Is Israel the Main Cause of Terrorism?
We recently received a comment from a reader regarding our characterization of Michael Moore as being anti-Israel:
No person of conscious with an IQ greater than that of a mouse would take anyone who wasn't anti-Israel seriously. Israel is the cause, reason and justification for terrorism and anti-terrorism. All violence stems from that injustice. History will condemn those of us without the courage to speak out against the crimes of Israel.
This argument seems to be the standard rallying cry of the intelligencia. The commenter was anonymous but I wouldn't be surprised if it came from some left wing college professor.
The answer is very simple. The Palestinians have no right to that land. Arabs and Jews have been living there for thousands of years. Any Arabs that left in 1948 did so of their own free will and did as they were instructed by their leaders. The Arabs who stayed were given full Israeli citizenship and the same rights as other Israelis. Throughout history the losers of wars of aggression have paid the price for their aggression with their land. The Arabs have launched and lost multiple wars of aggression against Israel, yet Israel is some how held to a different standard then that given to the rest of the world.
Also no person with an IQ greater then that of a snail would make a statement that "Israel is the cause, reason and justification for terrorism and anti-terrorism." International terrorism has a multitude of causes including the Islamofacists desire to create a singular Islamic superpower in the model of Iran and the former Afghanistan. It is fueled by rich Arabs whose main desire is to keep the peasant classes focus off of them and on to exterior enemies. They fed this by exporting Wahabism which is a radical form of Islam designed to enrage the masses and focus their energy on the "infidels". It's main tenets are that the "Infidels" are the ones that make your lives unhappy, and they Allah wants you to fight these infidels. This gives the masses something to focus on besides their miserable existences. It gives them a sense of purpose. We saw a similar example of this done by the Nazis. Hitler was able to unite his people by convincing them that the Jews were behind their misery. They were united in their hatred.
Wahabism teaches the same hatred. It is an technique used by the elite to placate the masses. To say that Israel is the main cause for international terrorism is to admit to an astonishing lack of understanding of the situation.
13 Comments:
This is the same arguement that has been circulating for the past 2000 years. Whenever something bad happens, blame the Jews. Take their money, and expel them. If they won't leave, kill them.
The strength we have in the nation of Israel is in our determination, despite liberal factions bent on resurrecting the obvious follies of past appeasements. Israel is made of beautiful Jewish people who refuse, at all costs, of allowing another Holocaust to occur.
The fault lies not with Israel, but with those who hate the Jewish people without reason or provocation.
The "palestinian people" is a fiction, a demographic convenience, a fact which has been publically stated by PLO leadership in the past. "Palestine" exists for the sole purpose of jihad against Israel.
Agreed Moby and Gravel. They are Arabs. Thats it. Its important to get the word out that Israel is a free society that only wants peace with their neighbors. They are also a country where all the people are free to practice whatever religion they want.
Wow, so much hatred here - my monitor almost melted. And what have the Nazis got to do with it? You mention the Nazis in almost every post, your obsession seems quite disturbed. You are anti-intellectual, anti-left, anti-Arab; you have no idea how much like the Nazis you actually sound! (And I'm right-wing myself)
The similarities between the Nazis and the Terrorists are as follows:
Hitler used propaganda against the Jews to ralley and brainwash his people. The Arab leaders use scapegoating against the Jews to focus their peoples anger away from their real problems. Its actually quite similar.
Hitler didn't invent propaganda. Propaganda is as old as civilization itself. By bringing up the Nazis you seem to be arguing from the position of victim-hood as justification, which is revenge - thus undermining your very argument of moral superiority. First you say "The similarities between the Nazis and the Terrorists are..." then you say "Arab leaders use scapegoating..." - who are you talking about? Terrorists or Leaders? They can't be both, a leader has power and a terrorist coverts it.
It is actually a more specific example of propaganda used to scapegoat the Jews which by the way is also somthing which has occured quite frequently throughout history (see European history).
The moral superiority of the terrorized over the terrorist is a given in my opinion. There is no point in arguing it. I simply accept that as fact. The whole point of the post is to expose those who feel that Israel is the cause of terrorism. Israel is the first defense against terrorism. They are not the cause.
You know the worst thing that can happen to a man, or even a state, is to become what they most despise. How you react to oppression in what ever form it takes is very important and being the recipient of a terrorist attack does not give you moral high ground by default. Can't you see that is the logic of the terrorist? They feel that they are aggrieved in some way, making them the victim so they terrorize innocent civilians feeling that they are just and right to do so. If the state reacts to such an attack with an extra-judicial execution where there is even the slightest risk of innocent bystanders getting injured then the state has become the same as the terrorist. Its a cycle of victim-hood and revenge that ultimately nobody will win and the biggest casualty in it all is democracy and isn't that what we're all fighting for?
Your argument would sound great in a classroom or on paper. The reality is that we live in the real world where the answer is rarely so simple. The charge of any government is to protect its citizens. In the case of retaliating against terrorism the most important thing is protection. It is a matter of life and death. That said I am against any actions which puts the lives of innocents at major risk. That said if one were to follow such a policy strictly that would serve as motivation for the terrorists to constantly surround themselves with women and children in order to deter retaliatory attacks. Such a policy would in the end do more harm then good.
Its an argument that has been used for decades by the Spanish government against the Basque separatist terrorists and by the British government in its battle against IRA. I will concede that both have bent the rules of engagement on occasions but on the whole have stuck to the principals of democracy.
You say "retaliating against terrorism" which sounds like the state is seeking revenge, it is not the job of the state to seek revenge, it is against the law in a democratic state and the law applies to both pauper and statesman. The job of the state is to protect the citizen, and that means all of them.
You say that the terrorists surround themselves with women and children but that stands to reason as a terrorist does not have an industrial military complex as a state would have. I know that fighting terror is not easy and we in London have suffered this year but I think I can speak for almost all Londoners when I say that the end does not justify the means. That is why I think many people accuse Israel of being a cause of terror. Every time they make a clumsy attack that harms innocents it is creating more aggrieved citizens who will in turn will feel aggrieved and so the cycle is perpetuated.
Wolfie,
I would like your opinion on what you would do if you were in charge in Israel. The Palestinians have rejected an offer which gave them Gaza, 95% of the West bank and a capitol in East Jerusalem. They are blowing themselves up everyday and killing your citizens. What would you do to stop it?
Such a subject would be too much for a blog entry and quite an undertaking for a book. I'll try and make at least one point for you to think about...
Hard line Zionism has been the architect of its own destruction. In 1948 they won the war but in the ensuing decades the peace was slowly lost and both the Arab world and successive Israeli governments sat back and allowed the likes of Arafat and Sharon to play out their personal vendetta with the blood of their own people. Zionism is desperately in need of modernizing reform, even Sharon now sees that to some degree as he forms a new centre-ist party but I think the best thing he could do for Israel is step down.
You see terrorism is like the Hydra, when you chop off one head another just grows back to replace it. The only way to defeat it is to starve it of what it feeds upon and in this case (as is usually the way) its poverty and hopelessness. The separation wall will reduce attacks in the short-term but in the long term it will send the communities that it has isolated into ever more poverty, providing perfect recruitment ground for the terrorist groups. The billions spent on the wall would have been better spent on building housing for the Palestinian refugees and investing in infrastructure and job creation. "But that's rewarding the terrorists!" I hear you cry. Well not really, its stealing their potential recruits because fat happy people don't want to die. Arafat knew that, that's why he never helped them and the Israeli government missed that opportunity again and again.
Well I'm going to leave it there because I haven't got more time but I'll give you something else to think about...
Peace is slowly breaking out in Northern Ireland. The Blair and Irish governments like to take credit for it but that's rubbish. For the last fifteen years or so the EU has been investing heavily in Ireland building infrastructure, schools and creating jobs. The Catholic ghettos of the 1970s have changed dramatically and unemployment is at an all time low; thus depriving the IRA of their recruits. This is why Sein Fein came to the negotiating table, they were becoming irrelevant. I don't like former terrorists in the government much myself but one day these a***holes will be dead, "the troubles" will be resigned to the history books and no more young people will have to die for for a pointless cause.
Land is only part of the equation, as President Clinton once said ...
"Its [about] the economy, stupid."
Wolfie, That was a well thought out all be it misguided post. I don't think that poverty has all that much to do with terrorism. There is no evidence to support such a claim. I believe that the Palestinian terrorists would only use aid and assistance provided by the Israeli's to attack them.
I agree that the hardline Zionists who has looked to expand Israel by taking over the West Bank and Gaza were a bit overzealous. It was foolish to think thatit would be a good idea to integrate so many arabs into Israeli society.
The best course of action for peace is the one which Sharon is currently pursuing. A complete seperation of these two peoples. That means stepping up construction of the protection barrier and fast pacing the Palestinians towards statehood.
Again, your stated resolution of "starving terrorism of what it feeds on" is just another way of appeasing them. Neville Chamberlain tried that with Hitler and we saw how that one turned out (thats right another Nazi analogy).
The other problem with your argument is that your comparing the Arab terrorits to the IRA. These two groups are nothing alike for more reasons then I care to ellaborate on now. Once again while your ideas sound nice on paper they are not in any way realistic.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home