| Jews at war. |
[Aug. 2nd, 2006|02:28 am]
tabletalk
|
|
The current unrest in the Middle East is being used to justify violent crimes against Jews overseas. Often times these Jews do not have anything to do with Israel's military operations in Lebanon or Gaza. Yesterday a group of ten Middle Eastern men was seen running away from a house adjoining a synagogue in Sydney's western suburb of Parramatta. In the house at the time were a rabbi, his preganant wife, and their six children. Several cement blocks were thrown through the windows. Fortunately no one was injured. This was immediately portrayed in the media as a reflection of anger on the part of the Muslim community at Israel and its actions in Lebanon and Gaza, however religious leaders were quick to respond, asserting instead that the youths' violence was not reflective of Muslim sentiments in Australia and that Muslims here recognise that the war in the Middle East should not be brough to Australia. Likewise, two days ago, Mel Gibson was arrested and charged with drunk driving. He was also reported to have said to the arresting officers that Jews were responsible for everything happening in the Middle East and even went as far as to ask one of them whether he was Jewish. Notwithstanding his recent film "The Passion of the Christ" which blames the Jews for the killing of Christ, and his father who is a Holocaust denier, his anti-Semitic remarks were written off as a drunken tirade, as if it was worldwide Jewry, rather than Israel, staging an incursion into Lebanon. Just last week, a man shot six women in the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, killing one. He was heard declaring himself to be a Muslim American, angry at Israel... as if a Jewish organisation in Washington State has anything to do with the Israeli airstrikes on Qana. The man has been charged with murder, however because he has a history of mental illness, this is not being treated as a hate crime. While it is not surprising to find that many deny that anti-Semitism is the cause for these acts, it is alarming that this opinion is also prevalent within the international Jewish community. Why is it so easy for Jews and non-Jews alike to view anti-Semitism as symptomatic of rowdiness, alcoholism, or mental illness? A spike in anti-Semitism at a time when Israel is in the media spotlight indicates that there is a strong international sentiment that Israel's fight is a Jewish fight, that when one condemns the Israelis, one may also be forgiven for condemning the Jews, wherever they may be. |
|
|
| Politically correct anti-Semitism |
[Aug. 2nd, 2006|02:26 am]
tabletalk
|
|
Recent overt acts of anti-Semitism in the West illustrate greater society's ability to write them off. Beginning with the alleged mental illness that caused a Muslim man in Seattle to shoot several people at a Jewish centre, to Mel Gibson's drunkenness in Malibu which lead to an anti-Semitic tirade, and last, ten Middle-Eastern men throwing cement blocks at a syangogue in Sydney. What all these things have in common is that people tend to write them off as inconsequential events that are not indicative of the potential of anti-Semitism to permeate into society. When a man in Seattle goes about and kills Jews and says that it is because he hates Israel, while those Jews are in fact not in Israel, that is an anti-Semitic act. When Mel Gibson goes on a rant about Jews causing all the wars in the world, who is an influential member of the entertainment industry, can and does influence people, that is an anti-Semitic act. When members of the Muslim minority in Australia take it upon themselves to vandalise a synagogue which can spark copycats or greater violence against Jews, that is an anti-Semitic act. What all all these acts share in common is that they have the potential to ignite, inflame and influence others into committing similar acts against Jews, using the current violence in the Middle East to rationalise and justify such actions. Did not the Nazis use the spectre of world Bolshevism to embark on pogroms and persecutions of Jews, stripping them of their liberty and property and civil rights? Did we not learn these lessons that history so overtly illustrates? When external political and international events can influence anti-Semites in other countries to cloak themselves in ideals of either politically correct or cultural developments abroad and are given license by those who choose to look the other way or minimise the potential dangers of these small scale acts, are we not committing the same falacy as those in the 1930s? Much in the same way, asking for a ceasefire on the part of Hezbollah and seeing French acquiescence in seeking Iran's influence over Hezbollah as a stepping stone to guaranteeing a ceasefire, akin to appeasement as that of the 1930s, negotiating from a position of weakness and legitimising militant political factions? When Hamas and Hezbollah, who are legitimate members of democratic representative governments, hold militant cadres, kidnap soldiers, and have their own personal arsenals, declare war on sovreign nation states, should not the governments, of which these factions are a part, be held responsible? Who is ultimately responsible for Hezbollah, if not the Lebanese government? Who is responsible for Hamas, if not the Palestinian Authority? It is in this way that there are overt cases of anti-Semitism, not only in the micro sense, but in the macro sense, cloaked in the rhetoric of political correctness, cultural relativism, and white guilt. |
|
|
| Voting for terrorism. |
[Jul. 29th, 2006|01:56 am]
tabletalk
|
|
A striking similarity that exists between Hamas and Hezbollah is that they are both political factions that exist in their respective countries and have been voted in in these countries. It is in this way that they are akin to the Nazi party in Germany, as they were both voted into power by the majority. Does that mean that democracy automatically legitimises the government? No, it doesn't. If you vote them in, it proves that the majority of people who elected them are responsible because they voted and chose this political faction to represent them in their respective nation-states. The German people knew full well what Hitler offered and promised just as Hamas and Hezbollah represent aggression against Israel and the West. Therefore the Lebanese and the Palestinian people chose to adjoin their destinies to those who would launch aggressive war against Israel as Israel strikes deep into the heart of these countries. So called civilians know full well what is likely to occur when a launch-pad is next door or on the roof of their building, especially when Israel drops leaflets before strikes against such targets. It is because of this that it is difficult to sympathise with the so-called "humanitarian crises" because these people know full well that Islamic militantants have put a launch-pad in their yard. These people are voting for hostile aggressive militant factions, popularly known as terrorist organisations, into their government. Are they responsible as members of the body politic for voting for these representatives, knowing full well their agendas? What is parliamentary goverment if not a proxy of the desires of the people? A vote for Hamas is a vote for dead Jews, just as a vote for Nazis was a vote for dead Jews. Once citizens choose to elect a leadership that will launch aggressive wars, it will share in their fate when such leadership launches a war of aggression and those suffering justly counter-attack. It is difficult to show empathy toward these civilians, because they chose to tie their destinies to this leadership. They chose to allow these launch-pads to be set up within their communities. They allowed Hamas and Hezbollah to have considerable influence in their societies and chose to put their children in harm's way as a result. As it has been stated various times through the media, every time Israel launches an artillery attack, it is only on military targets, yet every time Hezbollah launches an attack on Israel, it is on civilian targets. When Israelis vote for their leadership, they vote for security, not wars of aggression. So are Lebanese and Palestinian constituencies - knowing full well what Hamas and Hezbollah stand for - voting for wars of aggression? All signs point to yes. |
|
|
| Lest we forget. |
[Jul. 27th, 2006|01:39 pm]
tabletalk
|
|
In the midst of the international climate of today's multipolar geopolictical arrangement that has grown out of the post World War II and post Cold War worlds, Israel finds itself in a new arrangement of the victim, perpetrator, and bystander model of anti-Semitism which has been discussed time and time again by scholars. The State of Israel is now the manifestation of the Jew in the world, surrounded by hostile forces seeking its annihilation while the world community looks the other way. While terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad are openly calling for the destruction of Israel, while being openly funded by Islamic nation-states, primarily Iran and Syria, the international community chooses to ignore this reality. Furthermore, nations such as France and Russia with a personal stake in providing weapons to these hostile forces through their proxies, Iran and Syria, choose to condemn Israel for merely defending itself. New euphemisms have also come to the fore in today's anti-Semitic rhetoric, such as "anti-Zionism", "disproportionate force", and even "Israel does not have the right to exist" which are cryptically similar to those made in the past century. While Iran's President openly calls for the destruction of Israel, the EU considers granting Iran some level of nuclear capability is not only irresponsible, but complicit in possible future war crimes. This is an example of perpetrators and bystanders actively working together to annihiate Israel. However, Israel will not go quietly to the slaughter while the world chooses not to lift a finger. While Islamic fundamentalists and the Western Left call for a cease-fire and cry foul in the form of "disproportionate force", Israel fights to disarm Hezbollah when Lebanon chose not to, to disarm Hamas when the world watched for nearly a year as rockets landed in Northern Israel. The Bush Administration realizes that they have a common cause with Israel and cannot abandon her in her time of need. Isolated in the world while defending itself, Israel cannot afford another cease-fire in the midst of this hostility. In today's modern arrangement of victim, perpetrator, and bystander, Israel chooses not to participate as a victim. Lest we forget the 6 million who perished in the Holocaust, Israel surely has not. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
