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.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Underhanded Democrats

As a recent example of the new mainstreaming of Jew-hatred under the mantle of anti-Zionism, I bring you the blog Evenhanded Democrats, newly launched, contributed to by a “Who’s Who” of Israel-haters on Daily Kos. The front page greets you with the post, “The End of Zionism?”, which I already mentioned twice. It can be considered the epitome of the problem with those Kossacks’ “evenhandedness”. Right off the bat, there are two overarching errors behind this particular initiative and the general phenomenon it embodies: it is based on false information, selectively chosen, and it is, despite being driven by that false information, not the isolationism expected from it.

Look at the byline, titled, “Why Evenhanded?”:

We are Democrats who want a change in the Democratic Party Platform regarding the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, so that our country may be perceived as a fair broker. (Emphasis mine. —ZY)

Draw a straight line from that statement to events back in time. Where will your line end? At 9/11, that’s where. The thoughts going on at the aftermath of 9/11 led quickly to the mainstreaming of the idea that the USA’s “one-sided support of Israel” was bringing upon it the enmity of the entire Muslim world. That thought had existed before 9/11, but now it could be voiced with acceptability.

What is the basis for this thought? The shocking answer is: no more and no less than the words of the terrorist leaders. Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahri said so. They said so, therefore the anti-Zionists believe it to be true.

The question is not if they are lying (that is a valid question, but outside the scope of this post); the question is if they could be lying, because that question has very far-reaching ramifications not only for Israeli but also for American, Western, even non-Muslim politics in general. The West-hating Left has already made up its collective mind that President George W. Bush is capable of lying. Whenever he delivers a speech, a Leftist fisking showing “his cynical ploys”, sometimes even to the level of a single word, soon follows. It started from right after 9/11, when Leftist commentators derided his saying of the terrorists, “They hate our freedom”.

Are Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahri capable of lying? My answer, after the Lebanon War of Summer 2006, is an unequivocal “Yes”. During that war, the Muslim enemy staged the news and faked the photos. These aren’t the plotting-in-the-dark, Dolchstosslegende kind of lies that can still be disputed even after centuries, these are flat-out lies laid out in plain sight, in broad daylight. Positive proof: the Muslim enemy is capable of lying in order to manipulate public opinion.

So when the good doctor Al-Zawahri says, in his broadcast to the American people, that “the oppression of the Palestinians” is behind the Muslims’ hatred for the USA, there is at least potential for him to be doctoring the truth in order to pit non-Muslim against non-Muslim. This is still not proof that he is actually doing so (again, that’ll have to be for another post), but it does mean the American listeners should approach his words with at least the same suspicion as they do their president’s. That they do not do so, instead opting to regard every word of Al-Zawahri’s as if engraved in gold, speaks volumes… but don’t question their patriotism.

Upon this uncritically-imbibed hypothesis, then, the many and constantly growing voices on the Democrat Party base their call for foreign policy change with regard to Israel: to be “evenhanded” in this conflict, in order to be perceived as honest brokers, for the ultimate purpose that we may not incur again the wrath justly visited upon us by the legitimately grievanced on 9/11. Chamberlain, Lindbergh, America First Committee, and what’s old is new again. Or as commenter Eric S puts it on the Daily Kos thread where the new blog is introduced:

In the context of IP [Israel/“Palestine” —ZY] debate, the word "evenhanded" has been robbed of any real meaning, becoming a dishonest codeword for "give less support to Israel," and nothing more. If that is what you really want to say, just say it, instead of couching it in loaded weasel words.

Precisely. And with such a post there as, “The End of Zionism?”, it is all too transparent that the blog owners aren’t even interested in putting an effort to keep the mask. Which brings me to the 1930’s, Charles Lindbergh and American isolationism again.

Charles Lindbergh was, like many of the Kossacks, quite vocal about “America First”. He, like Chamberlain, was “a man of peace”; like Chamberlain, he had no interest in having his country go to war because of a people far away, engaged in a conflict irrelevant to his country. And, like Walt and Mearsheimer, like Jimmy Carter, like Wesley Clark, he warned of the Jewish control of the media and America’s foreign policy, and addressed the Jews, telling them they would be the first to pay the price for war (just like the anti-settler Leftists are now wont to say: “The right-wing Likkud/AIPAC policies are harming Israel, Israel should abandon them for the sake of its own future”).

However, the comparison ends here. Lindbergh was truly an isolationist. The likes of the proprietors of the “Evenhanded Democrats” blog are not. They certainly are about “America First”, but they are not isolationists—they support active intervention in the policies of another state in order to appease the aggressor. In that, they are like Chamberlain, not like Lindbergh.

Supposing I believed in the hypothesis of the Israel/“Palestine” conflict being the basis for Muslim hatred of America and wanted to remedy it by isolationism. What would I suggest? Isolationism means what it says on the label: total non-intervention, withdrawal not only of all military forces (as the Democrats demand for Iraq) but also of all diplomatic efforts. A “Let them sort themselves out” policy, in other words.

But that is not what those “evenhanded Democrats” are proposing for the Israel/“Palestine” conflict. Quite the opposite: they demand that the government of the USA exert great diplomatic and economic pressure upon Israel to reach a “peace treaty” with the “Palestinians”—or, in truth, to force Israel to concede its lands (Judea and Samaria as appetizers, more for the main course) to the fictional nation under which the Israel Chapter of the Global Islamic Jihad is dressed. Isolationism? Don’t make me laugh. Plain appeasement, more blood for the Audrey II of religions in hopes of averting one’s own consumption by it.

The shameful episode of the 1938 Munich Agreement is called, “The Western Betrayal”. It is so called, and not merely “The Western Negligence” or “The Western Oversight”, because it was interventionist, not isolationist. It was a blatant intervention by Britain and France in the politics of Czechoslovakia to force it to concede the Sudetenland (of whose Germans the Nazi propaganda machine had been claiming for months that the Czechoslovakian state was oppressing them) to Hitler in order to thwart any cause for him to attack them. That’s what the “evenhanded Democrats” want to be done here, in the Israel/“Palestine” conflict.

I address all those underhanded Democrats:

We will not allow you to appease the Muslims on our expense.

And I address the Democrat-voting Jews of America:

Please consider jumping ship. Your party has become a den of Jew-hating terrorism-supporters. Franklin Delano Roosevelt no longer heads it, not even in spirit, except for a few holdovers and revivalists. A former president belonging to that party is now priming the world to accept a second Holocaust (G-d forbid) as justice done, and has gained the praise of Muslim terrorists, white supremacists and rank and file Democrats for it. The Left worldwide is firmly with its lips working on the Muslims’ ambulatory organs in hopes of placating them, and is only too willing to throw the Jews under the bus as part of the conciliatory package. Say what you want about the Republicans, but they’ve left those things behind (Buchanan and Baker are Old Right holdovers—exceptions demonstrating the fact that the Left and the Right have switched sides).

No doubt that paragraph will be seized upon by those who wish to show how “neo-con” and “Jew” are synonyms, how the USA under Bush is a Zionist-Occupied Government, yadda yadda. But think about it: if I were to leave it unposted, would those accusations vanish? Were the answer, “Yes”, then I would not have to write this whole post—scratch that: my whole blog. Anti-Zionism is the acceptable form of anti-Semitism in our age. That is the terrible truth, and it’s time Jews acknowledged that.



Blogger Michael said...

Even without a long explanation, anyone with any objectivity should be able to see that word for what it really means: "Shill for the palestinians."

I had to change my blog link, so check the profile if you want to come by...

February 06, 2007 12:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home