Friday, October 2, 2015

How the Western-Left Drives the Arab War Against the Jews in the Middle East

Michael L.

I have been engaging in an off-line conversation with a well-educated and intelligent non-Jewish friend of mine about the Long War against the Jews of the Middle East.

The link goes to a brief piece that I wrote five years ago wherein I outlined the phases of that war.
arjeh2Phase 1, 1920 - 1947: Riots and Massacres

Phase 2, November 1947 - April 1948: The Civil War in Palestine

Phase 3, 1948 - 1973: Conventional Warfare

Phase 4, 1964 - Present: The Terror War

Phase 5, 1975 - Present: The Delegitimization Effort
In our recent conversation I may have taken him aback somewhat.  He, in a perfectly reasonable manner, suggested that perhaps some outreach to the Bay Area Muslim community might be a helpful thing.

It might very well be, but this was the conclusion of my response:
Have you ever read the Hamas Charter?  You should give it a gander.  It calls quite specifically for the genocide of the Jews.

Have you read the Qu'ran?

What's really needed is for non-Jewish westerners to understand that the Jewish minority in the Middle East are not the aggressors in this situation.   
On the contrary.

There will never be peace until the western-left grasps this truth, because it is the western-left that is driving the conflict.
The sad fact is that the western-left - or western-progressives or "liberals" as the American Right wrongfully calls them - does, in fact, back the Long War against the Jews of the Middle East because it finances it and gives it moral legitimacy.

The western-right, correctly in my opinion, despises the movement for Palestinian Nationalism because they recognize it for what it is; a violently anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-democratic, misogynistic, homophobic, political movement with Islamist leanings that, in its earliest phases, supported the Nazis during World War II.

Today the western-left tells the world that Israel is a fascist, racist, imperialist state and, via the EU, the UN, and the government of the United States, funds Arab terrorist organizations - such as Hamas and Fatah - that seeks to drive Jews out of the very land that our ancestors have lived upon for well over three thousand years.

What I find most ironic, of course, is the fact that western-left Jewry has put itself into the very strange position of supporting their own enemies out of a moral imperative.

Who does this?

Outside of morally anguished Jewry, what people believe that they must support their enemies - who would see them dead - in order to maintain moral or ethical integrity?

This is what I have referred to as The Palestinian Colonization of the Jewish Mind.


  1. I don't think that engagement with Muslims should be dismissed out of hand. While there is much to be wary of in engaging with the wrong Muslims, engaging with the right Muslims could produce benefits.

    As to what the Koran says about Jews, it places no more obligation on Muslims to reject Israel that the curse of Ham obligates Christians to despise blacks. The problem is in their civilization, in the honor-shame culture that creates barriers for those who would challenge it, and the Very Serious People of the West who ignore the dominant strand of replacement theology within Islam.

    A start would be those who have gone through the Shalom Hartman Institute's Muslim Leadership Initiative (there is a long story at the Times of Israel about it). The point would not be to convince the committed supporters of the PNM that they should be more like Abdul Antepli or Abdul Palazzi, but rather to convince more uncommitted Muslims that they should should support Antepli and Palazzi rather than fall in line behind the supporters of the PNM.

    1. Sar Shalom,

      "I don't think that engagement with Muslims should be dismissed out of hand."

      I absolutely agree.

      When international Muslim leadership acknowledges the heinous crime that they continue to commit against the tiny Jewish minority in the Middle East then I definitely believe that Jewish people should embrace them with an open heart.

    2. I'm not sure that that constitutes agreement with me. What you seem to be saying is that when the likes of Tariq Ramadan lose their influence to those like Abdul Antepli, we should then talk to those who gain control over Islam.

      My position is that we should never under any circumstances talk to the likes of Tariq Ramadan (with the possible exception if the act of doing so is meant to influence others). However, the existence of Tariq Ramadan, and the influence he has, should not be an obstacle to talking to the likes of Abdul Antepli. The task is then to determine how to exclude the Tariq Ramadans while including the Abdul Anteplis and define the line that distinguishes between one and the other.

    3. Sar Shalom,

      Thank you for introducing me to Abdul Antepli and anyone who reads here knows that I have considerable respect for Times of Israel editor, David Horovitz, who wrote the article linked to concerning Antepli.

      What I am saying, however, is what I said.

      Engagement with Muslims should absolutely not be dismissed out of hand.

      I think that we should engage with any Muslims who recognize the right of Israel to exist as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

      Any Muslims - Arab, Persian, or otherwise - who refuse to be so gracious should be entirely ignored by the Israeli government or confronted, given the circumstances.

      The Jews owe them nothing.

  2. Mike,
    Am I to understand that you yourself draw a distinction between western left "progressives," and liberals? I had thought you used them interchangeably. As you know, I don't. Or is it just that you observe others do use them that way in the current political milieu?

    1. Jeff, I almost never use the term "liberal" to refer to the Left.

      Classical Liberalism refers to the political aspect of the 17th century Enlightenment that presaged the Constitution of the United States and what I think of as "freedom" liberalism. Freedom of the press. Freedom of association. Freedom of speech. And so forth.

      20th century contemporary liberalism refers to what might be called, after WWII, "rights" liberalism. The rights of African-Americans. The rights of women. The rights of Gay people. And, yes, the rights of the Jewish people.

      Universal Human Rights.

      From what I can tell, the contemporary Left no longer stands for either.

    2. To illustrate your point...

      Do read this, it's really appalling.

    3. I think so, yes.

      Obama ultimately comes out of the tradition of MLK, Jr., so I would certainly think that it is fair to call him a liberal.

      However, given his support for Islamism, his liberalism is something akin to Swiss Cheese.

    4. Swiss Cheese Liberals are available at the local coop.
      There was a video about J Street at Elder's joint this evening you should check out.

    5. To his credit, even our friend "Volleyboy1" changed his mind about that organization.

      My guess is that when the Obama administration goes away, so will J-Street.

      The latter exists to serve the former, although it is unclear to me that they do so in a manner that is actually helpful to their master.

      But here I sit, late-night and gimlet-eyed, in my perch in the Oakland hills.

      Y'know, those of us who honestly care about the well-being of Israel and the Jewish people are a rather strange bunch and our friends do not always know what to make of us.

      There was a woman on Maryscott O'Connor's My Left Wing, an administrator and a friend, who once told me, "don't burn too many bridges."

      And I've been burning bridges ever since.

    6. Sadly, I do not think any organization that is partially funded by George Soros will disappear just because President Obama is no longer in office. I think Soros, and his protégées, have a much longer game in mind. And so much clout that they can heavily influence other candidates. And he's not the only source of this kind of thing. The Democratic party is tied up with many.

  3. Is is really about Israel for these people of the left? They reap the benefits of Westernism as they seek to destroy it for something backward and deprive others. Yet they call themselves progressive. It's really sad how close minded many are and how adept they have become at swallowing and pushing narratives fed and created by their manipulators.

  4. Some societies make willfully terrible decisions over and over until they are extinct. That's pretty much what history is. The 'west' isn't going to be around forever maybe this is its swan song. We call these periods 'Dark Ages' and there have been quite a few going all the way back to the Bronze Age.

  5. Mike,
    BTW, I find the suggestion that some sort of outreach to the Bay Area Muslim community as helpful, a little unserious, and insulting. But it does expose the lie both well-regarded and disseminated by the progressive left about what the ME conflict is really about.

  6. "What I find most ironic, of course, is the fact that western-left Jewry has put itself into the very strange position of supporting their own enemies out of a moral imperative.

    Who does this?"

    Answer: These guys: