Neutrality is not so admirable

For the first 20 seconds you think about it, political neutrality is admirable. Not taking sides in a conflict between belligerents is thought—for a moment—to be the position of peace, of level-headedness, of moral superiority, of taking the high road.

Belgium has historically been a neutral country. The 1839 Treaty of London ratified it. Indeed, its neutrality leading up to World War II is the reason why, when the French built their infamous Maginot Line of military defense against Hitler’s Germany along France’s eastern border, it stopped at Belgium and didn’t go all the way to the English Channel to respect its neighbor’s neutrality. The German army laughed all the way through the Ardennes forest.

There may be instances where neutrality is a virtue, but I can’t think of any off the top of my head. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump claims he will treat the Israeli-Palestinian situation as a neutral issue. Good luck with that.

Queen Esther flirted with the idea of neutrality when the forces of evil were rising like a poison tide against the Jews in fifth century B.C. Persia. Cousin Mordecai disabused her of the fantasy of neutrality, warning her sternly:

“Do not think to yourself that in the king’s palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish …” (Esther 4:13-14).

Jesus was not a fan of neutrality either:

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24).

Thus He effectively eliminated the notion of a third option between right and wrong, good and evil.

Where the modern world exalts a Rodney King sentiment of “let’s all get along,” Jesus disdained lukewarmness and preferred people either hot or cold:

“So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:16)

Neutrality does not achieve what it intends—to be left alone. Brussels is now one of the most Islamic cities in Europe, with Muslims making up an estimated one-quarter of its population. The small European country has become a magnet for Islam (its second largest religion), for wimpy neutrality is never a match for fervent radicalism. The country that would be neutral now serves as the launching pad for terrorism in Europe, with Paris bombing mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud being Belgium’s homegrown son.

Henry I. Sobel, in his article “Neutrality, Morality, and the Holocaust” published in the American University International Law Review in 1998, wrote:

“[N]eutrality is nothing more than official indifference. Indifference always benefits the aggressor, never the victim.

“The countries that embraced neutrality during the Holocaust are guilty of having encouraged the divorce of ethics from politics. … [C]onfronting totalitarian regimes with ambiguity causes far greater evil than the effective use of force against them. …

“Ultimately, neutrality is an abdication of moral responsibility”

Mark Steyn writes in his 2006 warning, America Alone: “Europe has all but succumbed to the dull opiate of multiculturalism. In its drowsy numbness, it stirs but has no idea what to do and so does nothing.”

Speaking of dull opiates, the dream of neutrality reminds me of Cypher in the 1999 film The Matrix,who finally prefers to live in unreality rather than fighting for truth:

“I’m tired, Trinity, tired of this war, tired of fighting. … You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? … Ignorance is bliss.”

But things are not so blissful in Belgium this week.