Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Required viewing for any Jew (and Non-Jew)

by oldschooltwentysix

When the message is clearly more important than the messenger, it deserves to be heard.

Of course, I agree with this message, even if I might not agree with everything that Caroline Glick says. Too many use the argument that to agree with a person on an issue means you adopt every view of that person. It is not only a silly, over-simplistic argument to make, but it is wrong to impugn one by association in this way. 

Those who summarily dismiss Glick and others like her as bigots are mistaken. They cannot discern the difference between aggression and the response to aggression. Or so it seems to me. Sometimes I question their intentions.

Enough of me. Listen to her, and the message that all Jews should digest.

53 comments:

  1. Thank you for posting this, School.

    Caroline said this concerning Jewish left supporters of Israel:

    You're put in an untenable position when you're called upon to decide between your Zionism and your Leftism. And the more anti-Israel left-wing forces in American politics and social forces become, the more difficult it is for Jews who identify with the Left to maintain their support for Israel.

    Although I do not entirely disagree, I have a somewhat different sensibility on it.

    What I have been saying for years - and what first got me tagged as a trouble maker on dkos - is that the more anti-Israel left-wing forces in American politics and social forces become, the more difficult it is for Jews who identify with Israel to maintain their support for the progressive-left or the Democratic party.

    It's the same thing, except the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The captions, as always on such videos, are essentially useless and made me click away after about two minutes, but I'll try to watch it sometime later this week when I can sit down with the headphones for a bit.

      Of course, I'm sure I'm probably not one who needs to be convinced of what she's saying. ;)

      Anyway.

      That's an interesting quote, Mike.

      It's something I generally disagree with, but I surely understand where the general sentiment comes from.

      In my case, I participate at exactly zero progressive-left general political blogs (not including specific issue, left-leaning blogs on topics such as livable streets, active transportation and food politics) these days, mainly because I just don't feel comfortable in places where I know there's a damned good chance that a certain sort of ugliness lies just underneath the surface of all too many at such places these days.

      Which is not to say that I believe 'anti-Zionists' (who are straight up bigots, no question) are a majority at such places (though the fact that they're considered acceptable by the clear majority at places like Daily Kos is pretty bad), or that I can't get along with people who think differently than I do (I post here, don't I?), but rather to say that I do weigh this one issue pretty heavily in comparison to others, and antisemitic 'anti-Zionists' are definitely on the list of people I just don't ever want to associate with by choice. Unlike, say, people who may disagree with me on tax policy or transportation issues.

      You know what I mean?

      Just because some idiot on the Left hates Israel, doesn't mean I'm going to stop volunteering at community gardens and Safe Routes to School events, or start working to bust my own union.

      I would like to think I'm far from alone on that count.

      Delete
    2. Jay, I do not think that the majority of the left is anti-Zionist.

      Not at all.

      The problem is that the majority of the left accepts anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of their larger coalition and generally without even understanding or caring about the fact that anti-Zionism is, in fact, anti-Semitic.

      The truth is that we still very much need pro-Israel people on the left to be on the left and to engage in those kinds of grassroots, healthful activities.

      There is no contradiction.

      You guys represent our last line of defense on the western left.

      The only thing that I want is for pro-Israel progressives to acknowledge the problem and to understand why many of us are naturally going to oppose a movement that seems entirely inimical to our own best interests.

      In truth, you may represent the best personal example that I know of as a pro-Israel progressive who is willing to stand your ground for Israel, as you stand your ground for the left, while acknowledging the problems of the left when it comes to its ugly relationship with the Jewish State of Israel.

      {How's that for a sentence!}

      :O)

      You are a brother.

      Delete
    3. This -

      The problem is that the majority of the left accepts anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of their larger coalition and generally without even understanding or caring about the fact that anti-Zionism is, in fact, anti-Semitic.

      The above is basically undeniable, and is precisely the problem as I see it right now.

      The truth is that we still very much need pro-Israel people on the left to be on the left and to engage in those kinds of grassroots, healthful activities.

      There is no contradiction.


      We agree. And I'm a somewhat persnickety critter with curmudgeonly tendencies, so you know I sure ain't going nowhere anytime soon. ;)

      Delete
    4. (I'm sure in a year or so, once I'm fully settled into my new life routine, I'll go back to some of those places I left, to make the more intelligent amongst them think about these very things, if nothing else)

      Delete
    5. Jay,

      "Just because some idiot on the Left hates Israel, doesn't mean I'm going to stop volunteering at community gardens and Safe Routes to School events, or start working to bust my own union."

      Ah, you're thinking like an Israeli. :) That's the separation of issues I've always talked about, the contrast to the package-deal politics that characterizes Americans.

      It's strange to think about it: My hawkish stance is somewhere between mainstream and acceptable in Israel, but my views on the economy, my fiscal conservatism, is atypical. That's the kind of thing Americans find so puzzling about Israeli politics, the (to them) impossible combination of right-wing geopolitics and left-wing economics that are typical of Israeli Jews.

      Mike,

      "The problem is that the majority of the left accepts anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of their larger coalition..."

      I would say, as part of their causes celebrees (sp? Dang those frog terms!) that seem to be how a left-winger should think. Put the idea that a left-winger should be on the side of the weak and oppressed, then add to it the lie that Zionism is a colonial enterprise oppressing the weak, stateless "non-Jewish indigenous nation" of the land, and left-wing anti-Zionism naturally follows.

      One reason (among many) for insisting on telling the truth that the Jews are the only true indigenous Palestinians is that it might help in swaying left-wingers away from their type of anti-Zionism. It must be made clear that anti-Zionism means standing for imperialist aggression and colonial dispossession directed against an indigenous people on their soil.

      Delete
  2. Your sense, which seems an argument to make to Jews and others, complements her view, which is an explanation of why Jews that honor anti-Zionists and Jew haters, behave so.

    I cannot understand why these Jews cannot understand that they will not be spared for having been politically correct and empowering illiberalism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that there are two possibilities.

      They either want to be pro-Jewish reformers on the left or they are simply in denial concerning the left-wing alliance with BDS and anti-Zionism.

      That's the difference.

      Someone like Jay is in the former category. I have chosen to jump ship as he has chosen to bail water. I admire him for his courage, but I have not made the same choice.

      On the other hand, someone like fizziks, for example, maintains that the progressive-left has not made a home for itself of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism and, thus, while Jay is bailing water out of the progressive-left boat, fizziks is pouring the water back in because he is in denial.

      If you get me.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. There are no absolute explanations, however.

      I can see that some believe Jews will prosper in Utopia, even as history shows that Utopians will abandon the Jews, the symbol of Western evil, when it is expedient.

      Conversely, to prosper against this potentiality, others say that Jews must invest in their own themselves, not apologize to those that seek to weaken this effort, and to set the record clear about the intent and flaws of the Utopians.

      Delete
    3. "others say that Jews must invest in their own themselves, not apologize to those that seek to weaken this effort, and to set the record clear about the intent and flaws of the Utopians."

      Yes. But I, myself, in my defending Israel, don't think of my defending Israel as "investing in my own". I'm defending Israel out of my feeling strong aversion to the wrong action that is being done toward Israel, and because I identify with Israel -- because I'm Jewish -- I come from a Jewish cultural background -- I was born Jewish in my current birth, my family is Jewish, I grew up among Jewish people (although I grew up mainly among non-Jewish people) -- so I know Jewish culture and the Jewish people intimately, and so I know the wrongness of the wrong that's being done to the Jewish people -- and because, because I'm Jewish, I'm in a situation that is involved with the situation that the Jewish people are in, and that, as part of that, Israel is in.

      And, in any case, defending Israel is, for everyone, the right thing to do. It's the beneficial thing to do. It's beneficial for everyone.

      Defending Israel with right action -- skillful action -- beneficial action -- skillful non-violent action -- is the right thing to do.

      And I've been trying to defend Israel with right action.

      Delete
    4. Sounds to me as if you are investing in yourself and your people, and Israel is part and parcel of that, as it is the indigenous land of the Jews.

      People that invest in themselves will convince others that the investment is worthy.

      Delete
    5. Well, the thing for me -- the main reason I've been defending Israel -- is because of the vexation that I've felt because of the lies that have been propagated against Israel. And I've felt that vexation because I have experienced the situation of being Jewish, and because, therefore, and as part of that, I know the nature of the Jewish people and Jewish culture, and the facts of the continuous persecution and libeling of the Jewish people throughout the past two thousand years by Western non-Jewish people, and the facts of the history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in. That's what I meant to express in my previous comment. And I felt compelled to express that which I meant to express because I felt uneasy about my writing my previous comments on this thread, because I felt that my getting involved in the situation was unwholesome -- unbeneficial for me and for others. But I'm glad that Jewish people are finally telling the truth and verbally defending themselves -- verbally defending their own people. I think that it's good for everyone.

      Delete
    6. Daniel Bielak,

      I should never have disparaged your choices. Give me a Jubu who stands with his people and not a Neturei Karta traitor who kisses hairy Iranian Hitlercheeks between tefillin and the minha prayer.

      Kudos!

      Delete
    7. Thanks, ziontruth. :)

      But, please don't worry: the unease -- the moral dread -- that I felt had to do with my own psyche -- my own mind -- my own sense of things -- my own perspective -- and wasn't a result of anything that you have expressed to me. I have severe OCD. And I'm Buddhist. And I'm Jewish -- I'm Jewish in the world -- during this time in the world. So I'm in a difficult situation. So that's why I have felt what I have felt and that's why I have done what I have done. I have felt overwhelmingly responsible. And I have felt dread for wrong actions that I feel that I have done.

      But thank you for what you wrote to me. It made me feel better. It made me feel that there are more people out there than just me -- more people out there than just me who know the reality of the situation -- more people out there than just me who know what's wrong and what's right -- and, as part of that, it made me feel that what I say and do is not so overwhelmingly important in regards to how it affects others, and that mistakes that I may make are not so horrific in their consequences, and that I have tried to express the truth, and that wrong actions that I feel that I have done by my trying to communicate the truth as a result of my feeling the unwholesome feeling vexation are relatively minor and affect mainly only myself -- my own mind.

      And, by the way, I realize and appreciate and share the disapproval that you have for the ideologically genocidal racist anti-Jewish President of the ideologically genocidal racist anti-Jewish regime in Iran, but I think that it's especially important for people who are in difficult situations such as the situation that the Jewish people are in to not pejoratively refer to physical, and therein irrelevant, attributes of people who are doing evil actions and who are posing a severe danger, but to, rather, call out -- describe and express disapproval of -- the evil actions done by those people who are posing a severe danger. And, by the way, I, myself, and, I think, other Jewish people who, like me, are not ideologically genocidal anti-Jewish bigots, and, I think, other people who, like me, are not ideologically genocidal anti-Jewish bigots, are not non-hairy. :) The way is difficult, but possible. The way out of suffering is difficult, but possible. Doing what leads to the cessation of suffering is difficult, but possible. Doing what's right is difficult, but possible. Doing what's skillful is difficult, but possible. And I apologize if I'm preaching. I don't mean to be preaching. I just want to communicate what I hope may be beneficial to communicate. I just want to do what's right. I just want to do what's beneficial.

      Best wishes,

      Dan

      Delete
    8. Dan,

      I had to say it no matter what. I realized something—a characteristic of Orthodox Jewish believers, that they tend to forget that belief is not wholly in a person's hands, and there are many people, Jewish or not, who just can't bring themselves to believe in what I believe, try as hard as they might.

      You're a lot like Herzl. He too couldn't believe in the tenets of Jewish orthodoxy, but he believed in his people and led the fight for them.

      "...but I think that it's especially important for people who are in difficult situations such as the situation that the Jewish people are in to not pejoratively refer to physical, and therein irrelevant, attributes..."

      Jes' jokin' on Ahmadinejad's expense, the least I can do... :) But seriously, I view Iran's hostility to Israel as something more painful than the conflict Israel has with the Arabs aside us—I think it's tragic that Iran got to be from a friendly nation (in the Shah's time as in Cyrus's) toward the Jews to the most hostile (today as in Haman's time). The Persians are a great nation and, moreover, would have absolutely no reason to be in conflict with us if it were not for Islam. They've been victims of the Arab religion since the 7th century to this day, and that's really tragic. Unfortunately I don't see this changing in the foreseeable future.

      Delete
    9. Dear ziontruth,

      I apologize for not replying to you earlier.

      Thank you for your kind words.

      Best wishes,

      Dan

      Delete
  3. Well-said, Caroline Glick!

    Thank you for posting this, oldschooltwentysix.

    Nicky Larkin: An Irish political activist former hater of Israel who is now an advocate for Israel:

    Came to Film Documentary, Left as a Pro-Israel Activist
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_KlIWFX4_M

    Nicky Larkin: "The worst enemy of Israel can be the Jews themselves."; "The more Jewish the audience the more they hated the [pro-Israeli] film. And I just felt completely devastated really -- having taken all of this abuse in Ireland to then go get my head cut off by the people I was trying to stand up for."

    Article by Nicky Larkin which Nicky Larkin referred to in this video:

    Israel is a refuge, but a refuge under siege
    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/nicky-larkin-israel-is-a-refuge-but-a-refuge-under-siege-26830835.html

    "Through making a film about the Israeli-Arab conflict, artist Nicky Larkin found his allegiances swaying"

    "I used to hate Israel. I used to think the Left was always right. Not any more. Now I loathe Palestinian terrorists. Now I see why Israel has to be hard. Now I see the Left can be Right -- as in right-wing. So why did I change my mind so completely? ..."

    ----

    And, by the way, on another note:

    Does Israel Benefit from US Foreign Aid?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYQ0sJWt7ac

    And:

    The U.S. government's financial "aid" to Israel is a very small fraction of the economy of Israel. (I think it's something like 1% to 6% of the economy of Israel. I'm not sure exactly what percentage it is, but it's something like that. It's around that. It's very low.)

    The economy of Israel is based on the global private investment in the technological (high-tech, medical, environmental, etc.) innovation developed by Israelis at Israeli companies.

    ISRAEL START-UP NATION
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EQliG9Wsdo

    And, by the way, the U.S. government gives more financial aid, in total, to Muslim states in the Middle East than the U.S. government gives to Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Nicky Larkin: "Now I loathe Palestinian terrorists. Now I see why Israel has to be hard.":

      However, as I've said, the way to protect Israel is not to do violent action but to do skillful non-violent action -- particularly simply to tell the truth -- the essential basic facts of the history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in.

      Delete
    2. I don't understand why everyone does not loath Palestinian terrorists....AND their enablers, supporters, useful idiots and those who lionize them as "freedom fighters," or martyrs.

      Delete
    3. Unless and until they change their ways, I loathe terrorists and their enablers and their supporters and their useful idiots.

      Fwiw. ;)

      Delete
    4. Doodad,

      the reason that they do not loathe Arab murderers of Jews is because they honestly believe that when Arabs try to kill Jews - or when their kids throw boulders at cars on the highways in Israel - it's a matter of social justice and human rights.

      Ultimately they are idealists, as were the Nazis.

      Delete
    5. Mike,

      "...it's a matter of social justice and human rights."

      And there it all begins.

      They see the same world we see, but through different glasses than we wear.

      It's all about that Ship of 1882. We see the Ship of 1882 as one that carried Jews returning to their land, while they see it as the beginning of a white, European colonization on 19th-century lines.

      The clash of the narratives isn't about 1967, it's not even about 1948; it's about how you regard the Ship of 1882. That's the way I see it, and that's why I put so much emphasis on the issue I do—you know, refuting the lie that Zionism is a European colonial movement, and telling the truth that the Jews are here by right, holding their own against Arab or Islamic imperialist greed.

      Social justice and human rights demand standing with us. Or, if that's too much to ask, I say neutrality would be fine. But we must insist that supporting our enemies is supporting an unjust cause, and make that truth clear to all those who purport to have justice at the center of their political thinking. Confront them with their ignorance or hypocrisy until they squirm.

      Delete
  4. Every single nugget of 'recent' history (say 1870 forward) shows us that 'leftism' and that squishy name changes over the years, has always been antisemitc, antizionist, whathaveyou. Even Marx openly was antisemite as far back as the 1840's and amplified his position my 1864. The proto leftist and anarchist and revolutionary movements were typically antisemitic, openly so - the so nationalist movements in Germany, Romania, Hungary for instance were avowedly antisemitic and assumed as an article of faith that the Jews from all those nascent countries should be expelled. The Polish Catholic Church in the 1880's spearheaded a nationalist movement and their main plank was that 1/3rd of Jews would be killed, 1/3rd would convert and 1/3rd would leave. The Russians picked up on this after 1882.

    The Bolsheviks had many Jews in their ranks, but where else would Jews even go? After Lenin, Stalin removed all Jews from senior positions and this antisemitic persecution continued all through to his death. The CCCP used antizionism and antisemitism frankly.

    In the US leftist groups were made up of quite a rabble of Jews - Reform type cultural Jews who were antizionist. Does the name Elmer Berger ring any bells?

    After the mid 50's when the old left turned into the new left it adopted, in spirit the Soviet stance of 'liberation' which was at its core antizionist and antisemitic. This was even more prevalent in the European leftist movements of the 1960's through the summer of 68 when leftist groups all over Europe tended even further left than they had been before. Eventually groups like the RAF (Red Army Faction) and Baader-Meinhof adopted nearly Nazi positions, in fact the founder of Baader Meinhof, Horst Mahler is today a right wing Nazi extremist. The famous "Marxist" terrorist of the 70's Carlos the Jackal is now a Muslim antisemite.

    Back here in the US, need we rehash Chomsky, Finkelstein, or Huffington Post, Raw Story, TPM, Salon, DKos, FDL, the Atlantic, Alternet, the Forward. What about the Guardian or the BBC, Le Monde?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not so. Many early Zionists were of the Left. Ben Gurion, for example.

      It's just that, according to Glick, they could see their Jewish heritage, rather than turn away from it.

      Delete
    2. What school said.

      At the same time that we must point out how antisemitic 'anti-Zionism' has found an unfortunate foothold in today's 'progressive' left, it does not help in any way to dismiss the entirety of the left as antisemitic.

      Delete
    3. Zionism is compatible with Leftism that doesn't wish to do away with nationhood in general and doesn't buy into the lie that the Jews are interlopers in the Land of Israel. The tragedy of the relationship between Zionism and the Left is that those views have drifted to the mainstream on the Left in the past few decades.

      If you were to read the manifesto of the old scout organization HaShomer HaTza'ir ("The Young Guardian") in Israel, you'd call it a Marxist organization. And you'd nearly be right, with one exception: It was a Zionist, meaning Jewish nationalist, organization. Just one, single difference, but that was enough—because, except as a tactical move (the way the U.S.S.R. supported "oppressed nations"), nationalism is considered another distraction, another "opiate," by the Marxists, and so HaShomer would be rejected as a Marxist organization.

      It's not hypothetical. The left-wing Zionists sent delegates to the 2nd Communist International in 1920, thinking that, as true-red socialists, they would be happily admitted. They were rebuffed on the grounds of being part of a nationalistic movement alone. Throughout the 1920s and 30s, the U.S.S.R. made efforts to coax Zionists off their nationalism and into anti-nationalist, mainstream Marxism. The Communist Party of Palestine in the 1930s was among the earliest advocates of a binational, shared Jewish/Arab state. In fact, Marxism has been relentless in its activities against Zionism except for a tiny (though critical) slice of time in 1947–9 when Stalin agreed to vote for the creation of Israel in order to open a Soviet sphere of influence in the Middle East. (After 1949, things returned to "business as usual.")

      In the 1950s, Israel's strongest relations were not with America (especially not right after the 1956 war) but with France, then headed by socialist governments. But those were not Marxists—they were Social-Democrats. In those days, the Marxist doctrine of anti-nationalism was still confined to the Eastern Bloc, and the Arab–Soviet propaganda device of portraying Zionism as a branch of Western imperialism was only just getting started (nobody in the West knew of a non-Jewish "Palestinian nation" prior to 1960). That was, therefore, the heyday of compatibility, and good relations, between Zionism and the Left.

      Zionism is what it always was, but the Left has changed beyond FDR's recognition. It has changed in a way that has rendered it incompatible with Zionism. Ironically, it is mainly in Israel that the older Left survives, in the form of a great many Israeli Jews who are for socialism but do not accept the messianic, utopian, anti-nationalist vision of Marxism.

      Delete
    4. Trudy,

      thank you for referencing Elmer Berger. I had not heard of this gentleman before, but apparently there is a recent book out by Jack Ross entitled, Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism

      There are few things on this earth that I despise more than Jewish anti-Zionists. It would be something akin to a black person supporting George Wallace in his campaign for the presidency in 1968.

      Ziontruth makes an important point when he writes this:

      "Zionism is compatible with Leftism that doesn't wish to do away with nationhood in general and doesn't buy into the lie that the Jews are interlopers in the Land of Israel."

      The problem need not be inherent on the left. Most of the progressives that I have known (and know) are not particularly anti-nationalist. They are certainly less nationalistic then the right - and thus less patriotic - but none of them in my acquaintance actually called for the elimination of the nation-state... except in the case of the Jews.

      They would never in a million years call for the elimination of, say, France as the national homeland of the French people, however they are comfortable with calls to eliminate Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and for precisely the reason that Zion highlights.

      They often view us as interlopers on our own land, despite around 4,000 years of continuous presence and despite the fact that the only people to ever hold sovereignty within a state there is the Jewish people.

      Ziontruth has helped convince me of a basic theme that I was inclined toward, anyway; that Israel is the land of the Jewish people and that the land includes Judea and Samaria. That small bit of land, from the river to the sea, is the Land of Israel.

      If we stake that claim, however, despite our obvious historical rights to our own land, what does this mean in terms of our relationship with the local Arabs and any possible prospects for ending or easing the conflict?

      As you guys are probably aware, Martin Gilbert of the JPost has a written a number of articles in opposition to unilateral withdrawal. I actually favor unilateral withdrawal because the local Arab leadership simply cannot be trusted to negotiate an end of hostilities and because Israel need not take on the responsibility of several million more Arabs under their jurisdiction.

      Thus I continue to maintain that Israel needs to declare its final borders, remove the IDF to behind those borders, and toss keys over its shoulder on the way out.

      How am I wrong?

      Delete
    5. Mike,

      "They would never in a million years call for the elimination of, say, France as the national homeland of the French people,..."

      Hmmm, my view of this is a bit different. I think the reason they'd never call for the elimination of France as the national homeland of the French people is because they don't have to call for it—it's enough for them that France is wide open to Islamic colonization by its former possessions in North Africa (like Houari Boumedienne said it would happen) with no mainstream political resistance (because that would be "Racist!"). No need for a direct call for the dissolution of the European nation-states when it's already in the process.

      Israel is different because there's strong resistance to multinationalism among the indigenous population (the Jews), resistance that is quite mainstream and which the cries of "Racism!" do little to shut down. The directness of the anti-Zionist call reflects a desperation that can't be found in the case of France, because in France all the anti-nationalist Far Left has to do is make sure nationalist resistance doesn't become acceptable in political settings. The Far Left are against indigenous French self-determination just as they are against indigenous Palestinian (=Jewish), but Israel's case presents them with far more bitter a struggle than France, hence the blatant character of anti-Zionism.

      "Thus I continue to maintain that Israel needs to declare its final borders, remove the IDF to behind those borders, and toss keys over its shoulder on the way out."

      How do we keep things (like rockets) seeping out of those new neighboring Arab states? When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in August 2005, it was with that intention—that what happened in Gaza would stay in Gaza. It was not to be, and in our attempts to stop the rocket attacks we have had to employ defensive measures that the hypocritical West condemns as "turning Gaza into an open-air prison" (at best). I don't see how the outcome would be different with a unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria.

      Unless I'm missing some idea here, so please tell me.

      Delete
    6. It pains me to say it, and it sounds bad in my head even as I think it, but the rockets won't stay out. Unfortunately. The main advantage in this way, though, would be that after there is no longer an 'occupation,' the next time these fine folks decide to attack Israel, they can be treated like the genocidal neighboring enemies that they are, and be treated accordingly. In other words, ensure that they are never a threat again, by any means necessary.

      Once the 'occupation' issue no longer exists, I would like to think outside international interference would diminish, as well. Once things become a clear national defense issue, in other words. It's a shitty situation all around, but this would to me to be the least bad way to finally move on.

      I realize how this comment sounds, and if there was any other more peaceful, realistic solution, I'd argue for it in a second. But fwiw, that's the way I see it, from my comfortable seat across the ocean, as an American who cares about Israel, and desires her to continue to exist as a democratic Jewish state.

      Reasonable people can disagree, of course, and I'm sure you do. ;)

      But since you asked, I felt compelled to answer. I support unilateral declaration of borders, as well, but of course I'm not an Israeli...

      Delete
    7. (and it ain't my ass on the line if I'm wrong)

      Delete
    8. "The main advantage in this way, though, would be that after there is no longer an 'occupation,' the next time these fine folks decide to attack Israel, they can be treated like the genocidal neighboring enemies that they are, and be treated accordingly."

      That was what most Israeli Jews had thought in 2005—that was the bargain on which the bitter pill of emptying the Gaza region of all Jews was sold to the public. We'd been told that even if the occupation-free Gaza region would act in belligerence, we could finally deal with them as state actors; we'd also been told that world opinion would be with us then.

      But in reality, the worldwide media has kept talking of Gaza as if were occupied, or worse than occupied ("open-air prison"), and any military operation Israel performs to lessen the rocket barrage, like Cast Lead and Pillar of Cloud, is fierily condemned.

      I fail to see how abandoning Judea and Samaria would change things. Further, I fail to see what difference it makes to have state actors rather than non-state actors as our enemies; if Israel were at war with an Al-Qaeda controlled Syria and had to hurt civilians in the process (because Al-Q wouldn't put the civilians away from the combatants any more than Hamas and Hezbollah have done so), the world would pour its condemnations at us regardless of our enemies being state actors.

      I know of a better possible solution. Of course, I don't pretend that the decolonization of the ACTJs (Arab-Colonized Jewish Territories) by repatriating the Arab settlers is problem-free, and I have zero expectations that it would be carried out in the near future, but I think it's the one and only proposal that brings the hope of peace, finally, to the Jews in the vicinity of the post-1967 borders. And it would end the occupation as well. I'm against the occupation, I'm against the Jews' maintaining of a military occupation on their own land as if it belonged to another nation.

      "...but of course I'm not an Israeli"

      That's no reason for you to be silent; all I ask is that solutions that have already been tried and found to fail not be suggested again, for that is unlikely to give a different result.

      Delete
    9. The unavoidable elephant in the room is the 'occupation,' as I see it. Even in the case of any potential action against Syria. Israel's enemies will always point to it, as it's a fantastic propaganda tool to play toward Western sensibilities.

      Even in a hypothetical war against an Al Qaeda-controlled Syria.

      "Well hey but look, Israel is a fair target because it oppresses all those poor 'Palestinians'!!1!!1!"

      Take that always-useful little tool out of their arsenal, and I believe it might then be a whole different equation.

      Admittedly, maybe I'm wrong. None of us know for sure, including of course me.

      The way I see it, after there is no longer an 'occupation,' opposition to Israeli defensive actions becomes a much tougher case for anyone who isn't a blatant antisemite to reasonably make.

      The Gaza pull-out did indeed provide a negative precedent as regards world opinion thereafter, but it will always be considered only sort of a half-measure, as long as the 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria continues.

      Once Israel no longer 'occupies' any part of the so-called Palestinian 'terrortories' (intentional spelling), I would like to think it will then be a whole different ballgame.

      And if Westerners continue to harass and harangue Israel after that point, well then I do believe Israel would be justified in telling the rest of the world to go stuff itself, and I would also like to think that even many reasonable leftists would lose their zeal for attacking the Jewish state. Aside from the antisemites, of course, but they'd then clearly out themselves as the bigots they are, and hopefully be easily dismissed forevermore...

      Delete
    10. And a key further thought -

      In about 30 years, once the easily-accessible dinosaur juice has mostly run out everywhere, and once the numerous fantastic, hocus-pocus, bogus techno-solutions inevitably fail to replace same, geopolitics are going to look very different, and the world is also going to get a whole lot smaller.

      Just by way of a for instance, I'm gong to be that in, say, 2040, the leaders of the US are going to have more pressing problems than what Israel is up to, once suburban town halls 25 miles outside of Topeka, Anaheim, Spokane, Orlando and Harrisburg begin filling up with angry folks who can no longer drive to their jobs or to the nearest still-open WalMart for groceries.

      So, there's that too...

      Delete
    11. *I'm inclined to believe

      Not "I'm gong to be." Whatever on earth that means. ;)

      Delete
    12. Zion,

      you write this:

      "I fail to see how abandoning Judea and Samaria would change things."

      I am not suggesting that Israel abandon Judea and Samaria. The regions of Judea and Samaria are ancient Jewish land. What the Jewish people do with Jewish land is, in my opinion, entirely up to you guys, up to the Jews of the Middle East.

      All that I am saying is that Israel needs to declare its final borders. What those borders are I leave entirely to Israelis.

      My recommendation, for whatever it may be worth, is that Israel annex the major settlement blocs within Area C and whatever else that is necessary for reasons of security, demography, and practicality.

      I recommend against annexing the entirety of Judea and Samaria because I do not believe that it is in Israel's best interest to incorporate a few more million Arabs under its sovereignty.

      But, again, I leave that entirely to the Jewish people of the Middle East.

      I just want Israel to declare its final borders - whatever they are to be - and remove the IDF to behind those borders.

      This will not bring peace, nor will it bring about human decency from the rest of the world.

      Nonetheless, if ever the world is to accept Israel - and if ever this conflict can possibly end - it will only happen once Israel has final borders.

      Finalize the divorce, is what I say.

      Delete
    13. Jay,

      " 'Well hey but look, Israel is a fair target because it oppresses all those poor 'Palestinians'!!1!!1!' ... Take that always-useful little tool out of their arsenal, and I believe it might then be a whole different equation."

      The problem is, the anti-Israel crowd are already using the term "Palestinians" to refer to the Arabs of pre-1967 Israel. That's precisely the reason why I think the whole shebang (intifadas, BDS etc.) would have its epicenter moved to the pre-1967 Arabs right after all the post-1967 were abandoned.

      Israel would say no to the Right of Return? An intifada in her pre-1967 borders would follow, with world condemnation for quelling it. Israel would enact legislation to preserve its Jewish character and majority within pre-1967 borders alone? The world would right away bring the Apartheid accusations. I simply can't see any difference to the present situation.

      "The way I see it, after there is no longer an 'occupation,' opposition to Israeli defensive actions becomes a much tougher case..."

      Never stopped the anti-Israel crowd.

      "...a much tougher case for anyone who isn't a blatant antisemite to reasonably make."

      Jew-hatred under the mantle of anti-Zionism is politically correct, and it would stay so. And, as usual, the Israel-bashers would screech in protest at being called anti-Semites ("Criticism of Israel is not..." yada yada).

      "The Gaza pull-out ... will always be considered only sort of a half-measure, as long as the 'occupation' of Judea and Samaria continues."

      And I believe pulling out of Judea and Samaria would always be considered a half-measure as long as the Right of Return were not fulfilled. This is the piecemeal conquest method our enemies have employed ever since they despaired of relying on military force alone.

      "And if Westerners continue to harass and harangue Israel after that point, well then I do believe Israel would be justified in telling the rest of the world to go stuff itself,..."

      Why can't we tell the world to go and stuff itself now?

      "In about 30 years, once the easily-accessible dinosaur juice has mostly run out everywhere,..."

      Ah! Now that is a game-changer as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe concessions on Israel's part could shift our ideological haters; I do, on the other hand, believe some sea change in reality could make them irrelevant, and that's just the kind of change that could do the trick.

      Patience...

      Delete
    14. Mike,

      I don't want Israel to abandon Judea and Samaria, but I think the military occupation of our own lands can't go on. Anti-Zionist hyperbole and fabrications aside, the occupation really is a problem for the Jewish state on many levels.

      Contrary to the possible impression, I want Israel to stay a democracy until HaShem sounds the last trumpet Himself—I don't want any human authoritarian rule over me, not even by fellow Jews. In order to preserve democracy, one of the things that have to be seriously taken into consideration is the other nation, the members of the Arab nation, living in the Jewish state. On the one hand, democracy requires giving all citizens the votes, but on the other, the majority of Israeli Jews shudder at the scenario of democratically losing their state.

      This is an issue that even isn't about Israel's size. Whether Israel retreats to its pre-1967 borders or annexes the post-1967 territories, this stays an issue. That's why I insist that even a two-state solution that involves Israel retreating to pre-1967 borders would be useless unless accompanied by a population exchange agreement that makes Israel 100% Jewish.

      More and more I see the matter of borders as a distraction (though it's a real matter, not an illusion) away from the important one of the basic security a nation is allowed to have within its borders, whatever size they may be. If we do not get to tell the world that "This is ours and we don't have to share it with anybody else"—if the world still tells us what we can or can't do within our borders, be they even the pre-1967 ones—then our situation is not qualitatively different than what it was in Diaspora life.

      "Nonetheless, if ever the world is to accept Israel - and if ever this conflict can possibly end - it will only happen once Israel has final borders."

      I think it's the other way round. I think it's only when the world accepts Israel that we will have final borders. After all, it is only because of Arab imperialist aggression that the Jewish state isn't within the borders set by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan.

      Delete
    15. Zion -

      Why can't we tell the world to go and stuff itself now?

      I don't know. I wish youze would on occasion. ;)

      Ah! Now that is a game-changer as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe concessions on Israel's part could shift our ideological haters; I do, on the other hand, believe some sea change in reality could make them irrelevant, and that's just the kind of change that could do the trick.

      Patience...


      You know, I think that way sometimes myself. Especially when some make the case that time is on the Palestinians' side. In some ways, maybe. In others, most likely not.

      Though I would prefer to finally move on, at least from this stage of the conflict, sooner rather than later.

      Delete
  5. A comment by another commenter on another blog:

    "Today, there are many countries that have a profound sense of cultural identity, which clearly shows in their traditional approach to answering life’s great questions by way of religion.

    "Many countries for instance adhere to traditional Buddhist concepts that have shaped their identity, like Japan, Taiwan or Thailand. Hinduism has shaped India. Many countries on the other hand recognize themselves as inheritors of Christian traditions (at the very least in the nominal sense), and quite a lot of others would define themselves as Islamic states by default. (even if some of them are officially considered secular governments)

    "Alas, some religious adherents are likely to emphasize and embrace a particular part of their traditional religious ideology as one of the main core concepts, making all spiritual content de facto redundant. To such fanatics, Anti-Semitism overrules all ethical/spiritual concepts such a religion might hold.

    "Regardless of my own opinions on religion (being a secular humanist, rather than religiously inspired in any way), I find it strikingly odd that there seems to be such an awful lot of disproportionate opposition to the notion of Zionism as a logical outcome of Jews' desire to constitute the boundaries of a nation-state that has its profound roots in Judaism. It is quite clear to me that the concept of cultural identity stems from a longing to feel secure and united among those who share a more or less common culture and ancestry and share the same vision on what the future of this cultural identity should look like. A nation-state therefore is the best means to preserve cultural identity. It is quite worrying today that Western self-proclaimed intelligentsia have taken it upon them to pursue the inherent Anti-Semitic rhetoric which is inherent to Islam as a totalitarian ideology, to revile the policies of a nation like Israel, whereas the same people would never find cause to stick their noses in the internal policies of other nation-states, such as the ones mentioned above.

    "This more or less suggests to me the ridiculous claim of the Left that Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism can be treated as separate issues is just a ruse, and basically not worth getting into further, seeing as the Left would never admit to being wrong. Therefore, being nitpicky on such a matter is futile when addressing the ‘Moonbat International’ directly. Anti-Zionism fits snugly into the main concept of anti-Judaism as a whole in my mind. So there IS a point in outlining the issue from a general perspective, rather than from a polemical one: the mere fact that so many self-declared 'morally righteous' intellectuals display such a great deal of criticism of Israel's policies (while others consistently get off scot-free) is evidence enough of the fact that both are intertwined.

    (continued)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Europe in particular has long carried the first wave of Anti-Semitism, starting with the advent of Christianity and the globalization [sic] of Roman-Catholicism and therefore predating Islamic Anti-Semitism [sic] by at least 600 years. Some people I have debated with in my own personal surroundings have been trying to make me understand that, for instance, there can be no morality without religion. Something I try to disprove in many ways. One of these issues (concerning Christianity in particular) evolves around the concept of some Christians' dogmatic tendency to willy-nilly cling to the historic Christian aversion towards Jews, based on the belief that Jews have actually and intentionally killed God. (Deicide) It is quite odd that such Christians have subscribed to the contemporary Anti-Semitic mythological propaganda of the Liberal left on the one hand, and still seem to think they are able to bludgeon me with the notion that they represent ‘Ethical Christianity’! Conversely, the same also applies to those secular liberals who are marketing their brand of liberalism as ethical, when their Anti-Semitic propaganda seems to be deeply rooted in the same type of Christianity they traditionally proclaim to abhor! Somehow, I wonder why on earth this concept has emerged intermittently throughout the history of Europe to mobilize [sic] people en masse against the cultural entity Jews constitute, and why it seems to have taken precedence over all other issues as of late, to both Christians and secular liberals. In my mind, it would be inhumane to conceive religion in such a way that the vehement a priori hatred of a culturally distinct group should be incorporated by default into a religion that calls itself ethical. (which also makes Islam at fault, in more than one way even, make no mistake about it)

      "Being shameful enough as this is, it also has spawned many Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to 'substantiate' the central tenet of Deicide. And as a consequence, such a prejudiced type of thinking has kept re-affirming itself even during the Reformation. (Calvinism, Lutheranism,...etc) Even the mind of Enlightenment thinkers became infested with it. And in the end, it became the staple diet of authoritarian ideologies, such as Nazism and even Stalinism.(Soviet Anti-Semitism was dressed up as Zionology, a term designed to make anti-Semitism look scientifically 'viable')

      "Anti-Judaism is not a concept that belongs exclusively to either the left or the right, as we well know today. It couldn't be more obvious in 2010 that even those who proclaim to be progressive liberals are still profoundly infected with what is essentially known as a deeply (and humanely uncalled for) Christian concept. Being skeptical [sic] of all religions, and specifically when they behave like totalitarian doctrines that incorporate pre-conceived attitudes toward cultural minorities, it seems to me that those who claim to be independent thinkers in this day and age in a sense still behave like medieval paupers mobilized [sic] by Christian propaganda to wage war on Jews. And therefore, it should only be natural to them (I suppose) to go committing themselves to the 'Palestinian cause'. Seemingly paradoxical, the Left clings to this cause with the sublimated religious fervor and fanaticism which is akin to medieval European Christianity!

      "Ridiculous as it may seem, it is quite clear to me that progressive liberals have de-'Christianized' this long anti-Semitic legacy in order to not look bigoted or conservative, but as a matter of fact nothing has changed. Today some Christians still lay emphasis on this despicable legacy of prejudice, alongside neo-Nazis, Leftists and even some secular Humanists, and across political borders they forge bonds with each other on this very issue, and taking Islamic anti-Semitism into account as a means to justify their actions and thoughts, even!

      (continued)

      Delete
    2. "Not being Jewish myself, I can't really understand what makes some people in the Western world seem so deeply ‘traumatized’ by a type of unquestioned, ill-conceived propaganda that has been handed down from one generation to the next throughout history to still warrant such criticism of Israel. As if some layers of society are profoundly indoctrinated and predestined to cling to Anti-Semitism like the proverbial ‘shit to a blanket’. As if they behave like Pavlovian dogs that have been conditioned to drool or bark as soon as the word ‘Israel’ gets mentioned. Which inevitably begs the question how liberated these so-called liberals really are. Considering the fact that Jews have created a nation-state on the very basis that they couldn't possibly have guaranteed their long-term safety as a cultural entity in Europe at some points in history, it is quite self-explanatory to me that Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism. We have no business in meddling with the internal affairs of Israel, unless the point of this would be to openly demonstrate how intolerant we are (!)

      "Those who want to fanatically cling to the despicable notion that someone is identifiably perpetually guilty of some mythical wrongdoing by default, can't ever expect to point their finger of ‘moral supremacy’ at me and think they can get away with it unchallenged. Those who make such claims are not ethical to begin with, neither are they morally superior in any way. And whether they like to call themselves Christians or secular liberals or whatever is really beside the point.

      "However, this doesn’t necessarily imply that ALL Christians, or secular liberals are to blame. Quite the contrary, rather. Which means I also recognize the fact that those Christians, liberals, conservatives and secular Humanists (among others) in the West that have abolished this myth of 'Innate Guilt of Jews' from their personal belief system are indeed worthy of the praise that's due to them and the blogs they have created, for they realize [sic], just as I have, that perpetuating such myths can only be attributed to those people who first and foremost want to covet a rotten mind, hating for the sake of hatred itself, and nothing more than that. To me, there is definitely a clear distinction between those who treat religion or secular ideology as a transcendent Absolute Truth that cannot be questioned in any way and those who have criticized the troublesome aspects of religion and politics from a personal viewpoint (both Christians and others alike), in order to adapt and transform both to a belief that envisions religion/philosophy as something that can be truly ethical. As long as religion and ideology behave in a dogmatic fashion and people enslave themselves to tunnel-vision, our society can’t possibly call itself liberated in any way, and anti-Semitism will remain part and parcel of a despicable legacy that to some (rather than many, I hope) still has unquestionable ‘validity’.

      "I am afraid though, that this issue has not been addressed [sic] sufficiently by some of these blogs however. Although some ideologies that dress up as religions, like Islam, are fundamentally inhumane, this should not make us blind to the fact that some Christian religious fanatics have made common cause with Islamists, just like the Left-wing and neo-Nazis have done. Anti-Semitism in fact is a much older 'tradition' than we would like to be reminded of, regardless of the innate inhumanity of Islam."

      http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2010/07/lies-lies-and-lies-about-lies.html?showComment=1279117634509#c4188327328578745386

      Delete
    3. Lies, lies, and lies about lies, by Denis MacEoin

      "I'm going to start this by talking about anti-Semitism. You're probably all aware that anti-Israel activists, when told they are anti-Semites, hotly deny the charge, saying they are just opposed to Israel and its policies. I don't believe them, any of them. Let's start with anti-Semitism itself. We know that for some 2000 years, Jews have been persecuted across Europe and the Middle East, and that this persecution culminated in the Holocaust. The Holocaust had all sorts of knock-on effects, especially in Europe. I was brought up in the shadow of it. All my generation were. One thing the Holocaust did was to make anti-Semitism unpopular. You couldn't admit openly you were an anti-Semite. Only ex-Nazis in the comfort of their private homes in South America or Cairo could get it off their chests, that they still hated Jews, that they still longed for another Holocaust. Everybody else avoided any association with the Nazis and far-right politics. Of course, as time passed, little groups of far-right lunatics stood around in wet fields making the Hitlergrüss and saying Seig Heil, because it made feel better to be absolute nonentities in funny suits. People on the left became pro-Jewish and, for a time, pro-Israeli.

      "But gradually, mainly in the past twenty years or so, there came a point when people couldn't keep their hatred of Jews pent up any longer. These weren't fascist thugs any longer so much as self-proclaimed liberals and leftists. They became infected with anti-Semitism because they wanted someone to pity and the Jews were no longer pitiable. In Wanderings, Chaim Potok's very readable history of the Jews, he says 'there are no more gentle Jews'. This time round, he argues, the Jews will not let themselves be herded onto railway trucks and shepherded into gas chambers. The young men and women of today's IDF exemplify Potok's declaration perfectly. Pity the Nazi who tries to herd them anywhere.

      "For some reason, a lot of people don't like this. But they still don't like to be called anti-Semites, because anti-Semitism is a form of racism, and they aren't racists. They think they aren't racists because anti-racism is the keystone of modern right-on politics. But they are racists, so they have a problem. They have a lot of circles to square, and to do that they have employed a range of lies that cast a spell on the media and most of the general public. It goes something like this. The Jews are no longer suffering, but someone must be suffering in order to deserve our pity, and the obvious candidates for victimhood are the Palestinians, because those nice Arabs I met at our conference tell me they are. This must mean that the Jews are... A hard think here, I suppose, then the obvious answer. The Jews, sorry, the Israelis are Nazis. Not 'like the Nazis'. They are Nazis. That sweet young Israeli girl doing her first year in the IDF and feeling pangs of homesickness every night is a Nazi. That boy with a kippa dovening in a field full of tanks is a Nazi. Gilad Schalit is a Nazi.

      (continued)

      Delete
    4. "Next, if there's to be some sort of equivalence, there has to be a Holocaust. What? you say. What? But it's obvious, they reply. There has been a Holocaust of the Palestinians. If this makes you feel nauseated, I don't blame you. You ask, when, how many, where? They sneer and talk about Jenin (51 dead) and say it's worse than gas chambers. And to make this worse, a lot of them deny the real Holocaust, aided and abetted by a UN member state, Iran.

      "As a result of this warped style of thinking, we are living in a fantasy world. It doesn't matter how many rockets Hamas fire, they are some sort of friendly prank. The separation fence isn't a fence but an 'apartheid wall'. And it doesn't matter how racially mixed and free and democratic Israel is, it is, as we all know, an apartheid state. It's unimportant how many times the Palestinians say they refuse to recognize Israel and to make peace, because we know they are the true peace-makers, and it's the Israelis who are the obstacles to peace.

      "The thing is, this is all so transparent a three-year-old could see through it. It's like those Visible Man dolls, all its veins and organs and bones on display. Why do so many people fall for all this? A lot of them are students. Where on earth are they studying, what subjects, with whom? Because something basic is wrong with their education. Two weeks ago I went to a lecture on Islamophobia by a rabid anti-Israeli speaker. This man was in his 40s and dressed as if he was sixteen. He spoke in a very loud voice, and he thundered home the message that racism was wrong and islamophobia was wrong. He is a senior lecturer at a university near me. He could not tell the difference between racism and feelings of disquiet about a religion. This is the standard that passes for rigorous across the board today. Nobody wants to think any more, least of all about Israel. They hate Israel with a viciousness that can only originate in dark psychological problems with Jews. I don't know why that is, and I don't know how to solve it, but it's the most dangerous single thing in the world today. I mean it. Hatred of Israel is going to provoke another war in the Middle East, and that war is capable of spreading to Europe, America and beyond. Iran is in the hands of lunatics, and other lunatics have made hatred of Israel the only political issue of any importance in the world. If we don't do something to stop this, a lot of people are going to die. And they won't all be Israelis."

      http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2010/07/lies-lies-and-lies-about-lies.html

      Delete
    5. Middle East Anti-Semitism, by Denis MacEoin

      Excerpts:

      "...Islam has never been anti-Semitic in the racist sense. The treatment of Jews in countries like Morocco, Egypt, or Yemen was generally more tolerant and less prone to outright violence than that of Christian Europe. Even as late as the 1920s, the condition of the Jewish communities of Cairo and Alexandria was well in advance of that found in Russia, Poland, or France.

      "In the 1930s and 40s, however, many Arabs were drawn to German fascism, hoping the Nazis would defeat the French and British and drive out the Jews. Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem, spent most of the war in Berlin, broadcasting to the Arab world and building the largest of the Reich’s SS divisions. Escaping arrest, he continued his propaganda work long after the war. In the 1960s, this imported style of anti-Semitism started to hold hands with a vicious strain of religious Judaeophobia coming from radical Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. Since then, this hybrid has entered the mainstream, where it has taken hold everywhere from universities to kindergartens.
      But this is probably the first time most of you will have read about any of this. Despite its obvious newsworthiness, it’s a subject routinely ignored by reporters, journalists, and documentary makers in Europe and North America. This allows most Westerners to go on fantasizing that anti-Semitism is the strict preserve of the loony right.
      Would that it were so. Anti-Semitism has always known how to mutate, moving from one culture to another with the greatest of ease. Just as the medieval European blood libel slipped into the Arab world in the 19th century and survives there today, so the new Middle Eastern anti-Semitism has moved back to Europe, where it has taken up residence among two groups, extremist Muslims and sectors of the Left. ...

      "...Meanwhile, liberals like myself are betrayed by an increasingly disturbing rise of left-wing anti-Semitism. Having built up an unbalanced hatred for Israel (for many, it’s the only country in the world they condemn), many leftists have carelessly conflated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, and pride themselves in doing so. Here’s a considered remark by University of Massachusetts professor Helen Cullen: ‘Judaism and the Jewish identity are offensive to most human beings and will always cause trouble between the Jews and the rest of the human race’. ...

      "...This vicious circle, from the European right to the Middle East, back to European Muslims and the European left, to a leftist fascism and so back to radical Islam must be stopped now, before it corrupts liberals beyond hope. It’s time the silence was broken and a proper debate opened up. When liberals join forces with people who train their children to become suicide bombers and teach them to call Jews ‘apes and pigs’, something is wrong. It won’t be put right until the liberal left sorts itself out on this litmus test of a true liberal conscience."

      http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2007/06/middle-east-anti-semitism.html

      Jihad and Jew-Hatred: An Interview with Matthias Küntzel

      "...The main achievement of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was to combine the Jew-hatred of ancient Islam with modern anti-Semitism into a new and persuasive rhetoric. I discovered a speech he gave in 1937 with the title, ‘Jewry and Islam.’ Here, he intermingled modern anti-Semitism [with] the stories of very early Islam, going back and forth from the 7th and the 20th centuries, and connecting both kinds of Jew-hatred. This was something new. ..."

      http://207.97.238.133/democratiya/article.php?article=249

      Delete
    6. "Why do so many people fall for all this?"

      They're not falling for it, they're wallowing in it. It's a sick worldwide joke, a global put-on participated in by millions of very bad people who understand damn well the lies they are telling. It's a sadistic mob wilding.

      Delete
    7. Yes. But most people are not those ideological anti-Jewish bigots. Most people are not ideological anti-Jewish bigots. Most people, and most importantly, most American people, if they knew the facts of the situation, would support Israel.

      Some essential basic facts that need to be communicated:

      - Fatah-PLO are a Nazi organization originated by one of the co-architects of the Nazi Final Solution, Hajj Amin al-Husseini.
      - Jordan was part of the British Mandate of Palestine.
      - Jordan occupied what is now called 'The West Bank' from 1949 to 1967, and Egypt occupied what is now called 'The Gaza Strip' from from 1949 to 1967, and no effort was made to create a 'Palestinian' Arab state there during that time. Fatah was created in 1958, and the PLO was created in 1964 -- during the time that Jordan occupied what is now called 'The West Bank', and during the time that Egypt occupied what is now called 'The Gaza Strip'."; The Fatah Constitution (Article 19, etc.) and the 1964 PLO Charter and the current 1968 PLO Charter call for the destruction of Israel.
      - What is now called 'The West Bank' is Judea (Yehouda) and Sameria (Shomron), and was referred to as "the west bank" of the Jordan river during the time that that area of land was occupied by Jordan, from 1949 to 1967.
      - There are over 50 Muslim states in the world, and there are over 20 Arab states in the world, and there are numerous other national states in the world, and there are several officially Christian states in the world, and there is one Jewish state in the world -- Israel.
      - The Jewish people are the only people who have had a nation in the land of Israel within the past three thousand years.
      - The land of Israel is approximately 2 percent of the total land of the Middle East.
      - The citizenry of Israel are approximately seven million people.
      - There are over one million Arab citizens of Israel -- Muslim Arab, Christian Arab, and Druze Arab -- and those Arab citizens of Israel constitute approximately 20 percent of the citizenry of Israel.
      - The group of Arab people who are now called "the Palestinians" -- 'Palestinian' Arab people -- who live in what is now called 'The West Bank' and who live in what is now called 'The Gaza Strip' and who live in refugee camps in Arab states -- are not citizens of Israel and don't live in Israel.

      (continued)

      Delete
    8. - Still living members of, and descendants of, Jewish refugees from Muslim states in the Middle East constitute approximately 50 percent of the Jewish citizenry of Israel.
      - The conflict between the Muslim Arab states in the Middle East and Israel caused more Jewish refugees from Muslim states in the Middle East than it caused Arab refugees from Israel
      - The group of Arab people who are now called the "the Palestinians" -- 'Palestinian' Arab people -- are simply the Arab refugees from a Muslim Arab military attack of intended annihilation against the Jewish state Israel.
      - There have been millions of non-Arab and non-Jewish refugees in world since the end of World War II and most of those refugees have been relocated to and absorbed into countries to which the fled or were expelled.
      - What is now called 'The West Bank' is currently governed by Fatah-PLO (which is now called "The Palestinian Authority"). Israel currently has some security presence in what is now called 'The West Bank'. What is now called "The Gaza Strip" is currently governed by Hamas. Israel has no presence in what is now called "The Gaza Strip".
      - The Fatah-PLO and Hamas have staged ideologically genocidal propaganda anti-Jewish hoaxes, which have been colluded with by the Western mass-media (Pallywood; The al-Durah Blood Libel, etc.)
      - Ideologically genocidally anti-Jewish anti-Israeli propaganda constitutes most of the programing of Fatah-PLO ("Palestinian Authority") TV (and Hamas TV).
      - Fatah-PLO and Hamas, between the years 2000 to 2006, targeted and killed approximately one thousand Jewish people -- men, women, and children -- civilians -- with bomb attacks in Israel, in restaurants, buses, etc.; As a result of these killings by Fatah-PLO and Hamas, and in order to prevent further such killings by Fatah-PLO and Hamas, the government of Israel built a security barrier along the border of Israel adjacent to what is now called "The West Bank" and adjacent to what is now called "The Gaza Strip"; There are security barriers and separation barriers along the borders of numerous states in the world.

      Delete
    9. Randall Kohn,

      "...millions of very bad people who understand damn well the lies they are telling."

      I'm not entirely sure. It started out that way, no doubt, but you know, what with the human propensity for self-deception, it's likely that they now believe their own stuff. Those Israel-haters have gone deep down the rabbit-hole.

      Delete
    10. True, but many of them are still deserving of shame for their bigotry, ignorance and moral ineptitude.

      Delete
    11. Ditto that, Oldschool, though I'm not sure they can be shamed into changing their ways. Our problem is that the Israel-haters think their activities are the good and moral thing to do.

      Delete
    12. They can and should be shamed, in no uncertain terms, and with steady and consistent repetition undecideds will come to see the immorality.

      Delete
    13. In part. The key point is to simply stay on course. Grow and strengthen the Jewish communities and Israel from the inside. You have to take a longer view - eventually the Arab societies rot and implode on their own. For example we're talking about how rough it is in Egypt. It's quite a bit rougher than that. David Goldman and others are plotting an economic path with the data they have now that puts Egypt at the point of food riots and possibly outright famine by the end of this year. Coupled with severe shortages in diesel fuel, cooking gas and therefore an inability to run water pumps and irrigation systems. In the meantime, best guess is Syria has an eighth of a million dead and 4 million internal and external refugees. Even if Assad survives and wins, Syria is finished as a country, as a single political entity. It's over. The war may bleed into Lebanon and what will happen is what Civil War 3? 4?

      If I were the PLO I'd look east and try to tear off a piece of Jordan and make due with that before the region is a smoking hole in the ground.

      Delete
    14. Trudy,

      "The key point is to simply stay on course. Grow and strengthen the Jewish communities and Israel from the inside."

      It all boils down to self-confidence, the belief that we're worth the fight, that we're not toiling in vain. That sounds corny, I know, but the fact is the loss of confidence is behind a lot of bone-headed moves by Israel, and indeed by the entire world in its dealings with Islamic imperialism and colonialism.

      One of the interesting figures illustrating this loss of confidence is the recently departed Israeli writer Yoram Kaniuk. It looks like I've got an idea to write about, all of a sudden. But it's Shabbat soon, so it'll have to wait a bit.

      Shabbat Shalom!

      Delete