The Wolf at Israel’s Door

Tags

America, American Liberty, anti-Semitism, BBC, Britain First, Caroline Glick, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Glick, ISIS, Islam, Islamism, Jerusalem, Jerusalem Post, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Palestinians, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, stabbings, stabbings in Israel, Terror, Terrorism, War, war in M.E

One of the more unpleasant consequences of Russia’s involvement in the Middle East is the formation of a formidable military and political coalition along Israel’s northern border. As I write, Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria and Iran are establishing a united force in southern Syria, protected and armed by the Russian military, and with tight links to the New Iraq.

This coalition is unlike any enemy Israel has faced before. It is not a force that Israel can simply bomb out of existence (like Hamas in Gaza, or – formerly – Hezbollah in Lebanon). Moscow will not allow that. What’s more, in combined strength the new Anti-Israel Northern Border Coalition (from here-on AINBC) is perfectly capable of defending itself. Though his country itself has been burnt out, Basher Al-Assad’s huge military still exists and is now dangerously concentrated in the south of the country. Hezbollah is the most effective terrorist force Israel has ever had to contend with. And Iran, unleashed by Obama’s utopian ‘nuclear deal’, now awaits a payment of 100 billion dollars in previously frozen funds; enough to purchase an army strong enough to dominate the region. To have this monster in the most contested area of the Middle East may prove to be a game-changer.

How might Israel get out of this? No commentary (in Israel or the West) as yet seems to offer an answer. Nuclear weapons (Israel is estimated to have over 200) are practically useless because of Moscow’s involvement. A conventional bombing campaign would risk Russian and Iranian reprisals. The Syrian army, so concentrated in the area adjacent to Israel, forbids a ground invasion. What can be done? At the moment, precious little.

AINBC doesn’t have a single policy yet, but when it develops one, several things will almost certainly be on the agenda. Syria will want the Golan Heights back. Hezbollah will want Sheba Farms back. The Palestinians, emboldened by a sympathetic super-power in the neighbourhood, will demand an acceleration of the peace process.

Indeed, who can say with certainty that the current Palestinian hate-crime epidemic is not related to a new feeling of political invulnerability?

In case you’re unaware of this epidemic (not impossible given the shameful lack of media coverage in the West), you should know that Palestinian criminals in the Greater Jerusalem area are stabbing people with kitchen knives simply for being Jewish. Dozens of Israelis have now been killed or injured, every one of them completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The IDF military, designed for much larger and very different operations, is overwhelmed, along with Israel’s police force, health sector and local funeral services. No end to the violence has yet come into view.

Given these mounting troubles, it must be conceded that Israeli leaders have been far too serene about the prospects for regional and internal peace in recent years. The surrounding states (or ‘ring states’ as some Israeli strategists refer to them) – with the pleasant exception of Jordan – are demographically booming, developing in arms, and degenerating in attitudes.

If the State of Israel is to survive (in the very long term), its leaders must regain their previous realism. They must confront AINBC while it is still in its larval stage. If that develops to its fullest potential, and if it allies itself (which it surely will) with the most intolerant factions of the Palestinian movement, Israel may find itself facing the greatest existential risk in its modern history.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Anti-Semitism: Real and Imagined.

Tags

anti-Semitism, BBC, Britain, Daily Mail, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Family Guy Jews, Family Guy racism, Hatred, Immigration, Islamic terrorism, Israel, Jews, Kevin Macdonald, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, War, Zionism

Ever since the rather hysterical reaction to Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to congress and later re-election as Prime Minster of Israel, I’ve been thinking at length about anti-Semitism in the modern world, how intense it is, and where it might ultimately lead. I’ve also tried to properly define ‘anti-Semitism’ – that is, of the most serious kind, as opposed to the ethnic banter that occurs (between all groups and cultures) on a daily basis.

After all, not all anti-Semitism leads to Auschwitz. Some of it is simply laziness. I remember, many years ago, passing a London Synagogue with a friend. As we were directly outside of it, he pointed at the building and sighed “Look at that” in a low, defeated tone of voice.

“What?” I asked, adding “It’s a Synagogue.”

Frowning at my reply, my friend shifted his fingertip to the parking lot outside. “Those cars, I mean… Jags, BMWs, Mercs. You know what I mean?”

And the conversation (if it can be called that) ended there. The insinuation was obvious and was duly taken on board.

Now, is this Anti-Semitism, or just plain envy? Many people readily confuse the two, and this, I think, detracts from our ability to face down anti-Jewish hatred of the most serious kind. (My friend incidentally is a working-class, apolitical Irishman, with whom I used to bunk off school and who more or less belongs to the ‘salt of the earth’ type.)

If that is ‘casual’ anti-Semitism, another modern type is comical or ‘ironic’ anti-Semitism. In an episode of Family Guy, a Jewish high school pupil objects to being asked to dissect a pig, to which the teacher drily replies, “Believe me Neil, it’s no thrill for the pig to touch a Jew either.”

This is clearly near to the bone, but nobody upon hearing it would think of joining the KKK or ANP. This is sub-political thinking and doesn’t treat Jews with the seriousness preferred by genuine fascists.

Of course, even I have at one time or another been accused of anti-Semitism, as has anyone who forwards arguments of the political kind. I once noted for example that American Jews enjoy a dominant position in the American film industry. I found (and find) it bizarre and unnecessary to deny something so obvious. For this, I received emails of mockery and hateful accusations.

The use of the ‘Anti-Semite’ label in cases like that is irresponsible, especially as anti-Semitism of the most lethal kind appears to be enjoying a secretive renaissance. Let’s break some more taboos…

Jews have vastly superior verbal intelligence scores than Gentiles. Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent on average than any other division of the human population. Jewish representation in the scientific, political and cultural elites of the West is massively disproportionate to their numbers. Jews have taken pains in their history (for religious reasons) to prevent integration with non-Jewish communities. The Jewish religious belief that they are a chosen tribe favoured by God has often contributed to the hostile attitudes of those who live alongside them.

Not one of these observations is powerful or scurrilous enough to unleash a new Holocaust and should not be treated like that. The ideas motivating real hostility to Jews in the modern world have nothing to do with widely known, if publically denied, facts. Rather they are the product of a uniquely complex style of conspiratorial thinking.

Kevin Macdonald, a Canadian professor of Evolutionary Psychology, should be considered the grand wizard of modern anti-Jewish feeling. His trilogy of books – The Culture of Critique, A People Who Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents – have encouraged millions to sign up to a hatred that had been in a period of terminal decline.

Macdonald’s basic theorem is that Jews have organised in such a way as to degrade the spirit of kinship in their ‘host’ societies, thereby preventing an ethno-nationalism that could exclude or threaten them from coming into existence. They are said to achieve this by organising cultural, political and intellectual movements that complicate or oppose White ethnic interests. Examples of this include Bolshevism, Psychoanalysis, interracial pornography and open-door immigration.

Macdonald backs up his assertions with a heavy weight of evidence and quotation, giving the ideas expressed a veneer of scientific detachment and legitimacy. Despite this, no respected figure in Macdonald’s field of evolutionary psychology takes his contentions seriously, and luminaries from other fields – including Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond – treat them with lofty ridicule.

They are wrong to be so dismissive. Macdonald’s thesis is spreading like wildfire. The explanatory promise of his ideas makes them irresistible in an age as distrustful and anti-political as ours.  On websites like 4chan, Stormfront, reddit and on innumerable blogs, the idea that Jews have damaged the prospects of White civilisation is omnipresent. I spend a lot of time on these sites (to attune myself to the popular zeitgeist) and come across arguments traceable back to Macdonald on a daily basis.

Part of what makes Macdonald’s theories so strong is the inbuilt defences he has implanted in them. His family of theories are designed in such a way as to make Jewish counter-arguments seem like a confirmation of their validity. In ‘Separation and its Discontents’, Macdonald argues that the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ is an integral part of the Jewish project to stop Whites finding an independent voice.

I don’t know how this shadowy renaissance will pan out, but the fact these ideas remain plausible should teach us all a vital lesson: that Anti-Semitism remains a dangerously toxic and regressive element in the global system, and that if it ever reaches 20th century proportions again, it will not be due to comical or political asides, but to the semi-scientific theories of the intellectual fringe.

D, LDN.

The Cynical Genius of Hamas.

Tags

American Liberty, anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Bombing, Civilisation, Coffee, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Gaza, Hamas, Hamas Charter, Israel Gaza, Operation Protective Edge, War, Zionism

Anyone who values civilisation – from its music and museums, to its cinemas and nightclubs – will have been sympathetic to Israel’s plight over the past two weeks. It is being attacked by another century, and cannot respond except by striking (as surgically as possible) one of the most densely populated territories in the world.

Faced with these odds, Israel has inevitably lost. As I said a fortnight ago, the only way Operation Protective Edge could succeed (or be worth the ocean of negative publicity arising from the project) is if Hamas was knocked conclusively out of history. I’m far from alone in holding this view. Many a patriot in Israel has been exasperated by this war and its apparent lack of direction.

Hamas – in contrast to Netanyahu’s ambiguity – is working with a clear and intelligent strategy:

1. Provoke Israel into bombarding Gaza.

2. Fire missiles from hospitals, schools and (for added propaganda effect) UN-affiliated buildings in order to maximise foreign and civilian casualties – human lives being cheaply expendable given the local birth-rate.

3. Mobilise Left-wing and Pro-Palestinian media around the world with photos of dead women and children. Gain as many young and naïve adherents to the Palestinian cause as possible.

4. Allow the war to die down. Re-arm and await next operation.

As you can see, there is little room for failure here. One can also see how Israel’s response has fed directly into it. The intensity of Pro-Palestinian information-flow since the start of the war has been staggering. And it hasn’t been limited to the closed world of the political Left either. Here are some of the hundreds of anti-Zionist comments left on the centre-right Daily Mail website (all of which were given hundreds of ‘green arrows’ by its readership) –

“Israel would like nothing more than to destroy all Palestinian settlements. The ‘excuse’ of defending its people is a smokescreen. If this campaign somehow stops they’ll find another excuse to attack and kill thousands of innocent people. Israel are mass murderers.”

“Israel is an apartheid state gone wild and it’s unfair to expect their neighbours to sit there defenceless without the weapons and military to defend themselves.”

“Israel wants the land for its natural gas, it’s as simple as that. It won’t stop and is behaving in an appalling manner.”

“The whole world knows what a terrorist state Israel is-you can sit here all day trying to defend it-it won’t work.”

Elsewhere, the Telegraph (arguably the most reliably pro-Israel news source in the UK) has run numerous reports on the bombings of Hamas targets near schools and hospitals with the (rather important) Hamas element unmentioned anywhere in the text. It used to be the case that only the BBC was capable of this wilful propaganda. This time around, were it not for the middle-ground politeness of the BBC, the Israeli side would have no media voice in the UK outside the Jewish Chronicle.

Its inherent evil aside, Hamas is reaping the crop from a well-thought out and devilishly clever tactic. Now let’s look at what a comparably clear Israeli response would have looked like:

1. Delay retaliation to Gaza rocket fire. Instead make clear to Hamas and international community that living next to a terrorist group has become intolerable (i.e. make the case for the action before the action). Issue final warning to Hamas and make clear that it will be removed if rocket fire continues. The longer the period between the ultimatum and military action, the less the power of criticism will be when the latter is underway.

2. If rocket fire continues, launch air and ground strikes against all known Hamas sites. Occupy Gaza for as long as it takes to arrest or kill Hamas leadership and its supporters. After the occupation, make clear that the same routine will be repeated if any comparable terrorist group emerges there.

By way of conclusion, Protective Edge has been a disaster for Israel, a windfall for the Palestinian cause, and it raises serious questions about Israel’s long term planning. Let’s hope lessons have been learned.

D, LDN.

The Split Personality of William Maher.

Tags

America, Bill Maher, Christianity and Islam, Defend the modern world, Gaza, Hypocrisy, Iraq, Liberals, Michael Moore, Multiculturalism, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Real Time, Television, USA, War

The Liberal position in America is notoriously difficult to define. Many of the ideologies gathered under the term in the US would be classed at ‘Right-Wing’ in Europe (and almost certainly in continental Europe) where the label usually carries connotations of socialism and enthusiasm for the welfare state. American Liberals (against the claims of some Conservatives) are not at that point yet. More often, they align roughly with British centrists like the Orange-book Liberal Democrats or Cameronite Tories.

The American term for Liberals of the European style is ‘Leftist’, or collectively ‘The Left’. These are not often found in Establishment politics, or indeed anywhere close to the heat-field of democratic accountability. Rather they lurk on the fringes of Hollywood, music and (perhaps most of all) the booming trade of ‘political satire’.

A giant on this last stage is a Mr William “Bill” Maher.

Perhaps the most effective satirist in modern America, Maher has never made a secret of his adoration of President Obama (he was a big money donor to Obama’s re-election campaign) or of his violent loathing for White American culture and the rural poor. His well-honed spiel has been to accuse, with the merry confidence of a drunk, anyone exhibiting hostility toward the big-state idea as ‘racist’, a paid-for corporate toady or else a reprobate, homophobic, pro-life creationist. 

And this has worked extremely well. On my personal facebook page, I can never seem to avoid a re-post of Mr Maher’s latest routine, and his television show ‘Real Time’ is one of the most popular of its kind on American cable.

But despite such popularity, Maher has a quirk which makes his acceptance into Liberal high society controversial for more devout believers.

Maher is a Zionist. As a matter of fact, a very orthodox one. The comedian reliably supports the Israeli military in its offensives against terrorism wherever (and in whatever manner) they occur, and most recently found himself in hot water for doing so regarding Operation Protective Edge.

But why would I complain about that, you ask? It’s simple. Mr Maher’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself lies in stark contrast to his consistent refusal to grant this same right to America and Europe.

Whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, Maher has repeatedly berated the US military for its excesses and sought (with some success) to diminish the morale of patriotic forces. The Bush regime in particular had no moral fibre for Maher and his baying amen-corner audiences. The invasion of Iraq was motivated by the price of oil. The assault on Falluja was a war crime. The abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib meanwhile was not a singular episode but rather chimed with the moral tone of the whole enterprise.

Is it unfair to speculate that had the IDF been responsible for any of these events, Maher would have no trouble finding a way of rationalising them? I don’t think so.

And what would that be exactly? Hypocrisy? Tribalism (Maher has a Jewish mother)? Ignorance (that America and Israel are fighting the same wars)?

That I don’t know. But in my humble opinion the right Israel has to defend its liberal society extends to any other democracy, and wrong-headed hypocrites like Maher let us all down by obscuring this fact.

D, LDN.

Do the Palestinians Want Palestine or Israel?

Tags

Alcohol, Caroline Glick, Defend the modern world, Demonstration Australia, Demonstration London, Gaza conflict, Innovation, Islamism, Israel-Palestine, Jealousy, Jerusalem, Liberalism, Lily Allen, Middle East, Modernity, Nationalism, Palestine, politics, Self-deception, Sexual Freedom, Shiny, Shop, Shopping

“Man can do what he wills but he cannot choose what he wills.” – Schopenhauer.

So, another war is raging between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs of Gaza.

We know the routine from here. When the guns eventually fall silent and the silos close, Western elites will pontificate to Israel as if they themselves were virgins to violence; the UN will achieve nothing at a furious pace; Hamas meanwhile will probably claim a strategic ‘victory’ and won’t – I suppose – be wholly unjustified in doing so.

It seems the Israelis have once again been suckered into a publicity nightmare for zero strategic gain. Only a concerted effort to topple Hamas will prevent rockets being fired into Israel. Hamas knows this, and starts these wars on purpose, daring Israel to make a move. Israel also knows this, or should do by now.

But I don’t want to talk at length about this current dispute. Rather let’s use the occasion to broaden our view and ask a question about the fundamental clash of interests underlying this cycle of violence.

The standard view of the Israel-Palestine conflict (or that upheld by the UN and Western public opinion) is that it involves a claim by two peoples to the same territory. The troubles of the region originate from this simple contest, and are only later exacerbated by religious belief.

The radical or revisionist view of the conflict claims it is the other way around. The territory is secondary and religion (in particular Islam) motivates most of the violence.

A third view, and one I’d like to advance today, considers the economic factors of the divide and proposes that the advocates of at least one of the competing peoples are purposely deluding themselves.

Anyone who has read or studied basic psychology will be well-placed to judge the capacity human beings have for self-deceit, and that the thing one ‘wants’ is not necessarily what one claims to want or even what one wishes to want. If a problem-drinker, for example, goes to the corner shop for a bottle of gin, he may sincerely believe along the way that he is going to buy a newspaper. The human mind is so fallible that it can be manipulated even by itself.

In this context, consider this: Do the Palestinians really want ‘Palestine’ with its olive groves, rolling hills and ancient alleyways? Or do they in fact desire Israel, with its shopping malls, freedom and high standard of living?

It’s surprising how rarely this question is put to the world, and tragic too, since it can illuminate a hidden simplicity behind a seemingly complicated problem.

Given its strategic urgency, there have been innumerable remedies suggested for the Israel-Palestine conflict over the previous few decades, from the UN-backed ‘return to 1967 borders’, through the ‘Arab peace plan’ sponsored by Saudi Arabia, to the ‘three-state solution’, to the US ‘Roadmap’, to the most recent Lieberman Plan.

The last of these is most relevant to the context we have set ourselves.

The ‘Lieberman plan’ – named after its author Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party – suggests that a two state solution include the exchange of the Arab-populated areas of Israel for the Jewish populated areas of the West Bank, thus avoiding the need for a population ‘transfer’.

According to this plan, the Galilee region of Northern Israel would be attached to the bloc of West Bank inhabited by Palestinians. The Israeli Arabs in the area of Israel to be detached would lose their Israeli citizenship and become citizens of Palestine instead. The Jewish settlements of the West Bank would be attached to Israel proper. A Jewish majority in Israel would thus be assured, and the ‘problem’ of Jews on the West Bank would be solved at a stroke.

Personally, I don’t think this idea is workable in practice, but the reaction the policy has provoked is almost worth the effort put into proposing it.

The Arab citizens of Israel have branded the plan philosophically ‘racist’ and morally outrageous. The Palestinian establishment outside of Israel’s borders has also condemned the plan, presenting a claim of native descent specifically to the land currently tended to by the Jews, and re-stating a commitment to the return of refugees to towns within the same territory.

Let’s be clear. If, as it is routinely claimed, the Palestinians merely want a state of their own, the Lieberman plan should be sweetly palatable to them. It delivers immediately the state they claim to crave, and even supplies the Palestinian people with a social unity they have arguably never before experienced. Hamas in particular would get its wish of a Judenrein Islamic state, emptied of democracy, development and dirty Kuffar. The PA would be given full political sovereignty over its own citizens. What is there to object to?

The answer can only be that it leaves a highly developed, wealthy and democratic society living next door to them. This society and its high level of living is what is craved, and only by its destruction or infiltration can the Palestinian blood-lust be satisfied.

It has been well noted by travellers for many centuries that Islamic countries tend – almost without exception – to be dirt-piles. Places where nobody of depth or youthfulness could happily spend a week. Why then did any Leftist imagine Gaza could turn out differently?

For years, the PA and its Western cheerleaders squealed for the liberation of that strip of coastline. Now they have it and the rockets never stop coming.

Is that really due to those IDF troops calmly patrolling the other side of the border? Or does it actually involve those skyscrapers towering in the far distance, tortuously superior and forever out of reach?

In some dusty and eccentric corner of the Palestinian mind, does the thought arise that those sparkling buildings are the natural fruit of the territory, and not the work of those who have settled it? Do they imagine that they would be enjoying that same prosperity had the Jews never returned?

I don’t believe the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with gifts of land, however extravagant. There are countless states they could relocate to, and if it really was peace they craved, they would already be in them. But that is not and was never the point. They have glimpsed a better life through a forest of watchtowers and cannot now forget it.

D, LDN.

‘Islam Versus Europe’, Immigration and the Jews.

Tags

Christianity and Islam, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, Holocaust, Jew, Karl Marx, Kevin Macdonald, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Nazi, No to Turkey in the EU, Pamela Geller, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Tommy Robinson, United States, Zionism

A friend once asked me why Neo-Nazis hate ‘Zionism’ so much. ‘Surely…’ he said ‘…they don’t care about the Arabs.’.

I explained as best I could that ‘Zionism’ to a Nazi means something very different than it does to a Western Liberal. For the former, ‘Zionism’ is a shorthand for any organised Jewish Political force, real or imagined.  The kind of political force usually intended is a conspiracy to promote (or enforce) multi-racialism on the European world, with the ultimate goal of wiping out the White race via miscegenation (encouraged by a Jewish media and pornography industry).

It’s easy to dismiss such ideas as crackpot, if not borderline psychotic. They are not comfortably distinct from black helicopters behind the clouds, or brain-rotting chemicals in the water supply.

But it would be unfair to dismiss them so completely.

Back in July (hat-tip Enza Ferreri), the respected CounterJihad blogger IslamversusEurope  (‘Cheradenine’) published a lengthy post reviewing the book ‘Culture of Critique’ by Canadian author Kevin Macdonald. To my surprise, Cheradenine, a great foe of Islamisation and terrorism, said the following:  ‘

“Having now read MacDonald’s books A culture of critique and A people that shall dwell alone…. I have to say they have made an unexpectedly strong impression on me. I now understand antisemitism. I wouldn’t say I now share the feeling but I am at least much further along that spectrum of sentiment that I was before.”

He goes on to explain his reasoning:

“MacDonald documents, in excruciating detail, the overwhelmingly disproportionate Jewish involvement in intellectual movements that have worked to delegitimise and denigrate the traditional forms of cohesiveness characteristic of European societies, including patriotism, church and family structures…..Communism blighted eastern Europe; multiculturalism is destroying western Europe. Although Jews are clearly not solely responsible for either, it’s reasonable to ask whether either ideology would have achieved such “success” as it did achieve, establishing doctrinal dominance in the minds of policy-making elites, had Jews never immigrated to Europe. In my opinion, the answer is no. Without Jewish political and intellectual activism, without the Holocaust, without the Hitler stick ready to beat down any manifestation of European pride or patriotism, Europeans would not now be losing their countries to Islam.”

OK. Let’s address these points.

I do not personally find the idea that Jews instinctively promote societies which are not repressively homogenous unlikely, but nor do I find it disturbing. It is perfectly natural for Jews to desire a Nationalism they can be part of, and to combat a Nationalism which excludes or threatens them. The cultural totalitarianism of the Middle Ages offered no comfort for the Jews, despite their eschatological importance to the Christian faith itself, and post-enlightenment liberalisation was strongly desired by Christian minorities (Catholics in Protestant countries and vice versa) too. This was (at least initially) nothing like a conspiracy, but merely the fight for a better society.

The modern blight of Communism too is not something to lay solely at the door of the Jews. Communism precedes Karl Marx (who merely provided its most eloquent expression). Class interests and the desire to correct economic ‘injustices’ arose organically among the gentile working classes, and may never have required the assistance of Jews to enact a political effect.

Similarly, modern ‘Multiculturalism’ is as much a class movement as it is an ideology. Multiculturalism is favoured by the business elite and the liberals of the middle class, both of whom associate the objections of the working class with ignorance and inferiority. A desire to not be seen as ‘racist’ is not motivated by Holocaust guilt alone, but by an arrogant wish to prove oneself superior to the uneducated.

As for the author of ‘Culture of Critique’, one must be honest and call him at minimum a suspect character. Professor Macdonald is a sometime associate of David Irving, and a venerated hero of the Ethno-Nationalist fringe. His work typically attracts the dregs of sub-political society and is animated by a science (‘Evolutionary Psychology’) that is rarely accepted as mainstream. As John Derbyshire pointed out in his evaluation of Macdonald, the very idea of a ‘group evolutionary strategy’ (vital to Macdonald’s argument) is open to doubt:

‘The Jewish over-representation in important power centers of Gentile host societies became possible only after Jewish emancipation—which, like abolition of the slave trade, was an entirely white-Gentile project! Did the genes of 12th-century Jews “know” emancipation was going to happen 700 years on? How? If they did not, what was the point of their “evolutionary strategy”? There is a whiff of teleology about this whole business.’

I agree. Perhaps even more than a whiff.

In sum, Jews have long been at the forefront of the struggle against Islamism and I truly hope that Cheradenine’s unfortunate fascination for Mr Macdonald’s work doesn’t precede a split in the CounterJihad movement. I have always subscribed to the ‘Big Tent’ ideal when it comes to this issue. It will take Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Ba’hai, Christians and nonbelievers working in agreement for any kind of successful resistance to be formed. A defensive phalanx; not a gabble of factions divided by race.

D, LDN

Modernity or Barbarism? : The strongest argument for Israel is the most simple.

Tags

anti-Semitism, Case for Israel, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Eurabia, Fateful Triangle, Islamisation of London, Israel, Jewish State, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Rihanna Muslim, Zionism

I wanted to write a post this week defending the legitimacy of the Zionist project but I quickly realised that with this conflict, most of the arguments have already been made.

Just as some people are right-handed and some left, everybody seems to have an inbuilt bias on the Middle East dispute.

People with no interest in politics whatsoever nevertheless reserve a space in their hearts for either the Jews or the Arabs of the near-east, rarely both. They may have never met a Jew or an Arab in their lives, but they still fight for ‘their’ side with all the determination of a brother coming to the aid of a brother.

If you think about it, this is actually quite strange. It certainly isn’t the case with other conflicts. When the Sinhalese and the Tamils fight each other in Sri Lanka, a majority of people require an explanation as to who the Sinhalese and Tamils are before the reasons behind the conflict themselves are elucidated. Some might even need an index finger on a map to show them where Sri Lanka is.

Why is Israel and Palestine different? One reason could be religion.

I grew up in a religious household and remember going to Sunday-school each week where I read the Bible with the teachers. The word ‘Israel’ was familiar to me long before I knew anything political, as were Jews, Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese Cedar trees and the concept of the promised land. When I become politically aware and learned about Zionism, I already had a basic grasp of the actors and religious stakes involved.

Most Westerners (or at least Christian Westerners) therefore are bound to see the conflict as an interesting one. The same I imagine is true of Muslims, who are taught from an early age about Mohammads alleged journey to Jerusalem as well as more explicitly about the politics of Palestine.

Another reason of course is race. The Jews are a subject of unending fascination for Europeans, who can’t quite fathom whether to adore or despise them. In America too, the Jewish people are both liked and disliked but rarely ignored. 

Anything involving Jews therefore tends to attract scrutiny.

Reflecting this interest, the Middle East conflict has inspired passionate and important political books on both sides of the debate. On the Pro-Israel side there are volumes like “The Case for Israel”, “From Time Immemorial”, and “Shackled Warrior”. On the anti-Israel side, there is “Beyond Chutzpah”, “Fateful Triangle” and “The Gun and the Olive Branch”.

Some of these books have become classics of political writing and their authors are looked to as intellectual sages not just on the Middle East but World Politics more broadly.

But for me, the strongest political argument for Israel arises naturally from an examination of the realities on the ground.

Israel as a country can easily deceive people. It looks so Western and sophisticated, so calm and cosmopolitan that it’s scarcely believable to think that in a coastal strip just to its south, there is a nightmare territory of illiteracy, genital mutilation, veiling and stoning to death.

Just a mile from beachfront Israeli coffee shops, in which young Jewish women and young Jewish men drink Cappuccino and chat about sport, literature and fashion, there are other women, forbidden to leave the crumbling houses of men they were forced to marry as children, and whose children dance on the unpaved streets outside praising suicide bombing.

These are not, as if often claimed, ‘two different cultures’. These are two different stages of cultural development. One is in the 21st century, and the other in the 13th.

In Israeli cafes, a heated argument might break out over which marks the greater artistic leap forward, “The Bends” or “OK Computer” (the answer incidentally is the latter). In a Gaza shack, a brawl might ensue over whether music (of any kind) should be punishable by fine or amputation.

It pays to remind oneself every so often just how weird this contrast is. Imagine Denmark sharing a border with Afghanistan. Switzerland with Pakistan. Tokyo with Darfur.

And yet – knowing all this – how does the West, so comfortable in its own version of the 21st century, react?

It gathers both sides together and shouts “Make a deal!…”, and then reacts with feigned surprise when nothing comes of it.

I suppose this isn’t strictly-speaking ‘betrayal’. Israel is not in Europe. It’s more a simple kind of hypocrisy, as well as a motivated failure to comprehend an obvious truth; that the age of mutilation, dogma, and suicide bombing cannot be reconciled with the world of fashion, irony and relaxed society. They are not equal and – more importantly – they are not equally valuable. This simple, cartoonish contrast may prove to be the strongest argument for Israel, even after all the academic head-scratching and moral grandstanding has fallen away.

If you wish to defend the West from Islamisation, and modernity from barbarism, you must be a supporter of the Jewish State and defend what it represents. It is a border of the civilised world and an armed front against its darkest enemies. The Jews are a talented, humane and indispensable race and their state should reflect this in security, prosperity and size.

These are the vital arguments. So if you’re asked again to choose between modernity and barbarism, or whatever else you might wish to call the same choice, ‘Civilization or madness’, ‘Israel or Palestine’…. don’t think too deeply about it. Despite the weighty books, complicated theorems and wars of interpretation, honesty alone should lead you to the century you belong in.  

D, LDN