The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, Proprietor
Friday, January 13, 2017
Saturday, January 7, 2017
Interesting Times
Michael Lumish
{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon, Jews Down Under and The Jewish Press.}
The Jewish political community is divided and distressed.
As I write, Israel is reeling over the Azaria case, the United Nations is pushing all-in on Jew Hatred, Jihadism is on the rise in Europe, white nationalism and anti-white racism are both on the rise in the United States, Obama is hitting the road (or, at least, crossing the street), the Russians are unhappy and shaking their fists, and Donald Trump is eagerly chomping at the bit.
Anything can happen and nobody knows what will.
I hope that he does. In fact, I will be damn pissed-off if he doesn't. But if he does so in a timely manner it will demonstrate a clear change in direction concerning US policy on the Long War. Oslo was a disaster and the two-state solution is dead dead dead. Perhaps Trump will recognize this and, if he does, it means pretty much everything is up for grabs. Will Israel seize the day and annex? And if so, annex what exactly? And how will "the world" respond?
Or will Israel, as is my bet, simply react to circumstances as they develop while wobbling back-and-forth on what to do with Judea and Samaria? No matter what it does, however, interested parties throughout the world are gearing up to give Israel a good ass-kicking if they can. Prior to the recent American election all the elements lined up with the EU, the UN, the Obama administration, the progressive-left - not to mention almost the entire Arab and Muslim worlds - in agreement that Jews have no rights to sovereignty on ancestral Jewish land.
While the ascendancy of Trump represents a giant question mark, Israel definitely dodged a bullet with Hillary. Unless, of course, you think that another four to eight years of degrading Israel in order to pressure it into complying with the demands of its enemies would have been a good thing. Now, at least, there is the possibility that the United States will go back to a more sensible foreign policy which honors allies while confronting enemies. We shall see.
But what happens if the Democrats install Keith Ellison as Chair of the Democratic National Committee?
We're waiting with bated breath on that one, aren't we? Speaking for myself, I am very much looking forward to the Democrats handing the DNC Chair to Keith Ellison. I hope that they do it because Ellison is a fair representation of the party as it stands now. He covers enough of the bases, from issues of diversity to those of progressive economics, to make most Democrats happy.
Of course, there is that niggling little problem with his anti-Semitic anti-Zionism which the rest of them studiously ignore - and make no mistake, all anti-Zionism is by definition anti-Semitic - but if you don't like it you can lump it. That's the attitude of the party, but I consider this a good thing because this way everyone knows where everyone stands.
It's Naked Lunch.
Everyone sees what's on the end of every fork.
And will Alan Dershowitz actually leave the Democratic Party???
Yes, the earth will tremble and Balrogs will arise from the Deep.
It's my bet that Dershowitz will leave the Democratic Party in his life no sooner than did Ed Koch in his.
Nonetheless, for the first time we are seeing significant numbers of Jewish Democrats acknowledging something that has been clear to many of us for a very long time. The Democratic Party is shaking off support for Israel because it tends to view Israel through an anti-imperialist lens and because Muslims are a more important constituency in the long run for the party. In terms both broad and crude, this is what it comes down to.
We can acknowledge this truth or pretend otherwise, but truth it remains.
Meanwhile the American Jewish community, if not the diaspora Jewish community, more generally, is cracking along various ideological fault-lines. Tensions are mounting between "progressive" and Democratic Party Jews versus conservative and Republican Party Jews over U.S.-Israeli policy. Fault lines are continuing to crack between Israeli Jews and American Jews over the same question. And even within Democratic Party ranks, Jews are squabbling among themselves over the direction of the party and whether or not to split from the Democrats, as I did maybe 5 years ago.
This is not new, it is just getting more and more vital and intense.
Political sands have been shifting for many years but this moment is a true transitional moment. For Jewish people the election of Trump, whatever else it may mean, staggered the Oslo-Clinton-Obama anti-Israel status quo. Thus I find myself among those who sense opportunity in the moment.
While diaspora Jews are in no position to tell our brothers and sisters in Israel what to do, there is no reason why we should shy away from making suggestions. My suggestion, modest or not, is that Israel take the opportunity to declare its final borders. What those borders will be should entirely be up to Israel. A few years ago I would have suggested that they be determined through negotiations with Palestinian-Arab representatives. However, since at this point it could not be more clear that there is no Arab intention of creating a Palestinian-Arab state in peace next to Israel they forfeit any consideration.
The so-called "Palestinians" are all-or-nothing kind of folk for whom compromise is a kick in the head. And you know what they say about all-or-nothing kind of people, don't you?
If they can't get it all...
{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon, Jews Down Under and The Jewish Press.}
The Jewish political community is divided and distressed.As I write, Israel is reeling over the Azaria case, the United Nations is pushing all-in on Jew Hatred, Jihadism is on the rise in Europe, white nationalism and anti-white racism are both on the rise in the United States, Obama is hitting the road (or, at least, crossing the street), the Russians are unhappy and shaking their fists, and Donald Trump is eagerly chomping at the bit.
Anything can happen and nobody knows what will.
For example, will Trump move the US embassy to Jerusalem?
I hope that he does. In fact, I will be damn pissed-off if he doesn't. But if he does so in a timely manner it will demonstrate a clear change in direction concerning US policy on the Long War. Oslo was a disaster and the two-state solution is dead dead dead. Perhaps Trump will recognize this and, if he does, it means pretty much everything is up for grabs. Will Israel seize the day and annex? And if so, annex what exactly? And how will "the world" respond?
Or will Israel, as is my bet, simply react to circumstances as they develop while wobbling back-and-forth on what to do with Judea and Samaria? No matter what it does, however, interested parties throughout the world are gearing up to give Israel a good ass-kicking if they can. Prior to the recent American election all the elements lined up with the EU, the UN, the Obama administration, the progressive-left - not to mention almost the entire Arab and Muslim worlds - in agreement that Jews have no rights to sovereignty on ancestral Jewish land.
While the ascendancy of Trump represents a giant question mark, Israel definitely dodged a bullet with Hillary. Unless, of course, you think that another four to eight years of degrading Israel in order to pressure it into complying with the demands of its enemies would have been a good thing. Now, at least, there is the possibility that the United States will go back to a more sensible foreign policy which honors allies while confronting enemies. We shall see.
But what happens if the Democrats install Keith Ellison as Chair of the Democratic National Committee?
We're waiting with bated breath on that one, aren't we? Speaking for myself, I am very much looking forward to the Democrats handing the DNC Chair to Keith Ellison. I hope that they do it because Ellison is a fair representation of the party as it stands now. He covers enough of the bases, from issues of diversity to those of progressive economics, to make most Democrats happy.
Of course, there is that niggling little problem with his anti-Semitic anti-Zionism which the rest of them studiously ignore - and make no mistake, all anti-Zionism is by definition anti-Semitic - but if you don't like it you can lump it. That's the attitude of the party, but I consider this a good thing because this way everyone knows where everyone stands.
It's Naked Lunch.
Everyone sees what's on the end of every fork.
And will Alan Dershowitz actually leave the Democratic Party???
It's my bet that Dershowitz will leave the Democratic Party in his life no sooner than did Ed Koch in his.
Nonetheless, for the first time we are seeing significant numbers of Jewish Democrats acknowledging something that has been clear to many of us for a very long time. The Democratic Party is shaking off support for Israel because it tends to view Israel through an anti-imperialist lens and because Muslims are a more important constituency in the long run for the party. In terms both broad and crude, this is what it comes down to.
We can acknowledge this truth or pretend otherwise, but truth it remains.
Meanwhile the American Jewish community, if not the diaspora Jewish community, more generally, is cracking along various ideological fault-lines. Tensions are mounting between "progressive" and Democratic Party Jews versus conservative and Republican Party Jews over U.S.-Israeli policy. Fault lines are continuing to crack between Israeli Jews and American Jews over the same question. And even within Democratic Party ranks, Jews are squabbling among themselves over the direction of the party and whether or not to split from the Democrats, as I did maybe 5 years ago.
This is not new, it is just getting more and more vital and intense.
Political sands have been shifting for many years but this moment is a true transitional moment. For Jewish people the election of Trump, whatever else it may mean, staggered the Oslo-Clinton-Obama anti-Israel status quo. Thus I find myself among those who sense opportunity in the moment.
While diaspora Jews are in no position to tell our brothers and sisters in Israel what to do, there is no reason why we should shy away from making suggestions. My suggestion, modest or not, is that Israel take the opportunity to declare its final borders. What those borders will be should entirely be up to Israel. A few years ago I would have suggested that they be determined through negotiations with Palestinian-Arab representatives. However, since at this point it could not be more clear that there is no Arab intention of creating a Palestinian-Arab state in peace next to Israel they forfeit any consideration.
The so-called "Palestinians" are all-or-nothing kind of folk for whom compromise is a kick in the head. And you know what they say about all-or-nothing kind of people, don't you?
If they can't get it all...
Friday, January 6, 2017
Thursday, January 5, 2017
A development in Islam we should support
Sar Shalom
The other day, I was listening on the Brian Lehrer Show in New York to United Arab Emirates' ambassador to Russia talk about his book about how someone can be both a good Muslim and a good citizen of the world. From his talk, I came away with the impression that most Muslims have the approach that being a good Muslim means saying "the umma, right or wrong." Of course, once someone takes that attitude, there is no way to support Israel over the Palestinians, because even if the Palestinians are wrong, as part of the umma, it is one's duty to support them. Without getting into any specific manifestations, Ambassador Ghobash rejects this tenet. In so doing, he makes it possible to reach an accommodation with Muslims in that he expands the grounds on which one can be a good Muslim and accept the presence of Israel.
The other day, I was listening on the Brian Lehrer Show in New York to United Arab Emirates' ambassador to Russia talk about his book about how someone can be both a good Muslim and a good citizen of the world. From his talk, I came away with the impression that most Muslims have the approach that being a good Muslim means saying "the umma, right or wrong." Of course, once someone takes that attitude, there is no way to support Israel over the Palestinians, because even if the Palestinians are wrong, as part of the umma, it is one's duty to support them. Without getting into any specific manifestations, Ambassador Ghobash rejects this tenet. In so doing, he makes it possible to reach an accommodation with Muslims in that he expands the grounds on which one can be a good Muslim and accept the presence of Israel.
Brandeis explains Obama's approach to Israel
Sar Shalom
Louis Brandeis that is.
Courtesy of an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times about the filibuster, I learned of Justice Brandeis' line from a dissent, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Therein is the crux of Obama's approach to Israel.
Many Israel-supporters ascribe Obama's actions to an animus against Israel. Such an assessment has two problems. One, there are facts that contradict it. Two, the is an alternative theory that explains why he has taken the actions he has. While not flattering of Obama, it does not describe any degree of malice on Obama's part.
A place to start would be how Obama's worldview was formed. When Obama got his start as a community organizer in Chicago, he had two main types of sources of information on the Mideast conflict: the Palestinianist spokesmen, such as Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, and the liberal Jews of Chicago, such as Abner Mikva and Sam Minow. From the first group, Obama absorbed a sense of Palestinian grievance. The second group provided reason not to take it at face-value, nor did it provide any defense of Israel's presence in Jordan's 1949-conquest. However, because the second group did defend Israel where Jordan failed to conquer in 1949, Obama thought he had heard "both sides" of the conflict and thus knew everything that he truly needed to know, and thus he felt entitled to say "na na na na, I don't hear you" to anyone trying to point out anything that was not within the parameters of The Truth that his Palestinianist and liberal Chicago Jewish mentors taught him.
However, there are consequential gaps in Obama's knowledge of the Middle East. For instance, his mentors did not teach him about the history of the Pact of Umar. Nor has he ever pondered the possibility that his Palestinianist mentors, rather describing what we westerners consider a legitimate grievance, were merely dressing up their grievance that outside of the Temple Mount, the Pact of Umar is no longer in effect. Thus Obama combines an exceptional level of zeal provided by his Palestinianist mentors with an equally exceptional lack of understanding. As Brandeis wrote, it is the greatest threat to liberty, and thus we get UNSC 2334.
Louis Brandeis that is.
Courtesy of an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times about the filibuster, I learned of Justice Brandeis' line from a dissent, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Therein is the crux of Obama's approach to Israel.
Many Israel-supporters ascribe Obama's actions to an animus against Israel. Such an assessment has two problems. One, there are facts that contradict it. Two, the is an alternative theory that explains why he has taken the actions he has. While not flattering of Obama, it does not describe any degree of malice on Obama's part.
A place to start would be how Obama's worldview was formed. When Obama got his start as a community organizer in Chicago, he had two main types of sources of information on the Mideast conflict: the Palestinianist spokesmen, such as Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, and the liberal Jews of Chicago, such as Abner Mikva and Sam Minow. From the first group, Obama absorbed a sense of Palestinian grievance. The second group provided reason not to take it at face-value, nor did it provide any defense of Israel's presence in Jordan's 1949-conquest. However, because the second group did defend Israel where Jordan failed to conquer in 1949, Obama thought he had heard "both sides" of the conflict and thus knew everything that he truly needed to know, and thus he felt entitled to say "na na na na, I don't hear you" to anyone trying to point out anything that was not within the parameters of The Truth that his Palestinianist and liberal Chicago Jewish mentors taught him.
However, there are consequential gaps in Obama's knowledge of the Middle East. For instance, his mentors did not teach him about the history of the Pact of Umar. Nor has he ever pondered the possibility that his Palestinianist mentors, rather describing what we westerners consider a legitimate grievance, were merely dressing up their grievance that outside of the Temple Mount, the Pact of Umar is no longer in effect. Thus Obama combines an exceptional level of zeal provided by his Palestinianist mentors with an equally exceptional lack of understanding. As Brandeis wrote, it is the greatest threat to liberty, and thus we get UNSC 2334.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Question of the Whenever # 7: Ya Can't Swing a Dead Cat without Hitting a Racist (Updated)
Michael Lumish
Racism. Racism. Racism.
How is it that the less racist western countries become the more their citizenry accuse one another of racism?
It's very strange, really, and I don't understand it.
It's as if people have no historical sense whatsoever.
It was only fucking yesterday when Jim Crow laws reigned in the United States. My old man got fired from a job as a kid after the boss learned that he took one of the High Holy Days off.
I was born under the Sign of Kennedy and in my lifetime I have seen remarkable progress on issues of racial bigotry within the United States.
But, again, what's weird... at least to me... is that as the Civil Rights Movement matured and was accepted by almost everyone in the United States, and certainly virtually everyone in political power today, the high-pitched screeches of RACISM just rang throughout the land.
It came to a shrill crescendo in the weeks leading into the election of the Abominably Orange Cheetoh.
So, yes, how is it that the less racist western countries become the more their citizenry accuse one another of racism?
Hmmmm???
UPDATE:
Oh, and by the way, if any of you idiots out there want to talk to me about American Nazis or the fucking Klan or the "Alt-Right"... whatever you think that is... just please shut the hell up until you can produce a video that comes anything close to the kind of violent anti-white racism that we see below.
And don't try to pawn this off on Trump.
Trump didn't do this.
It was all you hideous morons out there screaming from the hillsides about RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
Well, there's racism in this country, alright.
Just ask the poor bastard in the video below.
Racism. Racism. Racism.How is it that the less racist western countries become the more their citizenry accuse one another of racism?
It's very strange, really, and I don't understand it.
It's as if people have no historical sense whatsoever.
It was only fucking yesterday when Jim Crow laws reigned in the United States. My old man got fired from a job as a kid after the boss learned that he took one of the High Holy Days off.
I was born under the Sign of Kennedy and in my lifetime I have seen remarkable progress on issues of racial bigotry within the United States.
But, again, what's weird... at least to me... is that as the Civil Rights Movement matured and was accepted by almost everyone in the United States, and certainly virtually everyone in political power today, the high-pitched screeches of RACISM just rang throughout the land.
It came to a shrill crescendo in the weeks leading into the election of the Abominably Orange Cheetoh.
So, yes, how is it that the less racist western countries become the more their citizenry accuse one another of racism?
Hmmmm???
UPDATE:
Oh, and by the way, if any of you idiots out there want to talk to me about American Nazis or the fucking Klan or the "Alt-Right"... whatever you think that is... just please shut the hell up until you can produce a video that comes anything close to the kind of violent anti-white racism that we see below.
And don't try to pawn this off on Trump.
Trump didn't do this.
It was all you hideous morons out there screaming from the hillsides about RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!
Well, there's racism in this country, alright.
Just ask the poor bastard in the video below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)