The Islamic Republic of Luxembourg

[Blue Meany]

I would like to propose a thought experiment about how the Western
world would respond to the following scenario:

As a result of increasing discrimination, persecution of various
forms, and acts of violence against Muslim immigrants in Europe, there
emerges a movement for them to immigrate to a single country where the
force of their numbers will allow them some political clout and self
protection. Because of its liberal immigration policies, its
relatively small population and the social tolerance there, Luxembourg
is selected for the European Muslim homeland.

Over a period of time, Muslims from Europe and some from other
locations begin settling in Luxembourg and buying up land until they
reach about 10% of the population However, despite its reputation
for tolerance, Luxembourg citizens become uncomfortable with the
number of Muslims in the country and there are numerous incidents of
inter-religious violence. Luxembourg seeks to limit Muslim
immigration, but Muslims set up smuggling organizations, which
continue to bring in immigrants covertly. Throughout Europe they
begin arming themselves for self-defence. At a certain point, the
Muslim population of Luxembourg reaches 20% and the communal violence
continues to escalate.

Finally, the UN decides that the only way to deal with this is to
partition Luxembourg with Muslims on one side and Christians on the
other. The Muslim minority is given the majority of land, and
immediately agrees to the division, although privately Muslim leaders
say that they intend to take the entire country for the Greater
Islamic Republic of Luxembourg. The Christians reject the partition,
but before they can organize themselves to respond the Muslims have
begun forced deportations on their side of the partition line, sending
hundreds of thousands of refugees into western Luxembourg, France, and
Belgium. Never happy about having a Muslim nation in the region, and
concerned about the ethnic cleansing, Belgium and France send troops
into the Christian side of the partition but are driven back by the
Muslims, who then claim the territory they have taken by force.

The Muslims refuse to allow Christian refugees to return to their side
of the partition and they expropriate their land as abandoned
property. However, they encourage immigration of Muslims from Europe,
the Middle East and East Asia. And they begin buying up arms, with aid
from oil-rich Muslim countries, until, despite their size, they are
the most powerful military in the region.

Within 20 years they have fought two wars with their neighbors and
have seized the remainder of Luxembourg, and parts of France, Belgium
and Germany. They sporadically engage in unprovoked military action
against countries in the region, bombing a dam in Germany because it
would divert some water from Luxembourg, bombing a nuclear power plant
in Austria to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons,
and bombing the headquarters of the Luxembourg Liberation Organization
in Rome. The have plotted or threatened to overthrow the governments
of every neighboring country and they invaded and occupied the
Netherlands for 18 years and recently decimated a large part of its
infrastructure because, "The Party of God," a militant Protestant
group was launching rocket attacks on them from there.

They insist that they just want to make peace with their neighbors but
they must continue their periodic military incursions into neighboring
countries because of ongoing terrorist attacks against them. They
claim that they need the occupied territories they have as a
self-defense buffer zone, but they have moved hundreds of thousands of
Muslims into these territories and created hundreds of towns and
villages in them. Their neighbors are afraid that they will now seek
more land as a buffer zone to protect the new settlements.

But the Muslims claim that Christians are uncivilized fanatics who
just want to kill all the Muslims, so it is impossible to make peace
with them. They quote statements from Ann Coulter, a leading American
Christian political commentator as proof that this is the evil intent
of all Christians, and they cite the genocide in Bosnia as evidence
that this is not just bellicose political rhetoric. But, they say,
Muslims can fight back now. And they do.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Good analogy

I think that more Americans need to see the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in this context. Of course the right wing nuts who want to hasten the Rapture will support Israel no matter what--though I've often wondered what their thoughts were on the Palestinian Christians who have been discriminated against, thrown out of their homes, etc.

[Pab Sungenis]

2. Actually, try this on for size.

Forget Luxembourg, and move the comparison to Germany, which was partitioned for a while in modern times.

Let's pretend that instead of political lines, the partition of Germany took place over religious ones using your other criteria. The Christians are given East Germany, the Muslims West Germany and access to the international city of Berlin within East Germany. However, the Christians are also offered about half of West Germany to form a new separate state called, oh, I don't know, Bavaria.

The Christians refuse, demanding that not only East Germany and Bavaria be turned over to them, but all of the rest of West Germany as well. They start to refer to all of West Germany as "Bavaria, and all the Christian states declare war on the Muslims, to drive them out of "Bavaria."

[cali]

3. clumsy. really, really clumsy.

There's no historical context included in your theoretical proposition. And historical context may have more to do with the creation of Israel than any other single factor- rightly or wrongly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Well, you're more than welcome to add historical context.

Righting the wrongs done to one people by wronging another is not sound policy in any historical context. Regardless of what lead Israel to its formation and its psyche, it does precious little to alter the parallel drawn by the OP.

[Vegasaurus]

5. Are you anti-Immigration? nt

[Igel]

6. As stated, I'd be incensed.

But then again, I don't see much of an analogy.

Take some examples.

"Over a period of time, Muslims from Europe and some from other
locations begin settling in Luxembourg and buying up land until they
reach about 10% of the population However, despite its reputation
for tolerance, Luxembourg citizens become uncomfortable with the
number of Muslims in the country and there are numerous incidents of
inter-religious violence."

Of course, there were significant Muslim populations there since 650, I would have to assume, just sufficiently subdued, and they had formed a majority of the population at one time. Of course, the Kaabah had originally been there before being made into the dominate cathedral in the area.

"The Muslim minority is given the majority of land", not to own, but to govern. There is a difference, of course.

"However, they encourage immigration of Muslims from Europe, the Middle East and East Asia." That the Xians actively "encourage" the Muslims in the rest of Europe, including some riots and persecution, also contributes greatly to the Muslims elsewhere not so much emigrating, but abandoning their possessions and becoming refugees.

"Within 20 years they have fought two wars with their neighbors and
have seized the remainder of Luxembourg, and parts of France, Belgium
and Germany." Of course, that France, Belgium, and Germany attacked them might be seen as a reason. "Unprovoked", given verbiage and a history of supporting those who do attack--but undertake no direct actions themselves--might be a bit of an exaggeration. After all, during peacetime, when no Muslims were being killed (one would assume), and even before occupation, there was a low-level guerrilla war in which scores of unarmed Muslims were killed. Ignore the internal contradiction: Peace = Muslims being killed. Such is the nature of the definition.

So getting support for your analogy is really quite easy. Finding where the analogy applies ... not so easy.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Do we really need a thought experiment here?

All right, it's not happening in Luxembourg now. But in colonial times, and at the time of independence, similar things happened in various places.

For example: suppose that most of a subcontinent has been under colonial rule for a couple of centuries. It contains a significant number of Muslims and of non-Muslims. Supposing that when colonial rule finally ends, it is arranged that the country be partitioned between Muslims and non-Muslims. Supposing that this results in the displacement and relocation of over 14 million people immediately, and many others at a later stage. Supposing that it ignites violent conflict, resulting in the deaths of about 500,000 people. Supposing that repercussions of the conflict continue over the subsequent decades. And supposing that this happened at almost exactly the same time as the establishment of the State of Israel, but somehow many people seem to think that 'Zionism' is the be-all and end-all of all ethnic conflict, violence, and 'ethnic cleansing' anywhere in the world.

(I assume it's obvious to all what I'm referring to.)