Middle Eastern Christians will only be secure once they have a territory of their own.

Ed West today has an article in the Telegraph in which he notes the current plight of Iraqi Christians and suggests Britain should take action in this regard, even to the point of offering sanctuary here in the UK.

I used to posit the same, but now my views have shifted.

Rather than remove this ancient Christian presence from the region, they should be given their own territory and homeland.

Sound impossible? It has been achieved in the past; just think Israel.

How would this be achieved; where would this territory be located? No idea, but I still think it’s a solution worth floating even though it’s not realistic.

Short of assimilating Christian minority groups from Islamic lands into Western nations, what is to be done?

From a purely pragmatic perspective, imagine the strategic benefits of a small Christian nation allied to the West and located in the Middle East!

I like the sound of it, even if it is only the land of my imaginings…..

Tags: , ,

12 Responses to “Middle Eastern Christians will only be secure once they have a territory of their own.”

  1. Peter Kirk Says:

    Interesting idea. At one time Lebanon was almost this, but the forces of Islam wouldn’t let it be a Christian nation. Somehow I can’t see them allowing anything like this anywhere in the Middle East. About the best they can hope for is to be resettled in Georgia, Armenia or South Sudan.

  2. Simian Says:

    No, please no, webmaster! So many reasons why a new ‘Christian Homeland’ in the Middle East would be a disaster it’s hard to know where to begin…
    History is littered with bloodshed directly caused by creating artificial states – Think Pakistan, Rwanda/Burundi, (in fact many countries in Africa), and so many others. Often the creators had wholly honorable intentions, but almost invariably the results have been disastrous.
    And surely a state such as this would just become another Israel – whose inhabitants would become convenient military targets for any neighbouring state, under the pretence of restoing the land to its ‘righful owners’, and who would be no more safe than they are now.

    And wouldn’t this be creating another theocracy? Is that a good idea? Isn’t it bad enough already with countries like Iran? Historically theocracies have ended up as oppressive and intolerant of any who do not agree with those in power who have taken it upon themselves to interpret religious doctrine, no matter what religion is involved.

    By all means offer sanctuary. Southern Cyprus springs to mind as a viable option, if they will have them. But please put right out of your head any idea of a new Christian nation in the Middle East. I think I’m going to have nightmares just thinking about this truly nightmarish idea!…

  3. Jane Chelliah Says:

    Stuart, it is a wonderful idea and I have been worrying about their security too but it would be a small/minority state and they would be under constant siege from their neighbours. The issues of boundaries, peace keeping and self-preservation will be a tremendous one for a minority state.

  4. Goy Says:

    In hoc signo vinces†

    Partition zones and UN/NATO protectorates for Christians in the muslim occupied territories of the middle east, excellent idea.

  5. marc Says:

    It might be a good idea to suggest Malawi as a safe homeland for Christians. Having first been a visiting lecturer and then later having lived there for thirteen years I found a lack of hostility between Muslims and Christians.
    But perhaps an influx of persecuted Christians might change the delicate balance in the ‘Warm Heart of Africa’. But certainly the Malawi weather would be better for Middle Eastern Christians than that in the UK.

  6. Dominic H Says:

    Simian has said above almost all that I need to say. It’s a terrible, terrible, idea.

    Secondarily, I have no sense that any such ensuing state would have any reason to be, or would likely to be, “pro-Western” in any case.

    Sanctuary is one better thing in the short term. Putting intense pressure on the existing states to treat all of their citizens as equals (however strenuous a task in the short term) is the long term solution. Absolutely the last thing the Middle East needs is another Lebanon or Israel.

  7. Dominic H Says:

    One post-thought that goes a little way towards demonstrating why any such state might not be “pro-Western” is the case of the only Christian majority state currently existing in the broad region (if Lebanon is overlooked – given that a census that would give definitive population figures by religion has been deemed inadvisable now for many many decades): the Republic of Armenia.

    Granted it has its specific history (and its continuing state of war with one of its neighbours, frozen relations with another, and very mixed relations, not based to any great extent on amity, with its only majority Christian neighbour means that it is less of a free actor than many states – although one might reasonably posit that something similar would prevail to the state that you envisage being founded)….but the fact is: it’s closest ally, in any meaningful sense, is Iran: and its nationalist groups, despite being Christian (and very vocally so) are closely aligned internationally (not only in Lebanon) with Hezbollah….

    …while the Copts, for all that they are in an absolutely perilious situation in Egypt now, are no more friendly to Israel (or to Jews, for that matter) than their Muslim compatriots…

    I would also agree with Huntingdon that Eastern forms of Christianity do indeed constitute a distinct civilisation from those in the West. He overlooked the Oriental Churches in this thesis: but the very particular outlook and ethos of Serbia and Russia since the fall of communism (and, yes, to a lesser or greater extent, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and even Greece) shows that these lands have different guiding principles from those fo the West.

    None of which advances the situation of those persecuted today, and prevents the further destruction of millenia-old Christian cultures. Pressure on the current governments and granting asylum are surely the least bad options for now, however.

  8. Goy Says:

    In hoc signo vinces†

    Malawi, Southern Cyprus or any other Christian protectorates outside the muslim occupied territories of the middle east (MOTME) would be a facilitator of cultural genocide, for that reason any Christian protectorates must be localised. The most practicable outcome maybe a rosary of Christian protectorates and corridors stretching across the MOTME and North Africa.

    To continue to ignore ethnic cleansing and push in these territories brings about the possibility of a Sharia homogeneous bloc from the Maghreb to Southeastern Europe, the formation of a definable and volatile faultline that consequently may result in a clash of civilisations.

  9. Goy Says:

    @Dominic H,

    Protection of millenia-old Christian cultures does not come with the prerequisite that they are “pro-Western”, a Sharia homogeneous bloc would be as much of a threat to the East as it would be to the West, it is a matter of threat degrees.

  10. Stephen E Dalton Says:

    Israel and the PA needs to be pressured to provide safe havens for the Christian populations. Most of the Middle Eastern Christians would prefer to live in the Middle East, rather than immigrating to the West.

  11. Tim Says:

    Oh dear, money pulls the strings: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2994/islam-conquers-european-football

    If even Christian countries aren’t particularly safe then why should Christians be safe anywhere else really?

  12. rosary Says:

    Sound impossible? It has been achieved in the past; just think Israel.

    I can’t believe no one’s picked up on this: yes, just think Israel. Regardless of what position you have on Israel, I can’t think of a better example of state-making resulting in decades of conflict. I think you need to look carefully at your definitions of “achieved” and “in the past”.

Switch to our mobile site