Sunday, May 29, 2016

Israeli "Apartheid Regime" gets first female Nigerian officer

Michael L.

{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon and Jews Down Under.}

Danny Brenner, in Israel Hayom writes:
Toby Cohen
Toby Cohen, the IDF's first female Nigerian officer
The Israel Defense Forces, more than any other organization, represents Israeli society. It is a melting pot that includes soldiers from all ethnic, religious and racial backgrounds, men and women, but even this human collage always has something new. For example, Israel's first female Nigerian officer, Lieutenant Toby Cohen, 21, who was born in Nigeria to a Nigerian mother and Israeli father. Her parents and 8-year-old sister live in the town of Kanu in northern Nigeria, while she immigrated to Israel on her own at the age of 17. Cohen serves in the Homefront Command.
In truth, however, it does not really matter how diverse Israel is or how liberal it is, the western-left will always spit poison at it because it is the lone, sole Jewish country. The Arabs learned long ago that whatever hate-filled and false accusations that they fling at the Jews in Israel, those accusations will be eagerly gobbled up by westerners who pride themselves on "social justice" and "anti-racism."

One of the main problems is that so many diaspora Jews have come to accept The Palestinian Narrative of Perfect Victimhood, which I have referred to as The Palestinian Colonization of the Jewish Mind.

This is particularly true of progressive-left Jews when they believe that the Jews of Israel are illegally occupying Judea. If you start from the position that Jews are "illegally occupying the West Bank" then you have no case. It does not matter if Israelis discover a cure for cancer, send the first lesbian to Mars, or irrigate the entirety of Africa.

If those Jews have stolen Arab land in Judea - as so many diaspora Jews seem to believe - then Israel deserves every bit of contempt so joyously dished out by her Arab-Muslim and progressive-left tormentors. However, if we acknowledge the historical truth that the land from the River to the Sea is the homeland of the Jewish people, and that the Jewish people are the indigenous people of that land - which we are - then the Muslims and their progressive-left friends have no case.

Cognitive War

Those of us who care about the Jewish people and, therefore, about the well-being of the Jewish State of Israel, are engaged, against our will, in a cognitive / propaganda aggression launched by the Arabs since, at least, 1967. They cannot beat the Jews with conventional warfare because - despite the fact that they outnumber us by a factor of 60 or 70 to 1 in the region - they are too weak. This weakness, of course, is not essential, but self-inflicted. If they insist on gazing upon the seventh-century mirage of Muhammad then their culture and abilities will reflect that interest.

If they would, instead, gaze upon Isaac Newton, and all that implies, their chances of slaughtering us would be greatly enhanced.

But since they cannot defeat us militarily they turn to propaganda which they are, in fact, very good at. They may not know much about science or technology, but they definitely know a thing or two about how to turn western-left heads, which they learned, in part, at the feet of their Soviet advisers. The Arabs were told, "Look, you cannot go screaming for blood and demanding that the Jews get pushed into the sea if you expect western sympathies. What you need to do is frame your blood-lust and theocratic hatred toward Jews as a matter of "social justice" and "national liberation" and then you will have the West eating out of your hand."

And that is precisely what they did.

They may not know much about technology, but their propagandists certainly know how to lie and they lie very well.

When some 19 year old Jewish kid at UC Irvine or San Francisco State University holds up a fist and calls for "intifada" in solidarity with his brothers and sisters "of color" he is denying his own indigeneity to the Land of Israel, while quite literally calling for the murder of his Jewish relatives on that land.

The only way that such a kid could do so is because he was steeped in the Big Lie for too many years.

The Big Lie, of course, is that the Land of Israel is Arab land and that the Jews are usurpers.

History, as an academic field of knowledge, tells us otherwise.

Israeli Diversity and Western-Left Hypocrisy

Israel is the most ethnically and ideologically diverse country throughout that entire part of the world and, far and away, the most democratic. This is why western-left contempt for Israel is, itself, heinously contemptible. It reveals, in glaring relief, the enormous hypocrisy of a political movement that claims to stand for social justice and anti-racism, yet does no such thing.

Calls for justice among Democrats and "progressives" (regressives?) are mired in a form of racism that is almost universal among them and, yet, so ephemeral that they cannot perceive it within themselves. Humanitarian racism has run amok within the western-left. They conceive of Arabs and Africans as lesser human beings who, much like children, are not really responsible for their own behavior. Instead it is the fault of the parents and, in the progressive imagination, that means white people.

It is in this way that they turn their own value-system upside-down.

In the name of "resistance against colonialism" they end up supporting the most regressive political movements in the world today. They gladly throw garbage at Israel, but are reluctant to breathe a word against ISIS or Hamas. They have turned the word "Zionist" into an epithet even as they coddle regimes and admire cultures that consign women to the condition of chattel, throw Gay people from tall buildings or hang them from cranes, burn down thousands of Christian churches while persecuting and murdering adherents to that faith and teach their children that Jews are descendants of orangutans and swine.

And they do this even as Israel welcomes Toby Cohen into the IDF as its first female Nigerian officer.

The progressive-left hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance around Israel is profound.


  1. If it was any other group besides Jews "mistreating" Palestinians, these progressive Jews could care less. It's as if they feel personally responsible.

    Maybe they would feel different if not ensconced in relative affluence and security. Or in fear of becoming apostates by questioning progressive dogma.

    They are unable to acknowledge the accomplishment of Israel and what it represents.

    Generally, American Jews are bad at telling their history to themselves, especially progressives wrapped in their religion of secularism. They are uninformed or misinformed about the present conflict dating back to the rise of political Zionism. Few could provide an accurate narrative. As important, they know little about their Hebrew ancestry after Moses, the importance of Jerusalem, the exile, the advent of Judaism.

    One need not be Orthodox to know the Jewish story of innate attachment to the land, or philosophy of law that girds Western values and emancipation of the individual. If more Jews were as steeped in narrative as Arabs, the fight against antisemitism and Israel would be less difficult.

    1. Secularism and progressivism go hand in hand. By and large they reject the practice of religious faith and teachings as anti-scientific. Rejectionism deprives many Jewish adherents of knowledge about their identity that comes from the biblical heritage as Israelites and the attachment to the land. Without such attachment, it's easy to believe the land was taken from others, compared to restored to the rightful occupants.

      The lack of a Jewish narrative among progressive, secular Jews helps explain why they are so much more accepting of different narratives that misrepresent Jewish history and the nature of the current conflict.

      How to change this dynamic is not clear, but it would make the Jewish voice against antisemitism, particularly as practiced by so-called anti-Zionists, more united, stronger and effective.

    2. Secularism is the separation of the state from religious institutions. It is also found in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. I think you are conflating it with atheism, and currently trendy and shallow atheism at that. I think the idea that one has to be religious, or even Jewish for that matter, to appreciate and honor Jewish history or Jewish teachings is a mistaken assumption.

    3. Secularism is not limited to state involvement, but may extend through all society.

      It is not found in the First Amendment either. It was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake, who said it is:

      that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism, 17).

      As indicated, it goes hand in hand with progressivism.

      Of course, one need not be religious, or even Jewish for that matter, to appreciate and honor Jewish history or Jewish teachings. Don't think I said that at all, but that many secular, progressive Jews know little of the subject, knowledge of which is gained from the Hebrew bible, a religious, historical and legal text of the Jewish people, yet rejected in large part by secularists.

      The point is that more secular thinking Jews need to learn the Jewish narrative. It provides meaning about why the land of Israel is integral to the people. Once that understanding takes place, then it's easier to reject the notion that Jews are usurpers in the current conflict, and see that other beliefs concerning the conflict are mistaken, too.

    4. One question that comes to my mind, inspired by your discussion, is, "Is their a causal relationship between degree of secularity within the individual and anti-Israel sentiment within that individual?"

      Certainly in the US, outside of the Muslim population, the more religious one is the more likely one is to support Israel. The less religious one is, i.e., the more secular one is, the less likely one is to support Israel.

      It seems to me that their is nothing within the secular ethos, however, that is in any way essentially anti-Israel anymore than there is anything essentially anti-Italy.

      It seems to me that School is correct when he suggests that "Secularism and progressivism go hand in hand." Although, I would modify the thought to suggest that the latter is derived from the former. Nonetheless, one need not be a progressive to be a secularist and, in fact, it is still possible to be both religious and progressive.

      It seems to me that the problem here - and perhaps you guys will agree - is not secularism, but anti-Jewish historical trends within the western-left since at least Marx.

    5. Yes, I agree. I don't think that being secular alone accounts for anti-Jewish/anti-Israel positions. Just like I don't believe that being secular is intrinsically hostile to religion. By itself, it isn't a sufficient condition. Israel is brimming with secular Jews and has been throughout its existence who are ardent Zionists. And there are, as we know, religious Jews who don't support the state. So, while religiosity might guarantee the knowledge of the connection of the people to the land, it is not a guarantor of a belief in political Zionism by itself.
      The United States is historically a secular country and is also historically emphatically not anti-religious, but rather a place where religious beliefs have been practiced freely. Old school and I will just have to disagree on what constitutes secularism.

    6. Note that this is the context of secular American Jews, not all secularists. These Jews are generally progressive these days.

      There is a significant number that are unaware of the integral connection to the land that counters the Arab and anti-Zionist narrative that Israel is a usurper.

      The Israeli narrative comes out of the Hebrew bible, reject by and large due to their secularist, progressive beliefs. Thus, they are deprived of a major component of identity. It shows in their orientation to the current conflict.

      As indicated previously, "maybe they would feel different if not ensconced in relative affluence and security. Or in fear of becoming apostates by questioning progressive dogma." It's not Israelis that lack knowledge, but Americans.

      It is not about being more religious, either, but more open to religious sources to inform and provide meaning. When secularist American Jews run from religion, they run from the history, their history, that refutes many present day beliefs they hold, and results in disinterest to correct their course.

    7. Well, the Bible is a primary source and it indicates the historical depth of Jewish people on that land. It's not a history text, of course, but historians use it, along with other primary sources, such as archeological evidence, to piece together Jewish history.

      I am not a particularly religous guy, and am not steeped in the biblical narrative, but I think that we all acknowledge the long history of Jewish people in the Land of Israel and that there are no other people in the region who can claim indigeneity other than the Jews.

      I have to say, tho, that I am not very comfortable with this notion of "narratives."

      It makes sense in the way that School is using it because he is referring to the Jewish religious narrative as derived from the Bible which, by definition, indicates that it is a-historical. The same goes for the "Palestinian narrative." It's a narrative. It's a story that they tell one another, and the rest of the world, but it bares little resemblance to the truth of history.

      I say, let the local Arabs conjure up their "narratives."

      We have a long documented history on our side. That history includes 14 long centuries of Arab-Muslim persecution and the hostility of the majority population throughout the Middle East.

      We may no longer be victims, because we absolutely refuse to be victims. But we are definitely not the aggressors, either. That designation goes to the people in the Middle East who encouraged war against the Jews and who hoped that Hitler would finish the job once Rommel defeated Patton in North Africa.

    8. The narrative I refer to is not just a religious one, but resembles the truth of history.

      The Jewish bible also contains norms and laws that help one to understand the narrative.

      Here's a very good set of videos for secular Jews not well steeped in the biblical narrative.


      There's a lot of history in there, but because it's in the bible, secularists look askance. Many therefore do not know the history and are unable to acknowledge the connection or its significance.

      Jews still are victims. Bigotry and discrimination does not occur against non-victims. One can be a victim and prosper in spite of it, however. This is a lesson that Jews illustrate for all minorities.

    9. I hate thinking of contemporary Jews as victims and, certainly, I am no victim.


      "One can be a victim and prosper in spite of it, however. This is a lesson that Jews illustrate for all minorities."

      Fair enough.

      Jews are clearly under aggression by a much larger hostile majority steeped in religious bigotry and hatred and, yet, prosper in spite of it.

      This is what our friends on the Left do not get.

      They think that because the Jews of the Middle East thrived and redeemed themselves in the twentieth-century while the local Arabs tended to reduce themselves to misery, stupidity, cruelty, and violence, that the self-inflicted local Arab condition must be the fault of the prosperous Jews.

      As you know, it wasn't.

      So, what do you think of the condition of the pro-Israel blogosphere these days, School?

    10. Now that is a tough question, and I don't claim to speak from authority.

      First impression, redundant. Lots of the same stories and the same ideas. Few surprises. It's interesting how static the conversation is, and how predictable.

      Would like to see less theory that may be interesting, but what does it accomplish? Would like more attention given to actual Christian persecution and genocide, and to the degradation from within taking place in Europe. These areas on the front lines offer non-Jews a glimpse of what Israel faces, and maybe even open some minds.

      There's a lot of good stuff, too, relating to events on campus and exposing antisemitism and hypocrisy of anti-Zionist forces. But the blogoshpere overall is like a wasteland, where clicks rule the day, and that makes it less valuable than it could otherwise be.

  2. Progressive relationship with religion is solely as a tool of politics. This why they innately flock to Islam where there is little difference between religion and politics and why they flock to the more radical elements of Catholicism and Protestantism which adopted a militant political stance. Religion to the left is the car and politics is the bomb in the trunk of the car. The two go hand in glove to the extent the car can take them to their target. But you stumble over a religion which isn't overtly political on its face, like Judaism or Shinto then progressives have no need and less love for it.

    1. Religions tend to be either universal or non-universal

      political or non-political.

      Judaism was never universal and is not political. That is, nobody but a few Jewish cranks, is calling for government based on Torah today.

      Christianity is universal - which is to say that one can only arise to heaven through the grace of Jesus - but, for the most part, since the European Enlightenment, is no longer political.

      This is, of course, enshrined in the Constitution.

      Islam is both universal and, with a few exceptions among quietist sects and, I suppose, Sufis, is highly political.

      I just put this out there because your thought on religion as sometimes the vehicle for politics reminded me of this little bit of analysis that I picked up somewhere.

      It seems spot on to me.

      What do you think?