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.

Monday, July 16, 2007


Picture a comment like the following in a thread in Guardian’s Comment is free:

The only truly just two state solution and the best chance for a lasting peace in the region, is for some region in an unimportant and currently uninhabited part of the world to be recognized as the de facto Jewish State and for all the Zionist settlers currently occupying Palestinian land in the West Bank and within the Green Line to bequeath it immediately to its rightful owners and resettle in that new homeland. Of course, the world is not fair, so—barring a sudden and miraculous change of mindset on the part of the Palestinians and Israelis—this will never happen and the Zionists will eventually get the West Bank and Gaza one day.

What would be the reactions? A meager contigent of pro-Israel commenters protesting such a statement, eclipsed by a thick slew of pro-“Palestine” commenters commending it as a just and fair solution, a necessary proposal if there is to be “just and lasting peace” in the Middle East, and in the world as a whole.

The actual comment, by “deronda”, on the thread One option: two states, from July 16, 2007, is this:

The only truly just two state solution and the best chance for a lasting peace in the region, is for Jordan to be recognized as the fato [sic] Palestinian State and for all the Arab squatters currently occupying Jewish land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza to bequeth [sic] it immediately to its rightful owners and resettle in Jordan. Of course, the world is not fair, so—barring a sudden and miraculous change of mindset on the part of the Palestinians and Israelis—this will never happen and the Arabs will eventually get Judea and Samaria one day.

And here are some of the reactions. By commenter “Yesterday”:

Deronda’s talk of ‘the Arab squatters currently occupying Jewish land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza’ sounds very much like the way the Nazis talked about Jews in Europe. I don’t think Israel needs friends like Deronda.

And by “Highbury”:

This is the kind of racist b******t that produced the ethnic cleasnsing [sic] and theft of Palestinian property.

And by “GrandOldMan”:

@Deronda: Well others have already torn into him and it’s a bit late to add my voice, but just for the record, I too find his statements omn [sic] this thread to be grossly offensive, patronising and racist towards the palestinians.

And the clincher, by “Shachtman”:

Deronda : Shut up please.

While a comment by “Lakeside”, similar to my hypothetical turn-around of the comment by “deronda”, has so far not been given such treatment:

If America invaded England and decided to split it in to two, will we ever accept it? After all its thanks to the British that we have/had the black slavery in the world and the issue of the Aborignies in Austrailia [sic].

So would it be just for Enland [sic] to be invaded and carved up to make room for the Aborignies [sic] or the Blacks? Lets say give Liverpool to the English and the rest of the country can go to the blacks or aborignies [sic]?

We Brits would never accept that and so similarly the Palestinians can not be robbed of what is theres [sic]. The fact is jews, christinas [sic], and Muslims all lived in harmony in the land of Palestine till the illegal state of Israel was created or should i say planted by the British, since when its only been a river of blood.

The land belongs to the Palestinians.
Its the Palestinians who have lost most life.
Its the Palestinians who need justice and this will only come via a single state soloution [sic]. If the British government or the Amerians [sic] have a problem with it then let them create an England Israel or an American Israel.

They should give London to the Jews or let them have TEXAS and get rid of the real problem.

A simple answer for a simple problem- Give back to the Palestinians what is theres [sic].

At most, the reaction to “Lakeside” would be that his proposal is impracticable—cannot be carried out right now, is not the most pragmatic course to take, needs refinement, and other objections in that vein. Objections to “Lakeside” from morality, like saying his proposal is unjust or inhumane, would be rare, made only by those who are in the class of “deronda”, and subsequently shouted down like his comment.

As one of the right-wing columnists of Yediot Achronot (either Uri Elitzur or Uri Orbach, I don’t remember which of the two) said: a Jew who says publicly to the world that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews by right is called an “extremist” and “fanatic”, while a “Palestinian” who demands a Judea, Samaria and Gaza emptied of all Jews, but just agrees to postpone the discussion on the “Right of Return” to a later date, is hailed as a “moderate”.

Now for some more, some relevant arguments. From Howard Jacobson on the British boycotts of Israel, via Engage:

On this occasion, though—a meeting called to oppose the proposed academic boycott of Israel—I felt I had to depart from the principles of my profession because academics in this country had departed from theirs. You don’t silence other voices if you’re a scholar, that’s where I stand. You don’t, if you’re a thinker and a teacher, remove from the unending conversation of the mind those of whom you happen, rightly or wrongly, to disapprove.


[…] Those in favour of excommunication weren’t removing Israeli voices in the sense of gagging or silencing them, they were simply refusing to listen to them. […]


Most of what Socrates did was listen. No longer to listen is no longer to engage in the dialogue of thought. […]

Indeed. The boycotts can be summed up in that quoted comment on Grauniad Ciff by “Shachtman”: “Deronda: Shut up please”. In other words: Shut up, we don’t want to hear your view; we want to hear only the view that portrays the “Palestinians” as the indigenous people of the land, and Zionism as a colonialist movement started with the nefarious intent of robbing the indigenous of their land.

1400 CE: It is justified to kill Jews because they are well-poisoners. 1850 CE: It is justified to kill Jews because they’re an inferior race infecting the pure Aryan gene pool. 2000 CE: It is justified to kill Jews, uh sorry, I meant Zionists, because they’re racist, Nazi-like settlers dispossessing an indigenous people, starving them with blockades and locking them inside bantustans. As always, it isn’t about merely saying bad things about the Jews—it’s about making an acceptable justification for murdering us (G-d forbid). That is the issue. That is why I sound the battle-cry, “To the Islamonazis and their Leftist enablers no quarter!”

Fact one: the other side isn’t interested in listening.
Fact two: today’s libel is every bit as dangerous to us as the libels of the past.

I don’t know what’s the use. As long as the other side is willing to listen, even if just a little, then it’s all worthwhile. But the eyes can see it is not so. And if they aren’t interested in listening, there’s no way of making them, short of reaching the state that many of them accuse us of having long achieved, namely control of the media. We don’t, of course—that’s why Israel’s targeted incursions in Lebanon last year got us a global opinion hailstorm, while the Lebanese army’s horrific, indiscriminate offensives against the “Palestinians” in their camps haven’t gotten so much as a squeak from the mainstream media channels.

I feel I can’t say anything of more use than I’ve already said. I’m preaching to the choir, the other side won’t listen, the arguments go in circles, reading the enemy’s libels just fills me with rage, and to top it all, my financial situation isn’t good right now.

Dialogue is closed, as per the other side’s insistence. They have asked, and soon, if HaShem wills it, they will receive, a new model of interaction wherein a combative and unapologetic Jewish State of Israel, headed by Torah-believing leaders, will hunt the anti-Zionist enemies of Israel just as Simon Wiesenthal hunted Nazis, and bring them before the Sanhedrin to be accorded justice. I for one would love to see people like Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu end up the same as Saddam Hussein. As it is written:

Let the saints exult in glory; let them sing for joy upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the nations, and chastisements upon the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written; He is the glory of all His saints. Hallelujah. (Psalm 149:5–9)

Make our enemies tremble, O HaShem! Destroy them all!

Poster: Top: "Critics of the Jewish State shouldn't be called anti-Semites."; Middle: Judge's gavel; Bottom: "They should be brought before the Sanhedrin to stand trial. (Speedily in our days, amen.)"

Labels: , ,