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.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Response to “Bolton Refuses to Shut Up” on Daily Kos

Thursday, December 14, 2006 saw the posting of a particularly short and unsweet diary among the Israel/“Palestine” diaries on Daily Kos. Most of the “I/P diaries” (DKos terminology, showing just how frequent they are—the same cannot be said for any other conflict in the world) are vile, but there’s not much for me to respond to in them, because they’re comprised of a host of quotations from sources like Electronic Intifada and Gush Shalom. I’m interested in diaries that show the problem in the form of its ideological roots, and this one shows them starkly.

The diary is “Bolton Refuses to Shut Up”, by Chief Thinking Officer (that’s his or her Daily Kos username), on the following address:


And here is a screenshot, in case it gets deleted—the DKos admins sometimes delete such diaries (like the one from October 8 I responded to) because of their fear (rightly) that they might draw Jewish votes away from the Democratic Party (by exposing its true, Carterian colors).

Screenshot: Diary "Bolton Refuses to Shut Up" on Daily Kos, December 14, 2006

And now to the response:

Reuters is reporting that […]

In this particular case, the Reuters report is true. However, we know only too well that it needn’t be so. The news we get from Reuters on the Israel/“Palestine” conflict merits great suspicion, especially when you consider that most of those items have an Arab name at the end (an Arab name means a high chance of the reporter being Muslim, and therefore anti-Israel). Yet the Kossacks drink up every Reuters report about Israel without a hint of hesitation or criticism. That fact should be kept in mind every time an anti-Semite like Shergald or Mattes brings up a Reuters news item as proof of “Zionist brutality”.

[…] the outgoing temporary US Ambassador to the UN, ineffective bully John Bolton, […]

Yes, of course John Bolton, the American anti-Dhimmi for the Year 2006, will be called an “ineffective bully” by those, so-called “voices of reason” and “members of the reality-based community”, who think 9/11 was “the sigh of an oppressed people” rather than the first statement of intent by those who want the whole world under their law. Bolton is hated by the Leftists for his stance that there is good and there is evil and that, even more outrageous, Western Civilization (of which the USA and Israel are at the forefront) is the good and Islamic barbarism is the evil. It’s in the two articles of the Postmodern Occidentalist Creed:

  1. Non-dualism is good, dualism is evil.
  2. Take care, when fighting monsters, lest you become a monster like them, even if that care means you have to lose your life. But the monsters are allowed to behave like monsters, because that is their nature.

Continuing with the diary:

[…] is calling for charges to be levied in the UN's International Court of Justice against the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahamadinejad, for "inciting genocide."

Why not? Why are only Israeli generals required to be brought to that International “Court of Justice”? Especially when Ahmadinejad really did call for the end of the Zionist state (G-d forbid), with all that that entails? Oh, don’t tell me there’s debate about his statement that Israel would be wiped off the map (G-d forbid), I know that already from just a cursory look at the diaries in the /tag/israel node. Even if you take his statement as “metaphorical”, as “Oriental rhetoric” (hmmm, I wonder what Edward Said would have said about that…), as theorized by that learned fool Juan Cole, that’s irrelevant, because this is an issue on which one cannot afford to do any guessing games, one must err on the side of caution. After all, Hitler’s (shr"y) rhetoric just before the Holocaust was dismissed with the same scoffing air (“Do you REALLY believe…) and interpretative assurances.

Bolton claims that because Ahamadinejad has, by stating his opposition to the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people and the existence of a Jewish state in historically Arab/Islamic territory.

Something in the above sentence is lacking in the syntax department. For that reason and because it contains two points I need to address, I will now split it into its two relevant parts:

[…] by stating his opposition to the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people […]

Two points: 1) Israel is not oppressing them any more than is necessary to defend itself; 2) They’re not a real people.

First: you may regard the border checkpoints as oppression. I think it’s already way over the top that Israel lets them cross the borders into our territories at all—I mean, aren’t they supposed to be independent, self-sufficient, self-determining and all that stuff? Anyhow, the checkpoints, just like that “apartheid wall” (a fence for most of its extent, but “fence” doesn’t have those “Berlin Wall” connotations the Leftists want so much), are there for preventing those people from entering with suicide vests into our cities. But, as the last Lebanon War taught us so graphically, the thing the world most hates seeing is Jews defending themselves. Tough…

Second: those people are not a nation, and never have been, except as an ad hoc device for ridding the Muslim world of the Jewish state (G-d forbid). Before the 1920’s, the Holy Land was as Mark Twain found it: not totally without people, but nearly so; desolate, with a few villages sparsely distributed along the G-d-forsaken (literally so!) land, and a few old cities fallen far below their ancient glory, especially Jerusalem. Like that sword which could not be pulled from the stone except by the true king, the Holy Land could not bloom except under the hands of its real owners, the Jewish people. They came in the late 19th century, and the land started to bloom subsequently; as a consequence, in the first decades of the 20th century, there began an influx of Muslim immigrants from the neighboring countries, attracted to the new prosperity. You see, therefore, that even from the materialistic, economic point of view, the “Palestinians” are reapers of the fruits of others, usurpers of an other nation’s true possession. All the more so from the divine, scriptural point of view: the nation of this land is the nation of Israel, the Jews, while the Arabs have 22 states of their own to choose from, and the Muslims even more than that. But their greedy eyes cannot stand the sight of even one small Jewish state in their midst. They are to blame, and we Jews are blameless.

[…] and the existence of a Jewish state in historically Arab/Islamic territory.

See above. And to add: make that, “historically Jewish territory”. We were there before the Arabs/Muslims arrived. And, as the indigenous peoples existing in the Land of Israel are no more, and the Jews are the most ancient indigenous people of this land, we are the people whom supporters of indigenous peoples should support, not the Muslim invaders.

Now, my grandfather barely escaped the Holocaust as a young boy and I am ethnically Jewish on my mother's side, […]

If your mother is Jewish then you’re a Jew. In effect, that puts you in the same class as Noam Chomsky and Uri Avneri: you’re a self-hating Jew, a Jewish quisling. The distance from you to the Neturei Karta traitors who were photographed embracing Ahmadinejad isn’t all that great.

[…] though I do not practice Judaism.

All Jews are obliged to practice Judaism, but even if you don’t yet, then at least refrain from doing things that are getting your Jewish brothers killed. Like writing such diaries, for example. The stuff you write ends up on Muslim media as justification for carrying out a Second Holocaust (G-d forbid), and on Western Leftist media as “proof” as to why that would be justice done (reparations for colonialism, yada yada).

I have many Jewish friends.

“Now, don’t get me wrong! Some of my best friends are…”

However, I see Ahamadinejad's point.

Why do I feel like quoting something from a movie from last year? “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!” “Then you are lost!”

No, you’re not lost yet. I was not that far from your views in the 1990’s, and here I am now. But you’re pretty far gone, and the crucial point is—I cannot state that enough—your words are getting your brothers killed. Think about it. Please.

The creation of Israel did take over land which was Palestinian. (Emphasis original —ZY)

I refuted that lie above. But there is here something deeper: note that he wrote, “The creation of Israel”. He did not write, “The 1967 war”. That’s a very important matter. The Israeli Peacenik Leftists still remaining (the Kassams from Gaza and the Lebanon War have decimated their ranks—one can only resist reality so much) have it that Israel’s “sinfulness” began in 1967, in conquering Gaza, Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War. It is very instructive, then, to see how behind the times they are—to see how world opinion, not just in the Muslim world but in the West, has shifted to seeing Israel as having been “born in sin”, and saying so without a hint of shame. This diary is representative of the divinely-inspired shifting of the world toward acceptance of the justice of a Second Holocaust (G-d forbid), leading to their having a clear conscience in supporting the Muslim goal of dismantling the Zionist state (G-d forbid).

HaShem wants us praying to him a little more. And my obligatory warning to the Leftists: keep this up and you’ll find a Kahanist elected Israeli Prime Minister in a landslide a few years from now.

The Israelis have not been peaceful neighbors to the Arabs, and have often attacked Arabs militarily, […]

How richly aggression is rewarded, how mercilessly meekness punished in our day and age! See how it never crosses the minds of Americans from the Old World to give their lands back to the Amerindian Natives, or of Britons descended from the continental Angles, Saxons and Jutes to end their occupation of Celtic lands, all because the Native Americans and the Welsh, Scots and Irish don’t blow themselves up in their malls. This for the same reason that a writer can publish a book titled, “Jesus: the First Suicide Terrorist” without fear, while a commercial for meat using a mediocre pun is banned because of potential threat to life. And the Leftists dare to say they stand for “speaking truth to power” and against “might makes right”.

We Jews gave them the opportunity to share our (emphasis on “our”) land with them in 1947 although we had no obligation whatsoever to do so. They refused, and raised armies against us, so we fought back. We defended ourselves from further attempts of theirs to wipe our state out in 1967 and 1973. We invaded Lebanon in 1982 in order to remove the threat to peaceful life on our north. We made a second attempt at sharing our lands with that fake nation from 1993 onward, culminating in making the whole Gaza Strip judenrein. For all that, we got Kassam rockets fired on Sderot (within the 1949 Armistice Borders—but that’s not relevant anymore, because “Israel was born in sin”). The summer of this year (2006), we did similarly to what we had done in 1982, for the same purpose. All our military actions have been in self-defense, and for countering situations no state should have to endure (if you have no problem living with rockets falling on your town every day, then I can’t help you).

[…] as they did this summer with their unprovoked invasion of Lebanon.

“Unprovoked”. Some high-impact stuff you’re smoking there, aren’t you?

“Unprovoked”, my foot. Last time I checked, crossing another country’s border and abducting its combatants was an act of war. “But it was only three soldiers, for which you flattened Lebanon—disproportionate response!” Yes, you would have liked a much bigger number of soldiers to have been abducted (G-d forbid). But it would have been “disproportionate” even then. The only “proportionate” Jewish response is to lie down and take whatever comes. Never mind that we don’t have any command or even suggestion from the founders and sages of our religion to turn the other cheek.

Iran has a point!

Iran has a point, the point of Jew-haters worldwide. I make what I believe to be the point for Jews worldwide. If Jew-haters make their point and we Jews make our point, we can win. But when Jew-haters make their point and Jews make the Jew-haters’ point, as you’re doing now in your entire diary, then the scales are tipped against us. When the attorney for the plaintiff brings the case for the plaintiff and the attorney for the defendant brings the case for the defendant, the judge will consider them both and weigh their evidence; but when both the attorney for the plaintiff and the attorney for the defendant bring the case for the plaintiff, the judge has no choice but close the case in favor of the plaintiff.

The obligation of every Jew, even if he or she does not yet keep Torah and Mitzvot: to be for his people an attorney for the defendant. That is why the Naturei Karta “rabbis” who embraced Ahmadinejad, for all their observance of the Torah, are traitors and await serious punishment from G-d, while secular Jews who speak for Jews and Israel like Ben-Dror Yemini will have their religious transgressions, while not completely discarded (for G-d does not let people go scot-free for their sins), greatly mollified.

So why is Bolton acting as if somehow Ahamadinejad is doing some great evil?

Maybe it’s because Ahmadinejad is doing some great evil. Maybe it’s not because “the tail of Israel is wagging the American dog”, but because it really is in the best interests of the United States of America, a Western democracy, to stand with the only real Western democracy in the Middle East, against one of the most despotic Islamic theocracies in the region. Maybe it’s because the USA is [still] led by people who take G-d’s Word (the Tanach) seriously, and see it as an obligation to support a country that shows His promises being fulfilled in real time.

When will the United States stop unfalteringly supporting Israel's encroachment into Palestine?

When the likes of Baker, Carter and you take the reins of power over the United States. When G-d decides we’re trusting too much in the United States and too little in Him. As a believing Jew, I don’t take the US support of Israel for granted. But if you think the US lifting its support of Israel would bring it peace and the cessation of all hatred toward it, then you’re wrong. The US would continue to be hated by the Muslims, for being a state ruled not according to Islamic law, and it will have less peace than before, for, as we can see now from the reaction to the report of the Iraq Surrender Group, it will be seen as weak and ripe for takeover.

And again: it’s not “Israel’s encroachment into Palestine”, it’s the Jews lawful inhabitation of lands that belong to them, as stipulated by G-d in His Torah, and on which a foreign people sets their eyes. The Land of Israel, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza, is ours, entirely, as long as we follow G-d’s mitzvot; the “Palestinians”, having rejected our repeated offers to partition it between us and them, will be resisted for the Muslim invaders and occupiers they are.

Wake up folks! If a bunch of foreigners just arrived in your city and announced that they were just going to remove it from the United States and become their own country, and that they were going to oppressive to the native citizens of that area, I think Bolton would complain.

Aha. So you would give the Native Americans a free pass to perform terrorist attacks in your cities? No? Why not? Is “Palestinian” blood redder than Native American blood? Not to mention that the Native Americans are a real people, unlike the Fakestinians, who no heritage to do remembrance of other than their anniversaries of “being oppressed by the Zionists”.

So why is he shocked that the Arabs are upset about Israel?

“Upset”. This from the same people who routinely say things like, “Your feelings on the Holocaust don’t justify your behavior toward the Palestinians”. I have two questions: why bring feelings to this debate at all, and if we do bring feelings here, which feelings count and which don’t? When a rapist says he did it because of his hard childhood, why do his feelings count while the feelings of his victim don’t? We Jews don’t inhabit our lands as some kind of retribution or redress for the Holocaust, we do it because we believe G-d has given us this land. The “Palestinians”, and all the Muslims worldwide, on the other hand, carry out suicide operations against us (G-d forbid) because of all manner of “past grievances”. If they were really after a state of their own, they would not have destroyed the greenhouses given them as gifts in Gaza; the fact that they did proves that they, unlike us, do not have a positive goal of building their own state, but the negative goal of destroying the state of another nation (G-d forbid). That alone strips them of all rights to be taken as equal partners sitting at the negotiations table. That is the truth. But some people prefer to talk about feelings instead, such as being “upset”.

Here ends this diary. I now wish to draw out the big picture and conclusions from it. Just 60 years after the end of the Holocaust, the Jewish people is being drawn away, apart from the rest of humanity. It is being held to standards which no other nation would accept, namely, the notion of regarding a ceasefire as “we cease and they fire”. The Western world itself is too soft to carry out a Second Holocaust itself; instead, today the Muslims are the ones imbued with the necessary barbarity for that task (G-d forbid). But the Western Left has the important function of making such an event acceptable, setting the stage for it by framing it as yet another “nationalistic, anti-colonial struggle of resistance for the sake of self-determination”. Baker and Carter (may they both rot in hell soon, amen) would, just 30 years ago, be regarded the same as David Duke; nowadays, they’re hailed as saviors, both for cloaking their Jew-hatred in the mantle of a formula for world peace. Israel’s attempts to the defend herself physically are shouted down by all except a few stalwarts (like the outgoing Bolton); and her attempts to defend herself ideologically are silenced by the libels of Walt and Mearsheimer, by which every such attempt is decried as being “an action of the Israel lobby to stifle all criticism of Israel” (the reality, as usual, is the other way round).

What do we do? First of all, trust in G-d more. Because the help of none of the nations can be taken for granted. There are righteous Gentiles who will always be with us, but they are not guaranteed to make policy. We have a strong army, thank G-d, but it will not help us as long as we have weak, ineffective, appeasing leaders who keep giving it orders to stay silent, nor will it be of much avail in the face of an unconventional threat (G-d forbid). We will maintain the army and we will keep seeking support from outside, but we must remember, day after day, reminded by all the signs, that we are at the End of Days, at the time of which our prophets said G-d will be revealed as our only true Savior.

Second, following on the point that we are still to keep our efforts at ideological warfare, it is time for us to stop mincing our words and call a spade a spade on every occasion. To wit:

  1. The Muslims are the Nazis of our day. (Exceptions exist but are a tiny minority.)
  2. The Western Leftists, such as Carter and Alexander Cockburn and Paul Preston (as well as leftovers from the Old Right such as Baker and Pat Buchanan), are the Nazi sympathizers and enablers of our day, just like Charles Lindbergh was then. (Exceptions exist but are a minority that is shrinking every day.)
  3. Israel-berating, “Palestinian”-supporting Jews like Noam Chomsky and Uri Avneri and the Naturei Karta “rabbis” are the capos of our day, willing to save their skin by climbing on the dead bodies of their brothers (G-d forbid). They’re quislings and should be exposed as such. They should not be done any form of violence, for that could be a slippery slope onto Jewish internecine warfare (G-d forbid), but they should not be allowed to get away with their carrying themselves as representatives of the Jewish people on media channels worldwide.
  4. The entire land, including the territories we took in 1967, is ours. No distinction is to be made between the 1949 Armistice Line territories and those taken in 1967. The land is ours not because of the Holocaust, not even because we made them bloom, but because G-d says it is ours. The Muslims inhabiting the land consistute a foreign occupation of it, an occupation that is to be resisted. The only nation that can truly be considered to be the Palestinian nation, both by divine decree and by the fact of being the most ancient indigenous people of it still in existence, is the Jewish nation.
  5. That “Palestine” is at the height of Muslim concern is not because of the Jewish reclamation of it, but because it is now a non-Muslim state on what was once under the rule of Islam, and because it has reached great prosperity with few resources, which is a red carpet in front of the eyes of the Muslims, who languish despite have numerous states with plentiful resources.
  6. Nor is there permission for any nation or individual to attempt to achieve world peace by appeasing the Muslims on our expense.
  7. The state of Israel is not beholden to international decrees that forbid it defending herself from her enemies. All international organizations, including the United Nations and the European Union, are accountable to G-d and His law, as indeed are all nations and individuals.

Those points are to be made as long as we still can. It would not be realistic to think they could sway world opinion wholesale—only G-d can do that. They could turn a few individuals, but their main purpose is to serve as a case for us in our job as attorneys for the defense of Israel and the Jewish people. World opinion wanted us out of Europe and into British Mandatory Palestine 70 years ago, but now wants us out of “Palestine”, our historical homeland, given to us by G-d Himself, and into… into nowhere, just out of the world, because the message we’ve been giving mankind ever since the Stand at Sinai is so offensive (as our sages say: it is called Sinai because from it hatred [sin’ah] went forth down to the world). They are directing their anger at the messenger, while they really ought to take up their issues with G-d.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you realize what a wonderfully written, researched, and informative post you have provided.

December 17, 2006 7:12 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

I'm glad you think so, I strive to do my best in providing ammo against the barrage of charges leveled against us. Feel free to use it.

Happy Chanukkah!

December 17, 2006 12:08 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

ZY, you are correct in that there are no "palestinians" what is also important to remember is where that fictional people came from. A Nazi by the name of Johan Van Leers escaped Europe after WWII and fled to Egypt where he became a Muslim a personal aide to Nasser. In 1963 he invented the "palestinian" nationality, pointing out that chanting "push the Jews into the sea" is'nt quite as good a sell as, "we are just trying to get our homeland back" so the "palestinians" were born.

December 17, 2006 6:15 PM  
Blogger Muslim Unity said...

Zionist has a very different to it than Jew. Please try to understand what the world is saying.

December 17, 2006 6:17 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...


Are you sure the invention dates to 1963? I'm not saying that's impossible, in fact it tallies with Shukeiri's setting up of the PLO in 1964 (thee years before the Six-Day War!), but I thought it went back earlier. Doesn't change the argument, of course--they're still Fakestinians.

Muslim Unity,

You say, "Zionist has a very different to it than Jew."

Yeah. Strange, then, that anti-Zionism follows the exact same patterns as pre-Zionist Jew-hatred, as most eloquently put by Steven Plaut in his piece Anti-Zionists. But We Have Nothing Against the Jews as Such.

You say, "Please try to understand what the world is saying."

I did that for a whole decade--the extent of the 1990's. I sincerely thought and believed it was only the issue of the territories taken in 1967, which, once given back to the Palestinians, would end this whole conflict. But now, at the closing of the year 2006, it is not only the Muslims, but the "world" of which you speak, that says that the roots of the conflict lie in 1949 and not in 1967, and that the only way to end this conflict is to "right" the "wrongs" of 1949. Which, in effect, mean doing away with Israel as a Jewish state (G-d forbid). This goes not just against religious Zionism, but against secular Zionism. In the 1990's there was a majority among the Israeli Jewish public that the 1967 issue should be redressed, but there was not a single Israeli Jewish voice in favor of redressing the 1949 issue. If the "Palestinians", and the "world" following them, had not insisted on redressing the 1949 issue, the 1967 issue would by now be settled; because of the insistence on such 1949 issues as the Right of Return, the Israeli Jewish public is shifting, day after day, in favor of abandoning the 1967 issue as well. Had we been asked for a part, we would have given a part; because we have been repeatedly told to give all, which we cannot do, our response will be to take all.

December 17, 2006 6:39 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

ZY, there was talk of Arabs being uprooted and working for a return to their homes but the idea of a separate nationality called the Palestinians didnt exist till 63. There may have been other people who expressed the idea of setting up a "palestinian" naitonality but it wasnt until Van Leers that the idea gained any steam.

MU, you, and the world, may not oppose Jews but you certainly oppose Judaism. As it is a Mizvah (divine commandment) that all Jews must live in Eretz Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael must be a Jewish State.

Muslims/Arabs are perphaps the worlds greatest imperialists, but just because you lie well doesnt give you the right to my home. There is a old Chinese saying that I feel is relevant to any discussion on the world's opinion of Eretz Yisrael "A dog is not a fish even if ten thousand people say it is"

ZY, is there any chance of a post explaining how you turned from Leftist to Torah Jew? I know youve briefly written on the subject in the past but I'd like to hear the whole story

December 17, 2006 9:48 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...


Nazi Van Leers bringing up this whole idea... Mufti Hajj Amin El-Husseini teaming up with Hitler... what a tangled, yet so, so clear, web we have before us.

If it's going to be a whole post on my change, then it'll have to contain a lot of personal details (like the series Neo-Neocon has done), something I'm not keen on. Seeing the supernatural events concerning Israel going on before my very eyes was the most important reason, but not the only one. Another reason, which some may have guessed from my obsession with the question of cultural identity and self-confidence, is the issue of Jewish identity. And there are a few more reasons, some of which are too personal to put on a public web page. I could sum it up by saying I moved from Secular Zionism to Religious Zionism because it was getting clear to me that Secular Zionism, although not dead, is running out of steam--the vision of us living peacefully in our land, which is the raison d'etre of Secular Zionism, has proved very elusive, leading to ideological exhaustion and, consequently, the "Peace at any Price" mentality on the one hand and to self-destructive post-Zionism on the other; Religious Zionism is better built to endure this long haul.

December 17, 2006 10:10 PM  
Blogger kahaneloyalist said...

fair enough, thanks

December 18, 2006 1:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home