Non-Interventionism: A Litmus Test

Trawling lately between the Leftscum (the PC, dhimmi Marxists) and the Rightscum (the racialists; see previous post), I stumbled upon a post on Israellycool where the endorsement of paleoconservative Ron Paul (a phenomenon all its own; henceforth “Rompaul”, as I write his name out on LGF) on Stormfront is duly noted. The post attracted comments from a few Rompaulians. First:

FatDrunkAndStupid Says:

Stormfront is a National Socialist website. Ron Paul is a libertarian- about as far away from National Socialism as you can get. They support Paul because he believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, and indirectly, that position has the effect of ending US subsidies to Israel (a key sticking point to the stormfront folks). But Ron also supports ending the handouts to Egypt, The House of Saud, and Jordan too. His position comes from principle, not hate. When Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the early 80’s, Paul was one of the few US Congressmen who refused to denounce them. I suggest you look a little deeper in to Ron Paul’s positions before writing him off. Ending the War in Iraq, Ending the War on Drugs, Abolishing the Income Tax, Repealing he Patriot Act, Restoring Civil Liberties… are these idiotic positions? [Emphasis mine. —ZY]

And second:

DetainThis Says:

Indeed. The man’s principled voting, writing, and speaking records easily undercut the haters’ fraudulent smears. His positions regarding other Middle Eastern states and the Israel-Osirik vote are especially deflating for those who’d paint him anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, or even un-American.

I don’t know about “FatDrunkAndStupid”, but “DetainThis” doesn’t sound very convincing to me, once I have taken a peek at his blog, which features the worst of both New (Leftist, anti-Zionist) and Classical anti-Semitism in its sidebar links. Rompaul may or may not be just a simple libertarian, but the supporters he attracts are… well… you get the whole lovely spectrum from Stormfronters to 9/11 Troofers.

But this post is about the question of interventionism. The argument is often made that US citizens have the full right to question support of Israel because the US pays for that support, in both real and figurative cash (dollars in foreign aid in the former sense, “the hatred of the Arab and Muslim worlds” in the latter). The fact that Israel itself pays a heavy price for US aid after every time it gets it, in the form of pressure toward negotiations with and land concessions with the Pretendestinians, is rarely mentioned. For all the talk of “unrestrained Israeli aggression”, Israel’s hand has, beginning from 1956, been severely held down by Washington’s orders. So sometimes I just ask myself if non-interventionism might not be a good thing. But then I remember that, before I make a rushed statement, some testing against reality needs to be done. Which is the point of this post.

Non-interventionists must be asked how far they are willing to go in that. Far too many self-styled “non-interventionists” expose their dishonesty by limiting their talk to “stopping all aid to Israel”, while calling for pressing Israel to the negotiations table. In fact, such faux-non-interventionists call for cutting off US aid to Israel as a means of blackmail, as a way of forcing Israel to make concessions to that fictive nation behind which the total Islamic jihad against the very existence of the Jewish State is waged. Those are not non-interventionists by any stretch of imagination; they’re nothing but modern Chamberlains doing a Munich on Israel in order to secure their sitting organs, operating out of the erroneous conception that Islamic terrorism gets all or most of its fuel from the issue of “Palestine”. The future Sanhedrin will no doubt find some of the more high-profile of such “non-interventionists” to be ideal candidates for trial and execution. Speedily in our days, amen.

Now what the commenter “FatDrunkAndStupid” says, that Rompaul refused to denounce Israel’s bombing of Osirak, is more like it. But the blowing up of a nuclear reactor, however much it makes the news, isn’t stretching it as far as non-interventionism goes. The big money challenge should be the following:

In exchange for cutting on aid, would you be willing that the US turn a blind eye when the Jewish State expels all the Muslims within its Biblically-defined borders?

You wanted a litmus test for non-interventionism? Here is a real litmus test for you!

If the answer consists of just one word of the type, “That’d endanger US citizens and interests”, then the prospective non-interventionist has failed the test. Remember, the non-interventionist platform is about giving full focus to the situation at home. A non-interventionist can be as equally keen as an interventionist on tackling the problem of Islam and terrorism on US soil; non-interventionism just means he doesn’t propose any action abroad in order to improve the situation at home. That means no invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, and no aid to any Middle Eastern country—neither Israel nor Egypt nor oil-rich Saudi Arabia—but that also means no stepping into the regional war after it has broken out. It means, then, no calls upon Israel to agree to a UN-brokered ceasefire before Hizbullah has been eradicated, and no threats of sanctions on the Jewish State to prevent it from carrying out the only workable plan for permanent peace, namely the expulsion of all the Muslims from within it.

If the non-interventionist says, “I couldn’t care less what Israel does in its own playground”, then we have a real non-interventionist before us, who should be congratulated for the consistency of his views.

I don’t think Rompaul would ever be presented with that question, and he’s out of the race, anyhow. But this isn’t about Rompaul. It’s about the recurrent theme of Jewish existence today, which is: discerning between friend and foe. As I put it in another form before: To rally support for Israel is deluxe; we can be perfectly content with dissuading support for our enemies. May God and the future Sanhedrin take care soon of all those who oppose the ancient Jewish dream, whether they be the One-State exterminationists or the Two-State appeasers.

Absurd!

The idea of the “Palestinian nation” is inseparable from the plan to eliminate the Jewish State (God forbid). It is therefore not possible to be both pro-Israel and pro-“Palestine” at the same time, even though many of those who claim to be so are just deceived, not malicious.

The name, “Palestine” was given by the Roman emperor Hadrian, in order to sever the connection of the Jews with their land. His empire is now nothing but a lengthy chapter in the page of time, and he who understands will understand.

Response to “Clockwork Zionists” (Pantland, ep. 2)

Response to Clockwork Zionists, by Walton Pantland (yes, he of the first response).

I can write about whatever I like - things that interest me, and that I think are important - and no one pays much attention.

Put the words 'Israel' or 'Zion' into the title, and my stats shoot up as defenders of Israel gather to call me an anti-Semite and a neo-Nazi.

I don’t know jack about your site stats, but I don’t single you out for responses. Back when Daily Kos still had new arguments to make against Israel, there were times you could expect a response to them on my blog every day. My goal is to defend Zionism; to expect attacks to go unresponded (just like the state of Israel is expected to take every Kassam rocket lying down) is unreasonable.

So, for the record, and despite claims to the contrary:

I am not advocating genocide against the Jews.

I am not calling for Jews in the Middle East to be displaced or killed.

Few and far between (still…) are left-wingers who openly call for those things. However, as I already said to Pantland in his comments, the demands they make of Israel cannot lead to any other result.

It looks to me as if the challenge I have presented, to advocates of the Binational Solution in general, is being ignored once again. To remind you what the challenge is: To bring a credible binational proposal in which it is guaranteed that the result will not be disastrous. One-Staters have talked plenty of how both the status quo and the Two-State Solution are no good, but they have yet to offer a one-state solution with which we Israeli Jews could even begin to feel comfortable with. They support the One-State Solution with idealistic arguments (“The only possible way to restore justice” and the like), but they have totally neglected to address the pragmatic aspects of their proposition.

It’s almost as if they didn’t care what the final result would be.

I am simply saying that the Zionist dream hasn't worked. It hasn't made the world a safer place for Jews.

That is definitely true, if Zionism is about making the world a safer place for Jews. But that was Herzl’s (the founder of modern, secular Zionism) error: he thought that the Jews having their own state would end all Jew-hatred. The disillusionment from that dream was nailed by Golda Meir’s phrase, “Israel is the Jew among nations”. And yet, that does not mean the alternatives are any better:

Most Jews choose not to live in Israel, because Europe, the US, Canada, Australasia and many other countries have proved to be better places to live.

Of all the places you listed, you had to put Europe first?! Europe is fast becoming the most unsafe place for Jews to reside in, thanks to the growth of its Muslim population. Unlike you Leftists, the Muslims have no reservations about calling for Jewish genocide (God forbid). You Leftists just do your part in saying the Muslims are “venting their frustration over the injustice in Palestine”—justification.

The way of thinking, “Why live in Israel? The rest of the world is much safer”, is so 1970’s. Increasingly, a Jew leaving Israel finds the same threat upon his arrival at the new country.

Israel is such a mess that it has its own, home grown neo-Nazis, who are Jewish enough to be able to immigrate to Israel, […]

The result of inappropriate criteria for determining Jewishness. If that were done according to the traditional yardstick of the halachah (Jewish Law), that problem would be solved; but I’m one with Bin Laden just for proposing that, pace Pantland.

[…] not to mention the American Jewish fundamentalists who settle in places like Hebron.

And pray tell, what is the connection between “homegrown neo-Nazis” and “American Jewish fundamentalists”?! Could it be only that they are equivalent in your eyes? As far as many (and growing) Israeli Jews are concerned, the “American Jewish fundamentalists” are part and parcel of their society, something that could never be said for the non-Jewish hooligans who made the news.

Israel wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for $30 billion of US military aid, […]

Oh yes, the subtle threat: “Better go to the negotiations table before the aid is cut off and then you’re goners!” Thing is, US aid to Israel hasn’t always been a given. Back in 1948, when five Arab armies attacked our nascent state, we didn’t get any US aid; we had to make do with a few Czech leftovers from WWII and some French offerings. How did we survive?

[…] which the Israeli army uses to kill Palestinian children. Are they anti-Semites too?

Where does the link lead? To Jews sans frontieres, which bills itself “An Anti-Zionist blog”. Good start. And the post itself begins by quoting the quisling Gideon Levy. Even better. And the whole of the post is centered around the argument that, even though the “Palestinians” target Jewish children and send their own children to the line of fire, Israel is still guilty of “targeting” children. Again the extraordinary standard: “Take it all lying down, until you have defused it through talks and concessions.”

I am not happy about what is going on in Judea and Samaria. But concessions and capitulations won’t work—they merely bring more Jewish areas (and in the 1949 Armistice Line borders, no less) into rocket range. There is only one way to end the occupation and all its unfortunate results: expel all the Muslims from those areas.

I’m sure Pantland will pounce on my solution as “the height of injustice”. Clockwork. But he might want to ponder on the fact that, ever since the expulsion of the Germans from there in 1945, the Sudetenland has been out of the news. Yep, the same region that was the catalyst for a world war. You can’t argue with facts.

Come on. I really do have a deep respect for people's connection to place, and if Jews want to live in Israel-Palestine, that's fine. But respect other people's rights as well.

Ah. You have deep respect for our connection to the place. Not for the Jewish dream, the ancient dream, of having sovereignty over a state of our own on the Land of Israel.

Walton, I have news for you: we’re done living under the sovereignty of non-Jews. We have a whole history of it to know it’s not a very good deal. In the Diaspora, we had no choice (unlike the Muslims, who think themselves entitled to remake every host state in their image), but on our own land, the Land of Israel, we can’t accept anything less than sovereignty.

As for other people’s rights: No problem, but they are required to recognize the local culture as the law of the land. Would you not require cannibal immigrants to Scotland to leave their dietary habits? It’s the same here: We are not going to put up with any suicide-bombing, sedition, restrictions as to where we are allowed to live in the Land of Israel or worship, or any other sort of nonsense. This is the one and only Jewish state in the world; unlike the Muslims, we do not believe ourselves entitled to any other area of the globe, therefore all those who don’t like the fact of Israel being a Jewish state are free to choose all the rest of the world map.

But even that’s too much to ask, of course…

But at least I am in good company: Desmond Tutu is the latest to be smeared as an anti-Semite, and have a speaking invitation cancelled […]

Contrary to the misconception, I am not trigger-happy on the accusations of anti-Semitism (example: I refuse as of yet to call Richard Dawkins a Jew-hater, despite his recent “Jewish lobby” comment, for I still have no evidence that he made that statement out of a doctrinaire position), but Desmond Tutu most definitely is a Jew-hater. See item #1 on the post for October 9, 2007 by Steven Plaut.

[…] all because the Zionist Organization of America made up a quote comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and attributed it to him, and it was reported without fact checking.

JTA blundered in giving it as direct speech. They should have said, “Tutu compared Israel to Hitler and apartheid”. That distinction does not, at the end of the day, make much of a difference: Tutu is in agreement with Ahmadinejad (as is Pantland) that Israel as a Jewish State has no right to exist and is fated to disappear one day (God forbid).

OK, you don’t need to tell me: Leftist advocacy for the end of Israel as Jewish State stems from the view that a Jewish State is inherently racist; and I’m going to bring my challenge again: present a credible way of putting your proposal into action without the final result being disastrous. You may not call for Jewish genocide, but your call for the dissolution of a Jewish State comes with absolutely no means of preventing that from happening. That’s why I regard you, Tutu and all other proponents of the Binational Solution as threats, not just to Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but to Jewish life in Israel. Threats to our lives should your pressure lead to steps toward the application of the Binational Solution.

Who do you think is more credible? Tutu, or you nuts?

This isn’t about credibility. Credibility is the later stage. This is about the earlier stage, the stage called listening. Neither you nor Tutu nor Ahmadinejad are willing to even give ear, let alone respect, the essential Jewish narrative that we are not “colonial settlers” on the Land of Israel, but its true and rightful inhabitants. The Leftists do not cease talking about how “Israel treats the Palestinians as subhumans”, yet they are guilty of the inability, upon thinking about an Israeli Jew, to see anything other than a land-robber, a racist and a colonial oppressor.

Even at the best case, we only have basic needs in your eyes. The “Palestinians”, they have “dreams”—dreams of self-determination, of justice restored, of cultural significance and so on. But us Jews? All we have, in Leftist eyes, is the basic need of “living in security”. Nearly all the agreements bear that language: “A treaty that will enable the Palestinians to achieve their self-determination while not compromising on the Israeli’s need for security”. This, the denial of the ancient Jewish nationalistic dream, is Zionism Denial and is far worse than Holocaust Denial; the latter concerns only the past, while the former has impact on the present and the future.

It’s not whether Tutu is credible or not. It’s about the fact that Tutu, like you, runs roughshod over us Jews with his high-flown conceptions of “justice”.

Comparing Israel to apartheid also earns the anti-Semite slur - despite the fact that Haaretz, a mainstream Israeli paper, said the same thing in an editorial a few days ago.

An anti-Zionist quoting Haaretz to make his point—so what else is new?

I have news for you, Walton: Haaretz ceased being a mainstream Israeli paper years ago. There are two papers in Israel that can be called mainstream: Yediot Achronot and Maariv. Religious Zionist newspapers like B’Sheva are in the process of becoming mainstream, by virtue of the shifting of right-wing opinions to the center in Israel (a result of, among other things, the Kassam rockets following the evacuation of Gaza in August 2005, and the various proposal for boycotts of Israel worldwide. This ain’t South Africa here, Walton: the more you press against our state, the more the Israeli Jewish public moves to the right). Haaretz, conversely, has been undergoing a process of decline, in lockstep with the wane of concessionism starting with the Second Intifada in October 2000. Except for a decreasing number of disconnected, die-hard left-wing ideologues in Israel, all Israeli Jews regard Haaretz as an irrelevant elitistic rag. To cite Haaretz is only to strengthen the reality of its being in a world of its own, away from the pulse of the public in Israel.

What? Are they anti-Semites too? Or self-hating Jews?

Quislings. Self-hurting Jews. Jews for a Bad Cause. I don’t use the term, “self-hating Jews”, because it shifts the discussion to feelings, which are essentially undebatable. It is sufficient for me to say that Haaretz, just like the New York Times in the USA, is a seditious paper that takes the enemy side far too often, in the guise of “even-handedness” of course.

Like the boy who cried wolf, the anti-Semite slur has lost its power - which is a victory for real anti-Semites everywhere.

It’s not that crying “anti-Semite” ever had much power anyhow, but let’s leave that. A much more relevant point is that what you call “real anti-Semites” (if they are those I think you mean) are of scant significance today, while the real danger is from those who see themselves so far removed from Jew-hatred. If you think I’m going to let someone off the hook even though all his sayings and writings do nothing but serve as moral justification for the “Palestinians” to murder Jewish men, women and children (God forbid), then you’d better think again.

My blog sidebar has a heading, “Abstract”. The text under it is the condensed version of why anti-Zionism is today’s prominent form of anti-Semitism. If you understand this, you will understand all my vehemence.

ZionistYoungster (ZY) claims that my support for one state, with equal rights for all, will lead to the killing of Jews.

Not quite accurate. My claim is that a binational state would enable the influx of millions of “Palestinian refugees” (the well-known “Right of Return”), which will put them in the same position as they were in 1947: in physical proximity to start a war to wipe out all Jewish presence from the Land of Israel (God forbid). In a slightly better scenario, a binational state would enable them legislate anti-Jewish laws by democratic majority vote. Either scenario is not something we Jews are prepared to even contemplate.

But why should it?

White people weren't wiped out in South Africa after the end of apartheid.

There is a slight difference between the ANC and Hamas. The latter’s charter, in addition to their actions right now, should give you a clue. And for a graphic illustration, see my post It’s Just Like Seffrica, Trust Me.

Most Palestinians just want to live, work, study, fall in love, feed their families and enjoy life. It's only when they are prevented from doing this that they are driven into the arms of extremists.

And here we have come to the one great error that has blighted all non-Muslim states in their relations with the Muslims for the past few decades.

Hard truth: the Muslim world has not undergone the process of secularization that most of the rest of the world (especially the Christian West) has. Overwhelmingly, the Muslims take their religion seriously. Overwhelmingly, the masses of Muslims, and not just the poor and uneducated either but also the affluent and intellectuals, think the Islamic imperative, that all the world be governed by shariah law, is binding, in full force. If a secular Jew eats a sandwich in front of religious Jews fasting on Yom Kippur, he gets angry looks, calls to go away at worst. If a lapsed Muslim does the same in front of his coreligionists fasting in the month of Ramadan, he usually ends up with a lot of holes in his body shortly afterward.

There are Muslims who do not want the whole world under shariah law. They keep their opinion to themselves, for they know that if they voice it in public, they will be branded as apostates and killed, often by their own family members.

Cultural understanding demands that you not apply your cultural situation automatically to others. When thinking of the relationship of the rank and file Muslim to religion, don’t think of yours—you’ll get much closer to the truth if you think of the Muslims in analogy with how every Christian related to religion in the Middle Ages. The hard and inconvenient truth is that, for the average Muslim, his religion is a serious and absolutely binding matter. And the desire that the state be governed by shariah law isn’t extremist Islam any more than closing one’s shop on the Sabbath is extremist Judaism.

ZY also says "you won't appease Muslims at our expense".

I am not interested in appeasing anyone. I don't like right wing Islam anymore than you. But it is a symptom of the fact the Muslims are treated unjustly by Israel and the West.

There are 57 official Muslim states in the world (“official” means members of the Organization of Islamic Conference). Furthermore, Muslim immigrants in non-Muslim states, particularly in Europe, are constantly accommodated, with footbaths in universities, halal food in public schools (Jews never demanded kosher food to be prepared for them in public schools) and what not. The non-Muslim world has to suffer their temper tantrums upon the slightest provocation (a few silly cartoons). How, just how, can you talk about Muslims being “treated unjustly by Israel and the West”?!

Working for justice is not appeasement.

Whose idea of justice? I mentioned 57 Muslim states, and there are 22 Arab states; taking lands from the one and only Jewish state in the world in order to set up yet another Arab or Muslim state isn’t any kind of justice in my book.

He [refers to me. —ZY] says our 'zeal' is what exposes us as anti-Semites. Actually,the 'zeal' is to do with the fact that the injustice in Palestine is the fulcrum around which the big conflicts of our age revolve. […]

Way to go, Walton, you just blew your very argument that this isn’t about appeasement. Or how else am I to understand the bit, “[…] the injustice in Palestine is the fulcrum around which the big conflicts of our age revolve”? Implicit in that statement is that, were “the injustice in Palestine” not behind the big conflicts of our age in your eyes, then you would not display such zeal for it. As is evidenced by what follows:

[…] However important Darfur is, it's peripheral to the war on terror and the imperialist strategy of the US and it's allies.

Um… that noise? You heard that noise? It was the sound of my jaw dropping on the desk.

There’s a genocide in Darfur. A genocide, Walton, you know that? Do you care that over two million black Sudanese have been murdered there? Or is there no consideration you find worthy other than “the imperialist strategy of the US and its allies”? That’s what feeds your zeal? “The enemy of my enemy (=US imperialism) is my friend”?

I find your fine talk about “justice” a tad less convincing now.

As I said in my post, I didn't know it was a competition to see which was the worst country in the world.

I don’t see it or put it that way either. The Israel/“Palestine” conflict is a different matter altogether: it’s about whether the Jews have a right to sovereignty over a state of their own on the Land of Israel. To compare Israel’s fight against those who wish to destroy it with all manner of fascist, racist and imperialist forces is a libel.

Also, I put it to you, ZY, that you only notice the issues that interest you. If you were a supporter of the British state, you'd be noticing my 'zeal' for the destruction of Britain, and if you were a neo-Nazi, you'd call me a race traitor. Israel is far from the only thing I comment on, but it appears to be the only thing anyone wants to read about, which is why i keep coming back to it.

This reminds me of a snide question I got on the comments on Left I on the News a while back: “Zionist Youngster, do you read LeftI or do you just troll blogs looking for people bad-mouthing Zionists?” I answered: “Yes, I'm a regular reader, of this blog as well as Daily Kos, CounterPunch and many others”. My focus in undeniably on Israel and anti-Zionism, but I do not confine myself to reading only those topics on left-wing sites.

I talk of zeal in the more general sense. Darfur is again a case in point: as Eyal Rosenberg said in his parting Daily Kos diary:

Barely a word for Darfur - Israel has been in a diary on dkos over 5000 times in the past year, Darfur less then 1000. How many thousands continue to be killed there by Muslims? If I did not know better I would think that on dkos bashing Israel was more important than saving lives. But what has gone in Sudan? Only 2 million dead versus the circa 7 thousand in the I/P conflict in the same period.

Your zeal is placed exactly where it shouldn’t be: against a state that lets its enemies write screeds against it from within it, such as Jonathan Cook, writing his anti-Zionist articles from Nazareth; this while a reporter going to Darfur runs the risk of losing his head, literally, and an activist for Tibet had better not leave his armchair if he values his freedom. You take advantage of Israel being—despite all your allegations of fascism—a Western, democratic state with all the freedoms involved, including the freedom of dissent. You Leftists could have exerted your zeal on far more worthy causes, on true cases of oppression, racism and atrocity, yet you conveniently choose not to.

The state of Israel is not fascistic, not colonial and not imperialistic, therefore undeserving of being criticized as if it were such. You talked of injustice? Now here’s a miscarriage of justice if there ever was one.

And that's [my clarification that I will pray for the rise of the Sanhedrin. —ZY] supposed to make us feel better? He wants to kill Muslims lawfully, as ordered by the Sanhedrin?

My purpose was just to make clear that I do not call for assassination, which is illegal under both Jewish and international law. That’s all.

A Sanhedrin is a Jewish religious court. So we're supposed to criticise right wing Muslims who want to impose Sharia as dangerous extremists, but accept the Jewish version?

They're as bad as each other!

No, they’re not as bad as each other, if only because the Jewish religion does not call for instituting Jewish law over the whole world. The Muslims call for worldwide shariah. Judaism doesn’t require any non-Jew to convert to Judaism, let alone live under Jewish law; Islam, in contrast, has it that any part of the world not under Islamic law is the House of War, and needs to be put under Islamic law by any means possible. Also, under Islamic governance, the best a non-Muslim can hope for is the subclass status of dhimmi. In other words: apartheid. Apartheid not just in one state, but all over the world!

ZY, you come across like a Jewish Bin Laden. You and the right wing Islamists are two sides of a coin, and you're making the world more dangerous for all of us.

See above, and also: freedom from religion is not the key to making the world a safe place. The anti-religious ideology of Communism has 100,000,000 dead for its claim to infamy.

He [JP, another commenter on Pantland’s blog. —ZY] points out that Israel is racially diverse - sure it is, and deeply racist, too.

In what sense is Israel racist? In the sense that it has to employ unfortunate measures to defend itself? You Leftists always talk of the “Apartheid Wall” without mentioning that it keeps suicide-terrorists out. Yes, I know you want Israel to be “a state of all its citizens”, and indeed for all cultures to live together in one big, happy global village, but what you don’t realize is the following irony: your vision is cultural imperialism, in that it ignores the diverse identities and cultures of the world in favor of a unified, cosmopolitan vision. The desire of a nation to have a state that acts to preserve its culture and identity is not racism, however much Leftist thinking has made it fashionable to think so.

Even among Jews, the whiter you are the better. Jews of Arab origin have always been cannon fodder in the Zionist dream - so much so that 100 000 Israeli children were poisoned in radioactive tests - 6000 died.

Ah, more proof for my point that the Left, the “anti-racist” Left, is the greatest purveyor of racism in our day and age.

“The whiter you are the better” was true for the first three decades of the state of Israel. It is not true now, not with Jews of Oriental descent enjoying key positions in all areas of life in Israel (including ministers in the government). As for the linked article, whose author, by the way, is the discredited conspiracy theorist Barry Chamish, it talks about things taking place (if they ever took place—extremely doubtful, when you keep the author in mind) in 1952. This is on a par with the Daily Kos diary by “jon the antizionist jew”, Fascists in Israel and the Fiddler on the Roof, in which, as proof of “White Racism” in Israel, he uses the film Sallah Shabati, which (by his own admission) dates from 1965!

Do you take seriously a critic of the Theory of Evolution who addresses Darwin’s original arguments while ignoring all the numerous updates that have come up ever since the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis of the 1930’s? Clearly not, that amounts to building a strawman of the Theory of Evolution to knock down. Here is an analogous situation: all the accusations of institutional European Jewish racism in Israel are built upon ignoring the changes that Israeli Jewish society has undergone since about 1977. This is a compound sin: dishonesty in the service of stoking gratuitous hatred.

Israel does not now have any form of institutional racism among non-whites. As for the Muslims of Israel, they’re a separate matter, because their complaint isn’t racism but the fact that they have to live in a Jewish state at all. Apples and oranges. The attempts to frame this whole conflict (indeed the conflicts over all the world) in the paradigm of “non-white peoples struggling against white colonial racist imperialism” is contemptible as it is erroneous.

He thinks that when we say 'Zionists' we really mean something else. We don't. We mean Zionists. Many of them are fundamentalist Christians who believe the Jews will go to hell, but that we should support Israel because it's part of God's exit strategy for them, the Rapture and all that nonsense. They have a powerful lobby in the US and elsewhere, but they don't control the world. That's a conspiracy theory.

Be the reasons Christian Zionists have for supporting Israel as they may, Zionism is still the idea that Jews should have sovereignty over their state on the Land of Israel. You cannot say, for example, “I’m not anti-Italian, even though I’m opposed to the idea of an Italian state”, therefore you cannot make the same argument for Zionism and the Jews. Now you will probably say you’re against all nation-states, and I commend your consistency, yet the stakes for us Jews are much higher: as I said, once again, no proposal has given as to how the Jewish state can be dissolved (God forbid) without a massacre taking place shortly after that. My vehemence stems from that.

Anyway, it's worth keeping an eye on MuzzleWatch to see who the latest victim of the Zionist lobby is.

MuzzleWatch is an anti-Zionist website. It is has little, if anything at all, to say about attempts to stifle open debate at the other direction, such as the academic boycott proposals. And MuzzleWatch is not quite up to handling free discourse themselves, that’s why they decided to disable comments.

Anyway, it’s worth keeping an eye on Dhimmi Watch to see who the latest victim of the Saudi lobby is.

Here ends my post.

On Richard Dawkins’ Statement

From Daniel Finkelstein on Times Online blog comments, via Melanie Phillips, a statement by atheism evangelist Richard Dawkins that recently made the waves:

When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.

The comments for that post have focused on the question whether Dawkins is anti-Semitic (=Jew-hating), with many commenters saying on the lines of, “It’s not anti-Semitic to point out the Israel Lobby’s influence on American politics”. What is my take? Is Dawkins a Jew-hater? Is this another example of a “Progressive, rationalist” (the self-styled king of rationalism, no less) succumbing to the irrational tide?

My take consists of two parts:

1. In all honesty, I don’t know. A record of more such statements by Dawkins is necessary in order to determine the truth.
2. It is worse for us Jews if the answer is, “No”. Much, much worse.

If this man Richard Dawkins is not a Jew-hater, but has merely given in to the wind of the age; if this professed paragon of rational thinking has but jumped on a bandwagon; if this writer of numerous essays stressing the importance of believing things on the basis of evidence alone, never on the basis of tradition or revelation or faith, has not seen any problem with voicing a stance that has not been subjected to any kind of rigorous evidential examination; if the flame of anti-Zionism has gripped such an ostensible cedar of sanity—

—then the final hour is upon us!

I cannot cease stressing this point, nor can I emphasize it too much, that the issue is not, and has never been, Jew-hatred per se, but its coming into acceptability. I cannot stop pointing out that the alarm bells should not be sounded over ravings and rantings about “crooked-nose Jews” voiced by speakers at an Aryan Nations convention, but should be sounded over slick, rational-sounding, intellectually-formulated essays, articles and remarks about “Zionists leading the world to war” and “Jewish colonialist settlers perpetrating a genocide of the Palestinians”. Acceptability must always, always be the operative word, the criterion to watch for. Respectability of such sentiments, so that a self-described “guardian of reason” like Dawkins has no qualms about making them, ought to have the Jewish klaxons blaring worldwide.

If Richard Dawkins is not a Jew-hater, then his making of that statement means those sentiments now flow freely in the bloodstream of everyday discourse. What more, then, can now have already embedded itself in the structures of everyday discourse?

Could it be the idea that Israel is a mistake that needs to be corrected is already part of mainstream thought?

Could it be the idea that Zionism is an inherently racist and unjust political movement that needs to be “wiped out from the pages of time” is already part of mainstream thought?

Could it be the idea that every Jewish man, woman and child in Israel is a land-thief and oppressor whose killing (God forbid) is absolutely justified is already a part of mainstream thought?

And could it be the idea that any Jew who supports Israel is a Zionist agent is already a part of mainstream thought?

How much more could be lurking under the surface, beyond the slight hint that Richard Dawkins, if indeed he is not an anti-Semite, has uncovered for us?

How much more evidence do we need against the canard, “Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism”? How much more redressings of sentiments from the 1930’s in anti-Zionist garb, in the clothing of “criticism of Israel”, do we need in order to realize this is the real deal? How much more? How long?

Brothers and sisters, how long do we give a moral blank check to the New Anti-Semitism, this new torch of the old hatred, now carried by the alliance of Crescent with Sickle and Crescent?

How much will some of us try to apologize, in the form, “No, I assure you, I do not support Israel’s policies!”, or worse, even hold competitions with each other as to who is the more pro-“Palestinian”?

When will we all come to the understanding that we are condemned for not accepting the Marxist Cacangelium, which sees all Judaism pre-Marx as naught but a foreshadowing of that Cacangelium, now made null and void (chas v’shalom) by it? That “in Zionism’s fall we Jews fell all”? That, because of what we did in 1947–9, during the war in which the Jewish State was born against all odds (thanks be to God), “their (=the ‘Palestinians’’) blood be upon us and our children”? And that, unless we become “complete Jews” by accepting the all-new, internationalist vision that Marxism preaches, we will be justly condemned to burn in the fires kindled by the proxy enforcers of the Marxists’ wrath—the Muslims? That is the narrative!

Neither apologies nor concessions, neither compromises nor capitulation, neither gestures of goodwill nor outright selling of our birthright, neither “showing respect for the other side’s story” nor going into treasonous standing with the other side—nothing will sate the demand of the Jew-haters, which is total: “Leave us alone to ignore the truth you have been bringing for over 3,000 years”, the truth that HaShem is the God.

It was inevitable for anti-Zionism to become the newest form of Jew-hatred, for Zionism represents the last stage in Jewish truth-bringing: the reactivation of Jewish Law. Jewish truth-bringing had hitherto been concerned mainly with the philosophical truth: that there is one deity and not many; that He is a Person and relates to all His creations personally; and that the universe is His creation and not an eternal entity, nor a spontaneous emergence from nothing. But now comes Zionism, the beginning of deliverance, in which all the Jewish laws that had been put on hold for 2,000 years are being reactivated, one by one. Laws which go against the institutional lawlessness of both Marxism and Islam—against immorality enshrined in law just as things were in Sodom and Gomorrah. Now comes the time for the final truth: It is God, not man, who makes the rules.

The United Nations building will be burned to the ground, as were Sodom and Gomorrah back in the day. This corrupt organization, mired in scandals, totally ineffective in stopping true oppression, serving as a platform for the most unjust rulers of the world to legalize their injustices, has no right to exist. Politically Correct “law”, having criminals roaming free on the streets while the innocent have to seclude themselves in their homes in fear, will be abolished, for it has no right to exist. All that which usurps God’s law will vanish, for by nature it has no right to exist.

The UN represents the interests of its constituent members. A bad idea from the start.

If this man Richard Dawkins, this fanatical caller for rationality, can lend his pen to the service of a reworking of an ancient conspiracy theory, then all faith in human-conceived “rationality” needs to be abandoned. The human mind, be it that of even the most sane and balanced person, can always be carried over by the wind of the time like a straw in the wind.

In naught but HaShem and His Torah is there salvation from that predicament.

Repent. For the end looks near.

Sort Our Your Guilt

I have related to the Native Americans numerous times on my blog. From some of those, the reader may have gotten the impression that I hate Native Americans, but that is not so, nor is it exactly the opposite of that. I will say forthright that my attitude toward Native Americans is neither of love nor of hate, but simply, “incapable of having an unbiased opinion on the matter”, the reason for that being, of course, the use of comparisons to Native Americans by the anti-Zionist Left for scoring their points. The usual talking point of the anti-Zionists is that the Pretendestinians are the indigenous people of the Land of Israel just as the Native Americans are of North America, and therefore, by dint of logic, the Jews are colonial invaders and dispossessors of the former just as the Europeans from the Old Word are. As I have shown, this view is utterly false, and of such offense to us Jews that, if we Jews were in the habit of reacting toward offenses the way the Muslims do, we would make the Danish Mohammed Cartoons riots look like a kindergarten playground scrap. We do not, and we leave it mostly to God to scorch the anti-Zionists in His indignation, speedily in our days, amen. But from this brief account alone it can be understood why I could never deliver a fair and reasonably unbiased stance on the Native Americans, and for that I apologize for a likely bad impression.

What is clear, however, is that I am not impressed by the anti-Zionist Leftists’ self-righteous stance which they justify by that comparison. Their claim of “standing up for the rights of indigenous peoples’ rights” does not wash with me, for they are selective as to which indigenous peoples they support, the criteria being, always, appeasement and anti-Americanism. What has the oppression and the dispossession of the Tibetans on and from their native lands by the Chinese colonial invaders won them but a few perfunctory “Free Tibet” stickers? Some maverick (the Kossacks would say, “troll”) had this to say on the Daily Kos diary Jews, Neocons and Democrats, on August 1, 2007:

I will listen to your lament for Palestinians (6+ / 0-)

When you give your own home keys over to a Native American family from among those who are the rightful inhabitants of your little valley of hypocricy [sic]. Like the Sioux, the Comanche and the Iriquis who's [sic] land you have stolen, the Palestinans [sic] will just have to adjust to life among a different people. In land tenure might makes right. Your decision to object to that grim reality only in the case of indiginous [sic] people without a claim to your house and a few thousand miles away makes for exquisite hypocricy [sic].

[…]

by SmithsLastWord on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:59:01 PM PDT

Pointful. It appears the anti-Zionists are not overly swept by guilt feelings for what happened—at least not so much that they would bring themselves to take the plane back to the Old Word, for the sake of “Justice, without there is no peace”:

Genocide that occured by my ancestors,,, (0+ / 0-)

not contemporaries. BIG difference.

by theralph on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:43:55 PM PDT

And in a little longer formulation:

Such an act of sophistry. The Indian situation... (3+ / 0-)

is what it is. There is still time to stop the same from happening to the Palestinians.

Israel should have a state and Palestine should have a state.

by theralph on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:09:16 PM PDT

And even more clearly, in case the reader still didn’t get his point:

They weren't alive and neither was I. The.... (2+ / 0-)

Israelis are actively, even as we speak, taking lands from the Palestinians. Not to mention they almost started WWIII last summer. Oh, don't think about that though. Just blindly defend them with stupid arguments about Native Americans. Man you are pretty stupid huh?

by theralph on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:43:09 PM PDT

Now after my caveat that the reality behind the Leftists’ fixation on the “Palestinians” is nothing but appeasement and anti-Americanism, I still wish to go with what they say—their declared feelings on the matter, even though they are lies. I could put their stance this way: “We do feel guilty for the Native Americans, but that is now water under the bridge; we stand with the Palestinians because that’s a repeat happening in real-time, and if we prevent that we’ll have made up for the past wrong”. In this we can find a sentiment that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (may he go to hell soon, amen) has astutely exploited.

His arrival at New York had been protested on account of, among other things, his Holocaust Denial. He came nevertheless, and in his visit he scored a propaganda coup de grace against the Jewish people by cleaning himself of the accusation of Holocaust Denial, which he did by substituting Zionism Denial (the denial of the Jews’ scriptural, ancient and rightful connection to the Land of Israel, and the portrayal of Zionism as a “White European Settler Colonialist Movement”) for it. His question, “Why should the Palestinians pay for something done to the Jews in Europe, by Europeans?”, has found welcoming hearts in the anti-Zionist Left.

In fact, I do not think there is a logical fault with that question. As my blogosphere friend Bar Kochba says, the argument against “setting up a Jewish state on Palestinian lands” as compensation for the Jewish Holocaust in Europe is logically flawless, whereas it is the premise itself that is not only fallacious but totally erroneous—neither the Holocaust nor any of the wrongs suffered by the Jews for the past 2,000 years are justification for a Jewish state on the Land of Israel; it is the scriptural mandate that justifies that. And when the Jews took the Land of Israel for the first time, under Joshua’s command, it was not the 400 years of slavery in Egypt that justified the vanquishment of the Canaanites, but the repeated statements by HaShem that, on condition of following His Torah, the Israelites are entitled to the Land of Israel, even to take it by force from its long-time residents. “Righting past wrongs” and “compensation for past injustices done” never figured into it.

But I find Ahmadinejad’s statement (perfect in logic, flawed only in its premises, as I said) very useful in order to counter the anti-Zionist Leftists who muster comparisons to Native Americans in order to make their point. You saw above how the Leftists are (taking their narrative at face value, ignoring the Machiavellian reality of appeasement and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” for the sake of the argument) intent on assuaging their guilt over the dispossession of the Native Americans by opposing Zionism. In which case we Zionists have a good opportunity to take Ahmadinejad’s good logic and ask, in a loud and clear voice: Why should we Jews be paying for what you did to the Native Americans a long time ago? Why should we bear the burden of compensating for something done to other people far away and at least a century ago? In like manner as Ahmadinejad implied the question, “What has the Holocaust to do with the Palestinians?”, we ask: What has Manifest Destiny to do with us?

Again, going along with their stated feelings of guilt, of overwhelming remorse for past wrongs done on their own continent, in fact very probably where they are standing right now, I offer, as a free gift, two offers for dealing with those feelings of guilt:

The first is the real-world solution: pack your bags and get your hineys where your ancestors came from in the Old World. Leave the Native American lands you’re dispossessing and colonizing in order that their Right of Return may be applied, thus satisfying the requirements of justice, without which, as you do not cease saying, there can be no peace. But of course, as commenter “SmithsLastWord” extracted from them with his probing comments, those are ideals to be preached at others from the comfort of one’s armchair, rather than be followed by oneself.

So I have a second, less demanding solution: therapy. It’s all the rage today, when having guilt feelings, to try to quash them by means of numerous sessions on the shrink’s couch. Sometimes it even works. Call your friendly neighborhood therapist, fix your appointments with him or her, and talk at length about your problem, as in, “My guilt feelings over what my ancestors did to the Native Americans is causing me sleepless nights and a lot of lost productivity at work!” If you’re in competent hands, then in a few months you can expect to feel pretty OK about what happened in North America in the 19th century.

Cynical? Insensitive? Callousness on my part? You could make that case, but as with most of my blog, I’m addressing, reacting to, participating in a battlefield on this war of minds. My form may or may not be the best, but the message ought to be clear: my message is for the Leftists to get off our backs. In the view of their perfunctory tributes to (if not blithe ignorance of) the real and acute ongoing injustices in Tibet and Darfur, my agreement to take their narrative (of guilt over the Native Americans) is an act of generosity. They really do not deserve other than to be called on their hypocrisy and their opportunism for their choosing to elevate the Israel/“Palestine” conflict above all others. But I have done them the courtesy of addressing their guilt complex as is, and I have shown that their argument is thoroughly felled by the logic of none other than their strange bedfellow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “No compensation for a wrong on expense of those who had nothing to do with it”—if that logic is good against Zionism (or more accurately against a strawman thereof), then it’s good against American Leftist anti-Zionism as well. And in fact it is worse for the anti-Zionists, for, as I said, in Ahmadinejad’s case it stands on false premises (the misconception that Zionism is about compensating Jews for past anti-Semitism), while, in the case of the Leftists, the premises are sound by their own admission (see the Daily Kos comments above).

Anti-Zionists on the Western Left, hear now this:

You will not appease the Muslims on our expense. You will not vent your anti-Western, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Capitalist or anti-anything-else steam on our expense. And you will not assuage your guilt for past colonial wrongs on our expense. Either repent of your actions completely or at least change to a neutral stance toward the Israel/“Palestine” conflict; if not, then may God destroy you all, speedily in our days, amen.

Response to Walton Pantland

I started responding to Walton Pantland’s post, Telling the truth about Israel, on his blog, but then I ran against the limitations of HaloScan (word count, “too many links”), so I’m posting the response here.

---

Hi Walton,

First, it was very nice of you to leave the important bit that came after what you quoted from me: “By that, I do not mean assassination as the Muslims do in their lawless way, but I will pray for the rise of the Sanhedrin that will carry that out, at least on the more high-profile among those who are opposed to the Jewish State.”

Now for some things here:

It is very common for Zionists to brand all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.

No, I did not brand all criticism of Israel as Jew-hatred. But I insist most vehemently that anti-Zionism is a form of Jew-hatred, indeed it is the form of Jew-hatred in our day and age. Statements against Jews that were common 70 years ago are today acceptable again just if you take care to say “Zionists” instead of “Jews”.

The logic is that Israel is a Jewish state, therefore if you criticise it you criticise Jews, and are an anti-Semite.

The logic is that if you single the state of Israel for condemnation, then there cannot be any other reason for it than Jew-hatred. The perfunctory tributes the modern Left gives to Tibet and Darfur are nothing in comparison to the zeal it has for the Israel/“Palestine” conflict, even though the oppression and atrocities going on in the former two are far, far worse. The zeal, it’s all about the zeal: zeal is what reveals where your heart truly lies. A fraction of the energy you devote to “Palestine”, if you devoted it to Darfur, would go a long way in saving lives. But you choose an easy target instead.

That’s because the great powers of the world […] provide cover for Israel, and pretend there is nothing wrong. This is why many Muslims see the West as an enemy.

So there you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth: it’s all about appeasing the Muslims’ wrath.

Let me spell it out for you loud and clear:

You will not appease the Muslims on our expense.

I don’t believe in a national state for the Scots or the English or the Zulus or the Afrikaners – unless you expand your definition of ‘Scot’ to include anyone living in Scotland, regardless of race or religion.

Again, you do not show the same zeal for the condemnation of all nationalism as you do for Jewish nationalism.

There is absolutely no denying that Israel’s behaviour is despicable. Even if I supported the idea of a Jewish state, I would still oppose Israel because of its actions.

There is denying it; Israel’s actions are pretty mild considering the ruthlessness of the Middle East. And Israel’s actions, again, are tame in comparison to that of so many other states. Ever condemned Russia for leveling the Chechen town of Grozny? I thought not. As Eric Hoffer said, the Jews are demanded to be the only true Christians of the world!

So for these two reasons I don’t believe the Jews should have an exclusive state of their own.

But that is the Jewish dream, dating 3,000 years, based on the entire canon of Judaism. By opposing that, ipso facto, you’re an enemy of the Jewish nation. That is another reason why anti-Zionism (opposition to the Jewish dream of sovereignty on the Land of Israel) is a form of Jew-hatred.

I believe that the best option for peace in the Middle East is a single state of Israel-Palestine, with equal rights for all (also known as the binational solution).

You read my post, The Binational Delusion, and you still can’t see how your vision is a pipe-dream?! My, you are dense. Once again: how do you implement the One-State Solution without it resulting in either genocide or apartheid? You just conjure ideas without thinking whether they could work out at all.

So much for free speech – no such thing when you criticise Israel.

I will point out again that anti-Zionism is dangerous because it gives the “Palestinians” the moral right to murder Jews (God forbid), as “resistance to colonialism”. Jews have no command to turn the other cheek; on the contrary, we are commanded to counter what we perceive as threats.

One of the things he critiques is Jewish exceptionalism – the idea that the Jews are the Chosen People, or different or special in some kind of way.

Jewish exceptionalism is, first, something we hold out of belief that it is true, not out of spite, and second, contrary to the popular misconception, it does not give the Jewish people anything in the way of obscene perks. “Greater Israel” is still a modest-size chunk of land on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The Muslims, in contrast, want the whole world under their feet.

The answer is to take that uniqueness and contribute to the human project, not retreat into tribalism.

Like it or not, Jewishness is tribal. “Jew” is an ethnicity (an ethnicity that spans multiple races, by the way, so the accusation of “racism” doesn’t hold water) as well as a religion. And look at this: you can support the tribalism of the “Palestinians”, but you cannot support that of the Jews. Very suspicious, isn’t it?

In fact, the opposite is true – as a South African schoolboy, I was force fed Zionist propaganda, which I uncritically lapped up.

Everything is propaganda; you just substituted ours with that of the “Palestinians”.

It took more than a year to realise that the problem was with Zionism itself, rather than with a particular manifestation of Zionism, and that the solution lies in the dismantling of Zionism and its replacement with democracy.

OK. But to us Zionist Jews, the ancient dream of a Jewish State is non-negotiable. There is no possibility of compromise, then; we are enemies.

There’s no one in the world that I want dead.

It may not be your intention, but you’re bringing to it. By propagating the lie of Zionism as a “settler-colonialist movement”, you tacitly give the “Palestinians” the moral right to “resistance”, which means murdering Jewish men, women and children (God forbid).

Last summer, Israel invaded Lebanon, and started bombing innocent people out of their homes.

Resultant of the Muslims having no compunction about hiding their jihad combatants among the civilians. You show they achieved exactly what they intended: propaganda points. They kill their own, they raise their own kids to be suicide bombers, and then go crying out to the world about “oppression”.

The injustices being visited on people in the Middle East by Israel and the US are far more important than my hurt feelings, my fear of offending, or my concern about my reputation.

Please. Stop putting on that mask after you put it off some paragraphs back with your statement, “This is why many Muslims see the West as an enemy”, and later, “This injustice fuels terrorism”. It’s not injustice you care about, it’s your own sorry behind, the one you wish to save from those who tend to blow stuff up on every trumped-up occasion—a few silly cartoons are all they need, but you insist on thinking it’s all about Israel/“Palestine”.

The gloves have been off since then. I say what I think about Israel, […]

I agree, the gloves are off. And I say what I think about you anti-Zionists.

A Jewish state on the Land of Israel. Non-negotiable. The ancient Jewish dream, a dream that trumps the machinations of that fictive nation called, “the Palestinian nation”. A dream that trumps John Lennon’s “Imagine” as well. The Jewish nation will not stay passive in the face of adversity this time.

And again:

You will not appease the Muslims on our expense.

Keep that in mind. Always.

---

To those who respond to this post: in a few hours, it will be the Jewish festival of Sukkot; Jewish festivals have almost the same rules as the Jewish Sabbath, meaning my computer will be off for 25 hours, so don’t take my lack of response as evasion. I’ll be available again, HaShem willing, after that.

Sukkot: Celebrating Life

This piece, standard fare from the “Palestinians”, about the arrest of a Hamas suspect hiding in Shchem in a weapons cache under a pregnant woman’s bed, brings out the basic contrast between us and our enemies.

Or to put it more graphically:

Islamic child abuse contrasted with Jewish education to love of life. Click image to view full size.

Chag Sukkot Sameach to all the nation of Israel and to those who stand with us!

Maintained Fiction

“I will concede your point,” say some of the more moderate pro-“Palestinian” debaters (invariably two-staters, and regarding themselves “both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine”), “that the Palestinians as a nation are no older than 60 years; however, after 60 years, don’t you think they now are a real nation, if only because of the circumstances, and deserve to be treated as one, if only because they self-identify as such?” This position is slightly charitable, though naïve (it glosses over the totality of the “Palestinian” demand, viz., their unwillingness to settle for the 1967 territories) as well as parochial (viewing the Israel/“Palestine” conflict for itself, instead of the particular part of the global Islamic jihad that it is). To its holders’ credit, they are merely wrong, and not malicious as are the advocates of the Binational Solution.

There are two arguments here as to what makes nationhood:

1. Circumstance: that has made the “Palestinians” a nation just as the aftermath of the Korean War has given rise to two new nations, the South Korean nation and the North Korean nation, from a single Korean one.
2. Self-identification: if a group of people call themselves a nation, then they are one.

The first argument is a pragmatic argument. Because it is such, it has a pragmatic counter-argument: circumstances can be changed, reversed, undone and otherwise rendered irrelevant. More than 40 years of a Germany divided into West and East, similar to the situation of Korea, may well have created two new German nations, but no one ever argued that that state was to be continued after the unification. After such a long time, it is inevitable that there should be difficulties in healing the rifts, yet no one has said, “Because of the great difficulties in turning the West Germans and East Germans back into a unified German nation, the two will have to be considered two separate nations, permanently”.

One of the hallmarks of the crisis of our age is the allowance for pragmatic concerns to enshrine such an explosive issue as nationality. In countries ruled by the regime of Multiculturalism, the effect of this is the most sharp: the pragmatic argument (bolstered by the ideological one, see later) holds such sway that all attempts at assimilating immigrants are forestalled. For Mexicans crossing the US border as well as for Muslims in Britain, the pragmatic argument is a shield against the common-sense but maligned demand that they adopt the culture of their host country: “It would be so difficult, and they are in such great numbers, that they had better be recognized as separate”. Even if that means being a nation within a nation, with all the strife that that entails. Once again, we see how the Left perpetuates the very hatreds it claims to be the solution to.

In short: if the circumstances are what made the “Palestinians” into a real nation, then new circumstances can unmake them. It’s “Might Makes Right” either way you look at it, though the anti-Israel Leftists call only the other way (away from “Palestinian” nationhood) that name, for some odd reason. The pragmatic argument is like a chain—as strong as its weakest link.

Now to the ideological argument, that of self-identification. I wish to bring a frequently quoted anti-Zionist quote by the leftist Jew Erich Fromm, one of so many estranged Jews who, because of that, wished to express his Jewishness by joining the bad causes of his day (think of Noam Chomsky). The quote is this:

If all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers had lived 2,000 years ago, this world would be a madhouse.

That quote is beloved of all those who dispute the legitimacy of the Zionist project—of the idea that the Jewish nation can be sovereigns of their land, the Land of Israel. I have brought it before, and also refuted. I said, that this argument is a purely hypothetical one, there being almost no nation today that is both 2,000 years old and outside its original homeland. The Iranians and the Chinese are ancient nations, more than 2,000 years old, but they have never been exiled en masse from Persia and China, and therefore never posed that scenario. The Welsh may be descendants of refugees from the Anglo-Saxon invasion, but neither they nor their Irish and Scots brothers have called for ridding the OCTs (Occupied Celtic Territories) of the Sassenach colonials, for they have and are interesting in keeping their self-determination, unlike the “Palestinians”, who are interested in taking away the self-determination of another nation.

Indeed, today such revanchism, invariably for the sake of furthering an imperialistic goal, a greedy end, is the monopoly of obscure, recently-formed “nations”, all propped up by the Marxists as part of their anti-Western agenda. We have the “Gagauzian nation”, of which my dad claimed, when he first heard of it, that it was as if a city in Israel were to be declared a nation-state all its own. We have the multitude of new “nations” in Africa, all the artifacts of lines arbitrarily drawn on the map by European colonials in the 19th century, supported by the Left, with no regard to the question whether the individuals in them have the minimal cohesion required of a nation. It is time for me to revise Fromm’s quote, turning it into something more truthful:

If all groups would suddenly claim to be nations and be granted that status on the basis of their mere claim, this world would be a madhouse.

Only this time the sentence is not a hypothetical: because of the credence given to every small group that claims to be a nation (or an ethnicity, or a minority, or a religion, or what have you), and the automatic ear given to their “legitimate grievances” by virtue of that, the world is a madhouse: a madhouse of grievance-mongering, of gratuitous hatred, of aggressive litigation and of intrusive “hate-speech” laws. And all that is aided and abetted by the ostensibly internationalist (“Nations must be done away with in favor of the Brotherhood of Man”) Left!

In the past, nationhood was a given, flowing from a common heritage, but those standards are too stringent, too discriminating for modern tastes; now nationalism requires the satisfaction of only two conditions: 1) Self-identification; 2) External acknowledgment given by those who have an ax to grind. The “Palestinian nation” is an excellent case in point, for it is not only in the past, before 60 years ago, but even now as well, that they have never been a real nation; they self-identify, and since they serve as handy platform for denying the Jews their nation-state and (for the Leftists) an altar to sacrifice the Zionist scapegoat on in order to appease the wrath of the Muslims, they are given credence. But the facts on the ground are not changed by that: they do not have the minimal requirements of a nation. They do not cohere in either religion (Muslims, Christians, Druzes), language (the “Palestinian” of the Galilee and the “Palestinian” of the Negev scarcely understand each other), race (white-skinned, blue-eyed “Palestinians” in the Galilee, dark brown-skinned, black-eyed “Palestinians” of the Negev) or values (“Palestinians” of the cities, the villages and the desert are three different value systems). Contrast the ability of a European (Ashkenazi) Jew and a Yemenite Jew to sit together before a Daf G’marah (page of the Talmud) and debate it as if the Jewish nation had never left the Land of Israel! (Thanks be to God. Thanks always be to Him Who created this nation to be His forever.)

The “Palestinian nation” is as authentic as the invented African-American festival of Kwanzaa. This, the brain-child of black Marxist Ron Karenga in 1966 (Marxism? Check. Sixties? Check. All you need to know is there), is there for “serving as heritage for Americans of African descent”. To be fair, unlike the “Palestinians”, Kwanzaa is admitted to be an invention by its own practitioners; and also, it is not necessarily celebrated instead of Hanukkah or Christmas. But over 40 years have not made this festival anything beyond its original purpose, the purpose of furthering identity politics. It remains a Marxist tool for needlessly separating between fellow Americans according to their race, and for inflaming gratuitous hatred between them. That has always been the modus operandi of the Left, with the sowing of cultural strife being the method advocated by Antonio Gramsci (one of the major influences on, among other, the late and unlamented intellectual terrorist Edward Said).

Here is the answer to those who argue, “If self-determination for the Jews, then self-determination for the Palestinians also”: self-determination is for real nations—for those that have stood the tests of cohesion and heritage. To support self-determination for nations that are no real nations at all, for front-groups for an ulterior agenda that are dressed up as nations, is to support hatred, unending hostilities, total war, unremitting bloodshed and incessant strife. If one is aware of the true nature of such “nations”, including the “Palestinian” nation, but still chooses to support them, then he has chosen to support evil. Nationalism in its proper and good sense is the desire of a nation for self-determination in well-defined borders, as indeed Jewish nationalism is, following from the Torah itself, which gives the Jewish nation a specific land, not promising it the whole world. That latter is imperialism, and it can be found that most fictive nations of today are really wrappers for an imperialistic agenda, whether it be Islamic imperialism or the Marxist vision for the world.

The “Palestinians” are not even now a real nation, but are, as they were in the days of Hitler’s Mufti, the front-end for the Islamic jihad in the Land of Israel. That they have not expended any serious efforts in building their nationality is because that has never been their purpose—the same reason that, after the expulsion of all the Jews from the Gaza Strip, they chose to destroy the greenhouses rather than make good use of them. The purpose of the fictive “Palestinian nation” has always been to usurp the real and authentic claim of the real and authentic Jewish nation to the Land of Israel. They are not for their own self-determination, but against the Jews’; conversely, to fight them is not to “crush the spirit of a nation under the colonial jackboot”, but to preserve the life of a nation from the encroachment of an imperialist onslaught.

They are part of the worldwide Islamic jihad. Expel them all.

On Standing With Israel

“Why should I stand with Israel? I’m not Jewish, and it’s a faraway country that has as much significance to my life as Burundi.” In giving the answer, an answer which is probably not what the reader expects, I speak for myself only, though there may be many of my peers who think the same.

My obligation is to a Jewish State, governed by Jewish law, in the borders promised by HaShem. I cannot compromise on that, especially not now that I have seen past compromises lead to only more bloodshed. I believe that the Land of Israel is Jewish land, as affirmed in Jewish sources throughout, and that none of it should be conceded to a fictitious nation that was concocted for the sole purpose of usurping our rightful claim to it.

On the one hand, I aspire to hold to the Jewish doctrine that only HaShem is to be trusted, not human beings. Therefore I reject putting all our trust even in a malchut shel chesed (kingdom of grace) like the United States of America. Those Jews who say, “America will save us from our enemies” or “If the USA doesn’t do something about Iran, we’re doomed”, are in the wrong; if the USA turns its back on us one of the coming years, it will be because of that way of thinking, for HaShem wishes us to trust in Him and not in mere men.

On the other hand, Zionism is regarded (by Religious Zionists like me) as the beginning of our salvation because it marks our return to history. For 2,000 years of exile, we were in the sidelines of history, except in the many conspiracy theories that were hatched about us. Now we are back to taking a real (and central, thanks in no small part to our enemies) part in world events. We are not isolated from world events; we are one of the eyes of the storm, of the current global conflict between Islamic imperialism and the non-Muslim world.

That, the balance between the Jewish particular dream (Zionism, Jewish sovereignty on the Land of Israel) and our return to world history (Israel as one of many non-Muslim states under attack by Islam), prepares the way for an answer:

If you support Israel out of belief in HaShem’s word, His Torah, as the Noahides and the Christian Zionists do, then may HaShem bless you abundantly. This Jew, if not many others, bears you his deep gratitude.

If you support Israel out of a pragmatic motive, such as a Hindu having realized that Israel and India are facing the same enemy, or an atheist reasoning that a small Jewish theocracy on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean is preferable to a worldwide Islamic one, just as I stand with Thailand because of my view of the Southern Thailand “ethnic Malay separatism” as being of the same nature as the “Palestinian national struggle” in Israel (that is, a cover for the local branch of Islamic imperialism), then may HaShem bless you also. HaShem desires the act first, for whatever motive, while the righteous motive can come later.

And now to the stance of which I said that it could sound surprising: if you say, “Israel does not concern me, neither for good nor for bad; I harbor neither like nor dislike toward it, my feelings toward it are neutral; let the two sides there sort things out on their own, and I have no desire to intervene for either side, neither militarily nor diplomatically”—if you say that, then that too is good! As I said, I trust in HaShem for help, therefore the neutral stance toward the Israel/“Palestine” conflict is no skin off my nose, in fact it is quite good in comparison to those stances whose holders I consider to be our enemies. Which are:

If you say, “Israel is endangering us and world peace, and support for it brings hatred and terror threats upon us, therefore we must pressure Israel to sign a negotiated, conceded peace treaty with the Palestinians”, then you are no longer neutral. You wish to appease the Muslims on Israel’s expense, and that makes you opposed to the imperative of Zionism, namely Jewish sovereignty on the Land of Israel. If you insist on believing in the Two-State Solution, despite all the evidence given that the Muslims (not “Palestinians”—there is no such nation) have no intention whatever of stopping at the territories taken in the 1967 War, because you think the interests of appeasement should take precedence over the harsh reality, then you are at war with Israel, even if only on the ideological level.

And yet, that position is next to nothing in comparison to the following:

If you are a doctrinaire believer in the wrongness, ab initio, of the Jewish State of Israel, talking of the “original sin” of its birth in 1947–9, calling for the application of the “Palestinian Right of Return”, and for the dissolution of the Jewish State into a binational Jewish/Arab state, then you are a sworn enemy of Israel, of Zionism and of the Jews in general. If you believe the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is a wrong, and that that existence is the major cause of the current worldwide conflict, and that the key to solving this conflict is the abolition of Zionism, and that every suicide attack and Kassam rocket (God forbid) on Israeli Jewish women and children is “blowback” or “resistance”, then I regard you as a modern-day Nazi-sympathizer (the modern-day Nazis being the Muslims), and I want you dead. By that, I do not mean assassination as the Muslims do in their lawless way, but I will pray for the rise of the Sanhedrin that will carry that out, at least on the more high-profile among those who are opposed to the Jewish State. We read in Pirkei Avot that Rabbi Hillel once walked along a river and saw a skull floating on it and said, “Because you drowned [a man], you were drowned; and those who drowned you will end up being drowned”. Why will those who drowned him end up being drowned, and how can such a chain ever end? The commentary says: they will be drowned because they took it upon themselves to drown him, instead of bringing him before the court to carry out justice. Enjoy, then, all you enemies of Israel, the period of grace you have until HaShem raises our Sanhedrin again (speedily in our days, amen).

In summary: I for one do not ask that you support Israel, only that you not stand against it. If you support it, for whatever motive, then may HaShem bless you. If you are neutral with regard to Israel, then there is peace between us. It is only if you wish to gain peace from the Muslims at our expense that you become our enemy. And if you are ideologically opposed to the very existence of the Jewish State, then we are openly at war, to the bitter end.

“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may they prosper that love thee.” (Psalms 122:6)

The Binational Delusion

In this post I show why the Binational Solution, also known as the One-State Solution, of one common secular state for Jews and “Palestinians”, is a heart-conceived (meaning not thought out to the full), misguided or malicious, and dangerous delusion.

The natural question to come now is, “Why devote a post to the Binational Solution? It’s a fringe proposal, taken seriously by no official source”. That may be so now, but that is no guarantee for the continuance of the situation in the future. The “Palestinian Right of Return” was once considered to be exactly that—a fringe solution, not taken seriously by any statesman—until suddenly it came out as a serious proposal by former US secretary of state, James Baker (may he go to hell soon, amen), in his Iraq Study Group report. What is now fringe can easily turn mainstream in a few years, or by the lever of circumstance. In addition, our war is a war of minds first, and we must engage any ideological challenge that looks likely to become a threat.

We ignore the fact of the Binational Solution at our peril; it is that proposal which many Leftists say Israel must follow in order to “get right with the international community”, to “atone for its original sin of dispossessing the indigenous Palestinian people”. It is a proposal that gains momentum with each rare, half-hearted and overdue attempt of Israel to do the right thing in defending herself from her would-be annihilators (God forbid), the Muslims. It used to be an unthinkable proposal, but as we saw a year ago, the Second Lebanon War brought out what had been latent. Just as, on Daily Kos, the war instilled boldness in a diarist to openly express agreement with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (may he go to hell soon, amen), that it would be better for the world if Israel were wiped off the map (God forbid), so too I have found a case of a blogger who, up to that war, kept his mouth shut about Israel, but then found out he could hold no longer. Walton Pantland sometimes posts comments on the South African Jewish blog It’s Almost Supernatural, which I regularly read, and that’s how I found his blog, Red Star Coven (coven? Isn’t that a witches’ grouping? Ooooo, scary scary scary! Hocus Pocus! Double Trouble! Avada Kedavra! Cauldron Bubble! But back to the post…). He began his publicization of his anti-Israel feelings with a gala opening on July 13, 2006, and has since gotten quite, quite comfortable with bits like “Pull the plug on the Zionist entity” and “Israel, that blood-thirsty, war-mongering pustule of aggression in the Middle East”. But already on that first anti-Israel post, we can see he went from complete silence to a full-blown proposal of the Binational Solution:

There will be no justice in the world until Israel is destroyed, both physically and as an idea. This will not happen while America continues to bankroll this brutal oppression, and while the Western media are too frightened to speak out against injustice.

[…]

Israel and Zionism must be destroyed, and replaced with a Palestinian territory where Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze and atheists can live together in peace and harmony, sharing humus recipes and enjoying the sunshine and unique history. Until then, no platform should be given to Israel to put her side of the story. There isn't one - it's just racism and imperialism.

Amazing how that war cut through all the BS and brought the utmost in honesty from the Israel-bashers. There’s a lot more I can bring from that post, including a nod to the Khazaria Hypothesis (saying of the ‘Jews of eastern origin’ that “Culturally, they have far more in common with the Palestinians than they do with Jews from Europe or America”), but I’m going to focus on the Binational Solution here. Lest you think Pantland is advocating Jewish genocide (I’m sure he doesn’t but would, if that happened, God forbid, shrug it off as “you reap what you sow”), he writes the following:

Note that by destruction of Israel, I don't mean the destruction of Israelis, or Jews, or any other people. I mean the destruction of the State and its army. I believe that anyone should have the right to live anywhere they want in the world, and that includes Jews in Palestine.

But that also means that Palestinians have the right to stay in Tel Aviv, and Muslims in New York. No one has exclusive right to any territory.

This is the meat of the post. It’s important, because it’s something I can work with, intellectually address. Leftists say—and they say that’s what the Muslims, including Ahmadinejad in his “mistranslated statement”, want too—they only wish for regime change in Israel. Or a little more than regime change: a re-engineering of entire Jewish thought to reject its exceptionalist (they call it, “racist”) ideas. They propose leaving the wine (the people currently living in the Land of Israel) intact, just changing the wineskin (the political system, the state). “We’re not anti-Semites, we’re just anti-Zionists”, they say (see this old, but ever more relevant, take by Steven Plaut).

Kept together until the strongman was gone, then all hell broke loose. Reminds me of another place, beginning with an I, ending in a Q.

But the question that must be posed, especially when the proposers never tire of reminding us that they’re the reality-based community, is how that solution can be made to work out. As we all know, Communism looked good on paper, and it was supported by an extensive infrastructure of intellectual smoke and mirrors arguments, but ended up failing miserably in all its goals, taking 100,000,000 lives in the process. Millions of lives are at stake here again; people do not buy a car without reasonable guarantees, much less, then, take mortal risks that are not covered by safeguards. And let us remember that the Israeli Jewish public today, all but its youngest, are cognizant of the fruits of the Oslo Accords. They are not in a mood for gambling, and certainly not for betting the farm, which is what the Binational Solution amounts to.

“One secular state where Jews and Palestinians live in peace and equality”. The piping of the human heart (“Imagine no countries… nothing to kill and die for…”) is evident and slightly sympathy-evoking; however, hard-nosed reality demands a probation of those lofty sentiments. Where to begin?

Let me begin with the word, “secular”. This is possibly the gravest mistake of our time, because it underlies not just the errors concerning statesmanship of the Israel/“Palestine” conflict, but also the misconceptions that led President George W. Bush, otherwise a good and capable president (consider who could have been the alternatives: Al “Gaia lo volt” Gore and John “Botched Joke” Kerry), to make so many wrong moves following 9/11 to this day. The myopic Eurocentric eye thinks all the world has undergone the same changes as the West, but the hard facts are that the Islamic world, and especially its Middle Eastern heartlands, are like the Bible Belt squared. The Bible Belt of the USA astounds Europeans in its prevalence of religious feeling among its inhabitants; in the Islamic world, not only does that situation exist, but religion is prevalent even on the political level. Take Saudi Arabia, change all its Islamic elements to Christian ones, and you come pretty close to Medieval Europe.

Apart from assuming the veneer, there has never been any successful secularist movement in the Islamic world—even the Turkish experiment, led by Kemal Atatürk’s forceful hand, is now falling apart. The PLO may have advertised itself as a “secular liberation movement”, but that was no more than smart marketing, just as “Palestinian nationalism” is nothing but the Marxist-friendly wrapper in which the Islamic jihad against Israel is sold. The rulers in the Islamic world tend to be more secular than their subjects, for they wish to keep the flow of US aid, while the people’s hearts are with the jihad against both the Great and the Little Satan. The short of it: there cannot be a secular Binational Solution, because the inhabitants of the Middle East, the Muslims, overwhelmingly take their religion seriously.

Next: following Pantland’s [self-]righteous decree, “But that also means that Palestinians have the right to stay in Tel Aviv”, a Binational Solution would mean, shortly after its application, an influx of Muslims into all the state of Israel, including, as he says, Tel-Aviv. So now the question is: This high-flown dream of “Jews and Palestinians living in peace”—what’s to guarantee it? What do you offer to convince the Jews that the influx would not be followed by a massacre (God forbid)? Words are not enough—we’ve already been through trusting in words without anything concrete to back them up, been there, seen it, done that for at least seven years (1993–2000), thank you very much. The Oslo Accords had no tangible provision to stop the suicide bombers from exploding in Tel-Aviv (beginning in 1994); it was the much-maligned “Apartheid Wall” that did that.

Steven Plaut (HaShem bless him) calls the Binational Solution the “Rwanda Solution”. It is a very apt name, because what happened in Rwanda in 1994 is a case of kal va-chomer—if the binational coexistence of very similar nations like the Tutsis and the Hutus did not stand in the way of genocide, then it is the height of insanity, or criminal negligence, or malicious scheming (pick your poison), to raise seriously a binational coexistence for the people living on the Land of Israel. The members of the Hutu and Tutsi nations look the same or almost so, speak the same languages and share much heritage; the Jews and the “Palestinians” don’t look the same (even the Jews of eastern origin look markedly different from the Arabs, the main reason for this being the prevalence—for cultural reasons—of inbreeding in the latter), they don’t speak the same language (Hebrew and Arabic are not mutually intelligible, even though they’re related), and they don’t share the same heritage and religion (the Biblical and the Koranic narratives and mindsets are very different ballgames; see also my post Desert, but no Manna, from August 21, 2007). Anyone who, in the view of the Rwanda Genocide, believes in a naturally-flowing peace between the Jews and the “Palestinians” cannot honestly keep calling himself reality-based.

This should have relegated any binational solution to the trashcan of failed ideas. Unfortunately, a lot of people haven’t done that even to Communism.

Another point, bringing out yet another of our Leftist ironies, is that their proposal constitutes cultural imperialism, in that they are intent on imposing their vision no matter the dreams of the others. I mean dreams like the ancient Jewish dream of sovereignty in the Land of Israel, maintaining a Jewish state with a Jewish culture and character, observing all the Israel-dependent mitzvot (commandments of God that can be performed only on the Land of Israel), with the promise of renewing them all, including those of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, amen). Apparently, only two dreams matter to our Leftist enemies: the “Palestinian” dream of “self-determination” (i.e. a state for a nation that was cooked up from scratch 60 years ago), and more importantly their own dream of “righting colonialist wrongs” (of which the very state of Israel is a part, in their view), on the way to their final Messianic vision, the aforementioned refrain, “Imagine no countries”. The Jewish dream is not given a thought, apart from the platitude, “We respect the Jews’ right to a secure life” (why, thank you! And I respect your right to inhale and exhale—ain’t I so, so grand, so worthy of praise, for that?).

I outlined the inseparable connection between Zionism and Judaism in a previous post. For people who like to talk of “respecting the Muslims” (which we all know is really fear—non-Muslims don’t go into a frenzy when you depict the founders of their religions dipped in bodily refuse), the Leftists seem to spare little of it to the Jews. But the Jews, however much 2,000 years of statelessness may have obscured it, have minds of their own, and they’re not going to give up that 2,000-year-old dream easily. Effectively, this means another possible outcome to the Binational Solution: apartheid. Yes, that word that is now bandied about carelessly (recently by an Israeli Jew, no less, choosing world praise without regard to the fact that his words will be used as justification for spilling his brothers’ blood, God forbid), that word which, when applied to present-day Israel, debases what things were in South Africa back in the day, would be able to be rightly applied if the Binational Solution came to pass without being immediately followed by genocide. For, just as there is no chance for any Western country to stay a Western country when Muslims become its majority, so too Israel would be stripped of its Jewishness by democratic vote if the Muslims were to become its majority. Maybe the Europeans could take that lying down (I’d like to think that the upstanding European citizens posting on Gates of Vienna are representatives of a still silent majority, but wishes do not always reality make), but the Jews could not, not after 2,000 of life in the Diaspora, a history which every Jewish child knows by heart. And then the only way of preserving the Jewish character of Israel would be true apartheid, the Leftists thus having made the situation worse than it ever was.

Two possible outcomes of the Binational Solution, both horrible to contemplate: genocide or apartheid. Making the world a worse place either way. I have yet to hear how those outcomes could be averted, how the Binational Solution could really be made, forced, ensured, guaranteed to lead to that utopian dream of “peace and equality between the two nations” that Leftists like Pantland describe it to be. Again: millions of lives are at stake, and we Jews are in no mood for making costly experiments.

The Binational Solution was never conceived with our interests in mind. It runs over us, proposed as “a sacrifice for the greater good”, just as the concession of the Sudetenland was forced on Czechoslovakia in 1938 without asking the Czechs what they thought about the whole matter. The Leftists propose it only as a measure of appeasement, or worse, as part of their perverted philosophy of, “no peace without justice” (best screamed from the rooftops in a shrill tone while wearing a Ché t-shirt), which really means “sticking it to The Man”, The Man being the hated capitalist, Bible-believing West. The Muslims propose it for the same reason they accepted the two-state Oslo Accords: as a first step in their plan of a Middle East free of that non-Muslim encroachment on Dar Al-Islam (any territory Muslims have ever taken root in. That means Spain, too).

If there is any negotiated solution that has a theoretical chance of working, it’s the Two-State Solution. But even that’s theoretical, because in practice, Islamic ideology does not permit a truce (note: a truce, not a peace treaty) with the non-Muslim enemy for more than 10 years. And it’s already been tried two times: 1947 and 1993, with similar results. The Binational Solution can’t work even in theory. Therefore, whereas those who propose the Two-State Solution are usually just missing some critical information (about the nature of the conflict: the fact that the “Palestinian nation” is a fictitious covering for an uncompromising Islamic jihad, the local chapter of Islamic imperialism worldwide), those who propose the Binational Solution are enemies of Israel, of Zionism and of the Jews in general. They must be called, as I have here, to present a realistic, credible way of how the Binational Solution would work; if they do not but still insist on advocating the Binational Solution, they must be dealt with as threats to our lives. May HaShem raise soon our Sanhedrin, in order that we may have the divine judicial basis for striking at our enemies, both the Muslim murderers and their Leftist enablers. Amen.