Take Jerusalem out of the party platforms!

Much excitement and outrage among Republicans about the deletion of Jerusalem from the Democratic platform. And of Gd. Why? Everybody should be happy about this sincerity and honesty, so rare among politicians. Why should Democrats pretend to be somebody else? Even though that might have been habitual for some prominent ones of them - notably, Joe the Coal Miner Biden and Elizabeth the Cherokee Chick Warren - why deny them the chance for repentance and redemption? This is a country where freedom of conscience is sanctified - why force Democrats to pretend they believe in Gd? Our glorious academic intelligentsia, the intellectual leadership of the Democrats, considers religious beliefs a sign of mental deficiency. Atheism is de rigeur (perhaps a bit of Buddhism is OK). Obama's mother was an atheist, his father and step-father were Muslim, and he was introduced to Christianity by Wright, whose black liberation theology is better not be raised by Obama as a discussion point. Apart from his attending Wright's church (largely a career thing), the only item pertaining to practicing religion is his "pretty sound" of the adhan, which contains the Shahada, declaration of faith in Islam (not that I am claiming he is a practicing Muslim). The Democrats omitting Him in their platform should be celebrated - both for their honesty and for the possibility that their admission of their Gdlessness may cost them some votes - of those who may have held some illusions in that respect.

The outrage about Jerusalem on the part of Republicans and the non-Democratic Jews like the ZOA is even less understandable. Jerusalem has no place in either party’s platform. Any country is free to choose any of its cities as its capital, and Jerusalem has been so chosen three thousand years ago. It does not need approval by some party's document - it's been approved by a higher power and by the whole history of the Jewish people, from David to the prayers to the defense of the city's western part in 1948-49 and the final liberation of Jerusalem in 1967 from its illegal and barbaric occupation by Jordan. It is particularly senseless, hypocritical and quite insulting when the Democrats, under Obama's orders, put Jerusalem back into the text of their platform - when his own minions cannot name Israel's capital, and it is his prerogative to finally act on the law demanding the US Embassy's move to Jerusalem rather than invoke the waiver every six months. It would be to the benefit of both parties to demand removal of Jerusalem from the Democratic platform.  For the Republicans, again, it could deduct some votes from their Democratic competitors. For the Democrats, it would be maintaining the integrity of the party, deprived of it by the shamelessly fraudulent vote count by the convention chairman Villaraigosa: there clearly was no two thirds majority, necessary for amending the platform. Honesty is certainly more important than those votes. As Obama would say (or should have said), “I’d be willing to be a one-term president over this.”

Democrats and Republicans! Desist from your lip service to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Be honest - move the Embassy already! Or be honest - and stop lying.

Who wins?

Why waste money and effort? Too bad they'll never listen to me - or the Romney and Obama election campaigns would have stopped that waste and donated that enormous money to charities and to the IRS, respectively. As per the sympathies, that is: "conservatives" are known to be more conscientious than "liberals", giving more to charities despite being poorer. Which is not surprising, because the difference is ideological, not material. In the Soviet Union, always my point of reference, giving alms, personal charity, was considered a sign of contemptible weakness to the beggar's reprobate behavior. The state was supposed to be thought of as taking care of everybody - against all facts to the contrary, particularly concerning the elderly and the disabled. Their pensions, if any, were often at the starvation level, and even that meager money was frequently stolen from them by their alcoholic relatives. Under the capitalist system, the progressive viewpoint is the same: the state is supposed to take care of our needs. Of course, we need to pay ever more taxes - as much as the state says it needs for taking care of us. The state's perceived generosity is very attractive to both the progressives, because it relieves them of the pesky responsibility of a civilized person to make the uncomfortable donation decisions, - and to the prospective recipients, because they get that as a legitimate entitlement and have nobody to thank for that (but the state, sometimes also known as Dear Leader).

While being demonstrably more charitable, the conservatives are presented as vicious predators, ready to push the granny off the cliff. The progressives (aka "liberals"), like Al Gore who donated one seventh of the average for donating households, are to be thought of as striving to take off their last shirt, or perhaps the $6,800 designer jacket, helping "the poor". Regardless of what one may voluntarily donate, it is never a "fair share", as the Leader... uhm, the President, defines it. Because it is the state that determines what that share is, it can only be paid through taxes.

I digress, but not much. The administration has succeeded in ensuring that half of the population uses and is used to governmental handouts, which are firmly associated with the Democrats. Add to these the progressive intelligentsia and money-hating "millionaires and billionaires" like Soros and Buffett, and the electoral majority is clearly in Obama's hands - no need in campaigning. In fact, no need in elections: the People has spoken already - just look at the polls. Never mind that over two thirds of the population are thinking that the country is going in a wrong direction - they still prefer the one who is taking it there. Something else matters, not the facts of life. It does not matter to the black voters that a leader of the Party, Sen. Harry Reid, likes Obama because he is “light-skinned” and capable of speaking “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”. After all, Reid is no different in that from another idol of the progressives, "Che" the La Cabaña Butcher Guevara, with his insightful observations: “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations”; and “The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing…” (The Motorcycle Diaries). 

The revolutionary icon, by the way, was also an antisemite, as comes from another quote from the same book, about "a certain Cohen, who we were told was Jewish but a good sort; there was no doubt he was Jewish, the problem was finding out if he was a good sort.” Then again, so are the plurality if not majority of Democrats, who not only list all the congressional antisemites, but are hardly half sympathetic to Israel vs. "Palestinians" (53% in 2012, but 48% in 2010) - in striking contrast to the overwhelming support of Israel among the Republicans. A progressive colleague, with his usual irrelevant cussing attributions, pointed out that this support is due to the eschatological motivations of "the lunatic fringe fundamentalists". I replied that if a Jew pays attention to these alleged hopes for the ultimate conversion of the Jews, he must believe in that as well as in all the surrounding events happening - the second coming, and the first one for that matter. Otherwise, why would he worry about that motivation that has no effect on the present, except positive? Suppose the "fringe" believe we the Jews will eventually convert, but meanwhile they help us against our sworn enemies – why would you be concerned about their dreams? Considering that they sincerely believe, it would be very inconsistent of them  –  and a reason of concern to us the Jews  –  not to worry about our redemption: it is a sine qua non for a believing Christian to hope for universal redemption. Democrats, on the other hand, believe in something else – their ideology of robbing the haves and spreading, however eventually thinly, among the designated have-nots – at their wise discretion. The ways-and-means are well described in Animal Farm. 

To get a taste of the components of that ideology pertaining to the Jews, check out Jimmy Carter’s slanderous masterpiece, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, along with another contemporary version of the Protocols –  the Walt and Mearsheimer treatise. This is who the Jewish majority in this country vote with – Carter, Sharpton, Farrahan, and their fellow Judeophobes. The latter, of course, include Obama himself, the first US president who has supported the return of Israel to the pre-1967 lines, better known as "Auschwitz borders". It is often said, and repeated by that colleague of mine, that Obama's minions' inability to name the Israeli capital is the US policy since Reagan. Well, I don't worship Reagan, like the progressives worship Obama. When I make my pick, I don’t need to make good out of bad, as they do with Obama who they think is infallible, if not immaculately conceived.  I've been well inoculated against idol-worship, much as I respect Reagan for his unique role in the destruction of communism. I see clearly the good and the bad, the latter including Reagan’s treatment of the Jerusalem issue, advised by James "f... the Jews" Baker. The fact that Obama follows in those steps, instead of the steps of the Democratic competitors of Reagan, Hart and Mondale, who both promised to move the embassy, and of Moynihan who introduced the US Embassy Jerusalem relocation bill, only confirms Obama's antisemitism and my colleague's inconsistency. Reagan, however, instructed to veto any possible UN resolutions that, prompted by Arabs, would characterize east Jerusalem as “occupied territory”. The Reagan Plan called for "Palestinian" autonomy, but not an independent "Palestinian" state, and Jerusalem as an undivided city – obviously no "Palestinian" capital. Obama did the Jerusalem piece too – only to renege the next day. Obama's sympathies, inspired by his uncommon upbringing, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said, and Rev. Wright, are clear.

His motivations, which are not, unfortunately, of the fringe of the Democrats anymore but of their mainstream, - are clear too. He has been quite open on that, starting from the beginning of his career of an "organizer": 

That’s why people become involved in organizing—because they think they’ll get something out of it... With enough actions, I could start to build power. Issues, action, power, self-interest. I liked these concepts. They bespoke a certain hardheadedness, a worldly lack of sentiment; politics, not religion.

He took to heart the advice of his organizer mentor: "the last thing we need is to join up with a bunch of white money and Catholic churches and Jewish organizers to solve our problems. They’re not interested in us." Obama made them all "interested". He did need a friendly advice, though: "When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change." He has continued pronouncing that, and that has taken him straight to the White House. 

Power, which he has built so successfully, is the ultimate goal of the progressives - not “the problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland", that "become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought”. The progressives always care about humanity - not about humans. About The People - not about people. But people are just that - people, suckers for populist slogans, freebies and discounts, flattery and the "cool", their memory short - in this case often literally, as the Obama-faithful majority of the youth have none. That's why the response to the question above is so easy.

Champion of displacement

Nobody is going to be surprised that today’s article in The New York Times, “A Champion for the Displaced in Israel”, is not about hundreds of thousands of Jews who were “displaced” (expelled and murdered) by Arab pogrom mobs throughout the Middle East, ethnically cleansing it of the ancient population that preceded Arab invaders by many centuries. These Jews and their descendants constitute half of the Israeli Jewish population, and have never been compensated for their losses. No, in the inverted world of the Times, the “displaced” in Israel are Arabs, the descendants of those invaders. It is unclear what exactly makes them to qualify for that status: the only people mentioned there who are displaced and whose homes are demolished are the Jews, Israelis, the Natives of the Land of Israel, who are given the preposterous misnomer of “settlers”. And the “champion” of those Arabs, whose only geopolitical dream is to displace the Jews from any piece of land, is a Jewish lawyer, Michael Sfard.

Usually, when a person raised in the Jewish culture (or a culture based on the Jewish values) takes an enemy’s side, it requires inversion of values and shedding of morality. When a lawyer in a democracy defends a murderer, he does not need to be on the murderer’s side to perform his duties. The murderer represents only himself even if he is a gang member. It is different when a lawyer takes upon himself the defense of a group against another group and does that consistently, especially when the group – in its overwhelming majority – is an enemy of the group to which the lawyer himself belongs. And not just any enemy. With some enemies, compromise can be and has been reached, but the Palestinian Arabs have given no sign of that possibility. They are self-proclaimed enemies of Israel. Their goal, at best, is Israel’s eradication, and at worst, the world-wide genocide of the Jews. It is symbolic that the name for the country they want to replace Israel is “Palestine”, the very same name that was invented by Hadrian the Roman emperor to eradicate the notion of Judea and the Jews from the same land. His wish has in part been fulfilled already, as the historic name of Judea has been virtually replaced by the nonsensical “West Bank”, an invention of Jordan that illegally occupied the land until 1967. Whereas the occupation ended, and the Jordanian annexation of the land had never been recognized by the world (with the notable exceptions of the UK and Pakistan), the name has stuck to the degree that somebody’s use of the original and true names, Judea and Samaria, is now viewed as a tell-tale sign of “right-wing” extremism. According to the article, those are just the “Biblical names” – and who cares about the Bible in our enlightened times. Obviously, since “right” is associated with fascism, it is easy to make the next step and accuse the Jews of nazism, a calumny that is so popular nowadays among antisemites in general and in the Muslim world in particular.

Sfard pathetically juxtaposes himself with the Soviet dissidents, expressing his satisfaction that he does his subversive work unmolested in a democracy. Soviet dissidents, which now have to defend the right of the Jews to live on the Land of Israel against him, have risked their lives for the Jews to be able to live in Eretz Israel, while he abuses Israel's legal system to ethnically cleanse it of the Jews. He is not "an enemy of the right" – he is an enemy of those who stand for what is right. He is the enemy's collaborationist. Along with other deluded or immoral people whom he defends, like the draft dodgers in Israel, he is adored by the likes of the NY Times and BBC, well known for their anti-Israel bias, and despised by the Israelis. Don’t expect this “defender of human rights” to defend the rights of the “settlers” – in his book, they are not listed as humans. Morally displaced, he is indeed a champion – of the displacement of Jews. No wonder that he has Gandhi's portrait on the wall - the "likeness" of a man who advised the Jews to comply with Hitler's plans.

___________________________
April 2013. - A follow-up to this entry, in response to Sfard's talk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, is at "Antisemitism By Other Means: Lecturing Against The Jewish State", and, a shorter version, in The Jewish Chronicle, "Michael Sfard: 'I Don't Care About History'".

Lying tradition of "Palestine"

Somehow, Arab/Muslim propaganda does not need consistency. It asserts that there was never a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and Jerusalem has always been "Palestinian" capital; then the contemporary Jews are not real Jews by "blood", but Khazars, so they have no rights in Jerusalem (why would they, if that was not a Jewish city in the first place?); that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, but somehow nothing that connects him with prophecy, e.g., preaching at the Temple, is true in the eyes of Muslims (there was no Temple, was there?). No history of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (and by Nebuchadnezzar before) exists for the Muslims - it is not even replaced by any coherent lie. 
 

They steal Jewish Psalms, like they have stolen the lands they've declared theirs - North African, Asian and European, like they've stolen Jewish and Christian prophets, following in that Muhammad's example. Plagiarism is always pathetic, an ugly child of intellectual impotence - be it by a writer or a politician like the current US vice-president, - but that is of negligible consequence when compared with the global repercussions of Muhammad's and Islam's plagiarism and distortions - of time, space, past and present, names and events. From the warp-speed night travel of Muhammad from Mecca to Jerusalem (Koran never mentions Jerusalem, and says, to "the farthest mosque", "Masjid al-Aqsa" - but today's Islam places it in Jerusalem where the al-Aqsa mosque was built when Muhammad had long been dead, on the Temple's ruins) - to the 500 Jenin civilians "massacred" by Israel, a Goebbelsian lie stated by  the "Palestinian" chief negotiator Erekat and (mis)Information Minister Abed Rabbo, and readily repeated by mainstream news agencies and supported by European politicians. 
 

Hard to understand how so many people, including intellectuals, can be satisfied by the Koran, a disjointed hodge-podge of inventions and ad hoc justifications of Muhammad's horrific actions, imitating divine revelation, childish in its scary-fairy-tale refrain of hellish punishment sadistically executed on unbelievers by Allah, the deity, himself. Then again, it is not surprising, as the same people, the "Palestinian" Authority, declare recently found shekels of year 66 CE, bearing the inscription of "shekel of Israel", a "Palestinian" coin. That is especially amusing because "Palestine" would not be invented, by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, for another 66 years.  Amusing, that is, if one is not thoroughly disgusted by insults to intelligence, doublethink and constant fantastic rewriting of history that is so peculiar to the Muslim culture.  "Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" (Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:269). The war goes on.

A familiar death

Arrigoni and Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh Photo: EPA

I read books about how and why people become terrorists. I've not seen any about how one becomes a supporter of terrorists, like these ISM people are. This is not quite true, though. These supporters remind me the stories about vampires and their human familiars. These familiars are in thrall to their lords, and follow all their commands. They also gain some benefits, picking up crumbs from their lords' tables, if not literally then by vicariously exercising power over other humans and perhaps hoping themselves to be turned. They also die in their lords' fights.

Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian member of the International Solidarity Movement, lived in Gaza. He called the phrase "How can a man without a heart have a heart attack?" - about Mubarak rushed to the hospital - the "most astute comment discovered on the network." This was followed by "Stay Human Stay Human Vik da Gaza city. Vik from Gaza City",  the exhortation that concluded each post of his on Guerrilla Radio, his blog. Happy about Israel boycotts. Regretful that "The sporadic firing of homemade rockets of the Palestinian guerrillas, now did not cause casualties in Israel, nor even less substantial property damage". "Vik" called Goldstone's mealy-mouthed admission of his blood libel of Israel's intentionally killing civilians "another green light for more massacres." He was "disgusted" - not by his friends shooting rockets at Israeli towns with the goal to kill and maim Israeli children, from among the Gazan women and children, but by the Israeli response to terror, in which, unfortunately, somebody else in addition to terrorists sometimes dies. That blood, as befits vampires, also feeds them, used for getting more sympathy to their cause and more hate toward the oh-so-hated Jews. Which calls for more Jewish blood. And if my rare reader thinks I am being too dramatic and the vampire comparison is far-fetched - it is not mine, but the Hamasniks' themselves: "We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know that there is no blood better than the blood of Jews. We will not leave you alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children's thirst with your blood. We will not leave until you leave the Muslim countries."

It is easy to guess why one gang of Gazan terrorists, Tawhid wal Jihad, Wahhabi vampires, kidnapped Vittorio Arrigoni as a hostage to make another gang, Hamas, release Tawhid's leader. On the one hand, "Vik" was a valuable asset for Hamas as the rulers of Gaza: not so many Westerners like Arab terrorists so much as to live in Gaza and share, as he did, the vampire lords' convictions. So there was indeed a good chance Hamas could agree to that demand. On the other hand, if Hamas did not, their vampire competitors in the fight over the Jewish blood could make good on their promise to kill "Vik" without extra risk they would incur if they kidnapped and killed a Hamasnik. So they murdered Vik - a familiar outcome of a close encounter of this kind. As with other kinds of gangs, this murder probably also raised Tawhid's status in the terrorist-approving society.

What is not so easy for me is to understand what makes one become a familiar. Is it possible not to know that there would be no "suffering" and "massacres" of Gazan Arabs if they did not incessantly try to murder Israelis? Is it not clear that Hamas and the rest of Gazan bandits commit a double crime against humanity every time they shoot a rocket or a mortar at Israel: by trying to indiscriminately kill, and by using their own women and children as human shields? It can't be just ISM's or Hamas's blood money: however strong that or other temptation might be, the stench of violence that is in the Gazan air must be overwhelming for somebody who has not been raised in that culture (for lack of a better word). Is the Jew-hatred of "Viks" as strong as to mislead them into trusting their vampire lords' protection?

No wonder he had to remind himself to "stay human", living among vampires. He could have tried harder - by staying away from them. He would still be alive.