Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

Posts Tagged ‘ zionism ’

Ethnonationalism and the cultural dispute with Islam, Israel and the U.S.

Nov 14th, 2008 | By Loozianajay | Category: Featured, Foreign Affairs

That there is a conflict existing between the Jewish state of Israel and its neighbors is a known fact throughout the world. From there, however, explaining the conflict further and exploring its roots requires a certain amount of nuance. Most casual observers may equate the conflict over religious differences between two monotheistic faiths or even a dispute over real estate. In large part they would be right. However, there is something more profound just under the surface. What fuels this incredible conflict is something far more tangible than religious disputes and closed borders. What gives the region the awesome force of power to take up arms for their cause generation after generation comes from the concept of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism, or ethnic nationalism, may sound like the latest academic buzzword; but, in fact, ethnonationalism is hardly a new concept. It has been around since humans first developed the sense of kinship, language, tribalism, tradition, religion, cosmopolitans, nation states and so forth. It produces the sources for human spirit and enmity. Ethnonatioalism brought forth Manifest Destiny, the U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII (which was fueled by extreme ethnonationalism in National Socialism ideology) and centuries long continental and world dominance by the nation states of Europe. The list could literally go on and on. It’s based off a narrow list of identities that fuels the societal belief behind a particular cause. It’s often strong, unwilling to compromise, and lasting. Those in the modern era that may find such an archaic premise troubling, intellectually and morally, haven’t paid attention to how the world has been shaped by ethnonationalism. Take America, our modern thinking polity often times belittles the ideas of ethnic nationalism or a particular national identity. We often pride ourselves as an “open” society where numerous ethnicities live in relative peace.

Social scientist go to great lengths to explain the enduring qualities of a culture, usually described as Western, that is inviting making it easier for different nationalities regardless of racial or religious origins to assimilate. They label this as liberal or civic nationalism. However, the fact that ethnonationalism already won out in North America over a century ago and continues to shape the identity of this country is rarely considered. Jerry Z. Muller (2008) says in his Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them, “The liberal view has competed with and often lost out to a different view, that of ethnonationalism. The core of ethnonatioinalist idea is that nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry.” (p. 20) Over the course of a couple of centuries, migration by a disproportionate amount of white Protestants from Northern-Europe and England brought with them a culture, traditions, laws and language. They, and their subsequent ancestors (that even include us), tamed, created and shaped the U.S. and as a result, the competition between civilizations in North America has been over for nearly 200 years.

Through conquest and industry, ethnonationalism in America reigned supreme and it has been by those standards that others have assimilated and adopted. If the societal equilibrium were to shift away from this because of mass migration or, a separate demographic explosion, it’s not all that unlikely that competing cultures here in the U.S. could rekindle the flames of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism is a strong force in Arab nations. Mainly because of their history, good and bad, and their religion. The modern Arab nationalist/extremist suffers from insecurities, and an inferiority complex. Added to that is a long laundry list of grievances and jealousies suffered by the West. While their history involves Defensive Developmentalism, government incompetence and loose and feuding confederations of tribes, all in which brought on a steady decline of social, military and political capital. Their nemesis in the West represents the antithesis to their situation. Europe’s high sense of identity and righteousness led to a global pursuit of riches, conquest, glory and dominance at the expense of the Middle East. When that episode in their history ran its course, American dominance picked up where Europe left off.

But to get to the point that allowed Western-European dominance and manipulation in the Middle East something binding and energetic was needed in the region. It came in the form of strong nation-states that were emerging in Western Europe. The competition between the competing powers in Europe during the 1500s – 1800s laid the way for increased economic and military expansion. Economic prosperity and ethnic nationalism requires literacy and education to promote communication and common beliefs. What developed from this was set of competing nation states that were very defined, educated and ethically charged, and the results were explosive. Consequently, the Middle East endured centuries of economic and political incursion through colonization by a Western civilization that far outpaced them in almost all aspects of life, and continues even today. Nothing in the daily lives of Arabs pass without a Western imprint on it. From music, to movies, commercial goods and technologies, all are a product of Western civilization. For many Arabs that even means the very country they live in was created or influenced by Western powers.

These are all things that most Arabs are aware of and resent. This, of course, plays heavily on their physic. And herein lies the reason for conflicts, ethnonationalism and the clash between West and Middle-east vs. Israel.If ethnonationalism gives reason to fight along borders or within a region, then hatred, distrust, jealousy and indifference with the Christian West give Arab-Muslims an overarching global cause.Samuel P. Huntington (1996) refers to this movement in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (p. 255). It is the overriding force in today’s global politics and particularly in the Middle East. All observable differences have to be considered and accepted as major contributors to the conflict such as different language, religion, culture, etc. However, Western dominance and Diktat runs an equally strong course through the life of the Arab world. In the view of most Arab-Muslim nationalist, Israel’s existence in former Palestine offers a daily reminder of Western dominance and the inadequacies of the Arab world. Jewish Israel is a spur literally in the side of Islam.

Considering Israel’s size and population great wealth, technology, and medical advances provide a standard of living that far exceeds most Arab countries.What’s more, it is the region’s premier military power and has been tested numerous times, in which resulted in embarrassing and disastrous defeats for Arab-Muslim nations. It’s no wonder that the creation and existence of Israel is first on the list of grievances.

Balfour Agreement, Zionism and Hezbollah

The ending of WWI brought the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and with it a great vacuum to fill. The British Empire still had important interest in the region. Palestine stood out strategically because it served as a land bridge from Egypt to India and offered security to the Suez Canal protecting the sea road to India and elsewhere throughout the Empire. Britain, under Lloyd George devised away to bring Palestine under its sphere and serve as an ally in the Mid East. He distrusted the Arabs in Palestine and possible German interference in the region; therefore, pushed the idea of mass Jewish resettlement in the ancient land. David Fromkin (1989) in his book A Peace to End All Peace supports the idea. “There were also those who were worried about allowing the Germans and Turks to retain control of an area whose vital importance had been underscored by the Prime Minister. The assistant secretaries of the War Cabinet , Leo Amery and Mark Sykes, worried that in the postwar world the Ottoman Empire might fall completely in the clutches of Germany. Were that to happen, the road to India would be in enemy hands – a threat the British Empire could avert only by ejecting the Turks and Germans, and taking into British hands the southern perimeter of the Ottoman domains.” (p. 276)

These factors plus Biblical romanticism, Woodrow Wilson’s high-minded and heavy-handed international views, and a growing surge of Zionism led to the Balfour agreement the prelude to the British mandate that created modern day Israel.Zionism was growing in importance in Europe as well as in America. It was fueled from Jewish suffering and centuries of persecution in just about whatever land they settled. Before the end of WWI, they began to be gripped by the idea returning to their ancestral homeland in Palestine as the “Land of Israel”. The idea that they could set up a Jewish government based on self-determination and structured on Western democracy, led to a nostalgic frenzy. Backed by the British government, fear of anti-Semitism and, later the holocaust, migration was encouraged to create a modern Jewish state.

With them they brought valuable trades in medicine, law, education, commerce and a Western sense of culture that previously was absent from the area. All of this was promptly greeted with a revolt from the indigenous Arabs of the region. The areas under control by Arabs were cleansed of Jews and the areas controlled by Jews forced Arabs out to the surrounding Arab countries. During the ensuing years, violence against Jews in Arab countries forced another round of migration to Israel. Jerry Muller (2008) writes about the impact in the region upon the establishment of the Jewish state and Jewish migration. “Some 750,000 Arabs left, primarily for the surrounding Arab countries, andthe remaining 150,000 constituted only about a sixth of the population of thenew Jewish State. In the years afterward, nationalist-inspired violence against Jews in Arab countries propelled almost all of the more than 500,000 Jews there to leave their lands of origin and immigrate to Israel.” (p. 29)

The seeds for ethnonationlsim and true clash between West and Islam were being planted.Hezbollah is a byproduct from the creation of the Jewish sate and Zionism. Though founded only in 1982 out of reaction from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the group itself is hardly a new concept. Its history goes back as far as Arab-Muslim nationalism/Islamism does and can be seen as a microcosm of Arab/Islamic sentiment towards Israel and Western backing. The force itself acts as troops in the trench on the front line fighting against Western incursion and Zionism. Also, it gives an outlet for uneducated and unemployed young men to serve a cause greater than their lowly existence can muster. Furthermore, Hezbollah gives the Muslim world a chance to cheer and feel a source of pride as it repeatedly thumbs its nose at Israel and, by extension, engages in a proxy war with the West. Naturally, they receive high popularity in Southern Lebanon and support from regional powers like Syria and Iran.

Ethnonationalism, and all the defining and clashing identities that come with it contributed to the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006. However, something much greater and far reaching was at play.What actually is taking place is the Islamic world’s attempt to do away with the status-quo of Western interference in the region. Israel represents Western dominance and arrogance; therefore, the conflict is one entirely between the West and Islam, with Israel as the battlefront. The West, and America being its standard bearer, represents an image of unimaginable power and wealth — with God like powers that is able to topple governments as well as prop them up. With that comes an arrogance and a global swagger coupled with high minded policies of inclusion, tolerance and the persuasion of Western universal values and systems. While promoting these ideals, the West (mainly the U.S.) sometimes bomb and invade Muslim countries while at the same time preaching restraint, praising human rights, and acting as a global hawk for weapons proliferation. This creates resentment and assertiveness from the Muslim world and sets the path for extremism. The populace adopts an antagonistic attitude and governments begin to cooperate to undermine American-Western aims, as was the case with the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

History is always present and the events of the past leaves the residual necessary to fuel the ongoing pattern of conflict between the West and Islam. There is a source of pride and romanticism that exist in the Muslim world. Muslim dominance was absolute in the Middle East and North Africa by the 8th century. The Arabic armies fought off Christian advances into the Holy Land and by the 13th century the Ottomans were a “world” power that caused Europe to quake. This era was the high-water mark of Muslim dominance and exertion in worldly affairs. From the 16th century on the West, powered by organized nation-states, gained every conceivable advantage over the Ottomans and other Empires in the Middle East.

By the 20th century almost the entire Middle East was under the sphere of Western control. Huntington (1996) writes, “By 1920 only four Muslim countries – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan – remained independent of some form of non-Muslim rule.”(p. 210). Considering all of this, that groups like Hezbollah draws support is hardly amazing. These Islamic groups play up Islamic romanticism and fuel the imagination of a time when Islam and its principles ran supreme. It glorifies an explosive culture, a growing population and draws out on the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and Islam especially in a time when the American-Western way of life is so heavily promoted and seductive to Middle Eastern culture. It gives a growing population of youth a chance to be a part of a grand cause and an opportunity to advance socially.

More importantly, Islam has showed a propensity for violence and absolutism and with the Western creation of Jewish Israel sitting squarely and defiantly on their land only brings the volatile culture to a boil. Samuel Huntington (1996) states, “Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples.” And again he states supported by a list of evidence. “In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of intercivilazational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims” (pp. 256, 257, 258).

Conclusion

The ideological, cultural, religious and deeply historical differences between the Islamic/fundamentalist Middle East and the Christian/secular West are likely to continue. A growing younger Muslim population who tend to be more conservative and are likely to be more fundamental will only add to an assertive culture with an absolutist faith. Larger numbers of immigrants from the Middle East to Europe and America will further create antagonisms between the cultures as tensions and conflicts take place elsewhere. Islamic states like Iran who is showing the willingness to assert their power regionally may also prove to be a destabilizing influence.

Israel was created during an age of ethnonationalism and many of its citizens and leaders are still influenced by it. The country and its government was born from 20th century style of European nationalism and still carries with it the policies and sentiment that helped to shape it. Therefore, it is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, that Israeli will make any substantial concessions to Muslim demands. As the regional military power, backed by the U.S., Israel will continue to defend itself from threats and protect its interest in the region.

If the Middle East can become stabilized economically during this century, many of the disenchanted youth can find opportunity socially and through education, and not through radical Islamic groups. As opportunities increase and standard of living goes up so will the fortunes of the region. However, radicalism and resentment seems to be the only social/political outlet and current source for Arab-Muslim thinking.

References and Bibliography

Ferguson, N. (2006). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Books.

Fromkin, D. (1989).A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Avon Books

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & amp; and; Schuster.

Muller, J. (2008). The Clash of Peoples: Us and Them. Foreign Affairs, 87 (2) , 18-35.



Time to Strike

Jul 7th, 2008 | By Edward Beaman | Category: Foreign Affairs

“You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene,” - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“As the Imam Khomeini said, if each Muslim throws a bucket of water on Israel, Israel will be erased,” - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki

The time for a just and much needed war against the Iranian Regime is drawing near. Israel cannot and will not let these tyrants gain nuclear weapons with which to control and threaten the entire Middle East and beyond.

Perhaps later this Summer, the skies over Iran will be filled with the wings of the glorious Israeli Air Force as they swoop and destroy nuclear power plants and military instillations across the nation. Many will cry foul but the annuls of history will be on Israel’s side, just as it was in the Iraq strike of 1981 and the fabulous victory over the cowardly Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967. Future generations will for centuries venerate the heroes of 2008, in the mould of the great Bar Kochba. Israel will once again regain it’s aura of invincibility and keep her status as the beacon of democracy, modernity and human rights in the entire region.

The world must support Israel, for a nuclear Iran threatens not just Jerusalem, but the major cities of the civilised world including London, New York, Berlin, Mumbai and Tokyo. For many years Iran’s proxies including the likes of Hezbollah and Syria have been waging war against the Jewish State and the people of Iraq, including the coalition. Now we must strike back and deliver a decisive blow to the head of the snake.

See: Hassan Nasrallah’s speech about Israel.



No Jew-Bashing Allowed

Jun 10th, 2008 | By E.D. Kain | Category: Sententia

Nobody says it quite like Meryl Yourish. And by “it” I mean, basically anything regarding Israel. Her candor is enviable, and her wit is razor-sharp. I’ve heaped praise on her before, but this time I just wanted to throw in a quick quotation–a little “rule” of sorts that I think applies here just as well as on her blog. (more…)



“What did Chamberlain Do Wrong?”

May 21st, 2008 | By Churchills Parrot | Category: Featured
A recent spat on the Chris Matthew’s television program (“Dancing with the Stars” we believe?) has provided a splendid micro-study of the various bankruptcies which characterize the low-state of political debate currently at play in the last best hope of mankind. May God help us all.
First there is intellectual bankruptcy demonstrated in this instance by right-wing radio host Kevin Jacobs of KRLA in Los Angeles. Mr. Jacobs’ attack against Senator Barack Obama – full of boyish zeal and mischief – was, unfortunately, ill-timed and largely without substance. Far worse, the fact that he had no clue as to the particulars of Britain’s policy of Appeasement and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s role in it is virtually unforgivable. For a would-be Conservative to engage on the field of political battle without a firm grasp of historical fact is to deny himself perhaps his greatest weapon, and to provide the adversary an easy target by which to embolden himself and his cause.

Next we have literal bankruptcy represented by Mr. Mark Green, President of Air America. Spouting threadbare anti-Bushisms on cue, this blow-dried, spray-tanned leftbot contributed nothing to the debate save to provide real-time verification of why “progressive talk radio” is bereft of both listeners and funds.

Lastly, there is moral bankruptcy, demonstrated here by Mr. Matthews himself. Though he knows better, Mr. Matthews opted to forsake the truth in favor of savaging his guest right-wing dupe for committing the sin of not knowing his history; understandable and entertaining, yes, but highly unfortunate in this particular debate.

“What did Chamberlain do wrong,” Mr. Matthews repeatedly demanded of Mr. Jacobs. In terms of the particulars, Mr. Jacobs hadn’t a clue.

Finally an exasperated and indignant Matthews condescended to explain. “There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” he instructed. “What Neville Chamberlain did wrong – most people would say – is not talking to Hitler but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong!”

In our view this is rather like saying, “What Mrs. Fleebswottle did wrong was not having an affair with the milkman, but getting pregnant by him.” Alas the moral code of six-year-olds: it’s only wrong if you get caught. Chamberlain got caught.

In Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler were talking quite a bit. In those talks the two of them complimented one another’s mustache, exchanged tips on winterizing their gardens, and gave away half of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi regime. In the now infamous Munich Agreement, Hitler promised - honest-injun, crossed his heart and hoped to die - that he would take only what was agreed to and nothing more. Hitler lied. Chamberlain and the entire civilized world were shocked.

Well not the entire civilized world. Sir Winston Churchill for one was not. He had been passionately warning about Hitler since 1933. He was not alone in this. Many were able to read Hitler like a book. In fact, many had. It was not exactly an act of supernatural prophecy to see that Adolf Hitler was a deranged, anti-Semitic, power-mad, war-monger who must be stopped - not talked to, not negotiated with, not appeased - but stopped by whatever means available.

And yet, Neville Chamberlain insisted on talking . It was via this talking that he got stung and landed Britain, and the world, in the weakest possible position.

But what if Hitler hadn’t lied in Munich? What if he kept his word, consumed only Czech Sudetenland, and left the rest of the world alone. Would Mr. Matthew’s have said Neville Chamberlain did anything wrong then? No. Thus giving away half of Czechoslovakia is not really what Chamberlain did wrong; taking Hitler at his word is what Neville Chamberlain did wrong.

“There is a difference between talking with the enemy and appeasing,” insists Mr. Matthews. “Appeasement is giving away things to the enemy.” What Mr. Matthews claims not to be able to see here is that talking with the enemy IS giving away things to the enemy. What did Chamberlain give to Hitler? He gave him the Prime Minister of Britain’s time, attention, prestige, and trust. Quite a lot some would say, and at quite a cost. THAT is what Mr. Chamberlain did wrong – knowingly or unknowingly – and it is a sin one can only commit by talking, even if said talk is ostensibly in the name of peace. (Side note - we are told Mrs. Fleebswottle claims she only did what she did to afford milk for her children. Also she really did love the milk man and besides, he promised her he was sterile. The bastard!)

There are some interactions one ought know better than to engage in; this is the lesson of 1938 Mr. Bush spoke of before the Knesset last week: the dire importance of resisting the “false comfort of appeasement.”

As regards talking with this latest breed of fascists – Iran/Hizzballah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Syria et al - presuming these talks extend beyond mustaches and gardening, how exactly does one talk with bodies whose publically declared mission statement is the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate?

Furthermore, there is the not insignificant issue of Taqiyya, the Islamic principle of lying for the sake of Allah. Ought President Obama, or McCain, or Clinton, or … yes even Kucinich give the prestige, time, attention, and trust of the President of the United States to self-proclaimed enemies of Western values who are compelled by their “faith” to deceive unbelievers? And what is there really to talk about? A joint venture to airlift all Israeli Jews to Fort Lauderdale? The incorporation of Sharia law into the United States Constitution? Economic incentives for “green oil drilling” in Saudi Arabia?

Some things are non-negotiable and thus talking is to no avail. The existence of Israel, human rights for all, the sovereignty of peaceful and responsible nations – these things are non-negotiable, particularly with enemies who seek to take them away. That is, after all, why we regard them as “enemies.”

Cheers,

Charlie

P.S.

In humorous punctuation to this entire scene - in his final dismissal of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Matthews asks, “Wasn’t the U.S.S. Cole under Bush? I mean I don’t know what you’re talking about here” He then concludes in radiant self-righteousness, “Kevin, when you’re going to make a direct historical reference, get it straight.” Here, here Mr. Matthews!



What it means to say “Holocaust”

May 7th, 2008 | By E.D. Kain | Category: Sententia

Meryl Yourish is an endless source of Zionist information, and her blog should be read daily for any of you who may be interested in what’s going on in Israel regarding the Palestinian conflict. Daily. I’m not kidding when I say this, but she manages to pour through so much material, so many news sources, and get to the heart of the issue in such a clear and accessible way, that you really should visit her site on a regular basis just to stay on top of the conflict. And then, there are cats as well. Something she shares in common with our fellow blogger Mr. Edward Beaman.

For this episode of Sententia, I will draw from Yourish’s column with a very illustrative glimpse into the numbers behind the Real Holocaust (as in the Nazi Holocaust) and the Fake Holocaust (as in what the Palestinians and much of the world media are describing Israel’s treatment of the Gazans as….)

This is especially poignant since we are now entering 60th anniversary celebrations over the state of Israel.  Ever defiant, our Israeli friends and allies somehow manage to stave off the forces of darkness and barbarism, and have for six decades against overwhelming odds.

From Meryl Yourish:

Today is the day that Jews all over the world remember the victims of the Holocaust. Even as we do this, the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim allies once again try to expropriate the language and images of the murder of Jews, and apply it to Palestinians. The word “Holocaust” is being used a lot to describe Gaza. Well, let’s take a look at the difference between the real Holocaust, and the utter misuse of that word to describe Palestinian deaths in a war with Israel.

The real Holocaust deaths (a partial list):

Country Jews Killed % of Country’s Jews Killed
Austria 50,000 36
Belgium 25,000 60
Belorussia 245,000 65
Bohemia/Moravia 80,000 89
Bulgaria 11,400 14
Estonia 1500 35
France 90,000 26
Greece 65,000 80
Hungary 450,000 70
Italy 7500 20
Latvia 70,000 77
Lithuania 220,000 94
Luxembourg 1950 50
The Netherlands 106,000 76
Norway 870 55
Poland 2,900,000 88
Russia 107,000 11
Romania 270,000 33
Slovakia 71,000 80
Ukraine 900,000 60
Yugoslavia 60,000 80

The total number of Palestinians killed in the territories since the start of the second intifada: 4,609.

The Palestinian population today (disputed):

Gaza: 1,482,405
West Bank: 2,611,904

The Palestinian population in 1967:

Gaza:380,800
West Bank: 604,494

Someone else can figure out percentage of population growth and the number of Palestinian deaths. I’m not going to waste the time on an obviously spurious comparison. I’m just going to continue to point out the attempt to expropriate all of the language used to describe the world’s crimes against the Jews by the Palestinians, who would have you believe they are also victims of anti-Semitism. This needs to be stopped.

Never forget. There is no Palestinian “Holocaust.” There was only one Holocaust, that of the Jews by the Nazis, with the willing help of Europeans and Arabs, including the ones who lived in what was then known as Palestine—and whose descendants live in the territories today.

The descendants of the victims of the Holocaust? Well, there are none for the true victims. Only for the survivors.

Am Yisrael Chai. The people of Israel live. Long live the people of Israel.

Thank you, Meryl Yourish, for this little reminder. That’s the thought-provocation for the day….

Further reading:

Why I Strongly Support Israel, by Edward Beaman

The Desert Bloom, by Churchill’s Parrot

Happy Anniversary Israel, from Radarsite

1948, Israel, and the Palestinians, from Commentary Magazine



Why I Strongly Support Israel

May 4th, 2008 | By Edward Beaman | Category: Featured

The dictionary definition of ‘to assume’ is defined as ‘to take for granted or without proof; to suppose; to postulate’. It is a natural human trait which has benefited our species but one that has also pitched us into numerous wars and hatreds throughout the various millennia. Everyone has assumptions about this and that, from the meditating Buddhist monk in Vietnam to the Jamaican family enjoying the sun on the beaches in Montego Bay. However, the dangers appear when these assumptions lead to the appearance of bigotry, malevolence and worst of all, loss of life. Unfortunately, the subject people of this essay have probably suffered worse than any other from the corruptive results of wild assertions - those people being the Jews.

Richard Littlejohn, the British broadcaster and journalist, recently noted a peculiar case of assumption here in Britain in his Channel 4 documentary, ‘The War on Britain’s Jews?’. When telling dinner guests, fellow journalists and politicians that he strongly supported Israel, the first question they always asked in return was, ‘Are you Jewish?’ I’ve noticed the very same thing. Why does one have to be Jewish or an Evangelical Christian to back Israel? Usually the second and third questions involve a combination of inquiries as to whether I am a Neo Conservative and/or Islamaphobic. I admit, I am exaggerating a little. It depends what company I am in and usually their political persuasions which leads to a very interesting phenomenon. It is certainly no exaggeration, I’m disappointed to say, that the majority of Left leaning individuals I come across do ask these questions.

The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the various reasons why I respect, admire and support the State of Israel. Before I bring my introduction to a close, I think it wise to state my connections with Israel and Judaism, in case of the likely event interested readers will ‘assume’ I am biased because of heritage or religion. Firstly, I am not Jewish and as far as I know have no Jewish ancestry within the last two centuries. Secondly, I am not Israeli, I am British. I’ve never even set foot in Israel. Thirdly, I am non-religious. I’m an atheist who has medium to little interest in the religion of Judaism, let alone any regard for Evangelical Christianity. Fourth and finally, I consider myself to be on the centre-left of the political spectrum which means I’m certainly not a Neo-Con.

The Underdog

The Social Anthropologist Kate Fox provided a detailed and interesting commentary on a certain English trait in her book, ‘Watching the English’. She wrote ‘Those who are truly, culturally ‘English’ - whatever their race or country of origin - can be distinguished by their automatic, instinctive inclination to cheer for the underdog’ (p247). Perhaps she and I are being rather big headed in assuming the Anglo-Saxon world is the only arena for such a occurrence, I’m sure it’s not but it does lead on to another reason of mine for supporting Israel and will probably lead to a few people choking on their coffee. I see Israel as the underdog, not the Palestinians.

There are between 1.3 and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, that’s about one fifth of the total population. I do not feel it is disingenuous to proclaim that the majority of the Muslim World are at best, mildly antagonistic and at worst, openly belligerent towards the Jewish State. Then you have European anti-Semitism which is particularly at home in the Eastern countries such as Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. Russia as a larger world player has been fastidious in its various anti-Israeli initiatives, both inside and outside of the UN, over the past decades. In the Americas there are anti-Israeli initiatives and rhetoric, especially surprisingly, from the United States. Well known commentators, television personalities and anti-Israelis such as Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sarandon, whilst in no way politically influential, do hold vast swathes of ordinary Americans under their pseudo intellectual charms. In Britain, the likes of the Respect politician George Galloway, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Sayeeda Warsi, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, hold their own firebrand views of Israeli defensive policies which, like in America, greatly influence certain sections of British society.

This bias against Israel isn’t only confined to a few famous instigators but also parts of the media. I will take Britain as my example. Newspapers, especially The Guardian and The Independent, regularly print articles and news stories that cross the line between fact and fiction, leaving out vital information and only mentioning that which places Israel in a bad light. Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the latter newspaper is notorious for his hatred of the Jewish State and, in his own words, the ‘International Zionist Lobby. On television, the Channel 4 broadcasters have as good as swallowed Hamas propaganda word for word; it being very rare and incredibly surprising when a positive line is unravelled about Jerusalem politics. However, the most shocking I save for last, that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. ‘Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest’ it says in their ‘Purpose and Values’ section but is it?

No, certainly not when it comes to Israel at any rate. Take for instance, the recently released BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston. When first captured, the Palestinian Authority Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti stated, ‘We are apposed to the kidnapping of foreign journalists who serve the Palestinian cause’. The Beeb did not reply nor more importantly rebut, neither has Johnston since his release. In another case, Fayad Abu Shamala, another BBC Gaza correspondent, told a Hamas rally that ‘journalists and media organisations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.’ What was the BBC’s response? This was their response, ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC’. There are literally hundreds of examples I could use of the British Press and its bias against Israel which leads to the conclusion that the Palestinians and Muslim world in general are certainly winning the war of words. Israel is the underdog and the next chapter provides even more reasons why.

Myths and Lies

The majority of British people are not anti-Semitic and what is often construed as so is in fact idle acceptance of misinformation and lack of knowledge about the region and its history. For the genuine anti-Semites (edited), no amount of reasoning, facts and learning will recede their hatred.

So what are the common assumptions and myths that people in Britain hold to be true about Israel, Zionism and the Jews but which are in fact lies? Why is this propaganda especially absorbed by the Left that once fought shoulder to shoulder with the Jews against the Fascists of Oswald Mosley in 1936, but who now side with Hamas and Hezbollah? The latter question deserves an essay of its own and that it shall receive but part of the answer lies in the support of the perceived underdog as noted in the preceding chapter, which in itself is a noble engagement, but one that can also be severely misplaced.

One of the major assumptions is that Israel is an Apartheid State similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, where Israeli Arabs fair no better than did the black South Africans. This is a myth, a complete fabrication of the truth. Whilst some Arabs in Israel do suffer from discrimination, which is of course abhorrent, it is in no way similar to Apartheid. Arab citizens of the Jewish State can vote, participate in the government (there are a number of Arab Knesset politicians), they can own and buy land, are protected against discrimination in the workplace and have a better standard of living, education and healthcare than anywhere else in the Arab World. The blacks of South Africa had none of the above. Israeli Arabs can even serve in the Israeli Armed Forces.

Another assumption is that the ‘Wall’ separating Israel from Palestine is a racist barrier and a Zionist attempt to steal more land. Firstly, only 5% of the entire length of the barrier is actually a wall, the rest is wire fence and add to the previous fact, the concrete walls are temporary, easily removable and with no permanent foundations. Why is the barrier necessary? Because of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in buses, nightclubs, restaurants, shops and cafés. In 2002, before the security barrier, 451 Israelis died in terrorist attacks whereas in 2006, when much of the security barrier was in place, 30 Israelis were killed. (Statistics) If any justification is needed for this security fence/wall/barrier, whatever you want to call it, then these startling figures are surely it. Secondly, if it was a barrier based on race then there would be no Arabs living in Israel nor would Arabs be allowed access, although under tight security control which is understandable, into Israel to work, visit relatives and cross from the West Bank to Gaza and vice-versa like they do.

A third major assumption is that Israelis are doing to the Palestinian Arabs what Hitler did to the Jews in the Holocaust. This is definitely the most sickening and outrageous slandering of Israel that possibly exists, at least in Western circles. There are no gas chambers in Israel or the disputed territories, nor are there concentration camps, cruel medical experiment laboratories, ghettoes or forced starvation of Arabs by the Israeli military. Where are the millions of dead Arabs if the Jewish State is carrying out a Nazi-like massacre? George Galloway and German Bishop Hanke are still convinced: the latter saying on a visit to the West Bank in March 2007, ‘This morning we saw pictures of the bestial Warsaw Ghetto at Yad Vashem, and in the evening we were in the ghetto of Ramallah’. Such delusions are unfortunately common place but these people should ask some questions. Were the Jews in Europe under the Nazis provided with hospital treatment? The Palestinians are, even those who tried to blow up Israelis in failed suicide attacks. Small Arab children are treated in life saving operations and often get the best treatment available in the whole of the Middle East. Another question, if the Israelis wanted to eradicate the Palestinians, why would they continue providing electricity and water supplies to the Gaza Strip despite the numerous rockets and walking bombs originating from this small area? The accusations, in my view, are thoroughly baseless and despicable.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of myths and lies spread about Israel worldwide, largely as the result of Arab media propaganda and the notorious Russian conspiracy theory, ‘The protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which incidentally is widely available in Islamic bookshops across Britain, along with the Arabic translation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. The Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel will be explored in further detail in the next chapter.

Let me first say this. I am not intending to go into the fascinating history of Israel and Zionism in this particular essay as that would indeed make a book, of which there are already many. I can recommend one specifically, which I’ve read myself, that interested readers can order online and that is ‘A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ by Howard M. Sachar.

Islamic Enmity

“The Hour (of the Last Judgment) will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
Hadith - Volume 4, Book 52, No’ 177; Narrated by Abu Huraira.

From the days of Mohammed in the 7th Century AD to those of the modern age, Islam has been hostile to the Jews. The Jewish tribes, such as the Banu Qaynuqa, were the first to incur the Prophet’s wrath by refusing to submit to the young and militarily successful religion. A Jewish poet, K’ab bin Al-Ashraf also fell victim to Mohammed’s anger due to a succession of supposed insults. ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Mohammed asked his followers (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, book 17, no.4436). The poet was later killed. The ramifications of which still affect us today, for example, last year in the Danish cartoon controversy, the slaying of Theo Van Gogh and also the avoidance of using the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence by frightened British politicians, human rights groups, media heads and writers like Karen Armstrong.

The Koran is full of commands to kill Jews but Islamic apologists constantly refer to one verse, ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion …’ (Koran 2:256) which in their eyes clears the Muslim Holy Book of any serious guilt. Unfortunately the rules of abrogation (annulment) are not widely known to the Western World. Abrogation is when verses written later replace earlier verses if they conflict with one another. The suras of the Koran are not arranged chronologically but according to length, in descending order. Therefore it is vitally important to know which are the ‘Meccan’ and which are the ‘Medinan’ verses. The last quote is unfortunately from the Meccan period of time when Islam was against the proverbial ropes and did not have the means to wage war. Later, when Islam grew stronger, this would change as would the nature of Mohammed’s words.

‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?’
(Koran 2:106)

If you don’t believe my words, then read the widely circulated lectures of the respected Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid on the subject.

Of course I am not saying all Muslims hate Jews, that would be a ridiculous thing to say. There are numerous partnerships and groups where Muslims and Jews, along with other religions, come together in art, culture, play and most importantly, peace initiatives. What I am saying however, is that there is a foundation in the Islamic religion for Jew hatred and that those who invoke the killing of Jews to be an Islamic duty, are not in fact misguided but actually correctly following the Koran. Thankfully the majority of Muslims do not intensively study their Holy Book, rather like the majority of Christians don’t their Bible. One can see nevertheless, that hatred of Israel is not purely to do with the supposed invasion and occupation of Arab-Muslim land but goes much deeper and further back into history.

The major problem that results from this Muslim hostility towards the Jews is the modern day media propaganda that is burning furiously across the Islamic world. Anti-Jewish cartoons, media distortions, films and even children’s television programmes incorporate bigoted portrayals of the Jewish blood libel and Zionist world domination myths. Astonishingly, Europeans and Americans have swallowed the Middle East lies about Jews and Israel, whether intentionally or not and thus the mass misinformation phenomenon has spread across Left-Wing circles on all continents. Former American president Jimmy Carter is a prime example with his recent book, ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’.

Democracy and Growth

Israel is a parliamentary democracy; the only one in the Middle East. Jerusalem is its capital. What is now Israel was once an Ottoman backwater of desert, swamps and basic farmlands but has since developed into one of the most advanced nations on the planet. All of this through the solid hard work, bravery and persistence of the early Zionist settlers and the many generations that followed them right up to the present day. Tens of thousands of Jews fled from Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Arab World, and infamously the Holocaust, to settle in what would become Israel. Through a mixture of need, religious devotion and a desire for national identity and self-reliance/defence, they built and developed a proud, strong and extraordinary little country on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

Nowadays Israel can lay claim to a myriad of achievements and developments that benefit not only its own people but the whole world. This small nation of around 7 million people has advanced science, technology, literature, culture and politics to new levels whilst all the time being under attack from its larger neighbours. Israeli medical engineering has saved and improved millions of lives across the globe with inventions such as: stem-cell technology to regenerate heart tissue; the first fully computerised, radiation-less, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer; the first ingestible video camera that’s so small it fits in a pill, used to discover possible cancers in the intestines; an Ex-Press shunt that provides relief to glaucoma sufferers; a device which directly helps the heart pump blood; a ‘bone glue’ that will heal bones and joints affected by disease and for one final example, a device which restores the use of paralysed hands, providing hope to many victims of strokes and spinal injuries. There are many, many more Israeli inventions connected with science that have helped people from all countries, including the disputed territories.

Most of the latest technology in mobile phones was developed in Israel as was computer voice mail. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world; the third highest rate of entrepreneurship in the world; more museums per capita than any other country in the world; the second highest per capita of books in the world and has been instrumental in designing high tech security systems at airports to prevent bombs getting on board aeroplanes. Again, like with the medical innovations, there are many, many more technological advances originating from Israel.

All of the above plus more and people still hate Israel, excuse the Palestinian suicide attacks, call for boycotts, demand Israel to disband and worst of all, work actively to undermine the most culturally, socially, scientifically and politically advanced nation in the whole of the Middle East.. I can only ask at this point, what the hell have Israel’s neighbours given to the world in the last century, two centuries, three centuries even? Where have the development of human rights been in the Islamic world? Where have the countless genuine peace initiatives been in the Arab World? The harsh questions needed to be asked of those who attack Israel are a hundredfold.

Conclusions

I don’t believe there has been a country in modern history so reviled and misunderstood as Israel is today. It is a nation that has fought unflinchingly for its survival from the very first day of its conception but has nevertheless overcome every obstacle, bullet and bomb that its enemies have thrown against it. The Arabs have waged or threatened war numerous times over the past decades from 1948 through to 1967 and on to 1973 and beyond. Europeans who share the values and ideals of Jews worldwide have gone from enthusiastic support to an attitude of aggressive suspicion and non-violent derogation, especially on the Left. Centuries old falsities about the Jewish people have been dragged from the swamps of history and subsequently been renamed ‘Anti-Zionism’. Over half a century after the Holocaust, a new label has been found in which to hide their prejudices and has been stamped with approval and justification by the mass anti-Semitic hysteria emanating from the Islamic World. Newspaper journalists, peace campaigners and even politicians proclaim with gusto that, ‘Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’, before parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides. Yet few ask in return, how can disagreement and outright hostility towards the existence of a successful, democratic, peace seeking and established nation, that happens to be the only Jewish one of its kind, be anything other than anti-Semitism? Remember, ‘Zionism’ in its basic terms is support for a Jewish nation state.

In the 21st Century, Israel faces yet more threats, especially from Iran and its proxies, Syria and Hezbollah. The almost certain threat of Persian nuclear weapons is growing, week by week, as peace protestors in London, Washington DC and Paris call on their governments to refrain from bombing Iranian nuclear sites and instead cut ties with ’the Zionist entity’. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a wing of the worldwide ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is actively attacking Israeli towns such as Sderot causing few casualties but nonetheless dreadful mental and emotional trauma.

Please don’t mistake my purpose here, I don’t hold up Israel as the ideal nation state that all others should emulate, I don’t think it is, like I don’t think the United States or even the United Kingdom are. I couldn’t name or even know if that apotheosis of nationhood actually exists. There are negatives to Israeli society and policies that I dislike and question, such as the violent actions of some of the Ultra-Orthodox community against Palestinians, the governmental corruption and the terrible road safety statistics. Despite the minus points however, Israel is in my view, a brave, vastly misunderstood and much hated (unwarranted) living and breathing embodiment of democracy and liberty fighting tyranny and religious despotism. It’s a nation that needs our support, our good will, our understanding and our help because if we refuse, we are in fact permitting large chunks of our own values and ideals of freedom be torn apart by Islamic absolutism. We in Europe, America and the rest of the democratic world are not idle spectators to this ‘regional’ confrontation between Israel and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, as it so often might seem; we are on the very same front line! From the Philippines to southern Russia and from the Parisian suburbs to Sudan and Nigeria there lies the same inherent danger that is facing us all, that of Islamic terrorism.

The Palestinians are suffering, there is no doubt about that. However the blame for their horror is not to be put solely or even mostly, at the feet of the Jewish State. Countless times Israel has offered them peace and their statehood but each time their leaders have refused. With all my heart, I truly believe Israel is seeking genuine peace and friendship with its Arab neighbours which would be overwhelmingly beneficial to both sets of people. What has been done in Israel, regarding technology, human rights, living standards and wealth, can also, if peace and reconciliation is achieved, be had in Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. I ask my fellow countrymen and women why they morally attack that which is defending itself against tyranny and the suppression of human freedom, in order to champion the rights of those who bring their suffering upon themselves? Until we step away and rationalize the situation and put our support behind the true victim which fights the very same battle we are fighting, then we will remain in the downward spiral that is sucking away our morality, democracy, freedoms and indeed, our very existence.

I’m proud to call myself a friend of Israel.

~read more at Beaman’s World.



Hamas TV Rebukes the Holocaust

May 2nd, 2008 | By E.D. Kain | Category: Foreign Affairs

It’s quite common in the Islamic world, or at least in the mainstream Islamic media and vocal opinion, to forget that the Prophet Mohammad urged Muslims to live peacefully with the “people of the book” or the Christians and Jews whose faiths are the roots of Islamic belief. Haaretz reports that Hamas TV, that cheerful channel, has a new video out purporting that “Satanic Jews” were the masterminds of the Holocaust. Apparently David Ben Gurion was the ringleader.

The accompanying commentary claims that Ben Gurion said “the disabled and handicapped are a heavy burden on the state.” To rid them of that scourge, the video claims, Ben Gurion and “the Satanic Jews thought up an evil plot to be rid of the burden of disable and handicapped in twisted criminal ways.”

This disregards the whole Nazi element, of course. I imagine that Hamas believes Mein Kompf was written by Ben Gurion as well. Indeed, Holocaust denial has reached new heights in the Arab world. And it’s not limited to the “fringe” or to terrorist organizations like Hamas. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Prime Minister, who has called the Israeli actions in Gaza a Holocaust, wrote a rather laughable denial of the Nazi Holocaust before he was named Prime Minister–and called a “moderate” by many Americans and world leaders. A moderate? The sad thing is, he really is a moderate compared to Hamas. The Hamas program goes on to say:

The Holocaust “was a joke, and part of the perfect show that Ben Gurion put on,” said Amin Dabur, head of the Palestinian Center for Strategic Research organization, in the video.

These are the people we’re supposed to be dealing with to achieve peace? Jimmy Carter thought he could actually convince them that peace was in their best interests when it seems obvious to me that peace is the last thing Hamas desires. They want blood and treasure, and the only thing that allows them to get the power they need is a perpetual war against Israel.

The only way to achieve peace is to dismantle the terrorist operations in Gaza and the West Bank and deal with men who may actually want peace–men like the racist Mahmoud Abbas, as despicable as he may be.