Tuesday, April 23, 2013
There are people who argue that the Koran, the Muslim bible, is a book of peace. Having read this ‘book of peace’ I have found that it incites the faithful to hatred for those that reject Islam and justifies eternal warfare against those of us of inferior faith. Earlier verses are tinged with tolerance but this is almost certainly because it was written at a time when the faithful were insufficiently strong to impose their will on the majority. The earlier verses are therefore prescriptive of conquest by deception. The Doctrine of Abrogation states however that earlier verses are cancelled by the later contradictory verses. Most of these latter verses are both militant and oppressive towards non-Muslims.
“Let not believers take disbelievers as allies (friends)” (Koran 3:28)
“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies (friends)” (Koran 5:51)
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last day …and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e. Islam]..” (Koran 9:29)
Prejudice is the true barrier to peace. 1,400 years of Islamic history ridicules the infidel nation. Islam is an Arab blueprint for domination and central to Arab self-understanding; in order to be a true Arab one must also be a Muslim. Edward Said (the father of Occidentalism) in one of his rare moments of public honesty stated that to genuinely experience the ‘joy’ of being ‘Arab’ it was preferable that one was also a Muslim.
How does this affect the Arab – Israeli conflict and the conduct of its Arab and LibLeft protagonists? Indoctrination as a substitute for scholarship clouds any issue and effectively proscribes serious debate. Cultural programming has sanitised Arab colonial crimes so effectively, it has occluded any discussion. But then, it was pointed out in a recent article that Islamic Turkey is incapable of apologising for its genocide of Armenians and Kurds and its crimes against the Greek nation. It is not just the Arab world for which the concept of guilt is unidirectional.
It is assumed that that which does not create advantage for the faithful and does not assist in imposing Islam on infidel individuals and nations, is of no value for study or, cultural retention. It is the death of intellectualism and a return to darkness.
But it is also the key to understanding the Arab and the Muslim antisemitic mindset.
The Jewish community has an unbroken presence in the Holy Land in spite of Arab attempts at eradicating their history. Israel has been victim to the threat of, if not actual ethnic persecution for all of Islamic history. For this reason Hebron was ethnically cleansed of its ancient Jewish community in 1929. Jewish communities throughout Israel have suffered ethnic persecution since its conquest by Muhammad’s forces was completed in 638 AD. Those people who for political or religious reasons have closed their hearts as well their minds to any evidence to the contrary, accept the revisionist history that denies any connection between Jews and Israel. Therefore, by logical furtherance of this argument, they also deny the Christian connection to the Holy Land (unless they subscribe to a racist concept of supercessionism).
The constant threat of being stoned or murdered circumscribed then as it does today, every activity carried out by Jewish communities and not just in Israel but anywhere that Islam is present. It is not something new as the Left tries to tell us, it is not a post 1948 phenomenon.
The reason that Jewish Israeli settlements are fenced-in is the same reason that every home owner possesses a fence, it defines ownership. But whereas fencing harks back to a romanticised era of knights, castles and moats, Israel’s gated communities are imperfectly prevented from being slaughtered down to the last baby by walls and wire fences. The Boston bombers created IED’s (improvised explosive devices) of malevolent intent. Their construction was meant to cause indiscriminate carnage. Similar IED’s were a casual but deadly visitor in Israel’s public places before the construction of the barrier that separates it from its Palestinian Arab enemy.
The conflict between Israel, and Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has always been in its essence a refusal to grant Jews equal rights. The right to Jewish self-determination was the subject of discussion between Jews in British Mandate Palestine and Arab leaders for over twenty years prior to independence but it was an idea with no currency whatsoever amongst Arab leaders. The kernel within Zionism was Jewish self-determination but it also assumed equality for everyone else. Its failure was in its idealised, romantic view of the peaceful Arab, that same Arab who, it was presumed, would enthusiastically embrace his Jewish brothers and sisters, in peaceful co-existence. It was a dreamy universalism that had no anchor in the reality of Arab identity and in the casual cruelty of that identity.
300 Jewish civilians were murdered by Palestinians between the declared ceasefire of 1949 and 1956. Arab bellicosity and threats of extermination culminated in the 6-Day War and Israel’s re-taking of Jerusalem. Cycles of violence and hatred expressed internationally did not start with conquest in 1967.
In a Jewish Chronicle article of the 5th of April the title summarised what has always been the issue: “Hatred needs no context.” But if we need it then we have inspiration in the form of incitement in the mosques, in schools and on their TV screens. We have the Koran and Hadith from which prayer leaders across the globe quote with enthusiasm. Hateful statements from leaders and senior government figures in both Egypt and Turkey do no more than mirror the ‘holy’ writings of Islam.
And meanwhile, the European Union and various United Nation agencies fund quasi-Nazi activity without a moment of shame.
And then we are told to trust, and to show faith in politicians and nations whose track record towards us is at best demonic.
Zionist values of yearning for peace and tolerance towards minorities will suffer as a result of drawn out experience of war and terror. Delegitimisation does not help to encourage trust. Prolonged battering cannot encourage faith.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Long ago I ceased to be surprised at the feigned or actual naivety displayed by Israel’s critics and their assorted antisemitic fellow travellers. Is it fair to lump them together as one amorphous stain? If we see that the consequence of their behaviour results in the spread of an abomination then is there a difference between intentional silence that chooses not to ask the questions, and the apparent greater evil practiced by the racist-bigot who by their choice embraces the path of anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish hate?
I have a cousin. He is a Mensa – that is to say that he scores in the top 98% of a standardised IQ test. So he is very, very smart, but what does that mean? When Israel grew tired of turning the other cheek and responded to attacks by Lebanese militias in the 1970’s he informed me, with smug superiority, that the conflict would be easily solved if Israel ceded “a couple of miles” of its territory in the north of Israel, to Lebanon. This unprecedented generosity would solve all territorial disputes. I gently explained to him that the State of Israel was four miles wide at its narrowest point (at the Lebanese-Syrian-Israeli border). In fact I was wrong. It is three miles (five kilometres) wide at the narrowest point. The idea was entirely impractical because rather than resolving anything, it would have encouraged greater bellicosity and aggression by the Arab world.
He ignored my response. Those with ‘greater intelligence’ often possess the knowledge to solve all conflicts if only we will listen to them. Intentional ignorance protects them from counter-factual arguments that may complicate their uncomplicated self-image. Violence or intimidation – either intellectual or physical precludes even limited discussion and is a necessary part of the arsenal of the activist which discourages even the superficially fair minded from acknowledging the duality of conflict.
I recently read an analysis by the Australian anti American journalist John Pilger. He thoroughly rubbished the idea that Western society has a right to preserve its cultural identity. In particular he objected to any measures that were taken against imported bigotry - particularly where it harms his multicultural ideal.
We are afraid to acknowledge the dynamic mutuality of reciprocity that strengthens as well as demeans humanity. By example, if cultural integrity means that we respect the full body cover of the niqab and the hijab, (the head to foot covering that completely conceals the Muslim woman and is worn once the female reaches puberty) then equally, in a Western nation a woman must have the right to walk naked any where she wishes to do so, because that is her right to express her freedom of action in any way she feels it suitable. But both actions demean the female sex and neither is a pre-requisite of our society. A woman must have the right to (un)dress as she feels appropriate, without being held hostage to the lack of masculine self-control or the benighted ethical values that characterised the caveman and is certainly, not the hallmark of a society that labels itself as ‘civilised’.
In the Muslim world, women and minorities are inferior, either through religious custom or legal statute. If, in the Western world, women and minorities have equal rights it is because our society acknowledges equality and legislates to ensure that we all adhere to current law, and not because it is a normal state of affairs.
The intelligent idiot applies one standard to the majority and another to the minority. Worse still, he or she places ‘the Jew’ in the category of being a member of the majority and thus excludes them from the protection offered to the minority. As a member of the majority, numeric superiority and custom provides automatic protection from the worst excesses of the minority. But being categorised as part of a group does not vouchsafe acceptance by the group. They exclude Jews from that group as well, thus isolating them from both.
The intelligent idiot has no time for Jewish rights and that means he or she has no time for Jewish equality. He or she has no time to examine the nature of racism or religious bigotry and therefore Jewish self-determination is an unnecessary impediment to the noble (Arab or Muslim) savage practising their right to self-expression even though it is at the extreme expense of Jewish and other minorities. This indifference, just in one example, has facilitated the Syrian orgy of blood-letting over the last two years.
“Peace, according to the great seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, is not merely the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, consideration and justice.” (Palestine Betrayed. Ephraim Karsh)
Our antagonists do not want peace with us, they want it without us. If boycotts are part of their arsenal then they must also be part of ours. Our tactical armoury must equal the wealth of resources employed by them, against us. If we cannot reason with them, then as they attempt to isolate us, they themselves must be isolated.
We can win this war but it will be a long, drawn out conflict which will demand of us eternal vigilance. “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
A home is demolished, a protester dies and gunships hover overhead as placard waving innocents face off an Israeli juggernaut. A picture really is worth a thousand words. Its accuracy is of no consequence. Winston Churchill made it simple for us when he said “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on”.
After the 6-Day War of 1967 David and Goliath magically reversed their roles. I say ‘magically’ because the status quo remained unaltered while slowly and methodically only the perception radically changed. Success and a fundamental inability to appreciate the threat posed by a public opinion war camouflaged the corrosive effect that mounting criticism had on Israel and by extension, Israel’s supporters. That Israel became an excuse for resurgent antisemitism is not relevant to renewed public prejudice.
It was not enough to change Israelis into a nation of Goliaths. In order to humiliate supporters and Israelis alike; in order to foreclose debate, the Israeli became the ‘Jew.’ Israel encouraged it, they were wrong to do so. It made it easier to isolate them and to polarise the Diaspora.
Israel then became the Zionist entity and because the focus in Israel had shifted from the pioneer era to economic expansion, defending Zionism (as a unifying force for social cohesion) was forgotten in the scramble for wealth. Prosperity was not a unique Israeli goal. Israel joined a Western cultural battleground. Maybe the only difference was that Israel had failed first to resolve its national identity or the strategic threat to its national security.
To conflate Jew, Zionist and Israeli into one monolithic virus has made the task of opposing Israel even easier, particularly if you are Jewish. An identity that is built on the negation of a part of that identity demonstrates both commitment and 'sacrifice'. To be a vociferous and Jewish Uncle Tom legitimises prejudice.
Zionism, like democracy is always easy to blemish because unlike totalitarian ideologies it is easily misunderstood. In its simplest form Zionism is the right of Jews to self-determination in their own homeland. But to others, successfully labelling a people with a word they are not interested in understanding makes easy work of shifting the meaning from a blessing to a curse. This is how from bathing in our virtuous birth our public perception changed and we returned to a much more familiar, sinister historical portrayal as devil with horns.
That we permitted our enemies to dominate the media is our crime. That we continue to allow the pro-Palestinian, Arabist version of past and present history to be unchallenged is to blithely march towards extinction. The irony is that if we successfully challenge our enemy they will accuse us of controlling not just the media but everything else; if we fail to challenge them we are still accused of controlling society. This is the classic fascist tactic that ensures we are damned with either course of action. That is their genius. Do you have any suggestions how we can fight them?
There is more than one type of fear. We are frightened to shout out loud our history of physical loss and we are reluctant to demand an end to prejudice even as it infests our society. Rarely are our enemy forced to defend their tactics or their deceit. The intelligent bigot attempts to soothe our fears while we accept that the racist will despise us and work to undermine us because they are the living proof of our multicultural virility.
What we should be doing is attacking every ‘misinterpreted’ diatribe our enemies make. The Palestinian Spokeswoman, Hanan Ashwari gave us a 2013 Passover gift when she accused us of blood libel. It is a timely reminder that co-existence is not part of the deal that the Arab world desires. Every lie is one more stone thrown at our window, one more drop of poison in our well. We should neither forgive nor forget State sanctioned libels because they create a legacy that crosses the generations.
The only way to stop this debilitating struggle is to assault the senses as they have done and to shame the Left and their Liberal allies for their complicity in this antisemitic conspiracy.
Fact 1. The Arab world, and that includes the Palestinians, have persecuted Jew and non-Jew alike since Muhammad appeared just 1,400 years ago.
Fact 2. The Arab world and that includes the Palestinians commit cultural genocide against us. They steal our past, they violate our present and there is no reason to believe they do not intend to extinguish our future. A simple example is the claim that the Jewish Jesus was a Palestinian (Muslim); another, is that having ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem of its Jews they now state at every opportunity that ‘the Jews’ are trying to ‘Judaize’ Jerusalem. This is a term that was used by the Nazis. The people that have adopted this epithet have no shame.
Fact 3. The Arab world and that includes the Palestinians never apologise for their lies. In fact, with the complicity of the international media (and the United Nations) they have made a virtue of deception and an ethic of dishonesty. If no shame attaches to the most heinous of crimes then dishonour becomes something with an entirely non-Western meaning.
Here are the failures of Western understanding and of Jewish propaganda (if we may use such a term):
We cannot appreciate that a lie is a relative term and that to repudiate deception is to dishonour honour. An Arab who kills a female child for being raped has committed the murder of a child in our Western eyes only.
We have accepted despotism as part of our democratic fabric even as it contaminates our democratic political narrative and pollutes our education system. When values are relative to the place of ones birth or ideology then they lose their universal significance and this undermines the basis for our legal system.
To defeat an enemy you must first understand their tactics and second (when possible) use them as they have. There can be no peace while the Western press is dominated by a pro-Palestinian narrative because it encourages Arab and therefore Palestinian lies.
We, of all people should remember that the greater the lie the easier it becomes for the next generation of fascism's foot soldiers and their intellectual betters (on the extreme Right as well as the Left) to erase our right to life.