Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Friday, September 29, 2006

That’s For Starters

Shergald, professional Jew-hater and serial poster of anti-Israel diaries on Daily Kos, accused me of bringing the most far-right Zionist view, and another one of the anti-Zionists on the comments called me, “The mouldering corpse of Golda Meir sitting in front of a computer screen”. No doubt one of my recent posts here, End the Occupation!, could reinforce that view with the last of its maps. That map, showing the territories that Israel could have by rights, is something I could never support inwardly, let alone advocate publicly, in my peacenik days of the 1990’s. It’s not that I’m bullish on those borders now, but today I gladly thumb them in the noses of those who accuse Israel of being imperialistic despite having, for the sake of peace, diminished itself to restricted borders. It is reflective of the general change of position in Israel, in which many former peaceniks, having seen how concessions and civilized behavior have brought Israel no praise, not even legitimacy to defend itself (as the last Lebanon War showed), are now ready to wave with maps hitherto considered to be the exclusive domain of the far right. In other words: due to the Muslim enemy’s intransigence and the unjust opinion of the world, the formerly far right of Israel has gotten closer to the center view. And yes, it’s you Muslim “oppressed peoples” and Leftist “peace activists” who are to blame for that, only you.

As the fact-packed article The Guardian: An Atrocity Created Israel’s Birth by Carol Gould shows, the Zionist state is an oasis of civility in this desert of barbarism (an ever-expanding desert, threatening to take over the whole world, it cannot be stated enough). It is moral inversion, the kind of which I believe can be explained only by divine influence, to regard Israel the cancer and the Muslim states surrounding it the healthy body. Whatever wealth they have is the result of their good fortune (of having oil under their ground) and not of their efforts. Israel, poor in such natural resources, prospers by the brains and the sweat of its people (from the secular point of view; of course, G-d’s blessing to His people is the true key). This setting up of industry, science and culture by the Zionists predates the independence of Israel by decades, whereas the invented nation calling themselves “Palestinians” have been engaged in nothing but internecine warfare (of the violent kind), the setting up of terrorist training camps and the maintenance of a poisonous education system ever since gaining land of their own in 1993. Such is the difference between Israel and its enemies, and on the Guardian and its ilk falls the verdict of Isaiah 5:20.

We could have demanded the Biblical borders for Israel by rights. But we valued Jewish life and culture over borders, in 1947 as in 1993. There were, before Israel’s independence, the right-wingers waving with maps of Israel having the Transjordan (now the state of Jordan) as well—the East Bank and not just the West Bank!—but the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was accepted—anything in order for us Jews to have, after 2,000 years of the Diaspora, a state of our own. That repeated itself in 1993, and the other side’s reaction of 1947 similarly repeated itself in October 2000. In 1947 it was pragmatism, in 1993 it was giving a second chance, surmising that the other side had changed; but today, another repeat of the plan to partition the land between the Jews and the Muslims would have none of those redeeming explanations—it would be stupidity.

I will tell you the tale of the mafioso and the car. A mafia don approached an average Joe and said to him, “Nice car you got there, it’d be a shame if something happened to it. Pay me a grand each month and it’ll be all OK”. Joe pays. However, a few days afterwards, he comes back home to see his car burned. After the trauma, he saves for buying another one, and finally he does. Then the mafia don comes back and says the same words he did last time.

What is Joe to do? In both instances, paying the protection money would be injustice. However, in the first instance, though it is injustice, it could be considered an act of wisdom—a result of pragmatic calculation of the cost vis-à-vis the value. In the second instance, in contrast, for Joe to pay the mafioso the money would not be even wise. For now that he had seen that paying the protection money had not kept his car safe, now that he had seen that the mafioso was not willing to hold to his side of the deal, Joe would have nothing to lose by refusing to pay and finding some way to fight the mafioso instead. Injustice can be barely tolerated by excusing it as pragmatism; but if there is no pragmatism in the miscarriage of justice, then the excuse of pragmatism should be thrown away, and justice be vehemently pursued, for there is now nothing to lose and everything to gain from that.

Joe is the Jews, and by extension the whole non-Muslim world. The mafioso is the “Palestinians”, and by extension the whole Muslim world. So far, the proverbial Joe has been paying protection money in the face of the plain fact that the proverbial mafioso has no intention of keeping his part of the deal—not permanently, anyway (pace Robert Spencer, Islamic law stipulates that a peace treaty with non-Muslims can last 10 years at most, and then it’s back to warfare). What, then, is the gain in continuing the concessions of land or culture to the Muslims? It is not only unjust (caving in to intimidation) but also unwise, because any concession merely postpones, not cancels, the enemy’s goal of full takeover. Your car will be burned down, in the end, no matter how much you pay, so it’s better, more pragmatic, to resist than to keep paying.

This exodus of Israelis, then, from the “Give Peace A Chance—At All Costs” mentality into thoughts that were until recently the domain of the far right, is the result of “Palestinian” unwillingness to keep their side of the deal, just like the car-burning mafioso. Or in other words: they started it. The mainstream of Zionism had always been willing to compromise on the borders; the shifting of the far right of Zionism toward the mainstream is the result of the other side’s actions, aided and abetted by the bias and libels of TreasonMedia like the Guardian. There were so many points in modern history in which peace was at hand, only to be foiled because, to paraphrase the Prime Minister whose mouldering corpse I am claimed to digitally represent, the Arabs hated us Jews more than they loved their own children. After years of being an introspective, blame-yourself-first left-wing peacenik, I’ve come to hold that the other side has most of the blame to shore.

Our “reality-based” Leftist apologists will no doubt bristle at the expression, “They started it”. “It’s the childish retort of kids scrapping in the kindergarten!” they’ll say. Well, kids scrapping in the kindergarten do say it often, that much I admit, but the conclusion doesn’t follow from that fact (in other words: the Leftists’ argument is a non sequitur). But I wish to point out a little Leftist hypocrisy in that regard (not a difficult thing to find). Do we dispute the late and unlamented Edward Said as a representative mouthpiece of Leftist thinking? Of course we don’t. Here’s what Said had to say in his article for the Guardian for September 16, 2001, Islam and the West are inadequate banners (the title itself deserves a whole post commenting on it; after Yom Kippur, G-d willing):

“Anti-Americanism in this context is not based on a hatred of modernity or technology-envy: it is based on a narrative of concrete interventions, specific depredations and, in the cases of the Iraqi people’s suffering under US-imposed sanctions and US support for the 34-year-old Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.”

First impressions are of great importance, yet it pays to take off the wrappers to see what’s inside. Said’s passage is presented in a colorful wrapper of polysyllabic, intellectual, academic prose, yet once that wrapper is take off, it can be seen to be the same, “They started it!” that the Left decries as immature. I mean, just what is the phrase, “Country X had reprisals from group Y coming because of its abusive foreign policy toward that group” if not a paraphrase of, “They started it”? Whenever the Left blames the USA or Israel for any attacks on its civilians, it’s saying, “The USA/Israel deserved it, because they started it”. That’s the substance of the Leftist message, no matter how elaborate and academic a form they give it.

I am not saying that the phrase, “They started it” ought to be used indiscriminately; but it is certainly warranted when an experience is repeated and must be learned from, such as the repeated experience of Muslim rage at a novel and then at a few cartoons and then at a quote from a medieval emperor. As with everything else, fact-checking and rational judgment must be exercised to find out who really is the culprit, otherwise the roles of victim and perpetrator will be reversed. Leftist logic is so perverse that it can easily bring them to stand before the family of a raped girl and say to them, “She was raped because she was dressed provocatively. She had it coming. She shouldn’t be crying about it, seeing as she made herself a target by her actions”, and thus excuse the rapist, and also blame society and government for driving him toward rape by “neglecting the poor”. Without finding the facts and applying reason, even the most well-meaning stance can degenerate into the most abject heartlessness. That, I believe, is the key to understanding what makes atrocities possible, what makes good people do evil things, even, contra Steven Weinberg, without religion.

Ruled, Britannia!

Picture: Masjid-e-Umer Mosque at Walthamstow, London

“When Abu Izzadeen, the firebrand Islamist militant, berated John Reid last week for ‘daring’ to visit a Muslim area, the Home Secretary bridled, as did many others, at his suggestion that part of London was off limits for a British minister of the Crown.

“There was nowhere in this country from which anyone should be excluded, Mr Reid said; nowhere that could be called exclusively Muslim. He was speaking just a couple of Tube stops from West Ham, close to the site for the 2012 Olympic stadium, where a huge row is about to erupt over plans to construct a mosque. However, this is not any old mosque built to serve the local community. It will be the largest place of worship in Europe, a gigantic three-storey Islamic centre, with schools and other facilities, able to hold at least 40,000 worshippers and up to 70,000 if necessary.” – The shadow cast by a mega-mosque, Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph, September 25, 2006.

Seeing how things are going, I thought it was time to update an old poem:

Ruled, Britannia!

When Britain first at terrorist bombs
Caved in to their demands,
This was the policy of the Left,
And the Guardian went hand in hand.

Ruled, Britannia, ruled by Islam!
Britons, unless they change, shall be slaves.

The nations so craven as thee
Shall in their turns to shariah fall,
While thou shalt be the warning sign,
The dread and threat to them all.

Ruled, Britannia, ruled by Islam!
Britons, unless they change, shall be slaves.

With still more demands shalt thou comply,
More dreadful concessions make,
As the loud muezzin’s cries that tear the skies
Serve but your Western soul to take.

Ruled, Britannia, ruled by Islam!
Britons, unless they change, shall be slaves.

Thee haughty Muslims soon shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down
Will but succeed unless you change,
And work their woe up to the crown.

Ruled, Britannia, ruled by Islam!
Britons, unless they change, shall be slaves.

To thee belongs no rural reign,
Thy cities lost their Western shine,
All thine shall be subjected to theirs,
And every law of theirs thine.

Ruled, Britannia, ruled by Islam!
Britons, unless they change, shall be slaves.

The Muses, having freedom lost,
Shall be banished from the very air.
O curst Isle! Unless you turn around,
And to resist the enemy dare.

Ruled, Britannia, ruled by Islam!
Britons, unless they change, shall be slaves.

Picture: Kefiyyeh-wearing protestor hanging a Hizbullah flag in front of the Big Ben, August 5, 2006


Wednesday, September 27, 2006


I’m not an aficionado of Internet activism. I don’t go signing online petitions thinking they could actually change the world. I wouldn’t have started this blog at all, but then, in the middle of the last Lebanon War, I realized it was a necessity: the outcome of wars is decided today by one’s media image more than anything else, and since most of the mainstream media is sympathetic toward, if not actually owned by, the Islamic enemy (which is why I call it TreasonMedia), pretty much the only way to circumvent it is the blogosphere. LGF’s exposé of the Reuters Fauxtography Scandal was one of the blogosphere’s finest hours to date, and should soften even the most hardened skeptic into accepting the value of the New Media.

So I’m online because it’s a duty, it’s worthwhile. I post here and on the Infidel Bloggers Alliance and on various other places because I think it has some effect. If I didn’t think it had any effect, I wouldn’t be wasting a single second. And that’s the reason why I decided, after more than a month of taking my arguments to the enemy’s home field on the Daily Kos, to leave that den of Israel-bashers, America-haters, Occidentalists (in the sense inverse of Edward Said’s screed), Islam-huggers and, above all, hypocrites.

They started by calling me a troll. I’m not that into Internet lingo, but as far as I know, I didn’t fit the definition. A troll is one who posts on an online forum for the sole purpose of exciting the participants’ emotions. Such as, for instance, someone who posts things like, “Apple sucks” or “Macs drool, PC’s rule” on a Macintosh forum. Though of course I realize my posts were offensive to many, that was from the very fact of deviating from the concensus on Daily Kos, not because I had any intention of riling people. Trolls often emerge as unassuming posters, not arousing suspicion until they make their first red-caped posts in front of the eyes of the regulars. I, in contrast, was up front from the get-go: if you clicked on my profile link, you’d know I was a Zionist Jew registered on Daily Kos for the purpose of offering a dissenting view on Israel. Each time I was accused of trolling, I insisted I was there only for refuting lies about Israel and Zionism, and that the Israel-bashing diaries were the only reason I was registered on Daily Kos at all. Finally, trolls aren’t in it for the discussion; their earmark is hit-and-run posts, dropping a bombshell just to sit back and enjoy the scuffling afterwards. I was a full participator in discussions, checking replies to my posts and responding to them whenever I could. As I said, I’m online for the exchange of minds, not because I don’t have a life and I need some infantile fun.

The Daily Kos definition of “troll” is something else. It appears to mean, “anyone deviating from the party line”. It extends even to real life: Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel were called trolls by the Kossacks when they condemned Hugo Chávez’s anti-Bush remarks in the UN (see thread Pelosi/Rangel Statements Send Kos Kidz Into Tailspin on LGF). This mutation of the definition of “troll” reminds me of the Communists’ penchant for declaring opponents of the party to be mentally ill (with all the further actions that that entails).

But those are just words. On the last diary I posted comments on, the sticks and stones came: I found a lot of my posts had been deleted. And that, as far as I’m concerned, means I could in no wise continue my participation there. I said my online presence was only for things I think worthwhile. I’m willing to dedicate 20 minutes of my free time for writing a comment, provided that its readership be guaranteed. If it gets deleted sometime, it means I wasted 20 minutes—that’s 20 minutes I could have used for something far more productive! I save my comments to a file, so it’s not as if they’re lost forever, but still—any online forum where comments are at the mercy of the administrators, whether by the prospect of deletion or by the necessity of needing moderator approval first, is a forum I don’t consider worthy of registering on at all.

I want to pre-empt a likely strawman: “Daily Kos is in private ownership. They own it, so they can do whatever they want; you’re a guest and you have no right to complain”. This is a strawman because not once did I suggest they were beyond their rights. I’m not talking about rights here at all, I’m talking about moral integrity. Can the owners of Daily Kos delete my posts or ban me altogether? Sure they can. Can the owners of a Democrat forum, ostensibly standing for free speech and civil liberties, and bashing the other side for allegedly violating those, delete my posts or ban me altogether yet still preserve their moral integrity intact? Hell no, they can’t. This is hypocrisy of the same order as the Democrats’ forcing ABC, under threat (the threat of removing their broadcast license), to edit their docudrama Path to 9/11 just because it poses dissent to their precious view that Clinton could wash in the cleanliness of his palms with regard to 9/11.

To sum it up: by no stretch of the definition could I be called a “troll” on Daily Kos, and it was only McCarthy-like (the irony…) witch-hunting that could explain that; the deletion of my posts, while within the property rights of the owners of Daily Kos, is hypocritical, being an act of suppression of free speech and dissent in a forum that claims to stand for those values (but, as we saw with their treatment of ABC, it is a mask just like CAIR’s demands to silence all criticism of Islam in the interests of “cultural sensitivity and celebrating diversity” is); and finally, the deletion of my posts has the effect of making the time I spent on formulating and writing them totally, irredeemably wasted. Under the circumstances, I have no interest in participating in that hypocritical and treasonous forum ever again. I will keep on monitoring Daily Kos for anti-Israel diaries, and refute the egregious ones—but on my own blog, where I have the near-certainty that my refutations cannot be deleted by other than me.

And now for the issue of commenting on my blog. First, I welcome it. Comments to my writings are of high value in my eyes, because the purpose of my blog, as I said, is to insert my voice into the exchange of ideas which is so important in the clash of civilizations going on today. Comments that point out flaws in my blog posts are splendid, because they force me to fix them and improve my writings. Positive feedback encourages me, and negative feedback, if it contains arguments, spurs me to do better. Which brings me to the second matter: what kind of comments I intent to edit or delete.

It should be clear I’m not in favor of doing that. It would fall under Hillel’s famous quote, da’alach senei lera’ach la ta’bed, meaning, “What is hated unto you, do not do unto your neighbor”. And it should be clear I’m never going to delete a comment just because it offers a dissenting point of view. There are two cases where I would feel justified in editing or deleting a comment: 1) An opposing view but with no argument, and 2) Linking to death porn.

Opposing views are welcome, but they need to be presented as something I can argue against. If not, they’re a waste of my time. I would delete a comment consisting solely of the line, “&#@% U U ZIONAZI BASTARD!”, not because it offends me (victimology is best left to the whiny kids of the world like the Muslims), nor even because of the profanity (I request commenters to avoid profanity, but it would at worst be a cause for editing the particular part of the post, not for deletion of it), but because there’s nothing I can argue against. If you wish to call me a “Zionazi”, you’ll have to bring examples of how Zionism and Nazism are comparable, which I’ll then refute. This is an intellectual blog, so dissent needs to be formulated as intellectual argumentation if it is to stay here.

The second no-go as far as I’m concerned is death porn: photos of bodies of dead children, the staple of Muslim anti-Israel sites. You have to understand this: Judaism is very strict as to its rules regarding the handling of dead bodies. Even the body of someone hanged for the sake of justice, as capital punishment, is not to be left a single day longer after that (Deuteronomy 21:22–23). Jewish sentiment is averse to any mishandling of dead bodies, and the very thought of using them as propaganda money is unthinkable. Anyone who posts links to series of dead bodies, especially children, no matter if their deaths were on purpose or by mistake, has thereby made the statement that he views those bodies as a commodity to be traded in the public relations market. Let your comment contain a thousand words, formulated most eloquently and intellectually rigorous, and wondrously free of any logical fallacy, but contain so much as one link to a web address with death porn, and I delete that comment without thinking twice. That’s a promise and a non-negotiable point.

Other than those two caveats: welcome to the agora!

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 25, 2006

Islamic Science vs. Today’s Islam

There seems to be an, in my opinion, unfortunate counter-reaction to the Muslims’ apologia as to the Islamic origins of modern science. Fearing (rightly) that that apologia is a justification for Muslims to regard modern Western science and technology as being actually theirs, and therefore yet another reason why they are entitled to institute their laws upon the West, the non-Muslim response has been to discredit the history of Islamic science entirely, not granting the Muslims of the 9th to 15th centuries even the slightest achievement in any field of sciences. While the Muslims’ insistence on the indebtedness of all modern science is unwarranted, the non-Muslim reaction is overblown as well. I wish to show here why there is no damage done in granting past achievements in science in the Islamic world, and more: why, far from justifying the Islamic aggression and imperialism of today, the achievements of the past are an argument damning to current Islam.

We have probably heard that zero is a Hindu invention, only taken over by the Muslims. Still, I have no problem acknowledging the contributions to mathematics made by Muslims after taking that invention from the Hindus, in the fields of algebra, algorithms (both with the Arabic definite article) and others. The fact that those achievements are now material for introductory courses in the history of science, while present-day advances in science are the provenance of the non-Muslim West, speaks volumes about the state of Islam today. Islam in the news of today, even in dhimmi outlets like AP and Reuters, consists in geopolitical conflicts and terrorist attacks, not in reports on the high standards of Islamic centers of learning or the steady flow of new patents from the Muslim world. The torch of doing science has wholly passed from the Islamic world to the West. I’d like to elaborate on the nature of that torch.

On one visit to a Christian young-earth creationism website, I read a statement that the proponents (of full Genesis literalism) had no problem with “operational science”, only with “theoretical science”. By the former they mean “the science that cures diseases or put a man on the moon”, and by the latter, “speculations about the past, origins theories, research of unrepeatable events”. They’re OK with science bringing them the benefits of high technology, but they don’t want science going to those areas where the Bible touches natural facts such that there is a conflict between science and their reading of the text. In that, they and modern Muslims are like peas in a pod.

Let this first point be made: the distinction between “operational science” and “theoretical science” (as a formal distinction, between two kinds of science) is nowhere to be found in mainstream scientific literature. It is purely the creation of those who have a bone to pick with the findings of mainstream science. Those who view certain natural facts in their scriptures as foundational to their faith will sink into the quagmire of an exercise of science-denial similar to historical revisionism. (Of course, this is not to exonerate those materialists who say, “Science proves there is no G-d” or “There is no scientific evidence for G-d”—overreach in the other direction.) The religious believer who can let go of such interpretations when they aren’t foundational will have no problem joining the standpoint of mainstream science, according to which science is a search for knowledge about the natural world and models to explain the facts in front of us. From this standpoint, the difference between “operational science” and “theoretical science” is seen for the chimera it is.

Science requires sticking to its methodology (falsifiability, the assumption of uninterrupted natural law and a few other rules); other than that, anything goes. We want science to give us practical benefits, but it must be made clear that putting science in the straitjacket of bringing us practical benefits (which is what those young-earth creationists mean by “operational science”) is detrimental to the practice of science as a whole, and therefore ends up diminishing the cherished practical benefits.

An example: in the 19th century, British mathematician George Boole engaged in the purely theoretical exercise of reducing any proposition to a series of true/false statements. We’d call it a leisurely exercise; one could be excused for telling Boole he was wasting his time. Yet in the next century, engineer and mathematician Claude Shannon used Boole’s system as the basis for digital computing, and it is no exaggeration to acknowledge the debt of all our modern digital technology to Boole’s “pointless” theoretical exercise. It took Shannon to make it practical, but Boole’s theoretical system is the bedrock of the machine I’ve typed this post on.

A scientifically-advanced society, then, is one where all of science is given a free hand, without that “operational science vs. theoretical science” nonsense. The Muslim world had that in the past, it doesn’t have it now, the West has it now. When we read of Alhazen’s treatise on optics, we can see he dwelt on the subject far beyond the practical needs of doctors for eye treatment. He ran wild, supporting his arguments with observations but letting the facts take him anywhere—and that is science. That’s how scientists in the West today work.

What about the Muslim world today? It has sunk to a Koranic literalism that holds that book to make scientific inquiry upon the natural world superfluous. The Muslim leaders of today stare at Western science with a jealous eye not for itself but for its benefits. They approve of advancing the state of scientific research in their countries only for the purpose of making those countries stronger—and that, mainly with regard to weaponry. They encourage rocket scientists for developing more lethal rockets, not for exploring outer space, and nuclear scientists for making atom bombs, not for electricity. They have no interest in, for example, the structure of the DNA molecule, and will have none unless they see a prospect of genetically engineering superior jihad fighters. Both “theoretical science” and “operational science” are already contained in the Koran, they believe, so science, to them, consists only in the “operational” part of using it to further the Koran’s instruction for Islamic law to dominate the world. It can therefore be hardly said that the practice of science exists in the Muslim world today. With science a lowly handmaiden of the jihad, it is no wonder the Muslim world can boast of nothing but a glorious past, and eye the present with rage at non-Muslims having surpassed it. Here is another of the “roots of Muslim rage”, and like the rest of them, a self-inflicted predicament, a grievance but not a legitimate one.

It is not the Crusaders nor the Zionists who are to blame for the sorry state of science in the Muslim world today. The Muslims may say colonialist oppression and their resistance to it are sapping any scientific resources they have, but that is an erroneous argument. The state of Israel has been on a war footing for nearly each decade since its independence, and has to allot large sums to its defense budget, yet the universities of Israel do science, and have produced world-renowned scientists and inventions. The collective resources of the Muslim world, what with their petrodollars and all, are far greater than those available to the 22,000 square kilometer large Zionist state. In the light of this, it is clear Muslims have no-one to blame but themselves for their backwardness. But self-examination is too much to expect of those who are driven to rage by a 14th-century quote of a Byzantine emperor taken out of context.

They want their glory days back. I am sympathetic. But they doom themselves to failure by setting the restoration of the geopolitical state of those glory days—the worldwide Caliphate—as a precondition for the return of the scientific lead. That is why they don’t do science, they do appropriation of Western technology for the sake of the jihad. That is why CAIR has to work at building a positive image of Islam, while the negative image comes naturally, even through the filters of our OrwellMedia, simply because the Muslims are exerting efforts at achieving geopolitical supremacy on expense of self-treatment. I think Charles Martel’s defeat of the Muslims at Tours (732) was good for Islamic science, because it forced them to relinquish the military expansion efforts and focus on internal building instead. Appeasement fuels their thirst for lands and shariah law; the opposite of appeasement is needed to force them to look inside themselves and realize that the return of their scientific glory days can be brought only by coming back to Alhazen’s free-running spirit.

Pope Benedict XVI has wisely opened a route for self-examination and reform for the Muslims. That they have responded to it by riots and killings and demands for apologies means that they have no right to complain about their undesirable state.

UPDATE (September 25, 19:33): Following a comment to this post, I have added a small clarification as to which distinction between “operational science” and “theoretical science” is foreign to mainstream science.

Labels: ,

Friday, September 22, 2006

End the Occupation!

The occupation of indigenous peoples by invaders from outside, whether physical or cultural, is the root cause of all political hatred and violence in our world today. In order to secure just and lasting peace for the peoples of the world, it is necessary to end all forms of occupation and give both territories and cultures back to the people who had been the physical and cultural owners of the land for so long until the invaders brutally stole it and colonized it.

Here are a few examples of lands that need to be returned to their rightful owners, or cultures that need to be restored after being violated by cultural imperialists:


Picture: Map of Egypt

The Copts are the descendants of the original Egyptians. Their original language, Coptic, a lineal descendant of the Egyptian of the Pharaohs, has been replaced by Arabic, the language of the invaders. The Copts themselves, Christians, suffer constant persecution from the Islamic rulers of the land. Islam is an Arab religion and has been the vehicle of Arab imperialism and colonialism since its inception worldwide.


Picture: Map of Iran

The Iranian people still retain their original language (albeit full of loanwords from Arabic, the language of the colonialist occupiers), but their original heritage from the days of Cyrus, of the Avestas and of the Magi is suppressed by the primacy of Islam, a religion brought in by invaders from outside. This constitutes cultural imperialism and is unacceptable. The indigenous culture of the Persian people must be restored.


Picture: Map of Turkey; also shown: Occupied Constantinople

Anatolia, also called Asia Minor, was an inseparable part of Greek territory and culture before its occupation by Turkish Muslims, and subsequent depopulation of its indigenous inhabitants in September 1922. Its ancient city of Constantinople has been under the yoke of the colonialist occupier since 1453, with its greatest church, the Hagia Sophia, dating from the 6th century, converted to a mosque.

It is in the interests of world peace and justice that the colonialist invaders evacuate the occupied territories and return them to their rightful owners.

Picture: Map of Greece with restored territories

Albania and Bosnia

Picture: Map of Albania and Bosnia

Albania and Bosnia are both lands in Christian Europe, occupied and colonized in the past by the same Muslim Turks who are still occupying Greece (see above). Although the physical occupation of the Turks is long gone, Albania and Bosnia suffer from the effects of cultural imperialism, their population consisting of people adhering to the religion of the former occupiers, and its cultural heritage, such as the churches in Kosovo, in danger.


Picture: Map of Pakistan and Bangladesh

India has been subjected to invasion and subsequent colonization by Muslims on both its west and east. The current neighboring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh were formed only for the sake of accommodating the colonialist invaders and codifying the unjust status quo. Pakistan is the land of the Indus valley, where the most ancient artifacts of Indian civilization were found. Bangladesh was India’s greatest source of income before being stolen by the Muslims. The occupation must end now, and the Hindu territories returned to their rightful owners.

Picture: Map of India with restored territories

North Africa

Picture: Map showing the distribution of Amazigh and Berber speakers in North Africa

North Africa (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) are under the cultural occupation of Arab invaders from the east. The native languages, Berber and Amazigh, compete with that of the invaders, Arabic. Furthermore, the religion of the occupiers, Islam, has brutally suppressed and replaced the former religions of the area, such as Christianity, to which influential figures such as Augustine of Hippo held. The cultural heritage of the native Berbers must be reinstated, as well as religious freedom, in order for peace and justice to reign.


“I am furious, I am absolutely furious—John Reid should not come to a Muslim area, we do not want to see him. John Reid, Tony Blair and George Bush’s crusade can all go to hell”, he [Abu Izzadeen —ZY] said today during Mr Reid’s speech.

Source: UK Home Secretary Reid jeered during speech to Muslims, on Jihad Watch.

The Islamic colonialists must be made to understand that merely forming a neighborhood in a non-Islamic host country for some length of time does not make that area Islamic territory. The United Kingdom is a state with its own laws, laws which Muslims must accept if they wish to be respectable citizens there; if not, they are free to move to states with laws of their liking instead. Colonialist invasion of any kind is unacceptable and is detrimental to world peace.

Picture: Map of London


Acharon chaviv (“Last but not least”): the Jews are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel, in that they have been its inhabitants for the longest, and their claim is further corroborated by a charter given by an important Personage in a high position. The Jewish people has never desired any other part of the world than this, in contrast to the imperialistic colonialists of Islam, who believe they are entitled to the entirety of the world. In the interests of just and lasting peace, the Jewish people must be allowed to inhabit their land with no impediments.

Picture: Map showing the territories referred to by the recurring Biblical phrase "from Dan to Beersheba"

Shanah Tovah to all people of Israel and all Righteous Gentiles standing with her!

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Sincerity Is Not Enough

Every time I pay a visit to American Leftist or Jewish anti-Zionist blogs and websites, I stare in utter amazement at the self-deprecating, enemy-praising writing, wondering how people could reach such a state. That people could brand their own side, the free countries of Western civilization, as fascist oppressor and colonialist aggressor, while giving a free pass to cultures of death that bring up their own children on the heritage of suicide bombing and make it a value to kill relatives for restoring the honor of the family, is beyond belief. I try to assume it’s the result of easy bravery in the face of those who know won’t be hard on them (the US and Israel) and true cowardice in the face of their potential overlords (the Muslims), but dhimmitude can only go so far in explaining it all. In my discussions with such quislings, it turns out they’re very sincere in their ways of thinking.

The American Leftists truly believe hatred toward America is the result of its foreign policy. The Jews who post pictures and accounts of the hardship of the Palestinians for all to see sincerely believe Israeli “occupation” is the root cause of “Arab” hatred toward it, and therefore the absolute ending of said “occupation” would lead all enmity to cease. Above all, the thread that runs through their talks and writings is the desire to outstretch a helping hand to the other: they say the actions are with the intention of helping both America and the Muslims, both Israel and the Palestinians. And now I say: I may surprise the reader by this, but I actually share that sentiment. I too desire to help all sides, and am sincere in that. But—and this is the crucial difference—I say sincerity is not enough. It has to be backed by having the correct facts.

Let’s take the example of “conscience organizations” like B’Tselem. They send their activists to photograph “human rights abuses” and “military brutality” by the soldiers of the IDF on the Palestinians. Why do they do that—what do they believe will be achieved by doing that? They think those photos would, eventually, force Israel’s hand to end the “occupation” entirely, and then the Palestinians wouldn’t be oppressed any more, and then they wouldn’t have any motivation to send suicide bombers to Israeli shopping centers or fire rockets onto Israeli towns, and both sides would then live happily ever after. Now, if I had, following extensive research, arrived at the same conclusion as the B’Tselem folks, I’d now be doing the same thing as they are. Not for a moment do I doubt their sincerity. I totally deny, however, the correctness of their conclusions.

The photographs taken by the B’Tselem activists don’t achieve their ultimate objective any way you slice it. They end up in the media of the Islamic world, which seizes them as proof of the necessity of wiping the Zionist entity off the map (G-d forbid), and in the media of the Western Left, which is only glad to use them for bolstering its anti-Western, Islam-sympathizing stance. Eventually, the international pressure caused by the cumulative media effect of all those photograph may force Israel’s hand to concede more land, as it happened in August 2005 (the evacuation, or should it be total Entjudung, of the Gaza Strip), but the hoped-for peace doesn’t come, because after a short period the crocodile decides it wants more (the Kassam rockets fired from Gaza onto towns within Israel’s internationally-recognized borders), and then the IDF has to engage in preventive military activities again, which sets the B’Tselem photographers once again, and it never ends. Or it will end, when, G-d forbid, the state of Israel has conceded itself to death. Good intentions, sincerity about them, but, alas, all leading to hell because of not having researched the issues thoroughly, not letting the facts lead to the theories instead of the other way round.

I don’t like the adage, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Because of its incompleteness, it could lead one to cynicism and nihilism, saying, “Yeah, don’t ever have good intentions and you could never go wrong”. The complete wording should be, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions unsupported by sound research”, though it isn’t as snappy as the abridged version. I’m sure nearly everyone has good intentions—neocons, Zionists, Liberals, B’Tselem activists, even Communists and Muslims. But good intentions are not enough—you need to find out, by research if possible, their ability to deliver on their promise of making the world a better place. If not by research, then trial and error may be the only option, but then you have to take care to follow the conclusions of that trial and error. For example, Communism looked good on paper, but over 70 years of its application have demonstrated its total failure, so being a Communist today reflects intransigence in the face of the facts.

It was excusable for a 19th-century atheist to believe all religion to be the only cause of major wars and war crimes, but is inexcusable for a 21th-century atheist to believe so. It was excusable for an Israeli Jew in 1947 to believe partitioning the land between Jews and Arabs would bring peace, and still passable for an Israeli Jew in 1993 to believe the same (under the thesis that 45 years were enough for the other side not to repeat the uncompromising reaction of the first time), but is inexcusable for an Israeli Jew in 2006 to believe so. It may have been excusable for an American after 9/11 to believe American foreign policy to be the cause of hatred of the United States, but it is certainly not excusable now, after both Danish Cartoons and Pope Benedict XVI affairs have shown that it takes much, much less than foreign policy to set the tempers of the members of the Religion of Peace™ ablaze. If you aren’t an accomplished researcher of Islam like Robert Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald, then at least let your theories conform to the facts laid out by world events such as those two affairs.

Armed with the straight facts and the correct inferences from them, one can be a better peace activist than those of B’Tselem, a better Tikkun Olam activist than Michael Lerner, a better helper of people in hardship than Noam Chomsky. Having the incorrect worldview of the Left, helping Muslims consists in listening to their “legitimate grievances” against the West and aiding their every act of “resistance” against it. With the correct worldview, helping Muslims consists in encouraging as many of them as possible to leave Islam and providing them with freedom from fear of reprisals for doing so. Research and looking at the events has led me to the conclusion, “Grievances Yes, Legitimate No”, to the conclusion that those people need help not by us addressing their grievances, but by us providing them with a way out of their death-cult, as the Pope has recently done (and the fury of their reaction testifies to the rightness of that action and the folly of giving in to their demands and temper tantrums).

Contrary to postmodernism, evil does exist; yet there is no evil for evil’s sake, but evil is caused by lack of knowledge of the Good. As He said through His prophet Hosea, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). It is by thorough research and letting the facts lead the way that any person can become G-d’s servant in the cause of truth and righteousness.


Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Gandhara, A Photo Essay

The kingdom of Gandhara was located in what is now the north of Pakistan, but then an inseparable part of India, for Pakistan was created in 1947 as a state specially for the Muslims of India (but, unlike another state whose nation, in contrast to the latter, has an upstanding historical claim to it, does have a right to exist in the eyes of all but a few). The most interesting and noteworthy history of Gandhara begins, in my opinion, in 180 BCE, when the Greek king Demetrius of Bactria conquered it. The Greco-Bactrian kingdom lasted only 40 years, until the Kushans stormed into Bactria, but the Greco-Bactrian rule was to have lasting effect: Gandhara became the center of Hellenism-influenced Buddhist culture for centuries, not finally dying out until the Muslim Ghaznavids left it to be forgotten in 1021.

It would not be truthful to say the conquests of either Demetrius or the Kushans were tranquil, unmarked by taking spoils and later tribute; but when the conquerors settled down they adopted the culture of the conquered people and infused it with their own. So it is we find statues of the Buddha in Gandhara as in all Buddhist lands, but the specialty of Gandhara is that those statues are in Greek style. This unique blend of East and West is the hallmark of Gandhara art, and spread to other regions of India as well.

Head of Buddha from Amaravati, Andra Pradesh, India.

The Kushan Empire was multicultural in the good sense of the word, that is, as multiculturalism should be: many ethnicities and religions living under common rule, abiding by common law. Greeks, Persians, Indians and Scythians made up the ethnic constituency of the Kushan Empire, and Greek religion, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism were the four religions living peacefully together in it.

Standing Buddha, Kushan art.

Although the Kushan Empire had been riven internally, from the 3rd century CE onward, before being conquered by the Huns and later the Muslims, the internal strife was the result of power struggles, not ethnic or religious tension. That in itself says much about the success of the Kushan melting-pot: more than 350 years after the Greco-Bactrian conquest, the region of Gandhara was solid enough in cultural unity to be subjected to power struggles rather than ethnic or religious divisions.

Head of Buddha, Gandhara art.

Because the Huns had already ravaged Gandhara in 450 CE, the Muslim Ghaznavid invaders of the 11th century left it to neglect instead of giving it the treatment Muslims gave so many other teeming areas of India: plunder followed by destruction of the un-Islamic artifacts. Had the Muslims found Gandhara in its 2nd-century glory, we would see none of its Greco-Buddhist art today. Like the Taliban of Afghanistan, and like Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, Muslim invaders over the ages have destroyed the cultural artifacts of the conquered peoples as part of the “Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice” activities. (The Torah’s injuction against statues and engraved images, in case you bring it up, is, again, for Jews only—seeing a statue of a Hindu god in India, the only thing the Jew is instructed to do is not worship it or show any reverence toward it.)

Smiling Buddha head, Mathura school of Gandhara art.

Islamic animosity toward other cultures has been tempered only by situations where economic necessity proved to be too strong. For example, Islamic law stipulates that Hindus, like any non-Muslims who are not of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), must be given the “choice” to convert or die; that the Hindus during the Mughal Empire were accorded the status of dhimmis instead, like the People of the Book, was because mass forced conversion to Islam would have brought the economy of the Mughal Empire to its knees. And Grand Mufti Gomaa’s decree against sculptures in Egypt is resisted by Egyptian Muslims themselves because they know full well Egypt’s economy is dependent on tourists coming to see those sculptures.

It is not, however, a given that economic necessity will keep the Muslims’ hand away from the non-Islamic cultural artifacts for ever. The Bamyan Buddha statues are a case in point: they were brought down as soon as there arose an Islamic government more pious than economically realistic. Destruction by Islamic fanatics, therefore, hangs on the artifacts in countries under Islamic rule like the Sword of Damocles. This is yet another demonstration of why appeasement of Muslims is a grave error. In recent news, the Thais have installed a government headed by a Muslim (military commander Lieutenant General Sonthi Boonyaratglin) in order to enter negotiations with the Muslims wreaking havoc on Thailand’s south; history shows that such steps lead only to more terrorism, being the leverage for more concessions, until, if the Thais do not do an about turn and show the Muslims terrorism doesn’t pay, the beautiful Buddhist temples of Thailand are reduced to smoking heaps, and the number of tourists to the country is cut down wholesale.

The Kushan Empire was a multicultural success because all its ethnicities and religions accepted a common system of law. Muslims, in contrast, subvert any multiculturalist state into a shariah-ruled state, first by living apart from the state’s laws, as communities which function as states within a state (French term: communautarisme), and then, through the demographic jihad, democratically replacing the law of the host state with theirs.

Even if you’re not a religious non-Muslim, you should wake up to the threat at least for the sake of the works of art you patronize, such as the sculptures of Michaelangelo and Bernini and the paintings of Rafael and Botticelli. They’re not guaranteed to be preserved under a shariah-ruled state.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, September 18, 2006

Evolution and the Jewish Revolution

This post starts with a general theological question and then steers toward current events. The theological question is Orthodox Judaism’s attitude toward Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

As with many other religions, there is not a unified stance. Many Ultra-Orthodox rabbis repudiate all notions of evolution entirely, and further insist on a young earth (5767 years old in a few days). Among my group, the Religious Zionist branch (also known as the kippot srugot, those who wear crocheted skullcaps), the issue is considered of relatively little importance, and evolution, not to mention an old earth, is accepted with no problems. I bring justifications for that harmonizing stance from that point of view.

A literal reading of the Torah is warranted when the passage is a foundational absolute. For example, the view of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as legendary figures is unacceptable, because that would mean the promises G-d made to them are also legendary. Most of the historical events of the Torah must be regarded as literal and accurate, for Judaism is a faith rooted in objective history and not floating upon subjective feelings. However, there are earlier sections of the Torah whose significance is in their lessons to us rather than in literal occurrence, so they can be taken to be figurative.

Protestant Christian young-earth creationists regard a young earth and literal Adam and Eve necessary, because they say the belief that there was no death before Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit is foundational; even so, many other Protestant Christians get along fine with an old-earth view, and even with theistic evolution. For Orthodox Judaism the only aspect of the Genesis creation story that needs to be literal is G-d’s creatorhood: He exists literally and He created everything from nothing, and none of His creations is to be worshiped instead of or in addition to Him. But as for the rest—Adam and Eve, their descendants, Noah, his descendants, up to Abraham—here are lessons for humanity to learn rather than literal history. There is no need to believe in a literal Lemech in order to learn G-d’s lesson that technological progress is no guarantor of human morality. The Flood and the Ark tell us of G-d’s hatred of sin in general; later, historical passages of the Tanach show it in particular.

Now the obvious question to an Orthodox Jew who says literalism with regard to the first chapter of Genesis is not necessary would be: What about the Sabbath? G-d commands to keep the Sabbath, one day out of seven, because He created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (Exodus 20:7–10). If these were not literal 24-hour days, then why do Jews keep one 24-hour day out of six as holy day of rest?

It seems like a stumping argument. But then you get to something in the Genesis creation story that not only can’t, but actually mustn’t, be taken literally: G-d’s resting on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2). Do you take it literally that G-d, tired out after six days of creating the universe, took the seventh to lie down on a sofa and take a nap? Of course not. To attribute any human form or weakness to G-d is kfirah (unbelief). G-d did not tire out of six creation days, nor did He take a rest to replenish His energy on the seventh. The account of G-d taking a rest on the seventh day cannot be taken literally, so it must, like many other accounts in Genesis until Abraham, be taken as teaching for us: we are not to keep our mobile phones on, waiting for calls from work, during the Sabbath, as that is the slavery of Egypt; instead, we are to make it a day of absolute rest from creation of anything new, of total abandonment of all the worries of the rest of the week.

However, even if the origin of the Sabbath is not a literal cessation of G-d’s creation after six 24-hour days, the story is there to tell us that He keeps it. We may not know how, and perhaps the Kabbalah (which is forbidden except to Orthodox Jewish men from the age of 40 up, so don’t ask me about it) can shed some light on it, but we are assured that G-d keeps the Sabbath. Not because He needs to rest (the unbelieving anthropomorphism), but because He sets the example to His people. On that, and relevant a few days before Rosh Hashanah, I bring a citation of Rabbi Lazar from the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, page 7b:

“It is the world’s custom that a king of flesh and blood decrees a decree, [and] if he wants, he follows it, [or] if they want, others follow it. But the Holy One, Blessed Is He, is not so, but rather He decrees a decree and follows it first. What is the reason [for His saying in the Torah], ‘They shall therefore keep My charge, […] I am HaShem’ [Leviticus 22:9]? [In order to say] ‘I am He who kept the mitzvot of the Torah first’. Rabbi Simon said: it is written, ‘Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy G-d: I am HaShem’, [in order to say] ‘I am He who followed [the law of] standing for the old man first’.”

Our G-d could do as He pleases, but He binds Himself by the same laws He has given us. The sages say He dons the tephillin (phylacteries); surely this cannot be taken in an anthropomorphic sense, yet it must be in some other, mysterious way. He was the first to keep the mitzvah of visiting the sick, when He visited Abraham when he was healing from his circumcision. He kept the mitzvah against slander and gossip when He refused to reveal to Joshua that Achan was the one who took the spoils of Jericho. And He keeps the Sabbath, no matter how long ago He created the world and how long He took to do so. Our G-d is the G-d of law. And that, gentle reader, is the revolution of Judaism.

We concede democracy to be a Greek invention; but it was only for elites, even in Athens’ heyday under Pericles. It was far better than neighboring Sparta, but it wasn’t the democracy of today. Today’s Western democracies have a value that the Athenian democracy did not: equality of all before the law, the absolute rule of law. They did not have it then, for the simple reason that it’s a Jewish concept, not a Greek one. Through the fusion of Greek democracy with the Jewish concept of the rule of law, we have Western civilization as we know it today.

It wasn’t a smooth ride: Europe had quite a few centuries to go until it became democratic. But then, the move from Athenian democracy to authoritarianism wasn’t, as devout secularist Bible-haters say, the result of the Christianization of Europe; it was Alexander of Macedon first, and then the Roman Empire, who annulled Pericles’ system of government. But the idea of Greek democracy lay in wait to be realized, and together with the Jewish concept of equality before the law, it spawned the precious civilization in which we live today—the civilization which so many on the Left are so intent on giving up for multiculturalism (inequality before the law) and, by that step, Islam, from which both Greek democracy and Jewish equality before the law are totally absent.

Islam comes in the name of “pure monotheism”. By that, however, it misses the Jewish point entirely: Islam reduces to a numerical message (“One deity, not many”) what Judaism brings as a package deal. Far less than complaints about the wrong number can be found in the Jewish Scriptures than descriptions of the abhorrent actions of polytheists—as well as, it is important to add, praise for those Gentiles who were righteous by their actions, such as Jethro and Dema ben Netina. It was not merely the worship of other gods that was abominable (that is what Islam would say), but the practices carried for that purpose: human sacrifice, temple prostitution and so on. But more, G-d sets another difference, a crucial difference, between Him and the pagan deities: He is faithful, while they are capricious. He keeps His promises, He is even bound to His own laws, while the pagan deities can lie, go back on their words and do anything of their current whim (and that is borne out by the writings of those believers, and not just by the Tanach, in case anyone should complain about testimonial unreliability). Our G-d is bound by His nature and words and laws, and is a G-d who sanctions reason as a way of coming to Him and worshiping Him. He lays forth His claims in a historically, intellectually contestable way, not hiding them in the recesses of one man’s subjective experiences.

Islam puts monotheism above all, but the god of Islam is, upon inspection, seen to be a throwback to the deities which the Torah proscribes: he is not bound by anything, and he has no connection with his human creation except as a king over his subjects. He gives laws, but he is not bound by them—to believe he is bound by his laws, or by anything else for that matter, is kufr (unbelief) in Islam. He transcends even reason, because it is unbelief to say that he is within any created, human box. He makes promises, but the Muslim lives with the thought that he can go back on his word any time, for he cannot be bound by any constraint, not even his own. And even in his own revelation to humanity, the Koran, he goes back on his word—abrogation of verses—countless times. Finally, his revelation cannot be taken to the court of historical debate, for only one man was witness to it—no way to refute the possibility of subjective experience on Mohammad’s part.

Islam, then, lends itself to Pharaoh-like rule—not to democracy, for it repudiates that Greek idea, and not to the rule of law with equality before the law, for its deity is claimed, by the Muslims themselves, to have given his law as part of his raw power. And there is, as we have recently seen, no prospect for reasoned debate with it, for any such debate would, sooner or later, strike the raw nerve-center of Islam, namely its foundation upon the testimony of one man. That, ultimately, is the reason for riots in response to any criticism, for the imams to incite their followers to rage in the Friday prayer speech after the mere news of cartoons or words taken out of their context.

Jews and Greeks must now lay aside the days of Antiochus and fight together. And Jews and Christians. “…And every man’s hand against him”, says HaShem (Genesis 16:12).

Labels: ,

Sunday, September 17, 2006

The Right to Deny the Right of Return

For a state that is accused of “ethnic cleansing”, Israel is pretty multi-ethnic and multi-religious, with Jews, Circassians from the Caucasus, Arabs of three religions—Muslims, Christians and Druzes—and Bedouins of African origin, who are still regarded by the other Bedouins in the country, Muslims ostensibly free of the “Western vice of racism”, as inferior, as slaves even though they have been freedmen for so long. The “Jewish ethnostate”, if its detractors’ libels against it were true, would not have those people as citizens. But the truth, of course, is that only those Arabs fled the country in 1947–9 who listened to the orders of their leaders to do so, just as Nasrallah called the Arab residents of the north of Israel to do in the recent Lebanon War.

Those who refused to listen to their leaders’ call to flee are citizens of Israel to this day—them and their descendants. Some of them have seats in the Israeli parliament, which they abuse, however, by visiting states that are at war with Israel (and the reason Israel does not react as any normal state would is the fear of reprisals from the world’s OrwellMedia, which demands the Jewish state be holier than the Pope). However much their spokesmen complain of being “second-class citizens” (which said media laps up thirstily), their standard of living is far higher than that of their brothers in any other Arab state, and they enjoy benefits that those brothers can only dream of, such as free speech. Indeed, those who fled in 1947–9 to Egyptian or Jordanian rule were not cared for; the governments placed them in refugee camps, under purposeful neglect, in order to showcase “the oppression of Zionism” to the world. For Muslims, proving political points and reaping propaganda dividends has always taken precedence over the welfare of the individual. They would rather contaminate a land for centuries with unconventional weaponry than let it stay fertile and inhabited by non-Muslims, while the non-Muslims everywhere, who love life, would consent to give up some (or much) land for the sake of living a day more; truly the two women of Solomon’s Sentence.

The refugee camps were kept for political leverage, and so is the Right of Return. The cynicism of the Egyptian and Jordanian government in perpetuating the plight of the refugees was bad enough, but the refugees themselves now, instead of pressuring their hosts for equal rights and living conditions, are pushing for the Right of Return to the lands from which they fled. That is, they say the descendants of the village Bir’im should all be allowed to come back to that exact place, even though a kibbutz (Bar’am) is situated there now. Even if the application of the Right of Return does not mean displacing all the Jews currently in those places, but living alongside them instead, the consequence would be displacement nonetheless. At this point, the left-leaning reader will no doubt regard this warning against demographic displacement as proof of the “core racism of the Zionist ideology”. Which is good, because all that I have written up to this point was a prologue to the explanation why being against the Right of Return is not racism, and why not only Zionism, but also the whole non-Muslim world, is justified in further denials of such demands.

Imagine a North European country grappling with the issue of immigration, and two anti-immigration politicians voicing their views on that. The first anti-immigration politician says the immigration of blacks to the country should be stopped, and the second anti-immigration politician says the immigration of Muslims to the country should be stopped. Which of them is a racist? The Leftist multiculturalists would say, “Both”. I say, “Only the first”, and my reason goes beyond the obvious ground that Islam is not a race. My reason is that the former politician opposes the immigration of people, whereas the latter opposes the immigration of a political system.

If a black Christian from Ghana immigrates to that North European country and learns its language and gets a job there and raises children, whether with a woman from his country of origin or through marriage of a native woman, upon the values of the host country, he is as good a citizen as a native is, a positive contributor to his host country like everyone else, an inseparable part of its fabric. Whoever opposes such an immigrant cannot have any reason other than that he does not look the same as the natives—that is, not blond and blue-eyed. And that is unarguably racism, no way to spin that.

In contrast, there are those who immigrate to that country but do not learn its language, live off its welfare system and take all steps against adapting the values of their host country, and against their children doing the same. Unwillingness to assimilate is not the problem in and of itself; after all, my forefathers for two millennia did just that. But the Jews of the Diaspora never tried to contradict, let alone change, the systems of their host countries (contrary to the anti-Semites’ accusations to that effect), while the Muslim immigrants do (in broad daylight, by which the Left is blinded). The Muslim communities in Europe are already a law unto themselves, apart from the law of their host countries, and as their demographic clout gets greater, their law will be the law for their hosts as well. Thus, the politician who opposes their immigration opposes not a foreign skin color but an alien political system antithetical to his own. The first politician wants the proverbial fishbowl to contain only goldfish, while the second does not mind there being other fish except for piranhas, since those do not play well with the others.

Thus it is seen that not all opposition to demographic change is racism. Back to Israel and the Right of Return: Israel’s case is like that of other non-Muslim states, and then more. Cry as the modern anti-Semites might about the “inherent racism of a state for a Jews” (the only ethnostate about which such a statement is made), it is they who are the root cause of the state of Israel, the ones who sparked the movement that led to it—Zionism. For what did Pinsker (zt"l) need but the Tsarist-sponsored anti-Semitism of his age, or what did Herzl (zt"l) need but the sentiments of Viennese mayor Karl Lueger or the Dreyfus Affair, in order to be convinced that the only healthy future for the Jews was to be self-governing? Whatever the points of division between religious and secular Zionism, they are both agreed that self-governance of the Jewish people in their own state is a sine qua non of Zionism. Have all the Jews currently living in Israel under a government that can enact discriminatory laws against them, and the Jews are once again in exile, even though they are physically in the Land of Israel. For other nations, exile is just the physical state of being away from the homeland; for Jews, exile is the existential state of being subject to the whims of non-Jews, even when physically in the Land of Israel.

None of this means that there is no room for non-Jews in the Jewish state, of course. But it does mean that it is of utmost important for Zionism to do any steps to prevent the return of the political situation wherein anti-Jewish laws could be enacted against Jews. The Right of Return, if applied, would bring to exactly that in an instant. The demographic overpowerment of the Jews in Israel by the returning Muslims would wipe out the spiritual achievement of Zionism—the lack of the possibility of anti-Jewish discrimination—overnight (G-d forbid). And then it would not matter an iota that Jews are still physically inhabitants of their land.

No doubt an anti-Zionist reader would, at this point, still regard all these opinions as racist. What would he suggest? That the Jewish state accept the Right of Return, but only after forming an inviolable constitution against enacting anti-Jewish laws? As a long-time reader of anti-Zionist sites, I know only too well that that would be regard as racism too. There’s no pleasing the world (except by rolling over and dying). No, the Right of Return cannot be accepted. Even among the Israeli Left, very many people recognize this fact, the fact that the acceptance of the Right to Return would spell the end of the Zionist project (G-d forbid).

But the other side has made it clear that it will not concede the Right of Return (except for very few of them, whose lives would be in danger were they to voice it in any other way than obliquely). They have insisted for decades that the concession of the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza will do no good—for a “just and lasting peace”, they say, the refugees must be allowed to return, to the areas within the [currently] internationally recognized borders of Israel. Israeli Jews, even on the Left, know that that would lead to nothing but a “Palestine from the river to the sea” (G-d forbid), a “just peace” in the sense that that is the “Palestinians’” idea of justice, and an “everlasting peace” in the sense that the “Palestinians” would have won the war against Zionism (G-d forbid). Therefore, for all except the most lunatic Israeli Leftists (Uri Avneri and his type), there is the sad admission here that there is no diplomatic solution to this long war. Because the Muslims do not want to compromise, and the Jews cannot afford to compromise.

With a heavy heart I say this truth: this coming World War will spell the end of the moral pontifications of people at ease, to be replaced by confrontation of brutal realities, demanding brutal choices, accusations of “racism” be damned. Europe can still cry a bleeding heart in favor of the humanity of multiculturalism, but in the future she will have to deport the carriers within her of an alien political ideology or die the death of subsumption into the Caliphate; and Israel will have to make the anti-Zionists everywhere understand that the Jewish right of self-governance, after 2,000 years of lack thereof, is non-negotiable. The future will not be nice, but such are the wages of continued tolerance toward those who do not deserve it. Those who cannot control themselves at the sight of a few cartoons or at the sound of some centuries-old words should not expect our patience to be infinite.

Labels: ,

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Venezuela, En Domeh La, Olé!

Oh, those inconsiderate Gentile infidel bloggers! During the Sabbath, they covered, totally bled dry, anything I could possibly say about the developing 2006 Pope–Islam Crisis (a.k.a. Mohammad Cartoons II). The topic is finished, and all I could do was throw a bone of acknowledgment. The Hump of Islam, then, will have to do without my commentary.

It’s late evening as I write, no time for another posting of the usual length (there’ll be one, G-d willing, tomorrow, after I come back from work). So I decided to do a short foray into Latin American and Israeli culture, inspired by the LGF thread on the Non-Aligned Summit. Hugo Chávez got to hug the Tehrangutan there yet another time, showing how things have changed since nearly 50 years ago.

Picture: Hugo Chavez in the 2006 Havana Non-Aligned Movement Summit (1)
Chávez on the speaker’s stand.

Picture: Hugo Chavez in the 2006 Havana Non-Aligned Movement Summit (2)
Chávez making a salute.

Picture: Hugo Chavez in the 2006 Havana Non-Aligned Movement Summit (3)
Chávez looking… toward some glorious future?

Picture: Hugo Chavez in the 2006 Havana Non-Aligned Movement Summit (4)
Chávez next to the Tehrangutan.

Here is an old Israeli song, from long before I was born, but a classic, hence how I know of it, called “Venezuela”. It was sung first by the group Batzal Yarok (“Green Onion”), words by Dan Almagor, music by Moshe Vilanski. It dates to 1957. First is the Hebrew original (a treat if you can read it), and then my English translation, which unfortunately can’t capture the rhyming. If you know personally of Venezuela of those old days, I apologize in advance for arousing a feeling of sadness about the way the country has gone. I don’t know much except that the part about there being “no taxes and deficitio” has long ceased to be true. And I know Venezuela used not to be the anti-American, anti-Israel, Muslim-embracing state it is now. Some things don’t change, some things do.

כי שם בנות בצבע שוקו
ותלבושתן - קליפות בננה,
מפזזות במחול מניאנה
בג'ונגל, בין עצי הקוקוס.
נשוט על פני האורינוקו
המשתפך לאמזונס,
שם נחשי האנקונדה
כשניים עשר וחצי מטר.
עם שתי שיניים ארוכות.
- מתים מזה?
- תוך שתי דקות!

- אם כך, אולי נברח לצ'ילי?
- ונצואלה... ונצואלה...
- אני אם אין לי צ'ילי - מי לי?
- ונצואלה... ונצואלה...
ונצואלה, אין דומה לה! אולה!

שם אין בחינות אוניברסיטה
ואין דקן של הפקולטה.
ושם נראה כל יום קורידה
עם דון חוזה אלפונסו שולטהייס.
"אולה!" - נניף את הסומבררוס.
"אולה!" - נקרא לקבלרוס.
אבל הטורו, חי פורטונה,
פורץ ישר אל הטריבונה.
הוא מסתער על הקהל.
- מתים מזה?
- בדרך כלל!


עצי קפה ואבוקדו,
מכרות זהב באלדורדו.
זורם הנפט בקריפיטיו
ואין מיסים ודפיציטיו.
ושם אינדיאנים עם כרבולת.
מקרקפים רק... מס גולגולת.

- נברח לצ'ילי! הופ! כולנו!
- אך שם ישנם הרי וולקנו.
רותחת לבה בגלים.
- מתים מזה?
- לא. רק נצלים.

- אם כך, נברח ל... פתח תקווה!
- ונצואלה... ונצואלה...
- אני רוצה לפתח תקוה!
- ונצואלה... ונצואלה...
ונצואלה - אין דומה לה! אולה!

For there there are chocolate-colored girls
Dressed in banana skins,
Frolicking in a mañana dance,
In the jungle, among the coconut trees.
We’ll sail upon the Orinoco,
Which pours into the Amazon,
Where there are the anaconda snakes,
About twelve and a half meters,
With two long teeth.
— Do you die from that?
— In two minutes!

— If so, maybe let’s run away to Chile?
— Venezuela… Venezuela…
— If I don’t have Chile—who is for me?
— Venezuela… Venezuela…
Venezuela, there’s nothing like it! Olé!

There there are no university tests,
And no dean of the faculty,
And there we’ll watch Corrida every day,
With Don José Alfonso Schultheiss.
“Olé!” — we’ll brandish the sombreros,
“Olé!” — we’ll call the Cabaleros,
But the Toro, by Fortune,
Breaks in straight onto the stands.
It storms upon the audience.
— Do you die from that?
— Usually!


Coffee trees and avocado,
Gold mines in El Dorado,
The oil flows in carifitio,
There are no taxes and deficitio,
And there are Indians there with headcrests,
Scalping just… poll tax.

— Let’s run away to Chile! Hup! Everyone of us!
— But there are volcano mountains there.
Lava boiling in waves.
— Do you die from that?
— No, you only roast.

— If so, we’ll run away to Petach Tikva!
— Venezuela… Venezuela…
— I want to Petach Tikva!
— Venezuela… Venezuela…
Venezuela, there’s nothing like it! Olé!


Friday, September 15, 2006

Oriana Fallaci, R.I.P.

Seven months ago, Robert Spencer put up a post on Jihad Watch titled Fallaci Beheaded. It was about an art exhibit in Milan featuring an image of Oriana Fallaci decapitated. Probably like many other readers, the title “sent a jolt through me” (the words of a commenter), thinking they really managed to get her.

This is a Religion of Perpetual Outrage, whose followers, if they have a dermis at all, have such that its diameter requires a microscope to measure. Though it would have been distressing to hear Fallaci had been beheaded, it would have been no surprise; it is to hear now, that Oriana Fallaci died in bed, that is surprising.

I strive to commemorate her as Mr. Spencer has now suggested: by emulating her actions. The more people do as she did, the less chance there will be for the arrival of the dreaded condition in which it will be unexpected, surprising for any non-Muslim to die in bed.

Into the company of G-d’s Righteous you go, Oriana Fallaci. Rest in peace.


Thursday, September 14, 2006

How this is a World War

One of the comparatively reasoned arguments from the Left is that the confrontation that opened on September 11, 2001 cannot be called another World War, because it lacks the definitive feature of the first two: armed states engaged in full-scale battle against each other all over the world. They say World War II, for example, was such because it involved the march of German land, sea and air forces all over Europe and North Africa, while a comparison to what is going on today would have Nazi bombs detonated in Britain’s cities from time to time, which would be a nuisance but not an existential threat, and so is Al Qaeda.

The argument is a convincing one, so he who wishes to show that the talk about “World War III” (or IV, if you count the Cold War as the third) isn’t just fearmongering on right-wing politicians’ part needs to present arguments of his own. I will do this now. My argument consists of two parts: first, that there can be war, real war, all over the world, even without full-scale clashes between state armies, and second, that there is indeed a prospect of full-scale state warfare as in the first two World Wars, and a dreadful prospect it is.

First of all, war is about achieving goals; what makes it terrible is the bloody means usually carried out for reaching those ends, but it is the ends that matter, and it can be no less painful for a state to be conquered by its enemies without military conflict than with it. Westerners may be familiar with jihad in its violent form: guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks. However, that is only one form of jihad; there are more, non-violent but perhaps, because of that, more insidious, such as the multicultural jihad, which pits Western post-colonial guilt against the West’s cultural immune system, and the demographic jihad, which uses Western democracy, if it consists in nothing more than majority rule, to install shariah law once the Muslims are the majority, as the Justice Minister of the Netherlands, Piet Hein Donner, has suggested.

In the long run, what does it matter if Islamic law is forced upon a state democratically or by military conquest? In fact, I think the only saving grace of the West so far has been the Muslims’ inability to stay their hands off the trigger of violent jihad; had they shown that restraint, many European states could someday fall into their hands naturally, quietly, without anyone the wiser for it. A non-Muslim citizen of the Netherlands would wake up one day to the reality of policemen forcing his wife to cover up. Such a situation could be achieved by military conquest of a state, which would be much more noticeable than slow demographic overpowerment through immigration and high birthrates, but the result would be the same: Islamic law. The West–Islam war is, after all, about the conflict between a totalitarian ideology hell-bent on installing itself the whole world over, and those who would resist that. For the Muslims, the victory of having shariah law rule a state is a victory even if no drop of blood is spilled.

At this stage, well-nigh the only non-Muslim state that has to contend with full-scale military conflict of the WWII kind is Israel. That in itself is a cautionary note, for what happens to Israel portends the fate of all the rest of the free world, unless they take action. They’re not taking action, except for some initial signs of resistance in Australia. Europe, with its multiculturalism run amok, the dying of Christianity (the lifeblood of resistance to Islam in Europe and the USA) and the low birthrates of the natives, opening the door for unscrupulous left-wing politicians to invite Muslim immigrants in order to swell their electorate, is sinking fast. In France and Norway there are numerous pockets of de facto Islamic rule within the state, no-go zones where even the police are afraid to venture. If not for what Daniel Pipes calls “education by murder”, Europe would be entirely beyond hope, converted to the Ummah by a Faustian kiss while asleep.

In the USA, things are better, but only in the sense that the USA is some years behind Europe in its processes of ideological death and demographic takeover. America is still strongly Christian, and that is its hope for the future. However, the inept politicians, even on the Right, are making all the wrong moves, just as in Europe, like agreeing to bring 15,000 students from Saudi Arabia to be residents of the USA. The little good that may have come from sending troops abroad to the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq is being undone by letting the enemy into home territory.

This war, then, is being fought (or not) all over the world, on the ideological, political and demographic fronts. That it lacks the photogenic, front-page appeal of charges of soldiers, tanks and airplanes is irrelevant; the end result of being ruled by Islamic law is disastrous for non-Muslims no matter how it is achieved. The Cold War did not involve full-scale military clashes (thankfully), but it was every bit as existential as World War II; and so is this so far ideological, political and demographic war. The lack of knowledge of the enemy or of recognition of it or of willingness to fight it will cost the non-Muslim as dearly as did the loss of the Battle of France in 1940 or would a defeat for the British Royal Air Force have in the following years. Through the mode of the multicultural auto-immune assault, the Islamic enemy can, without spilling a drop of blood, have entire states, with their technology, including their military capabilities, at its disposal. And that is where I come to the second point showing how this is a World War.

If the Left does not regard, before it’s too late, the demographic jihad as every bit of a war as armed conflict, then we will have that which the Left does regard as the real thing. If you remember, that horrendous conflict of the years 1939–45, with millions dead, was caused by just three states run by a fascistic ideology: Germany, Italy and Japan. Three, that’s all it took. Today, just one state, Iran, is putting the future of the world in jeopardy. With regard to Iran, it is instructive to remember that it was a staunch ally of the USA until Khomeini overthrew the Shah in 1979, by virtue of Jimmy Carter’s bungling. That state, once a great ally of the United States, is now its bitterest enemy. And the frightening fact is that what happened to Iran can happen to any state with a Muslim majority—the Middle East (except for Israel; it is thus seen that the talk of Israel as being the USA’s only reliable ally in the Middle East is no idle figure of speech), North Africa, the central Asian “Stans”, Malaysia and Indonesia now, and Europe later.

Think about it: it took just three totalitarian states—Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan—to wreak havoc on the world for nearly 12 years; in our day there is potential for Islamic totalitarianism to take hold on tens of states, meaning that World War III could make its predecessor look like kids scrapping in a kindergarten playground. The Left may argue that September 2001 is not comparable to September 1939; to that, the answer should be, “You do not want this current incomparability to cease”. Israel and Iran are the first warnings; unless the West wakes up to resist Islam, a world-dominating, totalitarian ideology as sure as the ones the free world had to contend with in the 20th century, it will be confronted with a scenario in which the non-Muslim world will be a few Israels contending against the full-scale military might of many Irans. Of that, the sages of Judaism said, “When it comes, let me not be there to see it”. G-d give us strength to overcome this coming darkness.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

The Moral Bankruptcy of Israel’s anti-Zionist Detractors

Long time no fisk. I turn to a new (newly-formulated; the arguments are as old as the Jewish people) article by Kathleen Christison, a “former CIA analyst” (good thing it’s “former”, otherwise the flag of the Caliphate would be flying on the Capitol right now), from September 12, 2006, for CounterPunch, a far-left site that greets you with the cover of a book called, “The Case Against Israel”, by Michael Neumann, the first thing you visit it (a case against a particular state… different formulation from, but same meaning as, the words of Ahmadinejad).

Address of the original article:

Is it only observers outside the conventional mainstream who have noticed that by its murderous assault on Lebanon and simultaneously on Gaza, Israel finally exposed, for even the most deluded to see, the total bankruptcy of its very founding idea?

No, it is only the most deluded who can expect a state whose civilians have to endure suicide bombers and rocket fire to just sit there doing nothing (or go to the negotiations table, which, with such enemies as Israel has, amounts to the same thing).

Can it be that the deluded are still deluded?

It seems so. If, five years after 9/11, people still think America is to blame for that event, then some people are indeed beyond hope.

Can it truly still be that Israel’s bankruptcy is evident only to those who already knew it, those who already recognized Zionism as illegitimate for the racist principle that underlies it?

Zionism, as a modern (and not necessarily religious) movement, came from the bad experiences of Jews under non-Jewish rule, and the realization that they needed a state of their own to be free of those experiences. Name me a viable state for the Jewish people (and that means, not a frozen hell-hole like Birobidjan) that could be had without displacing an existing people (which, by the way, we took care as much as possible not to do). If you’re still on that high horse, Mrs. Christison, please take the first plane you can off America, because you’re displacing Native Americans.

Can it be therefore that only the already converted can see coming the ultimate collapse of Zionism […]

Actually, it did seem for some years, in the 1990’s, that Zionism was coming to an end. Those were the years when Israelis believed lasting peace was finally forthcoming, and therefore were ready to shed the Jewishness of the state. But the Muslim enemies surrounding Israel did not let that happen. They forced us to come back to accepting the fact that the Jewish people has a special lot in the history of the world. Complaints? To the One in control, please.

[…] and, with it, of Israel itself as the exclusivist state of Jews?

Israel has never been “the exclusivist state of Jews”. Yes, it’s a state for Jews, but non-Jews are equal citizens of Israel, as far as even its parliament. (The only venues where non-Jews are at a disadvantage are where military secrets are concerned. That is a reasonable limitation, except to anti-Semites like those of CounterPunch.) Israel’s very Declaration of Independence states equality for all citizens regardless of religion, sex or race. The only thing that isn’t acceptable is for there to be enacted laws against Jews, because that would be bringing us to the same situation as before Zionism, in the Diaspora.

Racism has always been the lifeblood of Israel. Zionism rests on the fundamental belief that Jews have superior national, human, and natural rights in the land, […]

We Jews, after 2,000 years of the Diaspora, truly believe we’re entitled to a state of our own where we can’t be discriminated against, and where we can defend ourselves (which we couldn’t do in 1933–45). You can call that “racism”, but that says only about you, not about the state of Israel.

Israel’s destructive rampage in Lebanon and Gaza is merely the natural next step in the evolution of such a founding ideology.

Imagine you lived on the USA–Canada border and one day you got rockets fired at you from the north. Your reaction? If you say, “I’d negotiate”, then you’re not worthy of the free civilization you live in, you craven appeaser; if you say, “I’d react forcefully to make them stop”, you’re a hypocrite.

Precisely because that ideology posits the exclusivity and superiority of one people’s rights, it can accept no legal or moral restraints on its behavior […]

The exclusivity and superiority of one people’s, any people’s, right to live without the threat of suicide bombers and rocket fire is indeed something we plead guilty for. Yes, Mrs. Christison, I can see you’d respect us only if we laid down our necks to the sword like sheep. It’s very clear. Just don’t tell me you’re not anti-Semitic, because you’re not fooling me.

[…] and no territorial limits, for it needs an ever-expanding geography to accommodate those unlimited rights.

Zionism cannot abide encroachment or even the slightest challenge to its total domination over its own space—not merely of the space within Israel’s 1967 borders, but of the surrounding space as well, extending outward to geographical limits that Zionism has not yet seen fit to set for itself.

Aha. And I guess I shouldn’t mention the fact that we accepted a reduced territory, sharing the land with the Arabs, as far back as 1947, and had to go to war only because they wouldn’t accept it. No, I shouldn’t mention that, because it would topple your house of cards.

But let us grant, just for the sake of argument, that we Jews have designs of territorial expansion. It would be truthful to acknowledge that the Muslims have such also. Do you want to see the difference between those designs? Look:

Picture: Map showing the territories referred to by the recurring Biblical phrase "from Dan to Beersheba"
Map showing the borders of the Promised Land. From Wikipedia.

At the very “worst” case, Jewish expansionism still has designs only on a not so large portion of the east coast of the Mediterranean. While the Islamic plan of expansion…

Picture: Map of the world
Map of the whole world. From Wikipedia.

…has its sights on the whole world! From the totally pragmatic point of view, choosing the lesser of two evils, I think the choice between the two is a no-brainer, isn’t it? But then again, anti-Semitism is a no-brainer, in that it requires the lack of a brain.

Total domination means no physical threat and no demographic threat: Jews reign, Jews are totally secure, Jews always outnumber, Jews hold all military power, Jews control all natural resources, […]

Well, if you think it’s really acceptable for any nation to live under physical and demographic threat, not sovereign, insecure, lacking a military to defend themselves, and so on, then who am I to argue with you? Had it depended on people like you alone, much of the world would now be singing “Deutschland über alles”.

[…] and totally subservient.

That is a total lie. The Jews have never wanted to rule over another people or make them pay tribute—unlike other nations of the age, such as the Romans, or later the Arabs in the 7th century. All we want is security for ourselves.

This was the message Israel tried to send with its attack on Lebanon: that neither Hizbullah nor anything in Lebanon that nurtures Hizbullah should continue to exist, for the sole reason that Hizbullah challenges Israel’s supreme authority in the region and Israel cannot abide this effrontery.

No, for the sole reason that Hizbullah was engaging in acts of war, or preparation toward them, against Israel.

Zionism cannot coexist with any other ideology or ethnicity except in the preeminent position, for everyone and every ideology that is not Zionist is a potential threat.

Zionism cannot abide by ideology that wishes to get Jews back to their state of Diaspora defenselessness. Why is that so hard to understand? Or, if understood, why does it seem so unreasonable? We Jews are only the nation in the world asked to turn the other cheek.

In Lebanon, Israel attempted by its wildly reckless violence to destroy the nation, […]

No, we attempted by extremely controlled strikes to destroy a terrorist organization raining rockets on our country.

[…] to make of it a killing zone where only Zionism would reign, where non-Jews would die or flee or prostrate themselves, […]

If this isn’t willful ignorance then I don’t know what is. We have absolutely no interest in subjugating Lebanon. We have every interest in stopping it being a haven for terrorist organizations.

Cluster bombs, of which Israel’s U.S. provider is the world’s leading manufacturer (and user, in places like Yugoslavia and Iraq), explode in mid-flight and scatter hundreds of small bombs over a several-acre area. Up to one-quarter of the bomblets fail to explode on impact and are left to be found by unsuspecting civilians returning to their homes.

Not what you’d get from the media (Reuters and the rest), but cluster bombs are within the bounds of international law and consideration for civilian lives. Which cannot be said for Hizbullah’s ball-bearings in their rockets, not to mention their use of civilians as human shields.

Poor Mrs. Christison, I’m mercilessly bulldozing her anti-Semitic house of cards. Evil Zionist!

Laying anti-personnel munitions in heavily populated civilian areas is not the surgical targeting of a military force in pursuit of military objectives; it is ethnic cleansing.

So Hizbullah is engaging in ethnic cleansing? Thanks, Kathie!

Added to the preceding month of bombing attacks that destroyed as much as 50 or in some cases 80 percent of the homes in many villages,

Villages in Hizbullahland, with rocket launchers inside them, targeted. Cry me a river.

This was not a war against Hizbullah, except incidentally. It was not a war against terror, as Israel and its U.S. acolytes would have us believe […]

Why don’t you just go and say openly you think 9/11 was an inside job by the US government, Mrs. Christison? Oh, maybe you don’t believe that, but saying the last Lebanon War wasn’t against Hizbullah or terrorism, but for “Zionist expansionism”, comes very close to that in conspiracist nuttiness.

[…] (indeed, Hizbullah was not conducting terrorist acts, but had been engaged in a sporadic series of military exchanges with Israeli forces along the border, usually initiated by Israel).

“Hizbullah having any connection to terrorism?! What, are you crazy?! No, I don’t care what your eyes tell you, that’s not good enough!”

This was a war for Israeli breathing space, for the absolute certainty that Israel would dominate the neighborhood.

For the reasonable certainty that the north of Israel could live in peace, undisturbed by rocket fire. Oh, the impudence!

It was a war against a population that was not totally subservient, that had the audacity to harbor a force like Hizbullah that does not bow to Israel’s will.

All right, then if Mexico were to harbor Al Quaeda terrorists, then according to Mrs. Christison the USA shouldn’t do a thing about it.

Did I already say I was glad she’s a former CIA analyst?

The Zionists thought they had rid themselves of their most immediate problem, the problem at the very core of Zionism, in 1948 when they forced the flight of nearly two-thirds of the Palestinian population that stood in the way of a establishing Israel as an exclusive Jewish-majority state.

The Arabs of 1948 were told to flee by their leaders. There were many who chose to stay instead, and some of those are members of the Israeli parliament.

You can’t have a Jewish state if most of your population is not Jewish.

Ignoring, for the moment, the author’s intention to portray Israel as a racist state, that statement is, strictly speaking, true; but not just for the Jews, but for any state which has to maintain a culture-dependent system. It is equally true as Christison’s statement to say, “You can’t have a democratic state if most of your people are anti-democracy”. Which is indeed the reality that European states are facing, and they will not be secure until they engage in the very “racist” policy of ensuring that all immigrants either leave their anti-democratic ideology or be deported. But for the Leftists, dhimmitude is preferable to being a “racist”.

Israel wants all of the land of Palestine, including all of the West Bank and Gaza, […]

As in 1947, so in 1993, we were willing to give up all that land for the sake of peace. But then, as in 1947, so in 2000, the enemy violently turned it down. The inconvenient fact is that it’s the “Palestinians” (the Muslims, to be more accurate) who want all the land, including Tel-Aviv and Haifa.

In Gaza, where almost a million and a half people are crammed into an area less than one-tenth the size of Rhode Island,

Everybody is crammed in this tiny plot of land. The question is what you do with your small resources: we Zionists built a land and brought the desert to bloom, while our enemies use their lands as bases for rocket launchers and suicide terrorist training camps, bringing desolation upon everything given to them.

Palestinians in Gaza are being murdered at the rate of eight a day. Maimings come at a higher rate. Such is the value of non-Jewish life in the Zionist scheme of things.

I think we should talk about the value of the Palestinian’s lives in their own scheme of things first. That their mothers raise their children to be suicide bombers does not speak well of it. You know what Golda Meir said: there will be peace when they love their children more than they hate the Jews.

Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe calls it a slow genocide (ElectronicIntifada, September 2, 2006).

Make that “Israeli quisling Ilan Pappe”, who urged British academics to boycott his own university. That he was not executed for treason afterward, but only shunned by his colleagues, speaks volumes against CounterPunch’s lies about Zionism being a fascistic ideology.

Since 1948, every Palestinian act of resistance to Israeli oppression has been a further excuse for Israel to implement an ethnic cleansing policy, […]

A few inconvenient facts: 1.1 million Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank in 1967, 3.5 million Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank in 2002 (source). Yes, ethnic cleansing of the most thoroughgoing kind…

[…] Pappe says “the daily business of slaying Palestinians, mainly children, is now reported in the internal pages of the local press, quite often in microscopic fonts.”

It is indeed a tragedy that foiled attempts of suicide bombing are so common that they have to be displayed in microscopic fonts.

And here is the crux of the situation today. Will anyone notice this horror? Has Israel, as proposed at the beginning, truly exposed by its wild summer campaign of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon and Gaza the total bankruptcy of its very founding idea, the essential illegitimacy of the Zionist principle of Jewish exclusivity?

The only horror I see is you CounterPunchies, along with Walt and Mearsheimer, and most of the Left, readying the world for an acceptance of a second holocaust (G-d forbid) as just reparations for past misdeeds.

Since Israel’s crazed run through Lebanon began, numerous clear-eyed observers in the alternative and the European and Arab media have noted the new moral nudity of Israel, and of its U.S. backer, with an unusual degree of bluntness.

Rather it was the moral nudity of the mainstream media of the West, especially Reuters, that was exposed for all to see. The truth according to Photoshop and Green Helmet choreography.

Even before the Lebanon war, but after Gaza had begun to be starved, political economist Edward Herman (Z Magazine, March 2006) condemned Israel’s “long-term ethnic cleansing and institutionalized racism” and the hypocritical way in which the West and the western media accept and underwrite these policies “in violation of all purported enlightenment values.”

Mercy to the cruel (which always leads to cruelty to the merciful) is not an Enlightenment value. Mercy to those who raise their children upon the aggressive, world-dominating precepts of the Koran is not a Western value. You have indeed learned nothing five years after 9/11.

Racism underlies the Israeli-U.S. neocon axis that is currently running amok in the Middle East. The inherent racism of Zionism has found a natural ally in the racist imperial philosophy espoused by the neoconservatives of the Bush administration. […]

The basically racist notion of a clash of civilizations, being promoted both by the Bush administration and by Israel, provides the rationale for the assaults on Palestine and Lebanon.

Yes, and I guess it’s racist to say anything about Islam as well. Being against a religion is “racism”, but being against the existence of the Jewish state, and only the Jewish state, isn’t. Lefty logic.

This has always been Israel’s natural order of things: in Israel’s world and that of its U.S. supporters, the idea that Jews and the Jewish culture are superior to and incompatible with surrounding peoples and cultures is the very basis of the state.

Zionism does not involve imposition of Jewish values over the whole world—that’s what Islam is about. But this notion of cultural superiority is valid, or else would Mrs. Christison be ready to live in a culture that would stone her for showing too much ankle? Incidentally, even among those who truly believe this nonsense that all cultures are valid, the one exception is Western culture.

In the wake of Israel’s failure in Lebanon, Arabs and Muslims have a sense, for the first time since Israel’s implantation in the heart of the Arab Middle East almost 60 years ago, that Israel in its arrogance has badly overreached and that its power and its reach can be limited.

Sorry, but they’ve had that sense since even before the state of Israel was founded. The killing of Jews by Arabs in British Palestine in 1929 and 1938 are just a few samples.

[…] the arrogant colonial approach of old, now in a new high-tech guise backed by F-16s and nuclear weapons, that assumes Western and Israeli superiority and posits a kind of apocalyptic clash between the “civilized” West and a backward, enraged East […]

Another sign of the Left’s intellectual degeneracy is its still clinging to old historical divisions. “East vs. West”? No. Indians and Thais have long abandoned their old grievances with the colonialists. It’s only the Muslims who still trumpet those, even back to the Crusades. Hindus in Britain are fine citizens of their country; Muslims in Britain are potential terrorists. It’s “Islam vs. non-Islam”. But CounterPunch can’t thrive upon such a thesis.

As Palestinian commentator Rami Khouri observed in an interview with Charlie Rose a week into the Lebanon war, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, having both grown out of earlier Israeli wars of hegemony, are the political response of populations “that have been degraded and occupied and bombed and killed and humiliated repeatedly by the Israelis, and often with the direct or indirect acquiescence, or, as we see now, the direct support of the United States.”

Those oppressed populations are now fighting back.

“Oppression” for Muslims doesn’t have the same meaning as it does for the West. For Muslims, it means “the state of parts of the world not being under Islamic law”. Keep that in mind every time you hear Muslims whining about oppression.

Something in the way Israel operates, and in the way the United States supports Israel’s method of operating, must change.

Translation: “Roll over and die, just like you did 60 years ago”.

More and more commentators, inside the Arab world and outside, have begun to notice this, and a striking number are audacious enough to predict some sort of end to Zionism in the racist, exclusivist form in which it now exists and functions.

Yes, everyone predicts… the final say is G-d’s. Let there be no delusions about that.

This does not mean throwing the Jews into the sea.

Oh, no? And this you know how, Mrs. Christison?

Israel will not be defeated militarily.

It will be (G-d forbid) if it listens too much to the instructions of the likes of you as to how it must fight its wars.

But it can be defeated psychologically, which means putting limits on its hegemony, stopping its marauding advance through its neighborhood, ending Jewish racial/religious domination over other peoples.

Yes, and that’ll bring to the end of the Islamic bomb attacks in Thailand. Not.

Rami Khouri contends that the much greater public support throughout the Arab world for Hizbullah and Hamas is “a catastrophe” both for Israel and for the United States […]

Actually, support throughout the Arab (make that, more accurately, Muslim) world for terrorism is nothing new. It’s a wane in that support that would be surprising.

[…] because it means resistance to their imperial designs.

No, because it means boldness on the Muslims’ part in carrying their imperial designs.

Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli living in Britain, a jazz musician and thinker, […]

And quisling. You forgot that.

[…] sees Hizbullah’s victory in Lebanon as signaling the defeat of what he calls global Zionism, by which he means the Israeli/U.S. neocon axis. It is the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghani, and Iranian people, he says, who are “at the vanguard of the war for humanity and humanism,” while Israel and the U.S. spread destruction and death, and more and more Europeans and Americans, recognizing this, are falling off the Zionist/neocon bandwagon.

Black is white, white is black. Fair is foul, foul is fair. See Isaiah 5:20 for a first opinion. Israel and the US deal destruction and death only when necessary, while Muslims, wherever they settle, deal destruction and death as their very modus operandi, for gaining territorial or political concessions from their non-Muslim neighbors or hosts.

Atzmon talks about Israel as, ultimately, “an historic event” and a “dead entity.”

Such Jews have always been throughout our history. At the best case, they came home in time. At worst, they realized their folly only a moment before their own violent end, at the hands of those they had supported against their brothers.

Many others see similar visions. Commentators increasingly discuss the possibility of Israel, its myth of invincibility having been deflated, […]

There has never been any “myth of invincibility”, least of all among us Israelis ourselves. We know full well that we can’t afford to lose even once.

[…] going through a South Africa-like epiphany, in which its leadership somehow recognizes the error of its racist ways and in a surge of humanitarian feeling renounces Zionism’s inequities and agrees that Jews and Palestinians should live in equality in a unitary state.

Uh, Kathie… that already happened, in 1993. The Oslo Accords, remember? And all through the 1990’s. Until, in October 2000, the “Palestinians” decided that the gold (all of the West Bank and Gaza, under Barak’s proposal) wasn’t enough, and went for platinum (Tel-Aviv and Haifa too) instead, having been emboldened by the recent retreat of the IDF from Lebanon. Appeasing an aggressor only makes him hungry for more concessions.

Short of such peaceful transition, along with a move to resolve the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, Galloway—along with many others—sees only “war, war and more war, until one day it is Tel Aviv which is on fire and the Israeli leaders’ intransigence brings the whole state down on their heads.”

You’re free to absolutely disregard the decades-long, nay, centuries-long, intransigence of the Muslims. Just don’t tell me you’re reality-based people, because you aren’t fooling me.

This increasingly appears to be the shape of the future: either Israel and its neocon supporters in the United States can dismantle Zionism’s most egregious aspects by agreeing to establish a unitary state in Palestine inhabited by the Palestinians and Jews whose land this is, or the world will face a conflagration of a scale not fully imaginable now.

That the second possibility looks increasingly more likely is not because Israel and the USA have not pursued the first (they have), but because the Muslims want nothing less than their laws imposed on the whole world. Look at that map above again—that’s what they want, nothing less. Sacrificing Israel, like Czechoslovakia in 1938, won’t keep the Islamic wolf off your door. Sorry, inconvenient truth.

Just as Hizbullah is an integral part of Lebanon […]

If a terrorist organization is an integral part of Lebanon, then Lebanon deserves to be treated no better than Iran (oh, I forgot, you CounterPunchies are sympathetic to Iran too). The truth is, Hizbullah is not an integral part of Lebanon, it’s an Iranian import, by Khomeini’s decree, and there’s nothing more that most of the Lebanese, especially the Christians there, would like than for Hizbullah to be zapped out of their country forever.

[…] the Palestinians before their expulsion in 1948 were Palestine and still are Palestine. By hitting the Palestinians where they lived, in the literal and the colloquial sense, Israel left them with only a goal and a vision. That vision is justice and redress in some form, whether redress means ultimately defeating Zionism and taking back Palestine, or reconciling with Israel on the condition that it act like a decent neighbor and not a conqueror, or finally joining with Israeli Jews to form a single state in which no people has superior rights. (Emphasis original —ZY)

Requiring Islam to reform into a decent religion is out of the question, of course. All out of the question for the CounterPunchies except what has already been tried and found to fail. Like Communism, and like negotiations with an aggressor that has designs on the whole world. Doing the same thing and expecting different results: the definition of insanity.

We have reached a moral crossroads.

Indeed we have. Five years after 9/11, all people of the free world are given the choice whether to stand with the free world against shariah or with shariah against the free world. Those are the only options.

In the “new Middle East” defined by Israel, Bush, and the neocons, only Israel and the U.S. may dominate, only they may be strong, only they may be secure.

In the Caliphate for which Muslims worldwide strive, only Muslims may dominate, only they may be strong, only they may be secure. That is the truth.

But in the just world that lies on the other side of that crossroads, this is unacceptable. Justice can ultimately prevail.

An oppressive worldwide Islamic theocracy is unacceptable and contrary to all justice. Western civilization must ultimately prevail.

Here ends the fisking of Kathleen Christison’s article. It was long, and I’m not planning on doing such a thing for quite a time, because it’s nearly a total waste of time. Nearly but not totally, because it shows that the Left–Islam alliance is based upon a foundation of utter delusion, and that it’s as easy as pie to refute. But not to change people’s minds to the truth, alas, which is G-d’s domain.