A response to Brad A. Greenberg's article in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in May of 2007. Greenberg's article can be found at www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17734
The Pew research center recently published a survey on Muslims in America with some startling results. Some I have spoken with looked at this poll and decided that American Muslims are for the most part well adjusted and committed to the American dream. While the survey indicated this might indeed be the case for many, maybe even a majority, the disturbing fact is that it also showed that along with the positive Muslim contribution to American society comes with it an evil which hides beneath the surface of that community, waiting like a jackal, watching, calculating, looking for just the right moment to strike.
It is paramount that Americans do not ignore the dangers that the survey clearly outlines.
No one really knows how many Muslims live in America. Estimates range from two to eight million. But, the statistics from this poll were all based on that low figure. So for our purposes we will use the low end of the estimate.
26% of American Muslims under the age of thirty think suicide bombing is justified in some situations. Let me re-write that so we can all be clear. One in four American Muslims under the age of thirty think that suicide bombing is OK. If you take the time to do the math 26% roughly works out to a bare minimum of 200,000 individuals in America who would potentially support, advocate and might even carry out suicide attacks inside our own country.
Ahmed Billoo is a twenty two year old American Muslim student, who looks about as normal as any other twenty-two year old American. He grew up in an upper middle class home, is respectful to his parents and plays soccer with his friends on weekends. Just like your kid or mine, right? Wrong. Ahmed Billoo supports Jihadi movements around the world. And, while he stops short of advocating using Jihadi techniques himself, he supports others who use it to obtain their objectives. He says depending on the situation, taking one’s life in the name of Jihad while murdering innocent people at the same time is the ultimate sacrifice for Islam and it is a blessing to take innocent people with you when doing it.
Billoo was the focus of an article in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal in which the author Brad A. Greenberg chose to smooth over Billoo’s unsettling comments. Since Billoo hasn’t actually killed anybody himself that we know of, his comments might be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless Billoo’s philosophy is apparently a growing trend among Muslims here in the United States. Greenberg asked Islamic expert Daniel Pipes to explain the phenomenon. "What you have is a low-wage jihad taking place, but people are not paying attention to it. These sentiments are seething, and at any time might erupt." Are we in danger? Dr. Pipes thinks we are.
Billoo, probably sensing the discomfort Americans might have reading his words, softened his position of excusing suicide bombing. "Muslim or not Muslim, we all fear death. Blowing yourself up is not something everyone can do or something that everyone has the courage to do. I'm not saying we should all go around America doing that;” and then qualifies the admission by saying that “Palestine is a different situation.” In other words it’s not Ok to kill Americans, yet, but at this time it is perfectly acceptable to kill Jews. Aside from the fact that killing Jews smacks of twentieth century brutalities we don’t need to go into here, how long I would ask will it be until Billoo’s type will think it is in the American Jihadist’s interest to start murdering Americans on the same scale it now indiscriminately murders men, women and children inside the State of Israel?
I contacted Daniel Pipes and asked him to elaborate on the comments he made in the article as to how the Billoo archetype could happen in a free, affluent America, whether Muslim or not. Pipes did not think that lifestyle had anything to do with the commitment to Jihad which makes it all the more dangerous. “It’s no surprise, given the power of radical Islam and the statistics we have from the UK ; that this rage and bellicosity is unrelated to sociology (poverty, age, etc.).” After all, we now know that the 9-11 killers were not driven through politics but through religion. The obvious conclusion to Dr. Pipes assertions is that Ahmed Billoo, and all like him are exactly the kinds of Muslims we should be taking a hard look at. Why are we not doing that?
Some have argued moral equivalencies while discussing the merits of this poll. Moral equivalency always seems to make an appearance in discussing the rights and wrongs of the Muslim world. We who live under the Christian Judeo concept which has brought democracy and freedom to all who are willing to struggle for it need to send a statement to those who make such equivalencies, that it is not acceptable to plan, target or execute acts of war which deliberately murder innocent women and children. The Achmad Billoo’s of the world need to be condemned, not tolerated.
I shudder at the day when America and the rest of the West rejoices with the Muslim world dancing and throwing candy in the streets at the brutality that has become to be known as Jihad. The beheading of journalists on the Internet, the blood sport of blowing up pizza parlors, indeed the wholesale slaughter of 3000 Americans while innocently sipping their morning Java must never be accepted as "just warfare." Taking a glass-half-full approach to the Pew Research findings dangerously flirts with such notions. This survey is a wakeup call. We must turn this around before it is too late. Not to will be end of history as we know it.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
The World According to Yitzhak Rosenstein
A fictional story about an Israeli father and son. With homage to James Michener, the historical references are true but the people in the story are completely fictitious. Those familiar with the history of the State of Israel will appreciate the candor of the story. I hope you enjoy it.
By Ya'cov Rosenne
Yitzhak had survived Hitler's ovens and in 1943 was one of the survivors of the Sorbibor breakout. He spent the rest of the war fighting with partisans, confounding the Nazis, hurting and killing them whenever he could. All the time he spent in this situation he began to think about Palestine. He had wanted to go there since he was a child. He had decided that if he survives the war he would make his way to and help build the Jewish homeland. In 1945 the war ended and he found his way to a Haganna headquarters in Warsaw. They told him of an underground railroad that was sneaking Jews into Palestine under British noses. Code name: Bricha. That is how Yitzhak got into Palestine.
When he arrived he settled in the Carmel section of Haifa. There were so many Polish Jews there. He was able to survive with his Yiddish until he learned enough Hebrew. The Bricha system outfitted him with papers and a new name. He went to work at the oil refinery, the only refinery in Palestine. While he worked there he got interested in politics. He rose to be the representative of the refinery for the Haifa Workers Council, the arm of the Histadrut in Haifa. Yitzhak made many friends there. He was very likable. Both Arabs and Jews grew to respect Yitzhak’s leadership. There was harmony among the workers of Haifa. Everyone pulled together. It was a good thing.
Then the partition vote in November of 1947 gave the Jews a legitimate right to a small piece of the Palestine Mandate. The partition designated two states out of Palestine one Arab and one Jewish. The Jews accepted. After 2000 years there was going to be a sovereign Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Arabs did not accept and began immediately attacking Jews in the streets and in the country side. Overnight people who were friendly now were enemies. During the month of December 1947 things were very bad for the Jews. They did not expect such a violent reaction from their Arab neighbors. They had miscalculated. This cost the Jews dearly during that month. On a cold morning at the end of December, the Arab military contingent in Haifa led by Mohammed Hamad al-Huneiti, attacked the refinery. Yitzhak and his friends fought bravely but did not have many weapons. Yitzhak was one of the few survivors. Forty-one Jews died that day. It was an ugly scene after it was over. Bodies and body parts were strewn all over the refinery floor where the battle took place. After they killed the Jews, the Arabs took large knives and mutilated the bodies. It was awful.
Yitzhak, undaunted by this display of barbarism by Haifa's Arabs knew deeply in his heart that they could live together as they had been, side by side after the Jewish State would be declared. Even though partition had included Haifa as part of the Jewish State the Arabs were not going to go quietly. The Jews then decided to take the city by force. For two months, fighting raged in the streets between the Haganna and the Arab forces. Yitzhak took up his old partisan stance and did his fair share of heroics. But at meetings he always emphasized the importance of relaying to the Arabs after they were defeated, to stay. To continue working along side their Jewish neighbors. The Haifa Workers Council responded to Yitzhak in positive terms. Out of 12 men only one was insistent on letting the Arabs go.
In mid April Yitzhak accompanied Moshe Carmel and Mordachai Makleff, the Haganna commanders of the Haifa forces, to the offices of General Stockwell, the British mandating authority over Haifa. Stockwell had called a meeting between the Jewish and Arab leaders to see if he could stop the fighting. Now that the Jews were taking the upper hand he knew he may have a chance for a cease fire. The Arabs rejected the terms. Stockwell, was beside himself. He felt the terms were fair. He pleaded with the Arabs to change their minds. They refused. Once again Yitzhak was not deterred by this intransigent reaction from the Arab leaders.
Yitzhak's call to keep Arab integrity intact in Haifa spread through the community. Haifa's Jewish mayor called out to the Arab residents that if they accept the terms of surrender they would be welcomed to stay and help build the city together. They received only negative responses. The Jews continued to take the city by force. Arabs fled in terror from Jewish reprisals for the brutal attack on the refinery back in December. Yitzhak, called an emergency meeting of the Haifa Workers Council. Even as Arabs poured out of the city the council delivered pamphlets. One last ditch effort to try to persuade the Arab population to stay. Most of them unfortunately did not.
For years afterwards Yitzhak blamed himself for not trying harder to persuade the Arabs not to leave. He lied awake at nights running the events over and over again in his mind. What could he have done differently? He was always an advocate of trying to reconcile with the Arab states. To work for peace now was the only answer to Yitzhak's guilt.
In 1952 he befriended an Arab leader from Abu Ganeim on the eastern side of Lake Kinneret. He worked with this man for six months in hopes that they could together once again bring peace to their two peoples. Then Arab hooligans murdered the man. They carved into his chest a Magan David to show the man was a traitor. Yitzhak could not believe that the Arabs had once again destroyed their own hopes for regaining their self respect. Over the years other individual Arabs were killed the same way for the same reasons. In 1962 while Yitzhak was visiting some friends in the North during Tubish'vat, he was downed by a terrorist's bullet.
His life was ended by the people he had worked for the last twenty years to save. It was an ironic end to such a giving life. He loved Israel. Saw it as the redemption of the Jewish people.
He was a good man
He was my father.
I love you Abba,
Ya'cov
By Ya'cov Rosenne
Yitzhak had survived Hitler's ovens and in 1943 was one of the survivors of the Sorbibor breakout. He spent the rest of the war fighting with partisans, confounding the Nazis, hurting and killing them whenever he could. All the time he spent in this situation he began to think about Palestine. He had wanted to go there since he was a child. He had decided that if he survives the war he would make his way to and help build the Jewish homeland. In 1945 the war ended and he found his way to a Haganna headquarters in Warsaw. They told him of an underground railroad that was sneaking Jews into Palestine under British noses. Code name: Bricha. That is how Yitzhak got into Palestine.
When he arrived he settled in the Carmel section of Haifa. There were so many Polish Jews there. He was able to survive with his Yiddish until he learned enough Hebrew. The Bricha system outfitted him with papers and a new name. He went to work at the oil refinery, the only refinery in Palestine. While he worked there he got interested in politics. He rose to be the representative of the refinery for the Haifa Workers Council, the arm of the Histadrut in Haifa. Yitzhak made many friends there. He was very likable. Both Arabs and Jews grew to respect Yitzhak’s leadership. There was harmony among the workers of Haifa. Everyone pulled together. It was a good thing.
Then the partition vote in November of 1947 gave the Jews a legitimate right to a small piece of the Palestine Mandate. The partition designated two states out of Palestine one Arab and one Jewish. The Jews accepted. After 2000 years there was going to be a sovereign Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Arabs did not accept and began immediately attacking Jews in the streets and in the country side. Overnight people who were friendly now were enemies. During the month of December 1947 things were very bad for the Jews. They did not expect such a violent reaction from their Arab neighbors. They had miscalculated. This cost the Jews dearly during that month. On a cold morning at the end of December, the Arab military contingent in Haifa led by Mohammed Hamad al-Huneiti, attacked the refinery. Yitzhak and his friends fought bravely but did not have many weapons. Yitzhak was one of the few survivors. Forty-one Jews died that day. It was an ugly scene after it was over. Bodies and body parts were strewn all over the refinery floor where the battle took place. After they killed the Jews, the Arabs took large knives and mutilated the bodies. It was awful.
Yitzhak, undaunted by this display of barbarism by Haifa's Arabs knew deeply in his heart that they could live together as they had been, side by side after the Jewish State would be declared. Even though partition had included Haifa as part of the Jewish State the Arabs were not going to go quietly. The Jews then decided to take the city by force. For two months, fighting raged in the streets between the Haganna and the Arab forces. Yitzhak took up his old partisan stance and did his fair share of heroics. But at meetings he always emphasized the importance of relaying to the Arabs after they were defeated, to stay. To continue working along side their Jewish neighbors. The Haifa Workers Council responded to Yitzhak in positive terms. Out of 12 men only one was insistent on letting the Arabs go.
In mid April Yitzhak accompanied Moshe Carmel and Mordachai Makleff, the Haganna commanders of the Haifa forces, to the offices of General Stockwell, the British mandating authority over Haifa. Stockwell had called a meeting between the Jewish and Arab leaders to see if he could stop the fighting. Now that the Jews were taking the upper hand he knew he may have a chance for a cease fire. The Arabs rejected the terms. Stockwell, was beside himself. He felt the terms were fair. He pleaded with the Arabs to change their minds. They refused. Once again Yitzhak was not deterred by this intransigent reaction from the Arab leaders.
Yitzhak's call to keep Arab integrity intact in Haifa spread through the community. Haifa's Jewish mayor called out to the Arab residents that if they accept the terms of surrender they would be welcomed to stay and help build the city together. They received only negative responses. The Jews continued to take the city by force. Arabs fled in terror from Jewish reprisals for the brutal attack on the refinery back in December. Yitzhak, called an emergency meeting of the Haifa Workers Council. Even as Arabs poured out of the city the council delivered pamphlets. One last ditch effort to try to persuade the Arab population to stay. Most of them unfortunately did not.
For years afterwards Yitzhak blamed himself for not trying harder to persuade the Arabs not to leave. He lied awake at nights running the events over and over again in his mind. What could he have done differently? He was always an advocate of trying to reconcile with the Arab states. To work for peace now was the only answer to Yitzhak's guilt.
In 1952 he befriended an Arab leader from Abu Ganeim on the eastern side of Lake Kinneret. He worked with this man for six months in hopes that they could together once again bring peace to their two peoples. Then Arab hooligans murdered the man. They carved into his chest a Magan David to show the man was a traitor. Yitzhak could not believe that the Arabs had once again destroyed their own hopes for regaining their self respect. Over the years other individual Arabs were killed the same way for the same reasons. In 1962 while Yitzhak was visiting some friends in the North during Tubish'vat, he was downed by a terrorist's bullet.
His life was ended by the people he had worked for the last twenty years to save. It was an ironic end to such a giving life. He loved Israel. Saw it as the redemption of the Jewish people.
He was a good man
He was my father.
I love you Abba,
Ya'cov
Monday, May 21, 2007
Who Will Be For Me?
A depressing explanation on the state of illegal immigration during the 2008 presidential campaign. With the field of candidates it appeared that saving the sovereignty of this country was in definite jeopardy. Written in May of 2007.
In a recent exchange with a friend he told me that he was supporting politicians like Joe Lieberman, Rudy Juliani and John McCain because of their tough stance on the Jihadi threat. The following is how I answered him:
There is another major issue confronting us as Americans that needs to be addressed and that is the border issue. Next to the coming clash with Islam this is probably the single most important issue on the table for Americans. At least two of the three mentioned above are full on "open borders" guys. I am not sure what Lieberman's position is on illegal immigration but the other two are clearly not seeing the danger to our sovereignty. And since both of them are presidential candidates it is important that they understand what is at stake if they continue to count on the present Gerorge Bush coarse if one of them are elected.
Recently though I've begun to see some chinks in the armor of their positions. Traveling around the country, especially in Iowa where they will kick off the primary campaign, people have been clamoring for a clarification on this issue. Clearly, Americans, not just here in southern California, are beginning to demand that something constructive be done with this situation before it is too late. And, the politicians are beginning to listen. McCain has backed away from joining Ted Kennedy this year in an amnesty bill. I read Juliani is also beginning to soften his stance on blanket amnesty now that he is getting a taste of the frustration that Americans are feeling on the problem.
If you are waffling on the issue and really don't think it is as important as the jihadist issue I would urge you to consider the following. Open borders to the south will mean that anyone can come into this country undetected. For all we know they are already here from the Bush policy since 9-11. There are reports that Hizbollah and al Queda are setting up safe houses and underground railroad routes to enter their scumbag soldiers into our country with the help of the Mexican Mafia, and other like underworld gangs. Furthermore, if the rest of the country becomes like Southern California south of Santa Barbara to the border we will become a different country. Have you been to Maywood, Cudahy or Anaheim lately? We will quickly lose our ability to defend ourselves. And, leave ourselves open to attack from the bigger enemy, Jihadist Islam. Can you imagine Mexico as the world's protector of Western Judeo Christian values?
It is imperative to look for and support candidates who have clear cut policy positions on these two issues. It doesn't matter what party you are affiliated with, there are open and close border advocates in both parties. I believe that this is going to be a two issue presidential election, terror and the wide open southern border. Terror has to be first that much is clear, but I would urge you to seek out candidates who are strong on fighting both terror and illegal immigration before backing any candidate for any office in 2008.
Larry
In a recent exchange with a friend he told me that he was supporting politicians like Joe Lieberman, Rudy Juliani and John McCain because of their tough stance on the Jihadi threat. The following is how I answered him:
There is another major issue confronting us as Americans that needs to be addressed and that is the border issue. Next to the coming clash with Islam this is probably the single most important issue on the table for Americans. At least two of the three mentioned above are full on "open borders" guys. I am not sure what Lieberman's position is on illegal immigration but the other two are clearly not seeing the danger to our sovereignty. And since both of them are presidential candidates it is important that they understand what is at stake if they continue to count on the present Gerorge Bush coarse if one of them are elected.
Recently though I've begun to see some chinks in the armor of their positions. Traveling around the country, especially in Iowa where they will kick off the primary campaign, people have been clamoring for a clarification on this issue. Clearly, Americans, not just here in southern California, are beginning to demand that something constructive be done with this situation before it is too late. And, the politicians are beginning to listen. McCain has backed away from joining Ted Kennedy this year in an amnesty bill. I read Juliani is also beginning to soften his stance on blanket amnesty now that he is getting a taste of the frustration that Americans are feeling on the problem.
If you are waffling on the issue and really don't think it is as important as the jihadist issue I would urge you to consider the following. Open borders to the south will mean that anyone can come into this country undetected. For all we know they are already here from the Bush policy since 9-11. There are reports that Hizbollah and al Queda are setting up safe houses and underground railroad routes to enter their scumbag soldiers into our country with the help of the Mexican Mafia, and other like underworld gangs. Furthermore, if the rest of the country becomes like Southern California south of Santa Barbara to the border we will become a different country. Have you been to Maywood, Cudahy or Anaheim lately? We will quickly lose our ability to defend ourselves. And, leave ourselves open to attack from the bigger enemy, Jihadist Islam. Can you imagine Mexico as the world's protector of Western Judeo Christian values?
It is imperative to look for and support candidates who have clear cut policy positions on these two issues. It doesn't matter what party you are affiliated with, there are open and close border advocates in both parties. I believe that this is going to be a two issue presidential election, terror and the wide open southern border. Terror has to be first that much is clear, but I would urge you to seek out candidates who are strong on fighting both terror and illegal immigration before backing any candidate for any office in 2008.
Larry
The American Nazi Party 1970
A true story of an experience I had as a young man. Some of this is embellished to make the story more interesting because my life was so pitifully boring during that time, but most of it is true. Originally written in the early 1980s, I hope you like it.
Recently I was reminded of some memories of a personal experience with the "American Nazi Party" I would like to share with all of you. The year was 1970. I was working while in college at a record and music store in downtown Los Angeles. Growing up in that city I never really came into contact with real live "Nazis" before. But it was no secret to the Jewish community and others that they had their Southern California headquarters located in Glendale. For those of you who are not familiar with the Los Angeles area, Glendale is a small incorporated city adjacent to L.A.
Anyway there was very little warning, not like what you have today. Around lunch time the street became buzzing with the fact that the Nazis were going to march right down Broadway and past my store. I have to point out here that this area was heavily traveled by immigrant groups. The most prevalent being, even for 1970, were the Mexicans. That part of downtown catered to the people of East L.A. Every where you walked you heard the blaring of Mariachi Music (indigenous folk music to Mexico). The smell of Mexican food wafted down the street and attacked your senses, sending images of Mexican culture, surrounding you at every turn. Spanish was heard frequently. I myself had to be bilingual to work in the store that employed me. It was a bit unusual as most of the employees of this area were from the "Barrios." How a nice Jewish boy from Pico/Robertson ended up working there is another story. But I digress. There were all the other minority groups there too. Asians, Blacks and of course our own people who usually were the proprietors of most of these shops that lined the blvd.
Upon hearing this news my skin began to crawl, I became tense, I had a feeling that trouble was looming ahead. When I was young, I was volatile, passionate and always ready for a fight if the cause was just. I had the feeling that I always get, just before the pugilist inside gets the better of me. I was scared that something awful was going to happen. Around 1:30 PM the little Armenian kid from the cigar stand next door came running in yelling "Larry, here they come. There coming down the street, come on, come on!" The owner of the store, who was a Holocaust survivor, was standing at the counter opposite me. I dropped what I was doing and started to walk to the front of the store. Our eyes met and locked. He did not say anything and never spoke about it afterward but I felt as if he was giving me his blessing to go and do what was necessary. He knew I was a Jew. He knew I could handle myself, as on more than one occasion I had bodily thrown out the local riffraff that was making trouble in the store. For that split second I felt a connection, a kinship, with our people who too late, fell into the Nazi grasp and were not able to do enough about it to make a difference. The ghosts of that past were urging me on through this one man's eyes who I am sure if he had been younger and healthier would have joined me on that walk out to the front of store.
When I came out the door, I looked down the block which was filled with people as it always was. About a block away rising over the sea of humanity several red flags were bobbing slightly up and down in a standard rhythm. As they came closer the "Swastika" was plainly in view. A familiar lump appeared in my throat. They were closer now, I could see them clearly. The were all dressed up in Brown shirted uniforms complete with the "Swastika" armband. They looked authentic all right. Right down to their spit and polish Jack boots which they were strutting in the goose step that was a trademark of the German Army. What was coming down the street in color I had seen many times before in black and white in the newsreels as they would bully there way down busy German streets before they came to power. It was Kafka-esque to be sure. As they came closer I could see their faces. The front of the line was where they strategically put the biggest guys. If there was violence they wanted these big, ugly looking red necks up there where they could hopefully crack enough heads to get them through any trouble that might arise. This one guy I remember was marching down the street with a smile on his face like he was enjoying the whole thing. He was just waiting for someone to make a move. That's what he was there for.
They were now about three or four doors away. I would say there was probably between 25 or 30 of them marching two by two. They carried placards with the usual racist stuff that you would expect the Nazis to incite with. Most of it was against Mexicans and other Spanish speaking people. Since this was an area that catered to Latin culture they thought it would be a good idea to have lots of insulting stuff about Mexicans. Oh, and of course I saw at least two signs about us in there. They couldn't have a march anywhere without saying something about the Jews.
They were close enough now that I could see the pimples on their faces. The scars of previous fights and the beads of sweat that were beginning to show on some of them. As they approached my muscles tightened and my fists clenched. I had decided that if trouble started I was going to go after "Smily" in the front of the line. The laws of the street say to always go after the biggest ones first. You always better your odds that way. Usually when things would get to this point, I would be concentrating too hard for me to hear anything else other than my own breathing. But something stopped me.
I heard the crowd shouting back at them. There was a groundswell of anger being directed right at them. It suddenly dawned on me that I was not alone. There were many people out there that hated what I hated. And they were expressing it in a way that only Latin tempers can do. It was beautiful. I fell back and relaxed. I let them pass because I knew they were going to have to end their little exhibition soon or they would be terribly outnumbered from the people on the street. With each step they took the crowd seemed to get louder and moved closer to them. They passed me without incident but as they were going by I saw real fear from the guys who were pulling up the rear. One young man in his early twenties seemed genuinely scared as his eyes kept darting back and forth as if an attempt to watch every move the crowd made. That was quite a contrast from that big, ugly smiling redneck they had in front. The irony of how fast the scene went from something the Nazis could control and remain confident to one where they looked intimidated and scared, is something that sticks in my mind to this day. That guy on the end looked like he would have rather been anywhere else at that moment other than in that line.
About twenty yards past my store bedlam broke. I saw the flags with the "Swastikas" go down first. Fists were flying every where and people were screaming. Non combatants were running from the scene to avoid possibly getting hurt. Every single one of the Nazis went down. None of them escaped at least minor injury. I did not partake in those activities as I was content to be a spectator. I was just too amazed that so many people could get so pissed off at one time at the people who were my mortal enemies. There were old ladies and people in wheel chairs getting into it. It was really a sight. The LAPD had their work cut out for them in breaking it up. The Nazis were taught a lesson that day. They were sent back to Glendale licking their wounds, like the dogs that they are. Its too bad some of them didn't die.
I learned something that day too. The Nazis will never be able to gain any kind of foothold here in America. Americans are just too smart for that. I believe that as long as we keep our democratic principals, groups like the KKK, the Nazis, and the Aryan Brotherhood will always remain small and at the very outskirts of our society, lest they get their butts kicked.
Recently I was reminded of some memories of a personal experience with the "American Nazi Party" I would like to share with all of you. The year was 1970. I was working while in college at a record and music store in downtown Los Angeles. Growing up in that city I never really came into contact with real live "Nazis" before. But it was no secret to the Jewish community and others that they had their Southern California headquarters located in Glendale. For those of you who are not familiar with the Los Angeles area, Glendale is a small incorporated city adjacent to L.A.
Anyway there was very little warning, not like what you have today. Around lunch time the street became buzzing with the fact that the Nazis were going to march right down Broadway and past my store. I have to point out here that this area was heavily traveled by immigrant groups. The most prevalent being, even for 1970, were the Mexicans. That part of downtown catered to the people of East L.A. Every where you walked you heard the blaring of Mariachi Music (indigenous folk music to Mexico). The smell of Mexican food wafted down the street and attacked your senses, sending images of Mexican culture, surrounding you at every turn. Spanish was heard frequently. I myself had to be bilingual to work in the store that employed me. It was a bit unusual as most of the employees of this area were from the "Barrios." How a nice Jewish boy from Pico/Robertson ended up working there is another story. But I digress. There were all the other minority groups there too. Asians, Blacks and of course our own people who usually were the proprietors of most of these shops that lined the blvd.
Upon hearing this news my skin began to crawl, I became tense, I had a feeling that trouble was looming ahead. When I was young, I was volatile, passionate and always ready for a fight if the cause was just. I had the feeling that I always get, just before the pugilist inside gets the better of me. I was scared that something awful was going to happen. Around 1:30 PM the little Armenian kid from the cigar stand next door came running in yelling "Larry, here they come. There coming down the street, come on, come on!" The owner of the store, who was a Holocaust survivor, was standing at the counter opposite me. I dropped what I was doing and started to walk to the front of the store. Our eyes met and locked. He did not say anything and never spoke about it afterward but I felt as if he was giving me his blessing to go and do what was necessary. He knew I was a Jew. He knew I could handle myself, as on more than one occasion I had bodily thrown out the local riffraff that was making trouble in the store. For that split second I felt a connection, a kinship, with our people who too late, fell into the Nazi grasp and were not able to do enough about it to make a difference. The ghosts of that past were urging me on through this one man's eyes who I am sure if he had been younger and healthier would have joined me on that walk out to the front of store.
When I came out the door, I looked down the block which was filled with people as it always was. About a block away rising over the sea of humanity several red flags were bobbing slightly up and down in a standard rhythm. As they came closer the "Swastika" was plainly in view. A familiar lump appeared in my throat. They were closer now, I could see them clearly. The were all dressed up in Brown shirted uniforms complete with the "Swastika" armband. They looked authentic all right. Right down to their spit and polish Jack boots which they were strutting in the goose step that was a trademark of the German Army. What was coming down the street in color I had seen many times before in black and white in the newsreels as they would bully there way down busy German streets before they came to power. It was Kafka-esque to be sure. As they came closer I could see their faces. The front of the line was where they strategically put the biggest guys. If there was violence they wanted these big, ugly looking red necks up there where they could hopefully crack enough heads to get them through any trouble that might arise. This one guy I remember was marching down the street with a smile on his face like he was enjoying the whole thing. He was just waiting for someone to make a move. That's what he was there for.
They were now about three or four doors away. I would say there was probably between 25 or 30 of them marching two by two. They carried placards with the usual racist stuff that you would expect the Nazis to incite with. Most of it was against Mexicans and other Spanish speaking people. Since this was an area that catered to Latin culture they thought it would be a good idea to have lots of insulting stuff about Mexicans. Oh, and of course I saw at least two signs about us in there. They couldn't have a march anywhere without saying something about the Jews.
They were close enough now that I could see the pimples on their faces. The scars of previous fights and the beads of sweat that were beginning to show on some of them. As they approached my muscles tightened and my fists clenched. I had decided that if trouble started I was going to go after "Smily" in the front of the line. The laws of the street say to always go after the biggest ones first. You always better your odds that way. Usually when things would get to this point, I would be concentrating too hard for me to hear anything else other than my own breathing. But something stopped me.
I heard the crowd shouting back at them. There was a groundswell of anger being directed right at them. It suddenly dawned on me that I was not alone. There were many people out there that hated what I hated. And they were expressing it in a way that only Latin tempers can do. It was beautiful. I fell back and relaxed. I let them pass because I knew they were going to have to end their little exhibition soon or they would be terribly outnumbered from the people on the street. With each step they took the crowd seemed to get louder and moved closer to them. They passed me without incident but as they were going by I saw real fear from the guys who were pulling up the rear. One young man in his early twenties seemed genuinely scared as his eyes kept darting back and forth as if an attempt to watch every move the crowd made. That was quite a contrast from that big, ugly smiling redneck they had in front. The irony of how fast the scene went from something the Nazis could control and remain confident to one where they looked intimidated and scared, is something that sticks in my mind to this day. That guy on the end looked like he would have rather been anywhere else at that moment other than in that line.
About twenty yards past my store bedlam broke. I saw the flags with the "Swastikas" go down first. Fists were flying every where and people were screaming. Non combatants were running from the scene to avoid possibly getting hurt. Every single one of the Nazis went down. None of them escaped at least minor injury. I did not partake in those activities as I was content to be a spectator. I was just too amazed that so many people could get so pissed off at one time at the people who were my mortal enemies. There were old ladies and people in wheel chairs getting into it. It was really a sight. The LAPD had their work cut out for them in breaking it up. The Nazis were taught a lesson that day. They were sent back to Glendale licking their wounds, like the dogs that they are. Its too bad some of them didn't die.
I learned something that day too. The Nazis will never be able to gain any kind of foothold here in America. Americans are just too smart for that. I believe that as long as we keep our democratic principals, groups like the KKK, the Nazis, and the Aryan Brotherhood will always remain small and at the very outskirts of our society, lest they get their butts kicked.
Amy Klein's Passover Message
A rebuttal to an article published around Passover time in the Jewish Journal, April, 2007. For the complete text of Ms. Klein's article "Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles" go to:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/freeing_the_slaves_in_
los_angeles_20070330/
Her picture shines at the top of the page, unassuming, kind, gentle completely unthreatening. The article begins by explaining the horrible conditions of how this deserving young woman was forced to endure an undeserving living condition when she first came to the United States. She told of the loss of a child back in Mexico because she “didn’t have the money to save her.” She promised herself that would never happen again and that her three surviving children’s lives would be different from now on. With typical unwavering rugged individualism that is so admired in American culture, she came determined to make that change. Unfortunately her plans didn’t work out. She hooked up with some ner-do-well who outfitted her in a sweatshop in some dingy unsafe factory setting in downtown Los Angeles. She was not allowed to go and come as she pleased. She was at the complete mercy of her handler. She earned pennies on the dollar to what others earned doing relatively the same work. A faceless coworker took pity on her and slipped here a phone number one day. This was the beginning of her way out. With the cunning of a natural human soul yearning to be free she eventually convinced her overseer to allow her to go to church. Instead, she went directly to a phone booth and called the still nameless, faceless hero. She was out, and she never looked back!
This is a paraphrased account of Amy Klein’s “Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles,” published in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in March, 2007. It is during Passover time when Jews remember how it was to live as slaves in Egypt. Ms. Klein’s portrait of modern day slavery was meant to bring the feeling home for Jews remembering the humbleness of their origins. If any one isn’t free, are any of us free? That is pretty heady stuff for Jews to assimilate, especially during Passover time.
The young woman showcased in the article was commended for her determination, strength of character, and the ability to endure against, what was apparently, all odds. Her name was Flor and Ms. Klein labeled this a story of modern slavery. Americans in general are particularly sensitive about slavery in their country since they fought a war over it 150 years ago with ramifications that still reverberate through American life. Flor made it out, but how many remain? That is the question that Ms. Klein wanted to convey to the Jewish community during the Passover holiday.
Those are good questions and they should be looked into but there are so many problems with the tenor and direction of this story I hardly know where to begin with this critique. Let me start by asking some questions. Is this really slavery as we have come to know the word? Flor was not taken from her home forcibly, she came of her own free will. In other places where slavery is a confirmed problem, like the Sudan for example, slavery is a brutal, vicious condition that cannot be denied. Iabolish.org writes that in the Sudan,
--------militiamen destroy villages and take their pay in human booty. Grown men are shot, but women and children are the marauders' most prized reward. Forced labor without pay, severe beatings, acute hunger, forced religious and cultural conversion, rape, and ritual female genital mutilation are grim realities for the tens of thousands of children and young mothers now in bondage.-----------
Yes, Flor was treated unfairly but her experience doesn’t reflect the inhumanity described above. She was forced to work long hours, and I’m sure her treatment was a crime but, again is this slavery? Slaves aren’t generally paid for their work but Ms. Klein indicated Flor received pay, even though she was cheated out of some of that money which only adds to the crime already committed. “Her trafficker wrote up her pay stub for only a few hours' work and made Flor sign it.” Slaves in the Arab world , as they were historically here in the United States and elsewhere, are never paid for their work.
Were any black people interviewed for this story? I think the black community might have a problem calling this “slavery” the same way Jews might have a problem with the ease of how the word “Holocaust” is used in today’s lexicon. “The Israelis are committing a holocaust against our people (The Palestinians).” Yasser Arafat, 2003.
Ms. Klein seems to be selective in her condemnation of the problem. “Traffickers sell slaves to Europe, Israel and, increasingly, to North America.” It is entirely suspect that the Arab world is left out of this equation. I only used the Sudan as an example above, but a relatively easy Internet search will reveal that slavery in the Arab world is wide spread and strong. And it exists in its most barbaric forms. Almost every international human rights group lists slavery in the Arab world as a huge problem. I can’t believe that this was just some editorial oversight. It is noteworthy that only the west is mentioned as a proponent of modern day slavery. We here in the free world allow the worst form of human bondage imaginable. And, that according to Ms. Klein is embodied in Flor’s story. Outrageous!
But, Ms. Klein, in her mind set wanted to draw attention to the problem, but the solutions she gave naively will not solve it. She does not identify the real source. Instead she by passes it and blames the problem on Western values. If we want to eliminate American slavery as exposed by the Flors of the world then we must attack the problem at its source. That is the runaway, chaotic, anarchy that exists on the Southern open border of the United States. There are so many serious cultural and legal issues arising out of our de facto open border policy that Flor’s predicament is only the tip of the iceberg. The increase in crime across the board and our inability to combat it is seriously eroding the quality of life in this country. America, in certain microcosmic areas is beginning to show signs of disintegrating. Southern California is one of those examples that the rest of the country can look to if they want to understand exactly how serious this problem has become. One only has to study the siphoning off of revenue to other social services to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves to understand the desperate situation in education, health care, police and fire, road building and repair. All social, political and economic services are affected by this problem. Illegals coming from south of the border just like Flor cover a large portion of that population.
I wondered, as I was reading, why there was no mention of racism. Surely in an anti Western accusation such as this there has to be room for racism. It just wouldn't be complete without it. Did Ms. Klein forget to include it? I fully expected to see it sometime before I finished the article. And, then I come across this, “Flor's trafficker is a cousin of the mayor of her hometown.” One can only imagine the field day that Ms. Klein would have had if Flor’s trafficker would have been white. It would have increased the length of the piece at least three paragraphs.
Ms. Klein points to several Los Angeles politicians who are working hard to see that Flor and all others like her are to be set free. “On Jan. 11, (Councilman Eric) Garcetti, Councilman Tony Cardenas and LAPD Chief William Bratton gathered with other officials to announce the declaration of National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.” What a pompous gathering that must have been. Those three gentlemen are part of Ms Klein’s America that says we do not need to be concerned about illegal immigration. They support special order no. 40 which forbids police from investigating a criminal’s immigration status. They support legislation which promotes and continues to strengthen an already out of control sanctuary policy for L.A. They refuse to do anything about the problem usually citing it as federal government responsibility. That’s the George Bush government that claims "they only do the jobs that Americans won’t do." I wrote to all three cited in the article asking for clarification and none would respond to my query. I don’t know if they are just plain cowards or they actually share some hidden delight in watching American sovereignty disintegrate with each passing year.
There was more than one crime committed in this story. First, and foremost, the innocent young woman named Flor should have never gone through this kind of treatment. The people involved on both sides of the border should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second, and maybe the more insidious of the two, is the continuing denial of the political left in this country that refuses to acknowledge where these kinds of problems originate and their hijacking of the political process to keep them hidden.
This article has less to do with slavery than it does an unwilling population to have the courage to stand up and say that is enough. It certainly holds no positive reflection for Jews at Passover. We should not be proud as Klein’s article is meant to make us feel, we should be ashamed that we have allowed this to happen. We should be slightly fearful that it is getting worse, not better. Amy Klein’s article has a maligning seditious ring to it. It confirms a continuing slide into chaos and cultural disorder. Remove the possibility of open southern borders and you will clear up at least 95% of this problem almost immediately.
Ms. Klein could have chosen to write about the real horrors of slavery in the Islamic world, the brutal capture of human beings treated no better than animals, the death and the stench of oppression. That would have been a real Passover message. All would have benefited from such an article. Instead she chose to write something that would satisfy left wing thinking, filled with progressive psychobabble with politically correct distortions and revised truths. Only a few misguided people who have lost their sense of freedom somewhere along the way, can read Ms. Klein's article and shake their heads yes and say to themselves, “now I can have meaning to my Passover Seder.”
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/freeing_the_slaves_in_
los_angeles_20070330/
Her picture shines at the top of the page, unassuming, kind, gentle completely unthreatening. The article begins by explaining the horrible conditions of how this deserving young woman was forced to endure an undeserving living condition when she first came to the United States. She told of the loss of a child back in Mexico because she “didn’t have the money to save her.” She promised herself that would never happen again and that her three surviving children’s lives would be different from now on. With typical unwavering rugged individualism that is so admired in American culture, she came determined to make that change. Unfortunately her plans didn’t work out. She hooked up with some ner-do-well who outfitted her in a sweatshop in some dingy unsafe factory setting in downtown Los Angeles. She was not allowed to go and come as she pleased. She was at the complete mercy of her handler. She earned pennies on the dollar to what others earned doing relatively the same work. A faceless coworker took pity on her and slipped here a phone number one day. This was the beginning of her way out. With the cunning of a natural human soul yearning to be free she eventually convinced her overseer to allow her to go to church. Instead, she went directly to a phone booth and called the still nameless, faceless hero. She was out, and she never looked back!
This is a paraphrased account of Amy Klein’s “Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles,” published in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in March, 2007. It is during Passover time when Jews remember how it was to live as slaves in Egypt. Ms. Klein’s portrait of modern day slavery was meant to bring the feeling home for Jews remembering the humbleness of their origins. If any one isn’t free, are any of us free? That is pretty heady stuff for Jews to assimilate, especially during Passover time.
The young woman showcased in the article was commended for her determination, strength of character, and the ability to endure against, what was apparently, all odds. Her name was Flor and Ms. Klein labeled this a story of modern slavery. Americans in general are particularly sensitive about slavery in their country since they fought a war over it 150 years ago with ramifications that still reverberate through American life. Flor made it out, but how many remain? That is the question that Ms. Klein wanted to convey to the Jewish community during the Passover holiday.
Those are good questions and they should be looked into but there are so many problems with the tenor and direction of this story I hardly know where to begin with this critique. Let me start by asking some questions. Is this really slavery as we have come to know the word? Flor was not taken from her home forcibly, she came of her own free will. In other places where slavery is a confirmed problem, like the Sudan for example, slavery is a brutal, vicious condition that cannot be denied. Iabolish.org writes that in the Sudan,
--------militiamen destroy villages and take their pay in human booty. Grown men are shot, but women and children are the marauders' most prized reward. Forced labor without pay, severe beatings, acute hunger, forced religious and cultural conversion, rape, and ritual female genital mutilation are grim realities for the tens of thousands of children and young mothers now in bondage.-----------
Yes, Flor was treated unfairly but her experience doesn’t reflect the inhumanity described above. She was forced to work long hours, and I’m sure her treatment was a crime but, again is this slavery? Slaves aren’t generally paid for their work but Ms. Klein indicated Flor received pay, even though she was cheated out of some of that money which only adds to the crime already committed. “Her trafficker wrote up her pay stub for only a few hours' work and made Flor sign it.” Slaves in the Arab world , as they were historically here in the United States and elsewhere, are never paid for their work.
Were any black people interviewed for this story? I think the black community might have a problem calling this “slavery” the same way Jews might have a problem with the ease of how the word “Holocaust” is used in today’s lexicon. “The Israelis are committing a holocaust against our people (The Palestinians).” Yasser Arafat, 2003.
Ms. Klein seems to be selective in her condemnation of the problem. “Traffickers sell slaves to Europe, Israel and, increasingly, to North America.” It is entirely suspect that the Arab world is left out of this equation. I only used the Sudan as an example above, but a relatively easy Internet search will reveal that slavery in the Arab world is wide spread and strong. And it exists in its most barbaric forms. Almost every international human rights group lists slavery in the Arab world as a huge problem. I can’t believe that this was just some editorial oversight. It is noteworthy that only the west is mentioned as a proponent of modern day slavery. We here in the free world allow the worst form of human bondage imaginable. And, that according to Ms. Klein is embodied in Flor’s story. Outrageous!
But, Ms. Klein, in her mind set wanted to draw attention to the problem, but the solutions she gave naively will not solve it. She does not identify the real source. Instead she by passes it and blames the problem on Western values. If we want to eliminate American slavery as exposed by the Flors of the world then we must attack the problem at its source. That is the runaway, chaotic, anarchy that exists on the Southern open border of the United States. There are so many serious cultural and legal issues arising out of our de facto open border policy that Flor’s predicament is only the tip of the iceberg. The increase in crime across the board and our inability to combat it is seriously eroding the quality of life in this country. America, in certain microcosmic areas is beginning to show signs of disintegrating. Southern California is one of those examples that the rest of the country can look to if they want to understand exactly how serious this problem has become. One only has to study the siphoning off of revenue to other social services to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves to understand the desperate situation in education, health care, police and fire, road building and repair. All social, political and economic services are affected by this problem. Illegals coming from south of the border just like Flor cover a large portion of that population.
I wondered, as I was reading, why there was no mention of racism. Surely in an anti Western accusation such as this there has to be room for racism. It just wouldn't be complete without it. Did Ms. Klein forget to include it? I fully expected to see it sometime before I finished the article. And, then I come across this, “Flor's trafficker is a cousin of the mayor of her hometown.” One can only imagine the field day that Ms. Klein would have had if Flor’s trafficker would have been white. It would have increased the length of the piece at least three paragraphs.
Ms. Klein points to several Los Angeles politicians who are working hard to see that Flor and all others like her are to be set free. “On Jan. 11, (Councilman Eric) Garcetti, Councilman Tony Cardenas and LAPD Chief William Bratton gathered with other officials to announce the declaration of National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.” What a pompous gathering that must have been. Those three gentlemen are part of Ms Klein’s America that says we do not need to be concerned about illegal immigration. They support special order no. 40 which forbids police from investigating a criminal’s immigration status. They support legislation which promotes and continues to strengthen an already out of control sanctuary policy for L.A. They refuse to do anything about the problem usually citing it as federal government responsibility. That’s the George Bush government that claims "they only do the jobs that Americans won’t do." I wrote to all three cited in the article asking for clarification and none would respond to my query. I don’t know if they are just plain cowards or they actually share some hidden delight in watching American sovereignty disintegrate with each passing year.
There was more than one crime committed in this story. First, and foremost, the innocent young woman named Flor should have never gone through this kind of treatment. The people involved on both sides of the border should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second, and maybe the more insidious of the two, is the continuing denial of the political left in this country that refuses to acknowledge where these kinds of problems originate and their hijacking of the political process to keep them hidden.
This article has less to do with slavery than it does an unwilling population to have the courage to stand up and say that is enough. It certainly holds no positive reflection for Jews at Passover. We should not be proud as Klein’s article is meant to make us feel, we should be ashamed that we have allowed this to happen. We should be slightly fearful that it is getting worse, not better. Amy Klein’s article has a maligning seditious ring to it. It confirms a continuing slide into chaos and cultural disorder. Remove the possibility of open southern borders and you will clear up at least 95% of this problem almost immediately.
Ms. Klein could have chosen to write about the real horrors of slavery in the Islamic world, the brutal capture of human beings treated no better than animals, the death and the stench of oppression. That would have been a real Passover message. All would have benefited from such an article. Instead she chose to write something that would satisfy left wing thinking, filled with progressive psychobabble with politically correct distortions and revised truths. Only a few misguided people who have lost their sense of freedom somewhere along the way, can read Ms. Klein's article and shake their heads yes and say to themselves, “now I can have meaning to my Passover Seder.”
Monday, April 09, 2007
Some are Willing…Some are Not
A review of a lecture I attended which was of interest to all Americans. I submitted this as a freelanced piece to the Jewish Journal in February, 2007.
Monday night (Feb 5, 2007) marked the beginning of the sixth annual Public Lecture Series at the Gibson Auditorium in Universal City, Los Angeles, sponsored by the University of Judaism. The theme of the evening was the role of America in the 21st. century as viewed by three of America’s most reliable allies. A panel of past presidents and prime ministers expressed their views for the future with America leading the free world. Ehud Barak of Israel, John Major of England and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, spoke individually at first and then in a panel discussion conducted by a moderator. .
The emergence of China, the world economy, and the spread of democracy was discussed. But, judging from applauses the most important topics to the audience was how the United States would lead Western Civilization in the War on Terror. Barak and Major were predictable in their assessments of terrorism and its spreading influences like the Islamization of Europe. This is a little disconcerting about Major since he identifies himself as part of the conservative party in England. Barak, since he is Israeli no matter what his political leanings are you wouldn’t think he would be so willing to take such a chance on his own country’s survival by desiring to enter into a peace treaty with people who are sworn to destroy it.
In fairness they both expressed concern about the state of world affairs but held out for a bright future, emphasizing diplomacy and conciliation. Major was insistent that Europe could face a crisis later because of Muslim integration, but for right now” it is ok.” I was beginning to squirm in my seat. This is in light of recent reports that Mohammad is now the number one baby naming choice in Major’s own country. (I wrote this before the exposure that week of a Jidhadi plot to kill a British soldier home on leave from Iraq). The protégé of Maggie Thatcher, the former Prime Minister remarked that when the time became right, European leaders would somehow stop the Islamic "Anschluss." And, assuming they could do that at some point in the future, then what? Could they reverse it? When, I thought, would John Major believe that the Muslim presence in Europe would be at that point when politicians would have to intervene and do something.
Barak kind of echoed for the Middle East what Major saw for the immediate future of Europe. He still believes that peace on some level is possible with Israel’s surrounding neighbors within the near future. He sidestepped the question of grading the Israeli government’s performance in the Lebanon war last summer, refusing to comment on the basis that he was personal friends with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. I get the impression that Barak is one of many Jews who are perfectly willing, however naively, to hand our enemies the rope so they can hang us with it.
Aznar was different. He remained the one bright light during the evening. He held that the Islamist threat must be confronted now. The fight against terror should never be backed away from. He was very supportive of Israel not only with its struggle against terror but its ability to survive in a climate of so many seeking to destroy it. He was full of sound bites but that's ok I like what he had to say. He said, "If America is the best hope, then Israel is the last hope." He told the Israelis in the audience that they are not the problem, "the problem is elsewhere."
You may remember Aznar. As president of Spain he was one of the more enthusiastic supporters of the Bush coalition in Iraq. He was in office the day of the Madrid bombing that killed 191 people in 2004. Three days later, and some say because of it, he lost reelection to the Socialist Zapatero, who promptly withdrew the Spanish troops from Iraq. An embarrassment to Spain and a huge victory for the terrorists, the Madrid bombings was further proof to the enemy that the West has no will to fight. Aznar stands in the doorway of that notion. He believes that the United States will have to take the lead if Western Civilization has a chance to win the War on Terror.
I felt like I was watching Churchill in 1936 demanding that England and France go in and disarm Hitler’s rearmament. Almost everyone alive during that time whether in government or not, had vivid memories of the World War I catastrophe and wanted to avoid war at all costs. Churchill took a lot of ridicule for this stand. But, as we know from history a few years later he was the sole world leader protecting Western Democracy from a totalitarian abyss. I hope Aznar returns to government in his country. It gives me hope that there are still world leaders that realize what we are up against. I thought the Spanish were cowards after the Madrid bombing controversy. Now I know that is not true. There is at least one man who is not, Jose Maria Aznar certainly has my support.
Monday night (Feb 5, 2007) marked the beginning of the sixth annual Public Lecture Series at the Gibson Auditorium in Universal City, Los Angeles, sponsored by the University of Judaism. The theme of the evening was the role of America in the 21st. century as viewed by three of America’s most reliable allies. A panel of past presidents and prime ministers expressed their views for the future with America leading the free world. Ehud Barak of Israel, John Major of England and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, spoke individually at first and then in a panel discussion conducted by a moderator. .
The emergence of China, the world economy, and the spread of democracy was discussed. But, judging from applauses the most important topics to the audience was how the United States would lead Western Civilization in the War on Terror. Barak and Major were predictable in their assessments of terrorism and its spreading influences like the Islamization of Europe. This is a little disconcerting about Major since he identifies himself as part of the conservative party in England. Barak, since he is Israeli no matter what his political leanings are you wouldn’t think he would be so willing to take such a chance on his own country’s survival by desiring to enter into a peace treaty with people who are sworn to destroy it.
In fairness they both expressed concern about the state of world affairs but held out for a bright future, emphasizing diplomacy and conciliation. Major was insistent that Europe could face a crisis later because of Muslim integration, but for right now” it is ok.” I was beginning to squirm in my seat. This is in light of recent reports that Mohammad is now the number one baby naming choice in Major’s own country. (I wrote this before the exposure that week of a Jidhadi plot to kill a British soldier home on leave from Iraq). The protégé of Maggie Thatcher, the former Prime Minister remarked that when the time became right, European leaders would somehow stop the Islamic "Anschluss." And, assuming they could do that at some point in the future, then what? Could they reverse it? When, I thought, would John Major believe that the Muslim presence in Europe would be at that point when politicians would have to intervene and do something.
Barak kind of echoed for the Middle East what Major saw for the immediate future of Europe. He still believes that peace on some level is possible with Israel’s surrounding neighbors within the near future. He sidestepped the question of grading the Israeli government’s performance in the Lebanon war last summer, refusing to comment on the basis that he was personal friends with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. I get the impression that Barak is one of many Jews who are perfectly willing, however naively, to hand our enemies the rope so they can hang us with it.
Aznar was different. He remained the one bright light during the evening. He held that the Islamist threat must be confronted now. The fight against terror should never be backed away from. He was very supportive of Israel not only with its struggle against terror but its ability to survive in a climate of so many seeking to destroy it. He was full of sound bites but that's ok I like what he had to say. He said, "If America is the best hope, then Israel is the last hope." He told the Israelis in the audience that they are not the problem, "the problem is elsewhere."
You may remember Aznar. As president of Spain he was one of the more enthusiastic supporters of the Bush coalition in Iraq. He was in office the day of the Madrid bombing that killed 191 people in 2004. Three days later, and some say because of it, he lost reelection to the Socialist Zapatero, who promptly withdrew the Spanish troops from Iraq. An embarrassment to Spain and a huge victory for the terrorists, the Madrid bombings was further proof to the enemy that the West has no will to fight. Aznar stands in the doorway of that notion. He believes that the United States will have to take the lead if Western Civilization has a chance to win the War on Terror.
I felt like I was watching Churchill in 1936 demanding that England and France go in and disarm Hitler’s rearmament. Almost everyone alive during that time whether in government or not, had vivid memories of the World War I catastrophe and wanted to avoid war at all costs. Churchill took a lot of ridicule for this stand. But, as we know from history a few years later he was the sole world leader protecting Western Democracy from a totalitarian abyss. I hope Aznar returns to government in his country. It gives me hope that there are still world leaders that realize what we are up against. I thought the Spanish were cowards after the Madrid bombing controversy. Now I know that is not true. There is at least one man who is not, Jose Maria Aznar certainly has my support.
Two State Solution, Then and Now
Written in rebuttal to Rob Eshman's editorial in the Jewish Journal sometime around the beginning of 2007
Twenty years ago the idea of a two state solution to settle the Middle East conflict was not acceptable even though the extreme political left at the time said that it was. The problem then is more or less the same problem now; the Arabs just don’t want it. At a Peace Now sponsored 1980s rally at Roxbury Park in Los Angeles, three speakers who will be familiar to you for other reasons, Richard Dreyfuss, Betty Friedan, and Yael Dayan argued the merits of creating two states west of the Jordan River. Today some would say that those speakers were correct, even visionary, because that radical proposal of the 1980s is now mainstream thinking. Touché!
Here’s what’s wrong. Opponents back then objected to the two state argument for three main reasons. One, however noble their intentions, Jews calling for a two state solution showed the Jewish community as weak at a time when it should have closed ranks and remained strong. Two, if Israel somehow negotiated the agreement with a dishonest Arafat it would not bring peace. It would only act as a stepping stone to the Palestinians’ ultimate goal, the destruction of Israel. Three, it wasn’t that a two state solution was not a reasonable end to the conflict but, its timing was off. In the event that a negotiated peace could not be achieved as was suspected by Peace Now, their alternative was to just depart from the territories as an Israeli MK told me in a conversation in 1985. A nation that surrenders land taken in a war it did not start, cannot be interpreted in any other way other than complete defeat. Most of world Jewry could not accept such terms for Israel’s future in the 1980s.
The two state solution, then as now only works for Jews. The democratically elected leadership in Palestine, Hamas, are not interested. They insist that in any peace agreement Israel must literally cease to exist. There are several ways to achieve this, through violence and bloodshed, forcing Israel to take in several million Palestinians who claim refugee status, or simply by just negotiating away the first Jewish homeland in two thousand years. It doesn’t really matter to Khalid Mashaal and company how it happens as long as it happens. And, the Palestinians are counting on the Western Left to help make that happen. Just as it forced its self-promoted idea of a premature two state solution in the 1980s, the Arab world along with the Western Left now believe that current Left wing views can once again become Israeli policy someday. The destruction of the Jewish State is on the table and it’s coming unless we do something to stop it.
The modern day equivalent to Richard Dreyfuss’s 80s involvement in a two state solution are left wing Jews like Tony Judt and Tony Kushner. Both men advocate Israel take some of the steps that Hamas insists on in order to create peace. One can only speculate on why they would advocate forcing Israel into life threatening, compromising positions. Judt’s and Kushner’s position today are considered valid and attainable because Richard Dreyfuss’s unpopular speech twenty years ago has now become a fait accompli to the Arab Israeli conflict.
Didn’t I read somewhere that Tony Kushner believes that Israel was a mistake and should never have been created? But, he is a proud Jew and loves Israel. This is who the Left relies on to keep their finger on the pulse of the future. For those of you who don’t know, Tony Kushner was one-half of the writing team of Steven Spielberg’s indictment of Israel’s war on terror, the movie “Munich.”
Admittedly, Judt and Kushner are the lunatic fringe of Left wing politics. But, like Dreyfuss and the others, they are Hollywood types who have a certain amount of influence in these matters. And, like that rally in the park in the 1980s we would be fools to write off Judt and Kushner just because they represent the extreme of Jewish left wing thinking.
The Left regards the pullout from Gaza in 2005 as a great victory because of their advocacy in the 1980s. Before the post Zionist activists pat themselves on the back for taking responsibility for planting the seed of extricating Israel from Gaza, they should ask themselves if they actually think that Israel is better off now since they vacated Gaza. Is there any more peace on that border than there was before they pulled out? Is Israel any safer, more secure? Maybe they should ask the parents of Gilad Shalit that question.
Studying the issue, the accused right seems to be the more visionary of the two philosophies. Most of the world wide Jewish community have perennially argued against the leftwing agenda, labeling it accommodation, conciliation, acquiescence, and surrender by insisting that what would happen in the 1980s was exactly what happened in the middle of the first decade of the 21st. century. In the 80s the opponents argued that the Palestinians would never accept the Jews as an equal peace partner, that withdrawal from a territory either through negotiation or unilaterally, would embolden the enemy and that to practice this agenda could potentially mean the destruction of Israel. Two out of three of those scenarios have definitely proved true. If the rest of us are diligent in opposing the extreme left the third will never come to pass. Still every once in awhile you read an article or hear something on NPR celebrating the disturbing connection between Richard Dreyfuss “courageously” positing a two state solution back in the 80s and that Judt’s and Kushner’s prediction of a smaller more diminutive Israel might be in the offing in the near future.
Calling for dialogue with an entity that has no intention of settling the dispute peacefully can only work against the safety and security of Israel. The answer is usually that the objective is to bypass Hamas and negotiate directly with Fatah. Assuming that America and Israel can pull that off and undermine the elected government in Palestine, what makes anyone think that a second time might prove any different than the disaster at Camp David in the summer of 2000? I’m sure that Shalom Ackshov and other left wing groups in Israel think there is an opportunity to negotiate a real peace with Abbas. But, Fatah contains groups within its ranks who are just as violence orientated against Jews as Hamas. What the Left, Jewish and others need to realize is the sad truth that there are literally very few people in the Palestinian territories who want to end this conflict as much as Israel. In other words there is no one to talk peace with on the other side. There is no one home in the Palestinian peace camp and the lights are off for now.
We all want peace, but peace must be real, not one sided and only used as a jumping off point for the ultimate goal, revenge for 1948 and beyond. I am not Judt or Kushner so I shudder to think that such a scenario can come true. Peace is not possible at this time, that much is clear. What Jews need to do is to come together; hunker down, protect ourselves and expect more war before there will be peace. We must wait for the Palestinians to tire from all this bloodshed and in the meantime take our lumps and build our security. When this phenomenon finally burns out in a hundred years or so, then we might be able to come out into the sunshine and build the kind of two state solution that will work for everyone, not just for Western Civilization’s extreme leftwing or the Arab Muslim world, but for those who love Israel as well.
Twenty years ago the idea of a two state solution to settle the Middle East conflict was not acceptable even though the extreme political left at the time said that it was. The problem then is more or less the same problem now; the Arabs just don’t want it. At a Peace Now sponsored 1980s rally at Roxbury Park in Los Angeles, three speakers who will be familiar to you for other reasons, Richard Dreyfuss, Betty Friedan, and Yael Dayan argued the merits of creating two states west of the Jordan River. Today some would say that those speakers were correct, even visionary, because that radical proposal of the 1980s is now mainstream thinking. Touché!
Here’s what’s wrong. Opponents back then objected to the two state argument for three main reasons. One, however noble their intentions, Jews calling for a two state solution showed the Jewish community as weak at a time when it should have closed ranks and remained strong. Two, if Israel somehow negotiated the agreement with a dishonest Arafat it would not bring peace. It would only act as a stepping stone to the Palestinians’ ultimate goal, the destruction of Israel. Three, it wasn’t that a two state solution was not a reasonable end to the conflict but, its timing was off. In the event that a negotiated peace could not be achieved as was suspected by Peace Now, their alternative was to just depart from the territories as an Israeli MK told me in a conversation in 1985. A nation that surrenders land taken in a war it did not start, cannot be interpreted in any other way other than complete defeat. Most of world Jewry could not accept such terms for Israel’s future in the 1980s.
The two state solution, then as now only works for Jews. The democratically elected leadership in Palestine, Hamas, are not interested. They insist that in any peace agreement Israel must literally cease to exist. There are several ways to achieve this, through violence and bloodshed, forcing Israel to take in several million Palestinians who claim refugee status, or simply by just negotiating away the first Jewish homeland in two thousand years. It doesn’t really matter to Khalid Mashaal and company how it happens as long as it happens. And, the Palestinians are counting on the Western Left to help make that happen. Just as it forced its self-promoted idea of a premature two state solution in the 1980s, the Arab world along with the Western Left now believe that current Left wing views can once again become Israeli policy someday. The destruction of the Jewish State is on the table and it’s coming unless we do something to stop it.
The modern day equivalent to Richard Dreyfuss’s 80s involvement in a two state solution are left wing Jews like Tony Judt and Tony Kushner. Both men advocate Israel take some of the steps that Hamas insists on in order to create peace. One can only speculate on why they would advocate forcing Israel into life threatening, compromising positions. Judt’s and Kushner’s position today are considered valid and attainable because Richard Dreyfuss’s unpopular speech twenty years ago has now become a fait accompli to the Arab Israeli conflict.
Didn’t I read somewhere that Tony Kushner believes that Israel was a mistake and should never have been created? But, he is a proud Jew and loves Israel. This is who the Left relies on to keep their finger on the pulse of the future. For those of you who don’t know, Tony Kushner was one-half of the writing team of Steven Spielberg’s indictment of Israel’s war on terror, the movie “Munich.”
Admittedly, Judt and Kushner are the lunatic fringe of Left wing politics. But, like Dreyfuss and the others, they are Hollywood types who have a certain amount of influence in these matters. And, like that rally in the park in the 1980s we would be fools to write off Judt and Kushner just because they represent the extreme of Jewish left wing thinking.
The Left regards the pullout from Gaza in 2005 as a great victory because of their advocacy in the 1980s. Before the post Zionist activists pat themselves on the back for taking responsibility for planting the seed of extricating Israel from Gaza, they should ask themselves if they actually think that Israel is better off now since they vacated Gaza. Is there any more peace on that border than there was before they pulled out? Is Israel any safer, more secure? Maybe they should ask the parents of Gilad Shalit that question.
Studying the issue, the accused right seems to be the more visionary of the two philosophies. Most of the world wide Jewish community have perennially argued against the leftwing agenda, labeling it accommodation, conciliation, acquiescence, and surrender by insisting that what would happen in the 1980s was exactly what happened in the middle of the first decade of the 21st. century. In the 80s the opponents argued that the Palestinians would never accept the Jews as an equal peace partner, that withdrawal from a territory either through negotiation or unilaterally, would embolden the enemy and that to practice this agenda could potentially mean the destruction of Israel. Two out of three of those scenarios have definitely proved true. If the rest of us are diligent in opposing the extreme left the third will never come to pass. Still every once in awhile you read an article or hear something on NPR celebrating the disturbing connection between Richard Dreyfuss “courageously” positing a two state solution back in the 80s and that Judt’s and Kushner’s prediction of a smaller more diminutive Israel might be in the offing in the near future.
Calling for dialogue with an entity that has no intention of settling the dispute peacefully can only work against the safety and security of Israel. The answer is usually that the objective is to bypass Hamas and negotiate directly with Fatah. Assuming that America and Israel can pull that off and undermine the elected government in Palestine, what makes anyone think that a second time might prove any different than the disaster at Camp David in the summer of 2000? I’m sure that Shalom Ackshov and other left wing groups in Israel think there is an opportunity to negotiate a real peace with Abbas. But, Fatah contains groups within its ranks who are just as violence orientated against Jews as Hamas. What the Left, Jewish and others need to realize is the sad truth that there are literally very few people in the Palestinian territories who want to end this conflict as much as Israel. In other words there is no one to talk peace with on the other side. There is no one home in the Palestinian peace camp and the lights are off for now.
We all want peace, but peace must be real, not one sided and only used as a jumping off point for the ultimate goal, revenge for 1948 and beyond. I am not Judt or Kushner so I shudder to think that such a scenario can come true. Peace is not possible at this time, that much is clear. What Jews need to do is to come together; hunker down, protect ourselves and expect more war before there will be peace. We must wait for the Palestinians to tire from all this bloodshed and in the meantime take our lumps and build our security. When this phenomenon finally burns out in a hundred years or so, then we might be able to come out into the sunshine and build the kind of two state solution that will work for everyone, not just for Western Civilization’s extreme leftwing or the Arab Muslim world, but for those who love Israel as well.
The Moral Equivalency Factor
Israelis killing Palestinians, and vice versa
Is 'moral equivalency' really so wrong?
By Henry Siegman, HENRY SIEGMAN is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations and a visiting professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The response is to his editorial in the L.A Times, June 18, 2006.
Professor Siegman argues in this piece that Israeli retaliation to Palestinian terror does not move the peace process forward. He makes several assertions to support his argument, however, the reasoning here is flawed and more often than not one sided, tilted in favor of exactly what Palestinian terrorism wishes for, the complete cessation of Israeli defense of their homeland.
The professor asks in his title “is moral equivalency really so wrong?” It is not so much wrong as it just doesn’t exist in this conflict. There is no moral equivalency between what Hamas does in the name of “ending the occupation” and what Israel does in response. A missile killing a known serial murderer in his car which also unfortunately takes the life of his children is not equivalent to a brainwashed, blood thirsty, vengeful, young man who would blow himself up at a kids party, a religious gathering where many children are present, or a dolphinarium.
The professor presents no scientific evidence that what the Israelis do promotes more terror and therefore is morally equivalent with what the Palestinians do. So, I would argue that Israeli retaliation is just as likely to reduce the violence level as to raise it and therefore, serves to protect Israeli lives. It is morally justified to kill 45 terrorists in Jenin because they can no longer kill any innocent people. And, if in that process seven innocents also die, that is the collateral damage that we all must accept as an unfortunate part of war. That is not the same as targeting innocent civilians specifically. If retaliation saves even one Jewish life then Israeli policy is worth it. After all, the primary purpose of a nation-state is to protect its citizens.
”Palestinians insist that, like the Israelis, their objective is not to kill innocent civilians but to end a crushing occupation that is now in its 40th year. Killing civilians is seen by some of them — immorally and stupidly — as a means to that end.”
I would like to know which Palestinians have said this. I have never heard that proclamation. On the contrary Palestinian actions do not support the above statement. Consider these examples:
1) Suicide bombs are packed with all kinds of nails and tacks so that even if they don’t kill everyone they stand a good chance of inflicting human casualties causing undo suffering.
2) When the Palestinians blew up Sbarro’s pizza parlor back in 2001 or whenever it was, they erected a side show shrine in the West Bank, complete with twisted metal, broken glass, and mutilated body parts some of which were small, obviously symbolizing the slaughter of small children. The people paid money to enter the display and cheered at what they saw, until an embarrassed American State Department forced Arafat to remove it.
3) Half of the 1000 or so Jewish deaths are of children under sixteen, which Palestinians seem to revel in.
4) When two young boys, ages twelve and thirteen, happened to wander into enemy territory without warning a couple of years ago, they were found in a cave so mutilated that their parents had to identify their dead bodies through dental records.
Does this sound like a people who regret the violence that they are forced into?
How many Arab children are among the 3500 casualties that the professor sites for Palestinians? Moreover, how many of those are trumped up casualties which are not truly the work of the Israeli military? The events that inspired this editorial began with a so called errant Israeli missile which supposedly landed on the beach in Gaza and killed a number of people including small children. But, the Israelis have raised a very strong case that the explosion which killed those unfortunate people was actually the work of Hamas trying to set booby traps for Israeli commandos who have used that very beach before to land and launch raids against terrorist activity. The Palestinians have a history of using their own incompetence to blame Israel.
The professor argues that Israeli strikes cannot be justified unless the strike has the ability to move toward a final settlement to the conflict. In the absence of diplomatic negotiations Israeli retaliations will never end Palestinian terror, therefore, they offer a morally inadequate solution.
While Israeli retaliations may not contribute to the end of the conflict something can be said for their effectiveness as a policy. I wonder if the professor would agree that at the very least the Palestinians are thrown off balance with Israeli counter attacks. They might even be running a little scared which might make them a little more timid in carrying out attacks against Israel. That in itself would save lives, and therefore, makes retaliations morally acceptable.
Take for example the killing of the leader of Hamas, Sheik Achmed Yassin in 2004. A month later Israel targeted his successor Abdel Aziz Rantisi and killed him while driving in a car in the Gaza Strip. The next leader coming to power would not reveal his identity to the international community because of fear that Israel was only a step away from having him join his predecessors. Thus, he could not obtain the stature of the two before him and remained incognito until he was safely ensconced in Damascus. His name is Khaled Meshaal and if the Israelis could get to him I am sure they have a missile with his name on it. Playing this kind of hardball sends a message to the Palestinians that they cannot deny. If any Palestinian contributes to the planning, and execution in full or in part in the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in Israel they will be targeted for elimination.
Israel accepts that it is destined to experience continued terror into the future unless one of two things happen, the Palestinians come to their senses and seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict, or Israel unilaterally takes some kind of action which will guarantee the security of its population. The Israelis are running out of patience. They will not wait forever. That is why you are seeing in small steps the unilateral withdraw of Israel from Palestinian claimed land and the definition of permanent borders in the presence of the barrier currently under construction on the West Bank. The professor argues that there is a “vast disproportion between Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli ‘mistakes’ and Israeli casualties from Palestinian terrorist assaults.” He uses the example that Kassam rockets have not killed anyone, but Israeli air strikes kill Palestinians on a daily basis. So, Palestinian incompetence matched against Israeli efficiency equals brutality on Israel’s part. That is patently absurd.
If Israel waits until one of those rockets actually kills somebody will they be more justified in retaliating? It is morally outrageous to suggest that Israel not retaliate on that basis. As a nation state it has the imperative to protect its population from attack. Even if some in the Israeli body politic believe that Israeli retaliation does not diminish terror against their state they have the obligation to respond. And, when they can, take the initiative to disarm the terrorists by force, whether that means blowing up a bomb factory, taking out a publicly up front killer, or launch limited commando raids into the territories to keep the Palestinian militant stature off balance.
The professor insists that collateral damage in Israeli counter attacks are not justified on any level. This suggests that Israel cease retaliation for Palestinian terror against its population. It is unconscionable to tie Israel’s hands in such a manner. The only thing this accomplishes is that it gives the Palestinians carte blanche to do anything they want to Israel without fear of punishment. As long as they refuse to come to the negotiating table in good faith, which is part of their agenda anyway, they are protected against Israeli retribution. The professor’s assertion implies that if Israel stops retaliating that will somehow convince the Palestinians to negotiate rather than murder. Why can’t people see that it is not Israel’s borders that are bloody, but Palestine’s?
The professor seems to think that it is a simple matter of democratic politics that will change the situation. He implies that only since the Labor Party was voted out of office in 2000 that Israel decided not to negotiate. I would remind the professor that the Labor party took the negotiations as far as it could go in 1999. Ehud Barak thought he had a workable formula for both sides. But, he was wrong, Arafat refused to budge on a final settlement. And, Barak would not give up anymore. He conceded later that the people of Israel had given way on many painful concessions, and Arafat could not give way on even one, accepting a fair settlement for both sides. I wonder what the professor would suggest the opposition do, that Barak and his party did not? Even President Clinton, Ehud Barak’s ideological equivalent, thought that Arafat turned down a reasonable settlement on the total issue.
The professor asserts that it is “Ariel Sharon’s unilateralism, embraced by his successor, Ehud Olmert,” which is the stumbling block to peace. But this is incorrect, Even now as this is being written, Prime Minister Olmert is looking for ways to try and negotiate with President Abbas, but his hands are tide as long as Hamas, who intends on destroying Israel, remains the party in charge in Palestine. The unilateral moves Sharon implemented and Olmert will follow through with is not an “avoidance” of peace but a measure to secure the Israeli population in the event that peace will not be obtained. It is not what the government of Israel desires but in the absence of any real peace partner, “unilateralism” might turn out to be the only alternative. The government of Israel will make its people secure either through peace or unilateral measures, but it will be secure.
The prospects for peace have been on the table for six years. All the Palestinians need to do is to renounce its campaign to kill off the Jewish State and accept its terms. I agree, terrorism cannot be defeated, but Israel can make its own population safe, thus the reason for unilateral moves, building barriers and so forth.
I am surprised that the professor thinks his argument so weak that he must go back in history to find a parallel between the Jews and suicide bombers. Because he cites Israel’s pre-state underground as an example showing how Jews are just as barbaric as Palestinians, there are several things you should know which the good professor has conveniently left out of this assertion.
The killing of innocent civilians in Palestine did not begin with the Irgun. Palestinian Arabs were killing innocent Jews as early as the 1880s when some hearty European Jewish pilgrims began to set up working settlements in Palestine. The Jews finally responded in 1903 with the formation of Ha-shomer, the forerunner of the Haganna. Arab terror took a decisively violent turn after World War I and Jews were attacked time and time again. However, The Haganna always had a policy of defensive restraint, and continued that policy until its dissolution after Israeli independence.
After riots and continuous attacks in Jerusalem, Hebron, and many other Palestinian cities and hamlets through the 1920s and into the 1930s, a few Jewish defense force members grew tired of not taking the attack to the enemy. The Irgun, formed in 1932, was first devised to work against British occupation, and dealt very little with Arab terror. However, from 1936-1939, the Arab riots became so brutal against the Jewish population that the Irgun decided that the time was right to strike back.
The professor’s assertion based on a Benny Morris quote that it was Jewish terror that taught the Arabs how to be so murderously cruel apparently was just the opposite. It was the Arabs that taught the Jews how to kill with no mercy.
The professor would have you believe that the Irgun was widely accepted by the Yishuv (organized Palestinian Jewish community). In fact the underground was supported by a small minority of the population. The Irgun never reported more than 1500 members while the Haganna, with its policy of “restraint” contained around 6000 trained and equipped fighters along with maybe four or five thousand others who were mostly without weapons or special training. The Haganna received more support than any of pre-state Israel’s four main militia groups. It was the Hagana’s policy which followed into the IDF after Israel became a state.
While they were a force to be reckoned with in Jewish Palestine it is inaccurate to imply Irgun operations as having the support of the entire Yishuv. This is compared to a Palestinian population which sports a 60 to 80 per cent support for terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians. If the professor cares to dispute what I say, I would urge him to look at the voting results in the last Palestinian election. Where is the moral equivalency there, professor?
In conclusion, the professor makes some wild assertions that are not supported either by history or by current geopolitics. As long as the Palestinians refuse to negotiate in good faith, Israel will continue to defend itself and its population. The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of the people of Israel want a peace settlement, one that supports two free independent states, one Jewish and one Muslim. The vast majority of the Palestinian nation cannot accept a Jewish State along side its own. Therefore, the region will continue in this cycle of violence until Israel takes the necessary steps to safely separate itself unilaterally from the Palestinian in its midst.
Is 'moral equivalency' really so wrong?
By Henry Siegman, HENRY SIEGMAN is a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations and a visiting professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. The response is to his editorial in the L.A Times, June 18, 2006.
Professor Siegman argues in this piece that Israeli retaliation to Palestinian terror does not move the peace process forward. He makes several assertions to support his argument, however, the reasoning here is flawed and more often than not one sided, tilted in favor of exactly what Palestinian terrorism wishes for, the complete cessation of Israeli defense of their homeland.
The professor asks in his title “is moral equivalency really so wrong?” It is not so much wrong as it just doesn’t exist in this conflict. There is no moral equivalency between what Hamas does in the name of “ending the occupation” and what Israel does in response. A missile killing a known serial murderer in his car which also unfortunately takes the life of his children is not equivalent to a brainwashed, blood thirsty, vengeful, young man who would blow himself up at a kids party, a religious gathering where many children are present, or a dolphinarium.
The professor presents no scientific evidence that what the Israelis do promotes more terror and therefore is morally equivalent with what the Palestinians do. So, I would argue that Israeli retaliation is just as likely to reduce the violence level as to raise it and therefore, serves to protect Israeli lives. It is morally justified to kill 45 terrorists in Jenin because they can no longer kill any innocent people. And, if in that process seven innocents also die, that is the collateral damage that we all must accept as an unfortunate part of war. That is not the same as targeting innocent civilians specifically. If retaliation saves even one Jewish life then Israeli policy is worth it. After all, the primary purpose of a nation-state is to protect its citizens.
”Palestinians insist that, like the Israelis, their objective is not to kill innocent civilians but to end a crushing occupation that is now in its 40th year. Killing civilians is seen by some of them — immorally and stupidly — as a means to that end.”
I would like to know which Palestinians have said this. I have never heard that proclamation. On the contrary Palestinian actions do not support the above statement. Consider these examples:
1) Suicide bombs are packed with all kinds of nails and tacks so that even if they don’t kill everyone they stand a good chance of inflicting human casualties causing undo suffering.
2) When the Palestinians blew up Sbarro’s pizza parlor back in 2001 or whenever it was, they erected a side show shrine in the West Bank, complete with twisted metal, broken glass, and mutilated body parts some of which were small, obviously symbolizing the slaughter of small children. The people paid money to enter the display and cheered at what they saw, until an embarrassed American State Department forced Arafat to remove it.
3) Half of the 1000 or so Jewish deaths are of children under sixteen, which Palestinians seem to revel in.
4) When two young boys, ages twelve and thirteen, happened to wander into enemy territory without warning a couple of years ago, they were found in a cave so mutilated that their parents had to identify their dead bodies through dental records.
Does this sound like a people who regret the violence that they are forced into?
How many Arab children are among the 3500 casualties that the professor sites for Palestinians? Moreover, how many of those are trumped up casualties which are not truly the work of the Israeli military? The events that inspired this editorial began with a so called errant Israeli missile which supposedly landed on the beach in Gaza and killed a number of people including small children. But, the Israelis have raised a very strong case that the explosion which killed those unfortunate people was actually the work of Hamas trying to set booby traps for Israeli commandos who have used that very beach before to land and launch raids against terrorist activity. The Palestinians have a history of using their own incompetence to blame Israel.
The professor argues that Israeli strikes cannot be justified unless the strike has the ability to move toward a final settlement to the conflict. In the absence of diplomatic negotiations Israeli retaliations will never end Palestinian terror, therefore, they offer a morally inadequate solution.
While Israeli retaliations may not contribute to the end of the conflict something can be said for their effectiveness as a policy. I wonder if the professor would agree that at the very least the Palestinians are thrown off balance with Israeli counter attacks. They might even be running a little scared which might make them a little more timid in carrying out attacks against Israel. That in itself would save lives, and therefore, makes retaliations morally acceptable.
Take for example the killing of the leader of Hamas, Sheik Achmed Yassin in 2004. A month later Israel targeted his successor Abdel Aziz Rantisi and killed him while driving in a car in the Gaza Strip. The next leader coming to power would not reveal his identity to the international community because of fear that Israel was only a step away from having him join his predecessors. Thus, he could not obtain the stature of the two before him and remained incognito until he was safely ensconced in Damascus. His name is Khaled Meshaal and if the Israelis could get to him I am sure they have a missile with his name on it. Playing this kind of hardball sends a message to the Palestinians that they cannot deny. If any Palestinian contributes to the planning, and execution in full or in part in the wholesale slaughter of innocent people in Israel they will be targeted for elimination.
Israel accepts that it is destined to experience continued terror into the future unless one of two things happen, the Palestinians come to their senses and seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict, or Israel unilaterally takes some kind of action which will guarantee the security of its population. The Israelis are running out of patience. They will not wait forever. That is why you are seeing in small steps the unilateral withdraw of Israel from Palestinian claimed land and the definition of permanent borders in the presence of the barrier currently under construction on the West Bank. The professor argues that there is a “vast disproportion between Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli ‘mistakes’ and Israeli casualties from Palestinian terrorist assaults.” He uses the example that Kassam rockets have not killed anyone, but Israeli air strikes kill Palestinians on a daily basis. So, Palestinian incompetence matched against Israeli efficiency equals brutality on Israel’s part. That is patently absurd.
If Israel waits until one of those rockets actually kills somebody will they be more justified in retaliating? It is morally outrageous to suggest that Israel not retaliate on that basis. As a nation state it has the imperative to protect its population from attack. Even if some in the Israeli body politic believe that Israeli retaliation does not diminish terror against their state they have the obligation to respond. And, when they can, take the initiative to disarm the terrorists by force, whether that means blowing up a bomb factory, taking out a publicly up front killer, or launch limited commando raids into the territories to keep the Palestinian militant stature off balance.
The professor insists that collateral damage in Israeli counter attacks are not justified on any level. This suggests that Israel cease retaliation for Palestinian terror against its population. It is unconscionable to tie Israel’s hands in such a manner. The only thing this accomplishes is that it gives the Palestinians carte blanche to do anything they want to Israel without fear of punishment. As long as they refuse to come to the negotiating table in good faith, which is part of their agenda anyway, they are protected against Israeli retribution. The professor’s assertion implies that if Israel stops retaliating that will somehow convince the Palestinians to negotiate rather than murder. Why can’t people see that it is not Israel’s borders that are bloody, but Palestine’s?
The professor seems to think that it is a simple matter of democratic politics that will change the situation. He implies that only since the Labor Party was voted out of office in 2000 that Israel decided not to negotiate. I would remind the professor that the Labor party took the negotiations as far as it could go in 1999. Ehud Barak thought he had a workable formula for both sides. But, he was wrong, Arafat refused to budge on a final settlement. And, Barak would not give up anymore. He conceded later that the people of Israel had given way on many painful concessions, and Arafat could not give way on even one, accepting a fair settlement for both sides. I wonder what the professor would suggest the opposition do, that Barak and his party did not? Even President Clinton, Ehud Barak’s ideological equivalent, thought that Arafat turned down a reasonable settlement on the total issue.
The professor asserts that it is “Ariel Sharon’s unilateralism, embraced by his successor, Ehud Olmert,” which is the stumbling block to peace. But this is incorrect, Even now as this is being written, Prime Minister Olmert is looking for ways to try and negotiate with President Abbas, but his hands are tide as long as Hamas, who intends on destroying Israel, remains the party in charge in Palestine. The unilateral moves Sharon implemented and Olmert will follow through with is not an “avoidance” of peace but a measure to secure the Israeli population in the event that peace will not be obtained. It is not what the government of Israel desires but in the absence of any real peace partner, “unilateralism” might turn out to be the only alternative. The government of Israel will make its people secure either through peace or unilateral measures, but it will be secure.
The prospects for peace have been on the table for six years. All the Palestinians need to do is to renounce its campaign to kill off the Jewish State and accept its terms. I agree, terrorism cannot be defeated, but Israel can make its own population safe, thus the reason for unilateral moves, building barriers and so forth.
I am surprised that the professor thinks his argument so weak that he must go back in history to find a parallel between the Jews and suicide bombers. Because he cites Israel’s pre-state underground as an example showing how Jews are just as barbaric as Palestinians, there are several things you should know which the good professor has conveniently left out of this assertion.
The killing of innocent civilians in Palestine did not begin with the Irgun. Palestinian Arabs were killing innocent Jews as early as the 1880s when some hearty European Jewish pilgrims began to set up working settlements in Palestine. The Jews finally responded in 1903 with the formation of Ha-shomer, the forerunner of the Haganna. Arab terror took a decisively violent turn after World War I and Jews were attacked time and time again. However, The Haganna always had a policy of defensive restraint, and continued that policy until its dissolution after Israeli independence.
After riots and continuous attacks in Jerusalem, Hebron, and many other Palestinian cities and hamlets through the 1920s and into the 1930s, a few Jewish defense force members grew tired of not taking the attack to the enemy. The Irgun, formed in 1932, was first devised to work against British occupation, and dealt very little with Arab terror. However, from 1936-1939, the Arab riots became so brutal against the Jewish population that the Irgun decided that the time was right to strike back.
The professor’s assertion based on a Benny Morris quote that it was Jewish terror that taught the Arabs how to be so murderously cruel apparently was just the opposite. It was the Arabs that taught the Jews how to kill with no mercy.
The professor would have you believe that the Irgun was widely accepted by the Yishuv (organized Palestinian Jewish community). In fact the underground was supported by a small minority of the population. The Irgun never reported more than 1500 members while the Haganna, with its policy of “restraint” contained around 6000 trained and equipped fighters along with maybe four or five thousand others who were mostly without weapons or special training. The Haganna received more support than any of pre-state Israel’s four main militia groups. It was the Hagana’s policy which followed into the IDF after Israel became a state.
While they were a force to be reckoned with in Jewish Palestine it is inaccurate to imply Irgun operations as having the support of the entire Yishuv. This is compared to a Palestinian population which sports a 60 to 80 per cent support for terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians. If the professor cares to dispute what I say, I would urge him to look at the voting results in the last Palestinian election. Where is the moral equivalency there, professor?
In conclusion, the professor makes some wild assertions that are not supported either by history or by current geopolitics. As long as the Palestinians refuse to negotiate in good faith, Israel will continue to defend itself and its population. The problem as I see it is that the vast majority of the people of Israel want a peace settlement, one that supports two free independent states, one Jewish and one Muslim. The vast majority of the Palestinian nation cannot accept a Jewish State along side its own. Therefore, the region will continue in this cycle of violence until Israel takes the necessary steps to safely separate itself unilaterally from the Palestinian in its midst.
Why is this so hard?
This is a letter to the editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles where two different editorialists took a position that I had issue with.
It was interesting to read the opinion page this past week (January 19, 2007). Two articles by two regular contributors demonstrate a clarity about Israel, American Jews respect and admire. You would think they would know what the real scoop is, but it isn’t so. Both men, Judea Pearl and Larry Derfner write about Israel and the Palestinian dispute and like many other Jews just refuse to see the writing on the wall. Pearl feebly tries to inch the human race into accepting that Hamas really is capable of more than suicide bombers and Derfner writes that Netanyahu is a racist on the level of the same vile Western thinking as Jean Le Pen or Jorge Haider.
It is clear that both men just cannot see that the peace process, or at least what we use to call the peace process, is a complete and utter failure. Pearl struggles to weigh the possible Palestinian moves that might one day produce peace juxtaposed to the more ominous desires to bring and end to Israel. For example, he convinces himself and hopefully his readers that one of the very few lone voices of reason in the Palestinian realm, Sari Nusseibeh is really a spark to a much wider acceptance of Israeli existence. Nusseibeh, a truly courageous individual, has made few converts over the years and deals with death threats on a fairly consistent basis because of his views. Years of Nusseibeh’s influence has not produced results.
Hamas, with their blood thirsty platform whether they are in power or not, enjoy vast support from the Palestinian people. They have the blessing from the wider Arab world to destroy Israel if they can do it. It’s not peace Hamas is after, it’s murder and mayhem. Why is that so difficult for some to accept?
Netanyahu is not a racist, he is scared like the rest of us who understand that we better stand up to this enemy or it just might defeat us. And, defeat for us means the end of everything. We will not be Europe and Japan rebuilding after the war is over. There will be no Europe or Japan to rebuild. Unlike Derfner and Pearl, Netanyahu understands that if you want to climb into bed with a scorpion, expect to be dead by morning.
That Netanahu’s sound bited statement of his polices as finance minister produced a lowering of the Arab birth rate sent Derfner into unfair assumptions about Netanyahu’s intentions. To show how racist the comment was, Derfner asks the question what would Jewish reaction be if the policy in some other country were to clandestinely lower the birthrate of Jews? Are Jews part of an unrelenting effort to destroy the other countries they live in, in America, Canada or England? The question has no merit.
What Derfner defines as racism Netanyahu regards as necessary for Israel’s survival. He insists this war is far from over. Because he says the things we don’t want to hear, but deep down we know to be true he is condemned. He’s not a racist, he’s a survivalist. Israel lives in the thick of the growing Jihad menace and will need to defend itself in the coming months and years like it has never done before. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, presided over the most dangerous time in Israeli history, the first ten days of the state’s existence in 1948. He would roll over in his grave if he knew what kind of peril Israel faces in the near future. Its time we as Jews realize our responsibility. We must face this evil down as a community and stand as one because not to is to face the unthinkable.
I wish that both Pearl and Derfner were correct in their assessments. I wish I could have read those articles and thought to myself there is always a chance for peace. We just need to push forward and although it will take a long time it can and will happen. I wish the Palestinian people were more like our people in that they would be willing to forget old hatreds for the good of our children. I wish there were two states west of the Jordan River living side by side in peace. I wish all that were possible. But, you can’t deal with “wishes” in the Middle East, you must deal with realities. And, the realities are clear. After almost fifty-nine years the Jews are no closer to a settlement with the surrounding Arab population than they were when Israel became a state.
If responsible voices in the community like Pearl and Derfner continue with this pipe dream, that the Arabs will someday accept their Jewish cousins, and continue to condemn those who are ready to defend Jewish life as we know it as racists, Israel and its people (and that means all of us, because after Israel, European and American Jews will be next) will return to the old ways of begging the gentile for protection, and walking like sheep in a world that “tolerates its Jews.” That is of course, if there are any Jews left to tolerate.
It was interesting to read the opinion page this past week (January 19, 2007). Two articles by two regular contributors demonstrate a clarity about Israel, American Jews respect and admire. You would think they would know what the real scoop is, but it isn’t so. Both men, Judea Pearl and Larry Derfner write about Israel and the Palestinian dispute and like many other Jews just refuse to see the writing on the wall. Pearl feebly tries to inch the human race into accepting that Hamas really is capable of more than suicide bombers and Derfner writes that Netanyahu is a racist on the level of the same vile Western thinking as Jean Le Pen or Jorge Haider.
It is clear that both men just cannot see that the peace process, or at least what we use to call the peace process, is a complete and utter failure. Pearl struggles to weigh the possible Palestinian moves that might one day produce peace juxtaposed to the more ominous desires to bring and end to Israel. For example, he convinces himself and hopefully his readers that one of the very few lone voices of reason in the Palestinian realm, Sari Nusseibeh is really a spark to a much wider acceptance of Israeli existence. Nusseibeh, a truly courageous individual, has made few converts over the years and deals with death threats on a fairly consistent basis because of his views. Years of Nusseibeh’s influence has not produced results.
Hamas, with their blood thirsty platform whether they are in power or not, enjoy vast support from the Palestinian people. They have the blessing from the wider Arab world to destroy Israel if they can do it. It’s not peace Hamas is after, it’s murder and mayhem. Why is that so difficult for some to accept?
Netanyahu is not a racist, he is scared like the rest of us who understand that we better stand up to this enemy or it just might defeat us. And, defeat for us means the end of everything. We will not be Europe and Japan rebuilding after the war is over. There will be no Europe or Japan to rebuild. Unlike Derfner and Pearl, Netanyahu understands that if you want to climb into bed with a scorpion, expect to be dead by morning.
That Netanahu’s sound bited statement of his polices as finance minister produced a lowering of the Arab birth rate sent Derfner into unfair assumptions about Netanyahu’s intentions. To show how racist the comment was, Derfner asks the question what would Jewish reaction be if the policy in some other country were to clandestinely lower the birthrate of Jews? Are Jews part of an unrelenting effort to destroy the other countries they live in, in America, Canada or England? The question has no merit.
What Derfner defines as racism Netanyahu regards as necessary for Israel’s survival. He insists this war is far from over. Because he says the things we don’t want to hear, but deep down we know to be true he is condemned. He’s not a racist, he’s a survivalist. Israel lives in the thick of the growing Jihad menace and will need to defend itself in the coming months and years like it has never done before. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, presided over the most dangerous time in Israeli history, the first ten days of the state’s existence in 1948. He would roll over in his grave if he knew what kind of peril Israel faces in the near future. Its time we as Jews realize our responsibility. We must face this evil down as a community and stand as one because not to is to face the unthinkable.
I wish that both Pearl and Derfner were correct in their assessments. I wish I could have read those articles and thought to myself there is always a chance for peace. We just need to push forward and although it will take a long time it can and will happen. I wish the Palestinian people were more like our people in that they would be willing to forget old hatreds for the good of our children. I wish there were two states west of the Jordan River living side by side in peace. I wish all that were possible. But, you can’t deal with “wishes” in the Middle East, you must deal with realities. And, the realities are clear. After almost fifty-nine years the Jews are no closer to a settlement with the surrounding Arab population than they were when Israel became a state.
If responsible voices in the community like Pearl and Derfner continue with this pipe dream, that the Arabs will someday accept their Jewish cousins, and continue to condemn those who are ready to defend Jewish life as we know it as racists, Israel and its people (and that means all of us, because after Israel, European and American Jews will be next) will return to the old ways of begging the gentile for protection, and walking like sheep in a world that “tolerates its Jews.” That is of course, if there are any Jews left to tolerate.
A Clear and Present Danger
The following is a review of the presentation of the film "Obsession" which I viewed in Los Angeles in March of 2007.
Sometimes with all the political fallout of the Iraq debacle we lose site of what is at stake in the war on terror. Because the country is so divided over President Bush’s ability to manage the war, the very real and serious problem of Islamic terror is often relegated to a foolish unimportance. As my brother-in-law told me the other night, “if Bush hadn’t gone into Iraq we wouldn’t be in this mess” somehow forgetting that it was 9-11, not George Bush that created "this mess."On Wednesday, March 14, the West Valley Jewish Community Center presented “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War on the West,” sponsored by the West Hills Chabad. Like a clarion call this film reminds us of the clear and present danger that confronts Western Civilization . After the movie one of the primary speakers in the film, Noni Darwish discussed with the audience in detail her pro American/Israeli position to this war. This is a film that every American should see.
Darwish, the daughter of the Egyptian Fedayeen commander in Gaza during the 1950s, spoke about the madness that is gripping her people. You could not help but admire her courage and her recognition of righteousness against all odds. Ms. Darwish has a price on her head, so the security to get into this presentation was very strict. She doesn’t waiver from her condemnation of the Arab world, her support for Israel or her love of democratic values. I have to admit, I was impressed. It’s not every day that you meet an Arab national speak about her respect for the Jewish state. Perhaps reality is never far behind because as Ms. Darwish spoke you got the distinct impression that she was very alone in this commitment, disowned by her family, her country and the religion that totally dominated her life growing up.
Meeting and talking with a real live hero like Noni Darwish made the evening exciting but the film stands on its own merit as a glaring example of the utter hatred that much of the Arab world and large swaths of the rest of non Arab Islam feel toward the west. Thanks to Al-Jizeera and some other like minded Middle East media outlets there are mounds of written and video evidence to support the film’s arguments.
The film argues that we are not taking this war seriously. Most of what is reported in the Arab world and in other places never seems to make it in the western media. Steven Emerson, a long time researcher of the Islamic threat said, “The amount of hate propaganda is far more extensive and pervasive than the attention that it receives in the western media.” This has to stop. We need to begin to follow the Muslim press, listen to what they are saying, understand what they are implying with their statements and analyze more closely their intentions. The films ultimate message: We face disaster if we don’t.
There is a violent movement to convert the entire world to Islam, to completely eliminate the Christian-Judeo world from the face of the Earth. Perceived western influences around the globe are targeted on a regular basis. Caroline Glick, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, makes the point that many countries in the world today have a problem with Islamic extremism on some level. And then to emphasize that statement the film shows a map of the world covered in red “X”s where Jihadis are on the rise, attacking, bombing and killing. As noted in one Palestinian children’s textbook, “this religion (Islam) will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighters.”
Several of the speakers in the film kept reiterating the fact that the West is in denial of this problem. Even in a post 9-11 environment people do not want to admit that there is a growing malignancy on the planet bent on our destruction.
The film is very clear not to condemn Islam as a religion and therefore claims that not all of the world’s Muslims are the enemy. But, it is clear that the Jihadi movement is at present very large and is growing with each passing generation. There are many Islamic leaders calling for the deaths of Jews, the destruction of the United States, and the defeat of the west, all the while being cheered on by thousands of onlookers, and supported by millions of others. There is no shortage of hatred in the Islamic world. The film implores us to recognize this threat and to begin to fight back in order to survive.
Most disturbing about this enemy is the chair squirming, undeniable connection of the Islamic Jihad movement to the rise of Nazism in Europe during the 1930’s. The two historical periods are so closely correlated that it is hard to comprehend how we could have missed its growth. It is as if we were so busy reminding ourselves in the last sixty years that we would never again forget the past in Europe that we did not see it creeping up on us again in another part of the world. The film shows that 19th and early 20th century European anti-Semitism complete with blood libels, threats against Jews, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are alive and well and flourishing within the Muslim world.
One of the historical parallels to Nazism is the connection between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolph Hitler. As disturbing then as it is now the film describes and verifies that Hitler and the Mufti agreed that the extermination of the Jews was central to the War’s aims. The Mufti, a radical fundamentalist in his own right, distinguished himself as one of the leaders who tried to prevent Jewish Zionism from establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine during that era. In exchange for his support Hitler promised him that would never happen.
In one especially chilling moment, Walid Shoebat, a reformed Palestinian terrorist and, who like Noni Darwish is shunned by his family, community and religion, explains the growth of Jihad as compared to the growth of Nazism. He says that Islamo fascism is far more dangerous than Nazism because of its religious components. Jihad makes war in the name of almighty God while Nazism made war for a man, Adoph Hitler. And, it exists in several countries not just one. Therefore, Shoebat concludes, that if we do not stop its rise we will be facing not one Nazi Germany but several.
The soul of Islam is at stake some western commentators have noted, indicating that the only way we can win this is for Islam itself to struggle with the question internally and repair it internally. In other words, we are your supporters but it is you who have to correct the problem. According to “Obsession,” and confirmed by Noni Darwish, the struggle is already over, Islam has been stolen by the Jihadi movement. The enemy is getting stronger and the decent Muslim who wants to live his life like we live ours is growing ever weaker. In fact, one gets the sickening feeling that Noni Darwish, and the other Muslim commentators depicted in the film, which courageously stand against the Jihadi enterprise, are lone puppies in a sea of wolves.
The danger to all of us is clear. Either we begin to get serious about this problem and take positive steps to end it favorably or we are going to lose. The very existence of Western Civilization is at stake and all the freedoms that we developed, struggled with and refined over the last 2500 years are in danger of being forcibly replaced by something very different. We must recognize that to do nothing and to continue to live in denial of this growing problem is a huge mistake. Unless you are willing to accept that your grandchildren before the end of their lives will be bowing down to Mohammad five times a day I would suggest that you begin looking at our involvement in the Middle East as a matter of survival not as a political football to be argued as Republicans and Democrats. It is not too late but we need to begin now or face a global confrontation of such huge proportions that it will dwarf World War II by comparison. The choice is ours.
Sometimes with all the political fallout of the Iraq debacle we lose site of what is at stake in the war on terror. Because the country is so divided over President Bush’s ability to manage the war, the very real and serious problem of Islamic terror is often relegated to a foolish unimportance. As my brother-in-law told me the other night, “if Bush hadn’t gone into Iraq we wouldn’t be in this mess” somehow forgetting that it was 9-11, not George Bush that created "this mess."On Wednesday, March 14, the West Valley Jewish Community Center presented “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War on the West,” sponsored by the West Hills Chabad. Like a clarion call this film reminds us of the clear and present danger that confronts Western Civilization . After the movie one of the primary speakers in the film, Noni Darwish discussed with the audience in detail her pro American/Israeli position to this war. This is a film that every American should see.
Darwish, the daughter of the Egyptian Fedayeen commander in Gaza during the 1950s, spoke about the madness that is gripping her people. You could not help but admire her courage and her recognition of righteousness against all odds. Ms. Darwish has a price on her head, so the security to get into this presentation was very strict. She doesn’t waiver from her condemnation of the Arab world, her support for Israel or her love of democratic values. I have to admit, I was impressed. It’s not every day that you meet an Arab national speak about her respect for the Jewish state. Perhaps reality is never far behind because as Ms. Darwish spoke you got the distinct impression that she was very alone in this commitment, disowned by her family, her country and the religion that totally dominated her life growing up.
Meeting and talking with a real live hero like Noni Darwish made the evening exciting but the film stands on its own merit as a glaring example of the utter hatred that much of the Arab world and large swaths of the rest of non Arab Islam feel toward the west. Thanks to Al-Jizeera and some other like minded Middle East media outlets there are mounds of written and video evidence to support the film’s arguments.
The film argues that we are not taking this war seriously. Most of what is reported in the Arab world and in other places never seems to make it in the western media. Steven Emerson, a long time researcher of the Islamic threat said, “The amount of hate propaganda is far more extensive and pervasive than the attention that it receives in the western media.” This has to stop. We need to begin to follow the Muslim press, listen to what they are saying, understand what they are implying with their statements and analyze more closely their intentions. The films ultimate message: We face disaster if we don’t.
There is a violent movement to convert the entire world to Islam, to completely eliminate the Christian-Judeo world from the face of the Earth. Perceived western influences around the globe are targeted on a regular basis. Caroline Glick, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy, makes the point that many countries in the world today have a problem with Islamic extremism on some level. And then to emphasize that statement the film shows a map of the world covered in red “X”s where Jihadis are on the rise, attacking, bombing and killing. As noted in one Palestinian children’s textbook, “this religion (Islam) will destroy all other religions through the Islamic Jihad fighters.”
Several of the speakers in the film kept reiterating the fact that the West is in denial of this problem. Even in a post 9-11 environment people do not want to admit that there is a growing malignancy on the planet bent on our destruction.
The film is very clear not to condemn Islam as a religion and therefore claims that not all of the world’s Muslims are the enemy. But, it is clear that the Jihadi movement is at present very large and is growing with each passing generation. There are many Islamic leaders calling for the deaths of Jews, the destruction of the United States, and the defeat of the west, all the while being cheered on by thousands of onlookers, and supported by millions of others. There is no shortage of hatred in the Islamic world. The film implores us to recognize this threat and to begin to fight back in order to survive.
Most disturbing about this enemy is the chair squirming, undeniable connection of the Islamic Jihad movement to the rise of Nazism in Europe during the 1930’s. The two historical periods are so closely correlated that it is hard to comprehend how we could have missed its growth. It is as if we were so busy reminding ourselves in the last sixty years that we would never again forget the past in Europe that we did not see it creeping up on us again in another part of the world. The film shows that 19th and early 20th century European anti-Semitism complete with blood libels, threats against Jews, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are alive and well and flourishing within the Muslim world.
One of the historical parallels to Nazism is the connection between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolph Hitler. As disturbing then as it is now the film describes and verifies that Hitler and the Mufti agreed that the extermination of the Jews was central to the War’s aims. The Mufti, a radical fundamentalist in his own right, distinguished himself as one of the leaders who tried to prevent Jewish Zionism from establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine during that era. In exchange for his support Hitler promised him that would never happen.
In one especially chilling moment, Walid Shoebat, a reformed Palestinian terrorist and, who like Noni Darwish is shunned by his family, community and religion, explains the growth of Jihad as compared to the growth of Nazism. He says that Islamo fascism is far more dangerous than Nazism because of its religious components. Jihad makes war in the name of almighty God while Nazism made war for a man, Adoph Hitler. And, it exists in several countries not just one. Therefore, Shoebat concludes, that if we do not stop its rise we will be facing not one Nazi Germany but several.
The soul of Islam is at stake some western commentators have noted, indicating that the only way we can win this is for Islam itself to struggle with the question internally and repair it internally. In other words, we are your supporters but it is you who have to correct the problem. According to “Obsession,” and confirmed by Noni Darwish, the struggle is already over, Islam has been stolen by the Jihadi movement. The enemy is getting stronger and the decent Muslim who wants to live his life like we live ours is growing ever weaker. In fact, one gets the sickening feeling that Noni Darwish, and the other Muslim commentators depicted in the film, which courageously stand against the Jihadi enterprise, are lone puppies in a sea of wolves.
The danger to all of us is clear. Either we begin to get serious about this problem and take positive steps to end it favorably or we are going to lose. The very existence of Western Civilization is at stake and all the freedoms that we developed, struggled with and refined over the last 2500 years are in danger of being forcibly replaced by something very different. We must recognize that to do nothing and to continue to live in denial of this growing problem is a huge mistake. Unless you are willing to accept that your grandchildren before the end of their lives will be bowing down to Mohammad five times a day I would suggest that you begin looking at our involvement in the Middle East as a matter of survival not as a political football to be argued as Republicans and Democrats. It is not too late but we need to begin now or face a global confrontation of such huge proportions that it will dwarf World War II by comparison. The choice is ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)