Hasbara & Israel's Original Sin

When the leader of the Palestinian people is a racist whose educational qualifications are based on a paper denying the Holocaust and attributing Zionist success on collaboration with the Nazis, Israel has a problem.

The Left finds comfort in the Islamic narrative because it reinforces its own prejudices. Today the Left rejoices in finding equivalence between Judaism and Nazism even though the latter negated the former; and between Israelism (Zionism) and Nazism even though the former is based on national self-determination within geographically limited boundaries and the latter, like Islamism is predicated on an absolutist paradigm of global conquest indelibly mixed with a concomitant intolerance of all non-believers.

Jewish history should have taught all of us, Left and Right, that dancing with the devil does not bring positive benefits. President Abbas of East Palestine, like his recently reconciled but ultimately murderous partners in West Palestine (the Islamic ‘Resistance’ movement also known as ‘Hamas’), is racist. Mahmoud Abbas, religiously chauvinistic is inspired by contempt that is excused in the West because it is historically ‘justified’ by theological discrimination. And this prejudice has turned to hatred because we no longer turn the other cheek.  We are the living proof that prejudice can be overcome.

If we are not for ourselves, why, should anyone else be ‘for us’? The time has long past to understand this point.

The time has come to regroup and to launch a global information offensive.

The most serious error the Israeli Right ever made was ignoring the importance of asserting Jewish sovereignty; of justifying our excision from Arab / Turkish rule as a prerequisite for Jewish self-determination. By dwelling on the trauma of the Shoah the Right gave Israel’s enemies a gift that prescribes how to deny Israel a right to exist.

And the Left has failed to internalise Jewish history. Because of its antipathy towards religion it could not accept that Israel also had and has a right to history based on its own myths.

Much of the ideological foundation for opposition to Israel today is centred on a mythology of Islamic victimhood. But colonialism has always been of greater importance to the Arab world than it was in the past to the West. Yet while we suffer pangs of conscience for our own past colonial abuses, Islam and the Arab world theologically continue to justify the abuses of their colonial past to this day and their current crimes against humanity.

Islam is a colonial faith and therefore hegemonic in its ambitions.  This is why there have been Muslim wars since the creation of the faith by Muhammad in the early 7th Century of the Common Era (AD).

“The Koran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all biblical violence most of the verses of violence in the Koran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Koran” (some wording omitted).

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

From the Gates of Vienna across to Asia, from the Russian Caucasian mountains in the North down to Africa, Islam has always been a colonial power.  It is based on a limitless theologically driven ambition for global domination fuelled by open contempt for the faiths that it is intended to supplant. This intolerance has a purpose. Denigration creates a balance between the superiority of one and the demonstrable inferiority of the other.

The economic benefit is clearly understood, but in its failure to deliver tangible gains will often create a desperate need for blind introspection.  Israel has become the scapegoat for both sides of this international game of one-upmanship.  Losing a colony (Israel) is theologically viewed as an existential threat to the Colonial narrative of a leviathan that should be unstoppable.

In Israel today the Left has been sidelined politically because it has lost any creditability it once enjoyed. It has accepted many of the myths of Israel’s enemies; its own identity is based on self denial and self abasement.  The Left has ignored its own Near-Eastern history in deference to propaganda and prejudice.

The Right, traumatized by the Holocaust and demeaned by history emphasised Jewish helplessness in Europe. But the reality is more complex. Islamic and specifically Arab ethnic bigotry combined with 1,400 years of Muslim / Arab ethnic cleansing made Palestinian Jewish independence an absolute necessity for survival in the Near-East  long before the great Jewish Nakba in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

The Palestinian Arabs (as opposed to Palestinian Jews) had their chance at independence in 1948 and they squandered it as they have continued to squander it on their hate and their national, racial contempt for us. The theological disgust that informs Muslim notions of superiority are their greatest weakness even as in paradox they have been the Islamic worlds’ greatest strength, supplying an unending army of brutal foot soldiers intent on global conquest.

Today as in the past they refuse to acknowledge our history in Israel, they refuse to acknowledge our religious rights and they have experienced no feelings of shame for their past enslavement of our people.

Israel exists by right. We have nothing for which to apologize.

The BBC - The Big Question

On Sunday Morning I watched “The Big Question” the BBC program fronted by its compare, Mr. Nicky Campbell; it purports to present discussion on the moral questions that impact our lives. Four ‘experts’ gave their opinions (one tried to – if the compare permitted her to speak – but more about that later) while the studio audience with specialists sitting in the front rows added their voices to the discussion.

The format is usually to present three separate sessions on different topics but this time it was just the one item about whether the Bible is still relevant.

Richard Dawkins, the militant atheist is particularly abusive in his criticism of the Torah (or Hebrew Bible). He may indeed be a professor of something but like many academics throughout history his myopic intellectual vision is incapable of seeing past his own narrowly  prejudiced world view. He is unable to accept either the complex realities of ancient literature or, by exegesis of the relevant texts to accept that judging ancient history literally, is by modern standards intellectually incorrigible.  It is as if we were to uncritically embrace Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice,” in the pursuit of a bigoted literary enjoyment, failing to contemplate at all, its venal and ancient prejudice. For the narrow minded scholar there can only ever be one possible narrative.

To Jonah Goldberg, ‘fascist’ is “a modern word for heretic,” and for me, fascism is the modern orthodoxy that places everything else outside of the sphere of the acceptable (including opinions and thoughts).

With every new generation the Hebrew Bible is critically re-examined. Given that hundreds of millions of lines of exegesis surround it, to dismiss our relationship to this book by applying a superficial analysis of its contents is unbefitting of either an intellectual or a teacher. 

When the good rabbi did in fact point out that the Hebrew bible, was ancient but was also continuously being reappraised and reinterpreted, explaining or contextualizing both the arcane and the common to provide meaning to the ancient texts – her comments were dismissed by Mr. Campbell.

Albert Camus in ‘The Rebel’ says that “Fascism is an act of contempt.” In fact fascism is an act of contempt that is unmoved by persuasion, debate or history.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali spoke on behalf of the Bible as did Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner. A fourth participant, an archaeologist, adept at self promotion had proclaimed herself a radical reinterpreter of the ‘Old Testament’ (but her views have been commonly enunciated by other certainly more eminent archaeologists, working in the field, in Israel, for many years before her).  Admitting to enjoying a militantly rejectionist view of the Hebrew Bible she volunteered the opinion  that the “New” Testament was wholly historical in its compilation and therefore provided the skeptical but kosher critique of ‘Old Testament’ (only) history as myth. Even she however, corrected the Compare when she said that the correct term was to call the Old Testament the Hebrew Bible. (Nicky Campbell, with condescension, dismissed this as “PC”).

The audience included a lay member of the ruling Synod of the Church of England who as anticipated, did not compare but did contrast the Old with the New, the negative (of the Old) to the mercy of the New. There was much made of Old Testament cruelty and revenge juxtaposed with New Testament mercy.

On another occasion a Jewishly relevant comment was made and the natural response would have been to have deferred to the Rabbi for an answer.  But by this stage it had become clear that Rabbi Janner-Klausner was there to provide window dressing only; a return to medieval humiliation and degradation in active demonstration of the superiority of the dominant faith.  The Rabbi found it difficult to respond to anything because our unbiased BBC compare would not let her speak.  She began putting up her hand in an obvious attempt to speak! In the end she had to leap into the conversation with comments as it appeared to be the only way she would be allowed to talk in defense of any Jewish religious position.  Nicky Campbell was dismissive.

The program was unashamedly biased as one has come to expect of the BBC.  Both Rabbi Janner-Klausner and Bishop Nazir-Ali did well to confront the intolerance and prejudice of the ethnocentric Mr. Campbell.

Voting Reform

The British national elections in 2010 unfolded and then the ritual recriminations, as the specialists expectations failed to deliver bloodied scalps onto the political altar.  The media blamed both politicians and citizens alike, and the reaction, primarily liberal/left was that at least it was not 'their' fault for the failure of a conclusive outcome.

From the last election in 2005 the Conservative Party increased its share of the seats in the House of Commons from 198 to 306, 36% of the popular vote (up from 32%), but an increase of about 50% in its representation in Westminster.  The Lib Dems (liberal democrats) lost 5 seats, 62 down to 57 or 23% of the national vote (up from 22% ! ) and Labour lost 98 seats (356 down to 258) and retained only 29% of the vote (down from 35%).

The Liberal Democrats wanted electoral reform, and from the results it is easy to understand why, but by making a principled issue of electoral reform to the exclusion of almost anything of credible substance they remained credible, but unelectable. People realistically understood that in a time of national crisis you need a team that can deliver results.  The lib dems had and have much to say about foreign policy, particularly about Israel, and Jews too, immigration and the EU, but when unemployment, economic crisis, poverty and yes, immigration are so fundamental to the electorates concerns about their individual personal futures; when schools, hospitals and crime are rarely absent from peoples awareness the only thing that counted was whether or not the party was going to do something about it. The rest, all that foreign stuff, was (and is) irrelevant, at least until it costs us in ways we can tangibly feel, and more important than that, all that idealistic stuff, became an irritating distraction.

The reaction from political pundits was not that people had voted with intelligence but that people had got it wrong.  As the variables in the political equation multiplied we were told that we got what we had voted for as if we had been slightly unhinged when we had cast our vote.  The main parties reacted with gently articulated contempt for the democratic vote. It was demanded that the incumbent should immediately quit Downing Street. Labour protested that the Conservatives had really not done so very well, and by not receiving an absolute majority they had not received an absolute mandate to govern.  And the lib dems tirelessly complained of their failure to make headway with the British people as if the blame was not theirs to start with.

So we need to begin with a bit of history.  Less than 100 years ago Britain was The Superpower in a similar place to where the USA is today.  It was equally hated, feared and admired across the Globe.  Like all empires, its imperial base was spread far and wide, way past its natural borders and with control radiating out from the center. London first and England second were the epicenter of British global power.  Like all empires, the fall began with dissent from the peripheries and spread in waves that came ever closer to home.  Unlike other empires, the English center still has control of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.  It may be because of a common mother tongue that the last remnants of empire have not been liquidated but what is perhaps not surprising is that even today the cultural, economic and political center remains in London and radiates out from there. Wealth is dispensed, from its capital city and likewise diminishes in concentric circles as we increase in distance from London.

We are living through a period of mediocrity chasing past glories.  If Britain were to adopt a bicameral system of government then the infrastructure is already in place to receive it.  Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have regional assemblies. They should be replaced by state governments.  Adding England and London as separate self-governing entities would complete the National picture.  Finally the national government must ensure the equality of each legally governing entity, put in place regional elections for both London and England, and, replace The House of Lords with a Senate where equal representation to each independent entity is guaranteed and the Prime Minster is the leader of the largest party.

Proportional representation only works as a foil to corruption or chaos when a plurality of interests is able to work together for the common good. Over an extended period of time the chances for this diminish.  A third party becomes little better than a protest vote.

The Israeli example ably proves the reason that proportional representation is a failed system. In Israeli politics it is a means by which dissatisfaction can be bled away without altering the essential power base of the ruling elite.  This is why it is also ineffective, because the energies that are spilled out dissipate potentially violent frustration while imperceptibly dispersing any momentum for change.  Government becomes the art of holding onto power without actually achieving anything of lasting value.

First past the post voting is inherently undemocratic in a three party (or greater) system. Pure proportional representation creates a multiplicity of parties that ultimately destabilizes the institution of democracy.  As is often the case, an imaginative compromise solution is required in order to prevent a failure of the democratic vote.

That no national newspaper could be relied on to put into the public domain an honest discussion of political reform or even, of the advantages of Lib Dem participation in government; and that the press came out against we, The People, in its analysis of the 2010 election results is an indicator of a moral failure in national thinking.  We should ask why.

The Royal Wedding

A consequence  of the Industrial Revolution was that in the 18th, 19th and early 20th Century a huge number of urban poor flooded into western cities creating a desperately poor underclass, disconnected from ‘the group’ (more about that later). Many of these urban poor raised families and they blissfully fooled the world that they were ever married. Who could afford a ceremony, especially then?

In the period preceding the 20th Century, Jew and Christian would fall in love and instead of risking a pogrom the happy couple would move from village to village, until they found one that knew not uncle shmendrik but was nevertheless willing to attest to the Jewish antecedents of the bride (or groom). No conversion, no jumping though hoops and no Aryan bloodlines to investigate. This was community in action.  The two would arrive with nothing, were welcomed as equals, they were wedded by the community and everyone celebrated the bringing together of the happy couple.

Today we take out a mortgage in order to marry but the ideal behind the ceremony has been lost and it has been replaced by what for most of us is trauma, or meaningless and certainly costly celebration.

A million years ago in humanities collective past the individual had less chance of surviving than the group.  In time of famine or conflict the group was no less dangerous because it could turn on the individual. The family unit provided the security missing from the group and later, the tribe was bound initially by extended familial ties.  Towards the end of our ancient history, shared culture was meant to provide an umbrella that linked those disconnected tribes. Only later would religion add an additional layer of meaning to the family. Like an abusive and dysfunctional family the relationship between us and our god (s) deteriorated because instead of offering protection it became an instrument for controlling us. There is a good reason that we adopted terms that personalised the godhead as a father (or mother) figure.  Holy or otherwise it now held authoritative sway over the ‘family’.

In medieval times the monarch had the right to take every maiden to his bed before her wedding night. Ancient barbarism celebrated by the powerful against the weak, it was an act of rape but essentially, of domination. It negated the nation, the tribe and the family and it was a return to prehistory. Modern marriage should represent a reaffirmation of significance and of representative equality. We should therefore be asking why, in 2011, we have idolatry and a primitive spectacle of royalty joined by public marriage?

In times gone by, marriage between powerful families were intended to bind potential enemies, creating a partnership of blood and if that didn’t work, hostages.

The Public spectacle of obscene wealth and power publicly joined is a tainted legacy of obsequious submission and deference to class.  In 1981 when Prince Charles married Lady Diana before a world audience UK plc spent £30 million on the spectacle (at least double that amount in today’s money) and we paid for it with our taxes. Of course we are told that it was good for UK business but then, as now, it benefits very few of us.  A recent poll stated that 79% of the UK population is indifferent to the upcoming wedding of William Windsor to Kate Middleton. Every day, the Left wing BBC and its acolyte gaggle of journalists and photographers entertain us with items of news and programming that celebrates royalty; it commemorates the institution of aristocracy and therefore encourages division by class. We are willingly, being played for loyal children and the master’s serfs. While the BBC and its fawning brothers and sisters should be ideologically calling for an end to this obscene self-perpetuating tradition they instead kowtow and dutifully salivate before those at the pinnacle of British society.  We are told that two thousand million human beings will raise their glasses and toast the happy couple.

We have allowed our press to show its contempt for our humanity. We have willingly or unwillingly become participants in an international orgy of commercial exploitation and privileged self-promotion.  This is not a celebration of our shared humanity; it is a reaffirmation of primordial power and privilege and we should all be ashamed.

The Koran & Peace on Earth

[Sura 5.51] O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Antisemitism has been a central construct of Islamic theological teaching since Islam’s creation as a religion 1,400 years ago. It is human to react but the choices we make define us as individuals, as a group and as a nation.

Syncretism is defined as attempting to combine the teachings and beliefs of different religions or philosophies. China throughout its long history has reacted to external and internal threat by absorbing what was useful to it and rejecting what was not.

Islam states that everything good is Islamic and conversely, nothing bad is (Islamic).  Islam is theologically and culturally colonialist.  As an argument for conquest it is very neat and tidy. And like the soul, as arguments go, it is wholly un-provable.  The narrative goes like this:

Islam has always existed. The best ideas were always Islamic.  Therefore all the great religious ideas in history were Islamic. Mohammed was the final figure in this pantheon of human development. There is no one after him.

The denouement of this exquisite theory is that everything past and present is the patrimony of the Islamic faithful.  In simple terms, the conquistador sees, he takes. This is Islam. Peace and brotherhood are conditional and finite.

Bin Laden’s Feb. 1998 Fatwa opens with the Koranic reference, Sura (Chapter) 9:5 “Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”

Bin Laden’s fatwa explicitly calls on all Muslims to “kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military”.  It also includes Koranic Justification from Sura 8:39: “And fight with them until there is no more ‘persecution’ and religion should be only for Allah”.  It may be claimed that Bin Laden and other Islamic Nazis take quotes from the Koran out of context but only a fool would deny the inflammatory nature of such Koranic quotes. And then we have the Hadith and there is no misinterpreting so many narratives on the words and deeds of Mohammed, slavishly adhered to by fundamentalists globally. Their intention then as now was and is surely to unite Mohammed’s people and enforce by conquest their domination over a fractured world.  You may call it imperialism or even something less provocative; however those who call for the West’s Moslem’s to follow the Korans precepts are inciting sedition.  They are calling for the subversion of Western civilization.  Ahmadinejad has certainly celebrated this by his belief in a messiah whose coming is contingent upon disorder, chaos and worldwide disaster as the coming of the 12th Imam allegedly demands.  One can hardly say, with an ideology based on chaos that betrayal is not in the arsenal of fundamentalist Islam as practiced in Western Society. 

In its purest, fundamentalist form Islam is absolutist; unmoved by mercy, pity or tenderness. Morally impoverished, it celebrated 911, the Madrid, Bali and London Bombings and handed out sweets in rejoicing when a three month old Jewish baby was beheaded.  That is not Islam at the crossroads.  A faith whose inspiration is a book replete with messages that extol domination and conquest can and does justify every act of bestiality known to humanity and then theologically blames it on its victims.

The Hadiths are narrative interpretations of the words and deeds of Mohammed. They are taken as important tools for both understanding the Koran and therefore for interpreting Islamic Law. The Hadiths contain foul and hateful quotes but perhaps the most famous is the one that is most quoted by Islamists of all ranks and unsurprisingly is in Hamas’s online charter for all to see: “The Day of Judgment would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, (or servant of Allah), there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him (or her).” (Suhih Muslim 41:6985)

The Gaza Flotilla that launched from Turkey on 31st May 2010 contained 6 ships. Only one had no aid on board (although most of the aid on the other ships, if time specific (such as medicines), was expired and therefore worthless.  On their ‘no aid’ ship of hate (the Mavi Marmara) the activists cried out: “heiber heiber al-Yahud Jish Mohammad sa-yaud”—the Muslim call for the destruction of Jews. And for the sake of those having a hard time with the text, Nordin Sirin (one of the leaders of IHH, the Islamist organization that launched the ship and a Jihadi activist) also published it in a Turkish article titled: “God is Great, This is the Time to Destroy Israel.”  (This is quoted from an article by journalist Ben-Dror Yemini in the Israeli Ma’ariv Newspaper on March 18, 2011).  We can assume that the Global press as well as the misnamed western peace activists knew what they were getting involved in when they boarded this ship. Therefore, and for the record, these western activists are more than simple fellow-travelers of Arab/Islamic hegemony; they are complicit in actively inciting genocide. How convenient that the BBC and Guardian amongst others in the west refused to discuss this point in any of their many propaganda pieces for Western consumption.

To understand that the Left is complicit in this war (and not just against Israel) is the only way that we will defeat this offensive against our civilization. Moderation is not an aspect of the beast and any theology based on global conquest is evil. They will engage western racists, left and right, to drink from their poisoned well of prejudice.

Muslims throughout their history viewed Jews as objects of ridicule and not fear.  Jews had been conquered easily, and Islam ruled over them for 1,400 years - at least until the State of Israel came into existence. Christian Antisemitism only became an unwelcome adaptation because the Jews fought back. One cannot enslave an entire people for 1,400 years and accept their freedom with overnight magnanimity or grace. So conspiracy and fear have become part of the Muslim narrative of hate.   And a return to a toxic relationship foundered on inequality, superstition and slavery is a return to barbarism.

In the twenty-first century the fascists of the Left mouthing the Palestinian narrative as if it were God’s word undermines not just the Zionist State of Israel but human civilisation. Jews had and they have the same right to self determination that the Arab Muslim world exercised in the twentieth century.

Jews have often been accused of disloyalty, this negative allegation rather than positive concept of dual loyalty.  But disloyalty arises from the world of ideas only when faith has a hegemonic world view.  Islam is hegemonic, Judaism is not.

The faith of Mohamed, Marx and Hitler are the same.  They demand unconditional obedience to an ideology of absolutism. The conviction that there can only be “one way” leads to the natural conclusion that the rejection of such a view is a rejection of the totality of the ideology.  Under such conditions genocide is inevitable.

There is a reason that the Islamic faithful insist we do not study their faith before we convert to it. Islamic self-belief is based on cultural, religious and personal renunciation. I should not have to question to what extent my neighbor practices dissimulation in their everyday lives. I do not need to disguise or hide my feelings. I am not taught that I am better than my Muslim, Christian, and Buddhist, Sikh or Hindu neighbours. I am not taught that the beliefs of others are wrong, foolish and misplaced and no one has the right to inform me that mine is superseded by a far superior model.

Judaism does not nor do I believe that it has ever believed that there was only “one way”.  The Seven Noahide commandments stand in mute witness to the pluralistic nature of Judaism.  This generosity and celebration of multi-culturalism has however made us a persecuted people.

Israeli religious tolerance has enabled evil men such as the head of the northern branch of Israel's Islamic Movement, Sheikh Ra'ad Salah, to deny any rights to Jews in their own land; deny Jews the legitimacy of their own historical dialogue, their own civilization and their own faith.   Talking to these people is without benefit.  Show trials however would not be without benefit.  Sedition and treason in time of war are crimes not just against the state but against the people.  Their trial should be on public TV, radio and the Internet and their obnoxious and obdurate theological views should be rubbed into the faces of Israel’s enemies.  This is the only way to defeat them.

The opposing argument that tolerance is taught and that negative attributes rarely present a racial character is not born out by human history. People are only ever conditionally tolerant. It is why Islam failed the test of Greek Self-determination in 1821, it is why it failed the test of Armenian independence in the 1890’s and again in 1915 and it is why it continues to fail the test of Jewish independence today.  These atrocities, acts of ethnic cleansing, attempted ethnic cleansing and genocide are part of the Islamic response to any demand for equality.

The renunciation of Islam’s vision for a global empire can only come about when it is theologically defeated. Every success, no matter how tainted in death and destruction, is in Islam, an act of affirmation.  Islam has rarely, if only accidentally been a religion of Peace and Love. In the 21st Century it certainly is not.

Islam must have a reformation for the world to be safe from it.  For the world to survive the first monotheistic faith must become the third missionary faith.  Today’s Muslims call upon their shared history with the Christian world to divide and rule over all of us whatever we may or may not believe.  They experience no shame in publishing and distributing every tract of lies and contempt the imagination can produce. Only when they are unable to justify either their actions or their theology will their thoughts change from conquest and murder to shared living and co-existence.  But missionary faiths need to hate to justify conquest. Their history is an evil past unashamed in the present time. A new player who stands outside that virtue-less circle will force everyone to confront their record and the missionary of old will be unable to justify his or her history.  And yes, it will also return to Jews everywhere a positive narrative about them-selves and about Israel. Renewal and re-dedication is needed in order to re-energize this fight against injustice.

Book Burning and More Death

On the first of April 2011 a pastor and a bigot called Terry Jones, ‘tried’ the Koran, condemned its contents and allegedly burned a copy.

We know from history that it is acceptable to desecrate and destroy non Muslim artefacts and non Muslim holy books; to the murderer of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists is accorded a place in heaven with 72 virgins (according to one bizarre fairy tail).  But even threatening to burn a copy of the Koran causes riots in the peaceful Muslim world.  In Afghanistan up to 20 UN workers were attacked by a mob and murdered – some were allegedly beheaded (although the UN denied this) and others were simply butchered.

Let us be clear about this. A book is a book.  And the two missionary faiths have historically made it a habit to burn the ‘holy’ books of other faiths because the physical act demonstrably reinforces the proof of the book burners’ superior power. For this same reason, Muslims have been murdering both Muslims and non-Muslims alike since Muhammad and his tribesmen by bloody ethnic cleansing bulldozed their way to power 1,400 years ago. The theological narrative that justifies this cruel barbarism is to this day in use across the Muslim world. It has been a successful model for conquest since Mohammed’s founding of the Islamic faith. But it does not make it right.

It is sanctified by far too many Islamic rulings for us to not pay attention.  I repeat - book burning is an act of intellectual thuggery but no more than that. The people, who committed this atrocity in Afghanistan, if they are not fundamentally evil, did commit an act that places them outside of civilized society.  No amount of cultural relativism can ever justify this. These people are barbarians; they are ethically sick human beings and we should despise them with every fiber of our being.  Again, I will repeat it.  A book is a book, it is not flesh and blood and it does not deserve our veneration. It is what is in a book that counts and nothing that incites the faithful towards violence can ever be described as sacred. The monotheistic faiths were created as a denial of idolatry.  Those who kill for a book worship an idol.  They deserve our disgust and not perhaps, because of their faith but because of a version of their faith that legitimizes violence and murder. They stand outside of the realm of civilization. And they enjoy it.

We are all of us equal, irrespective of our beliefs.  Those that kill for their faith do so as proof of their spurious superiority. It proves nothing but that they are twisted and evil human beings.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Instability

With all the disruption and uncertainty surrounding uprisings in the Arab world Israel has had to be aware of two things:

First:      Political Islam will always be a religiously murderous theology. It will experience no ethical conflict if it chooses to renege on any agreements it has made with Israel or any other country. It can find enough theological precedent to justify this if it wishes.

Second:     Revolutionary change creates triumphalism, triumphalism is jingoistic in temperament and jingoism destabilizes nations even as it unifies societies.

A new paradigm is open to testing and just as we learn from our relationships through experience, change creates opportunities for new interactions that are not necessarily mutually beneficial.  Multiple uprisings in the Arab world present both opportunities and dangers to all players in the region and it may be a number of years before the overall picture can be fully viewed.

What has particularly frightened me is not the speculation around multiple ‘what-if’ scenarios but the electrical impulses surging through Benjamin Netanyahu’s brain.  Correct me please (if I was misled) but in disbelief I read that he thought the cost of coping with this new ‘threat’ would be an extra $20 billion.  We can all guess from whom he intended to ask for this cash.

The world has gone through tremendous economic trauma since 2008. It will take a long time before any of us (perhaps excepting the wealthy) are able to recover from this onslaught on our national pockets. Most of us will not recover from this latest economic downturn as future pensions are squeezed and as prospects for increasing real, inflation adjusted net income are marginal at best over the medium to long term.

For Benjamin Netanyahu to suggest that he may need the kind of help that will never trickle down let alone make most of his or anyone else’s citizens safer showed gross political insensitivity.  As an exemplar of grotesque silliness I find it difficult to begin to speculate from where his thoughts emanated. It is as if Benjamin occupies a space of serenity and insensible calm completely oblivious to the pain everyone else is experiencing.

It is very damaging to Israel and one must question the motive of the man who seems intent on alienating his nation’s principal benefactor by his bizarre and irreverent behavior.

If the States citizens can no longer see the fundamental error in their Prime Ministers thinking then the original heroic vision upon which Zionism built the State of Israel has been truly lost.

We know from global history that collapse is orchestrated from the margins. The extremes of left and right restrain the center and by exercising de facto veto over policy, paralyze or severely restrict a nation’s efforts to deal with either an external or an internal threat. When an extreme minority dictates debate over what constitutes the national vision atrophy ensures. Those who are best at manipulation, profit from dysfunction to the detriment of everyone else. Consensus and that means the nation, is the only loser.  In democracy it is consensus that binds us together as a nation because it provides a vision that is overwhelmingly shared by the people.  A vision that is shared by the alienated and peripheral figures at the margins of society by its nature precludes the majority and therefore is damaging to the society that it infects.

Egypt’s total aid package from the USA was tied to Israel’s aid by the terms of its 1979 Peace Treaty with Israel. It was conditioned and it remains contingent on Egypt’s good behavior. As a guarantor of good conduct its effectiveness  has been hampered by Israel’s reluctance to use this particular weapon.  Perhaps it is time to remind the Egyptian people that their aid may not be as visible as Israel’s is but it is no less significant for the Egyptian military establishment and therefore the Egyptian people.  Of course China, Iran, Turkey and even Saudi Arabia may be eager to jump in with the next 60,000 million dollars of loose change (as the US has given Egypt since 1979 - $2.5b in 2010) but I suspect not.

If I was Prime Minister Netanyahu I would have stood before the people of America and offered to share their pain.  I would have massively reduced or better still, ceased Israel’s government aid from the USA immediately. 

But the Prime Minister simply does not appear to inhabit the same world the rest of us do. If Bibi is incapable of seeing the enormity of his present failure he must go before the damage to Israel is irreparable.