Western Europe.
I don’t have any idea what is likely to happen. I just don’t think partition à la India or Gaza is a viable option. It’s not just that I don’t think it will happen, but that it can’t possibly work in the event that some misguided government (or supra-national power) attempts to implement it.
On last night’s post about the BBC, RonaldB left a comment concerning the possible eventual partition of Britain into separate Muslim and non-Muslim states. That got me thinking about the issue of partition, which has been discussed here in the past from time to time.
The most Islamized country in Western Europe is France, so the first of any partitions is likely to occur there. Marseille in particular comes to mind. But Britain, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany are close behind.
This was my comment in response:
One thing to bear in mind about partition: the new “stans” will consist primarily of urban residential areas, with no significant manufacturing plant or other productive assets. There will be no agricultural land, and the commercial base will be negligible. Unless the other side of the partition agrees to continue the delivery of jizya, the new emirates will be unable to support themselves. The kuffar would basically have to do what Israel does with Gaza: supply electricity and other necessities for free, or for a nominal charge.
I suppose a partition agreement could include the mandatory eviction of landowners from portions of prime arable land, which would then belong to the new entity. But even then, the new owners would hardly be likely to use it effectively — Muslims have a history of destroying agricultural land through bad husbandry; it seems to flow naturally from Islamic practices.
I don’t see any way in which partition could work for them. I think they will require full submission, with dhimmitude and/or enslavement for the former owners in perpetuity.
I can’t think of an outcome for all this that isn’t very, very ugly.
In recent times, we really only have three models for partition to draw on:
|1.||India and Pakistan, 1947. Muslims were evacuated from India, and Hindus were evacuated from Pakistan. The process was violent, and more than a million people were killed.|
|2.||The Israeli Evacuation of Gaza, 2005. The Israelis simply removed themselves from the Gaza Strip, leaving all their infrastructure behind (which the “Palestinians” promptly destroyed). Since then the Israelis have been supplying electricity and arranging for the shipment of other necessities to Gaza, while Hamas has shot Qassam rockets into southern Israel.|
|3.||The remains of Yugoslavia, 1992-?. Ethnic cleansing — the driving out or slaughter of other groups by whatever group has numerical superiority in the local area. If the UN and NATO had not intervened, eventually three or four contiguous states (Croatian, Serbian, Bosniak, and possibly Kosovar) would have precipitated out of the chaos, although the final death toll might well have been much higher.
Even if Western Europe were willing to endure proportional casualties, the India/Pakistan option is not really viable. The Indians and Pakistanis (and Bangladeshis) included a substantial numbers of people with experience in agriculture, and ample arable land available for farms or pasturage. No Muslim population in Europe will have either of these resources. Even if the natives abjectly hand over their best farmland, the new territories will be unable to utilize it properly, and will not be able to support themselves. They will be dependent on continuous, massive handouts for their survival (just as they are now).
The Israelis are more high-minded than other Western countries in their treatment of their deadly enemies. Can you imagine, say, France carving out a sovereign enclave in Marseille or Clichy-Sous-Bois, and then supplying it with everything it needed, all while enduring terrorism and daily rocket attacks? No, it won’t happen.
Furthermore, Israeli policy towards Gaza is crafted under intense political pressure from the United States and other Western nations. Israel has repeatedly been unable to act according to its own interests thanks to that pressure. Absent such arm-twisting, I’m not certain that the Israelis would be so kind to the Palestinians.
So who would put pressure on Western Europe to play nicey-nice with their new neighbors after all the “two-state solutions” were implemented? The UN? The USA?
We’re left with Bosnia and Kosovo to look at as models, with a similar UN wild card thrown in to gum up the works. That outcome will be very ugly indeed.
There is, of course, a fourth option: total surrender. Acceptance of dhimmi status by the formerly sovereign nations of Western Europe. They may accept the rule of their Islamic overlords, feel themselves subdued, and offer up their jizya with willing submission.
Which outcome do you think is most likely?