FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Dear Muslim Public Affairs Council of the UK:

I am shocked and insulted to not have been included on your list of American Islamophobes. There is no doubt in my mind that I should appear in Category 1, “The Seed Planters”, along with those such as Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, and Steven Emerson, to whom you attribute what you believe to be the most evil possible motivation: Zionism, which even precedes religious bigotry, greed, and racism on your list of evil motivations.

My suggestion for you, is that first you read “Zionism — what it is and isn’t” so that you can use the word correctly and stop appearing to be antisemitic fools (I don’t think you can actually stop being such, but appearances are important).

Next, if you want to reduce “Islamophobia”, you can do something about UK Muslims like these:

UK Muslims protest cartoons

Finally, you can learn that “Islamophobia” (which properly should mean ‘fear of Islam’ and not ‘prejudice against or hatred of Muslims’ as you use it), is almost entirely a reaction to the violent and often murderous behavior of some Muslims — and to the approval granted that behavior by most Muslims.

You can’t have it both ways — you can’t reject Western values of free expression and tolerance, and then accuse those who point this out of racism or bigotry.

If you can’t do any of this, then please put me on your list, along with Lewis, Pipes, and Emerson. I’d be in good company.

Technorati Tags: Islamophobia, MPACUK

This morning, NPR featured a story about how the Palestinian economy is being ruined by ‘the occupation’. Checkpoints and roadblocks, Israeli restrictions on where Palestinians can build roads, etc., have made economic development impossible. The Palestinians are miserable and it’s Israel’s fault.

One might think from the report that the checkpoints, etc., have been there since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. But of course this isn’t true. Most of these were put into place as a direct result of the upsurge in terrorism that began in 2000 with the beginning of Arafat’s intifada.

These impediments wouldn’t be there if they weren’t necessary. Does the Israeli government enjoy the constant condemnation in the press and the UN? Wouldn’t it like to make the Bush administration happy? Does the average Israeli male under the age of 40 open his mailbox and say “great news — I’ll be away from my family and my job for 30 days so I can harass Palestinians at checkpoints”? Although pro-Palestinians scream when I say it, all they have to do is stop terrorism and these will go away.

Now let’s look at the Palestinian economy. Much money has been given to the Palestinians over the years for development of infrastructure for a state and an economy. In the days of Arafat it went mostly into his and his friends’ Swiss bank accounts, or was used to purchase weapons and explosives. Although Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad seems to be committed to development, the Fatah organization is still a confederation of gangs and clans who allocate funds according to nepotic principles. Even money which is allocated ‘legitimately’ mostly goes to support the ‘security’ forces, the army which the PA would like to build to confront Israel (oops — “fight terrorism”).

And this is the West Bank. In Gaza, Hamas receives large amounts of funding from Iran and other supporters, and spends it on stockpiling arms and building fortifications. The rocket business is booming! But a large part of Gazans’ income came from workers who crossed into Israel, and this has been ended as a result of terrorism — especially including attacks on the very border crossings that they used, forcing them to be closed. And a discussion of Gaza would not be complete without mentioning the greenhouses built by the expelled Jewish settlers, which were purchased by Jewish donors in the US and turned over to the Palestinians — and then torn to pieces by them.

Another aspect of the Palestinian economy in both the West Bank and Gaza is the ‘refugee economy’. There are about 1.7 million Arabs who claim refugee status living in Gaza and the West Bank. They receive aid from UNRWA, the huge organization created by the UN to maintain the refugee population. UNRWA has 27,000 employees, almost all ‘refugees’, and 10,000 of them work at its Gaza headquarters.

UNRWA’s focus on nurturing the refugee population, helping it learn the official Palestinian irredentist ideology and preventing any solution of the refugee problem other than ‘return’ is illustrative of the real reason that there is no functioning Palestinian economy, despite everything that has been poured into it:

The primary goal of the Palestinian leadership, from the Mufti through Arafat and including the present leaders of Fatah and Hamas has never been the welfare of Palestinians. First priority has always been the destruction of Israel and the removal of the Jewish presence from ‘their’ land. And as we’ve seen in the case of the refugees, they have always been prepared to sacrifice their people to advance this goal.

Technorati Tags: Palestinian economy, West Bank, Gaza, Israel

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Union for Reform Judaism’s (URJ) Religious Action Center has been a subject of my posts in the past. For example, last December he sent around a solicitation for funds to members of URJ congregations in which he listed the greatest challenges facing us as Supreme Court nominations, civil rights protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people, climate change, the international health care crisis, and finally the Middle East conflict.

Without denying the seriousness of the other ‘challenges’, it seemed strange that a solicitation from a Jewish organization would put the life-and-death struggle of Israel last, and not even mention resurgent worldwide antisemitism. I also felt that his preferred approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict — “U.S. efforts to help craft a two-state solution” — was the worst possible that wasn’t explicitly pro-Arab.

Now Rabbi Saperstein has promulgated his ‘Ten Commandments’ for the use and abuse of religion in politics, by candidates and religious organizations. Most are unexceptionable, like not imperiling a congregation’s nonprofit tax status by endorsing a particular candidate. But here is the one that I found interesting:

Thou shalt not offer an explanation to the electorate about how your religious beliefs shape or alter your views on the issues. “It is all right for candidates to refer to their religious values as having an influence, but candidates should never base a policy position only on religious beliefs. Then it becomes a faith statement.”

What he seems to be saying is that a purely religious belief — or a moral principle that is based on it — is by definition not a legitimate premise in a sound argument. A “faith statement” for Saperstein is something subjective, a matter of taste like “I like spaghetti” which doesn’t necessarily apply to anyone else.

Indeed, although he allows for ‘influence’ I suspect that he would find a candidate’s statement that his Catholic background influenced him to oppose abortion unacceptable; ‘influence’ is probably allowed only in statements like “my religious background influenced me to be honest”.

In other words, for Saperstein, religion is not an acceptable source for the moral principles that guide our reasoning about moral questions, although religious training or belief can help create a person’s character.

But obviously everyone that ever makes moral decisions has such principles. Saperstein obviously has them himself, or he wouldn’t be able to see the need for gay rights, for example. He just doesn’t want them to come from religion.

So where can they come from? I am guessing that the answer is USH: Unexamined Secular Humanism, the moral philosophy actually held by many Reform Jews and liberal Protestants (my wife calls it “the niceness religion”). Here are some principles of USH, chosen at random and by all means not exhaustive:

• Happiness is good, pain is bad
• Limiting anyone’s freedom is bad, unless it’s necessary for the overriding social good
• Every human is of equal value
• Humans are basically good; conflicts are caused by insufficient knowledge or education

You get the idea. USH is a moral system, a collection of premises that can be the basis of a moral argument. But there are other moral systems — an Orthodox Jew might choose the Shulchan Aruch, for example — and there is nothing especially privileged about USH. But the fact that it is unexamined means that its practitioners often do not understand this, and they can be quite doctrinaire and even self-righteous — like Rabbi Saperstein.

Technorati Tags: Rabbi David Saperstein, Reform Judaism, USH

I am breaking some of my rules by reprinting this. For one thing, it’s much longer than the usual blog post. For another, I mostly try to stay away from articles that are sharply partisan in American politics. But this one is too important to pass up.

The Fall of Lebanon
by Barry Rubin

“If you have tears, prepare to shed them now….
Oh, what a fall was there…
Then I, and you, and all of us fell down.”
–William Shakespeare, “Julius Caesar,” Act 3, Scene 1.

May 21, 2008, is a date — like December 7 (1941) and September 11 (2001) — that should now live in infamy. Yet who will notice, mourn, or act the wiser for it?

On that day, the Beirut spring was buried under the reign of Hizballah.

Speaking on October 5, 1938, after Britain and France effectively turned Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill said, “What everybody would like to ignore or forget must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat….”[1]

In contrast, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch said that the agreement over Lebanon was, “A necessary and positive step.” At least when one sells out a country one should recognize this has happened rather than pretend otherwise. But this is precisely what took place at Munich, when the deal made was proclaimed as a concession that brought peace and resolved Germany’s last territorial demand in the region.

Churchill knew better and his words perfectly suit the situation in Lebanon today:

“The utmost [Western diplomacy] has been able to gain for Czechoslovakia…has been that the German dictator, instead of snatching the victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course.”

Yes, that’s it exactly. On every point, Hizballah, Iran, and Syria, got all they wanted from Lebanon’s government: its surrender of sovereignty. They have veto power over the government; one-third of the cabinet; election changes to ensure victory in the next balloting; and they will have their candidate installed as president.

The majority side is not giving up but is trying to comfort itself on small mercies. The best arguments it can come up with are that now everyone knows Hizballah is not patriotic, treats other Lebanese as enemies, and cannot seize areas held by Christian and Druze militias. It isn’t much to cheer about.

Nevertheless, as in 1938, a lot of the media is proclaiming it as a victory of some kind, securing peace and stability in Lebanon.

Not so. If Syria murders more Lebanese journalists, judges, or politicians, no one will investigate. No one dare diminish Hizballah’s de facto rule over large parts of the country. No one dare stop weapons pouring over the border from Syria and Iran. In fact, why should they continue to be smuggled in secretly? No one dare interfere if and when Hizballah, under Syrian and Iranian guidance, decide it is time for another war with Israel.

This defeat was not only total, it was totally predictable. Just as Churchill said:

If only Great Britain. France and Italy [today we would add the United States, of course] had pledged themselves two or three years ago to work in association for maintaining peace and collective security, how different might have been our position… But the world and the parliaments and public opinion would have none of that in those days. When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have affected a cure.

Instead there was a lack “of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong…” Actually, though, as Churchill knew when he spoke, these faults were still not corrected. The folly continued.

And so is what comes next? Back to Churchill:

“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness.” That country suffered because it put its faith in the Western democracies and the League of Nations (now the United Nations). In particular, she was betrayed by France whom the Czechs then, and the Lebanese today, trusted to help them.

The UN Security Council on May 22 endorsed the Lebanon agreement even though it totally contradicted the Council’s own resolution ending the Hizballah-Israel war, thus betraying the commitments made to Israel about stopping arms smuggling, disarming Hizballah, and keeping that group from returning to south Lebanon. The UN’s total reversal of its demands from two years ago — constituting a total victory for Hizballah — did not bring a flicker of shame or even recognition that this in fact had happened.

All this is a victory for terrorism. It is quite true that the Lebanese Shia — like the German minority in Czechoslovakia which Hitler promoted — has genuine grievances and that Hizballah has real support in its own community. But how did it overcome the other communities, the other political forces in Lebanon? Through assassination and bombing albeit done by Syria’s surrogates rather than directly), by intimidation and fear, by demagoguery and war.

Iran and Syria help their allies; the West doesn’t. And so the message was: We can kill you; your friends cannot save you. Look at their indifference! Despair and die.

And here, regarding the future, we can only quote Churchill’s speech extensively:

In future the Czechoslovak State cannot be maintained as an independent entity. I think you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured only by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi regime. Perhaps they may join it in despair or in revenge. At any rate, that story is over and told. But we cannot consider the abandonment and ruin of Czechoslovakia in the light only of what happened only last month. It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years – five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance…

Lebanon will not disappear as a country on the map, of course — contrary to the Iranian alliance’s intentions toward Israel — but it is now going to be part of the Iranian bloc. This is not only bad for Lebanon itself but also terrifying for other Arab regimes. The Saudis deserve credit for trying to save Lebanon. But what will happen now as the balance of power shifts? They are less inclined to resist and more likely to follow the West’s course and adopt an appeasement policy.

Again, Churchill in 1938:

Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted. The road down the Danube Valley to the Black Sea, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened.

In less than four years, that is where German armies were marching, thankfully a situation far worse than we can expect in the Middle East. Yet the trend toward appeasement and surrender could well be similar. Churchill said:

In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe… will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics–not only power military politics but power economic politics–radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot.

His specific example was Yugoslavia whose government within three years was ready to join Germany’s bloc (it was prevented from doing so only by a British-organized coup but was then invaded and overrun by the German army).

Only the names of the countries need be changed to make Churchill’s point apply to the present:

“You will see, day after day, week after week [that]…many of those countries, in fear of the rise of the Nazi power,” will give in. There had been forces “which looked to the Western democracies and loathed the idea of having this arbitrary rule of the totalitarian system thrust upon them, and hoped that a stand would be made.” But they would now be demoralized.

Churchill knew that his country’s leader had good intentions but that wasn’t enough. His analysis of British thinking applies well both to Europe, to President George Bush’s current policy, and very well to the thinking of Senator Barack Obama:

The prime minister desires to see cordial relations between this country and Germany. There is no difficulty at all in having cordial relations between the peoples. Our hearts go out to them. But they have no power. But never will you have friendship with the present German government. You must have diplomatic and correct relations, but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which…vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy.

Churchill understood that his nation’s enemies took their ideology seriously and that their ambitions and methods were incompatible with his country.

And finally, Churchill understood the trend: things will get worse and would even make it politically incorrect to criticize the enemy:

In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the press, for it will be said–indeed, I hear it said sometimes now — that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticized by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.

In short, what could be called “Germanophobia” or seen as war-mongering in resisting German demands and aggression would be… verboten, something often seen in contemporary debates when political correctness trumps democratic society and pimps for dictatorial regimes and totalitarian ideology.

Churchill predicted victory but only if the free countries — and even some not so free whose interests pushed them to oppose the threat — were strong and cooperated:

Do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.

Wow. Well if you don’t see yet the parallelism with the current time let me continue on my own. Lebanon’s brief period of independence has ended. Lebanon is now incorporated — at least in part and probably more in the future — into the Iranian bloc.

(more…)