Monday, January 22, 2007

And the winner of the "Scourge of the Left" Oscar is - Israel!

Is there any name in the world that inspires more hatred than "Israel"? With the possible exception of "George W. Bush", it's hard to think of any.
How can such a tiny sliver of land invite such vitriolic animosity? Well, let us count the ways.

From the perspective of an uninvolved observer, the problem is that of a land dispute; each side claims the authentic possession of the land. If one were to simply disregard the origins of the land dispute, what would remain? A tussle between two factions, each claiming the authentic right to the land. So if we suspend all other inquiry, we would still be faced with the current nature of the dispute, which characterizes itself thusly:

-One side openly brags of "Annihilating" the other, and killing all its people. The other side makes no such pledge.
-One side commits random acts of terrorism against the other side's civilian population, and rationalizes such acts as acceptable.
-One side officially indoctrinates in its children and citizens hatred for the other side in its schools and propaganda, denouncing the people of the other side as less than human, and characterizing them as "Apes", "Pigs", "Dogs", and so on.

There are, of course, no prizes for guessing which side is which, so what exactly are we to make of an elite class that lectures Israel on its supposed transgressions while giving a pass to those who strap bombs to themselves and detonate them on public buses? A land dispute is a land dispute, but since when is wanton murder of civilians acceptable? We have heard the same lyrics coming from the chorus of academics who sympathized with the perpetators of the 9/11 attacks, a depressing number of which came from our own universities, who, of all people, should know better.

Denouncing Israel as an entity has become a sort of parlor game for intellectuals of all stripes, but far less discussion is heard of what exactly Palestinian arabs should be doing differently - if the U.S. is supposed to act as the even-handed broker everyone continually wishes for, then what, exactly, is supposed to happen after all the concessions demanded by Hamas and such are given? Are such self-appointed diplomats truly under the illusion that peace would reign once Israel gives away everything being demanded of it? Time and time again, we hear from people who pontificate aloud that all these problems could have been solved at anytime, if only the U.S. had made a "Serious" effort to do so. They seem to think that the only reason such efforts haven't been made is that no one has really tried hard enough - apparently, the superhuman efforts to give away the store brokered by their hero of international relations, Bill Clinton, were somehow not quite enough, although I've heard few leftists explain exactly why.

The reason is that they probably know the answer, but don't really want to face its implications, which is that Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Bin Laden, and all those of this ilk will not be satisfied until Isreal itself has been destroyed, and its people killed. And after that, what will their next target be? Jews everywhere else.

posted by ET @ 3:55 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

The secular left: Afraid of the logic it purports to espouse

What could be more sickening than the various frothing leftists aiming every morally bankrupt weapon in their arsenals at George Bush, while giving a free pass to those who would kill us merely for being Americans?

Not much.

Recently, I saw a makeshift sign in a car - it appeared to have been created using a large piece of cardboard and magic markers, and was big enough to cover the entire rear window, in much the same way that anti-glare devices are positioned in cars to prevent heat buildup. The sign read, "The religious right: afraid of freedom!"

This was no doubt intended to draw attention to the author's very grave and noble concern regarding oppression by Christians who vote conservative. The sign, while intended to convey the author's 'speaking truth to power' - to quote a favorite mangled philosophy - only serves to illustrate a complete lack of perspective.

How brave must this individual be, to carry around such a banner in his car in the middle of one of the most solidly leftist parts of the country? (California Congressional district 13, represented by crackpot Pete Stark, who voted against a resolution condemning the 9/11 attacks). This is like carrying a sign in Berkeley announcing support for 'the environment' or 'against war'.

And what sort of 'freedom' does the author believe that the religious right is afraid of? This is where the very definitions of certain words elude those who wield them as weapons. My guess would be that this person believes in the unfettered right to abortion on demand. Beyond that, it's hard to think of what other 'rights' such people believe that religious types want to suppress.

But beyond this logical dead end lies a much more disturbing tendency, which is the blind eye turned toward a far more insidious and freedom-suppressing ideology, namely, Sharia law.
What would this person have to say about the type of freedom feared by people who want women in burqas, escorted in public only by men, forbidden to drive cars, and on and on and on?
And would they be so bold as to display that sign in an area that wouldn't be so respectful of freedom of speech, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et cetera?

To indulge the unique freedoms of the U.S. in an effort to denounce what is arguably the least threatening group of people on the planet while ignoring the very real threat posed by those who openly wish for a global caliphate that would eliminate freedom of assembly, speech, and press betrays a hypocrisy so profound, it boggles the mind - but I've lived here long enough, and really shouldn't be surprised any longer at such ignorance.

posted by ET @ 4:13 PM 0 comments