What's the point in supporting a country that carries 'Stupidity' as its hallmark?
It clearly has a death wish, so why even bother?

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at June 16, 2006 6:07 AM

Kim,
don't you feel that your politicians have fooled and betrayed you? Maybe just a few times? So does that mean that you have a death wish?

One of our problems, besides the gruesome Olmert himself, is most of the press here which consistently covers up for olmert and for our foreign enemies, Arabs, Europeans, etc.

Anyhow, the mayor of Sderot, Eli Moyal, has called for Olmert's resignation for failing to act to stop the rocket barrages against his town.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 16, 2006 6:25 AM

What's the point in supporting a country that carries 'Stupidity' as its hallmark? It clearly has a death wish, so why even bother?

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at June 16, 2006 06:07 AM

And don't let it happen again!

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 16, 2006 6:52 AM

Those weapons have been tained by Jewish hands, and will blow up in the faces of muslims, their god wills it be done..oh well we can only hope.

Posted by: Lulu at June 16, 2006 8:01 AM

I remember when Jews were thought to be especially clever - what happened to them?
Or maybe Olmert isn't really Jewish?

Posted by: sonnyboy at June 16, 2006 9:04 AM

"It [Israel] clearly has a death wish, so why even bother?"
-- from a posting above

Here are some reasons why one should bother:

1. Israel the country does not have a "death wish." It has had a series of leaders who have exhibited an ignorance of Islam, and an unwillingness to grasp the nature of the menace, or all the ways in which that menace could be dealt with beyond the mild military measures (Israel has never inflicted, never been allowed to inflict by the outside world, the kind of military defeat on the Arabs that would be a salutary lesson -- in 1973 Nixon and Kissiner prevented Sharon, for example, from destroying Egypt's Third Army that Sharon's troops had trapped). Stupidity of leaders, and of many in the press and television, does not constitute a "death wish."

The same might be said, with greater force, about the peoples of Western Europe. The Israelis had Muslims already surrounding them, and within their country (where they did nothing to discourage them, of course). The ruling classes, political and business and intellectual, did nothing to prevent the large-scale settlement of Muslims within England, France, Germany, and other countries; they did nothing to educate themselves about Islam; they refused to listen to the handful of those who warned them (e.g., Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, Jacques Ellul, Jacques Soustelle). Does that mean that all of Europe has a "death wish" and we should wash our hands of it, forget about it? Sweden, with its awful ruling class? Norway, with its awful ruling class? Italy, with its awful ruling class(though not quite as awful)? France, with only the hope of so far so-so Sarkozy and Philippe de Villiers? England with---England with whom, exactly?

2. The destruction of European Jewry by the Germans and by many other collaborators who enthusiastically joined in, pitching in to help with the killing (e.g., the Rumanian Iron Guard, whose members hung Jews from hooks in the windows of kosher butcher shops, or the ordinary Germans who pitched in to go on "Jew hunts" if some had escaped from trains or camps), or with the all-important rounding-up (think of the French police (how empty Drancy would have been like without the rafle of the Vel d'Hiv, without all they did, those police, in the Marais), the looting of Jewish assets (everywhere, by gangs, by neighbors -- who often turned people in so as to be able subsequently to help themselves to what was left behind), and so on. After the war, this could not be confronted. It was too terrible. It took decades for a slow thaw -- a civilizational thaw -- to cause people to begin to realize, to see, to stare in the face, the whole thing. That did not last long, for it was too awful to contemplate. Fortunately for so many, and for the Arabs, the victory of Israel in the Six-Day War promptly provided a reason to depict Jews as villains, not victims -- thus the audience of Europeans, already eager, for psychological reasons, to find fault with Jews so as to avoid thinking unduly about the behavior of many European peoples and states during the war, and hardly wishing to believe -- it would not do -- that Jews were again victims, and they, the Europeans, were not taking their side but abandoning them (who had the oil? who had the contracts? who could pay for that army of Western hirelings? who had the plausible if completely manufactured narrative that ignored the history of the Middle East and of historical Palestine, but that played on the notion linking an invented "Palestinian people," supposedly unique, with a virtual "Palestine" that never existed in Arab or Muslim history?

The damage done to the morale of Europe because of the destruction of European Jewry has been great. If Western Europe, or the West generally, were after all that has happened, to permit Israel to go under -- whether or not its leaders and most of those who fashion public opinion in that country unbearably and obstinately innocent of the real situation (Olmert is only the latest and the worst of those who have risen high; he is hardly alone)-- it would not recover.

3. The loss of Israel would fill the Arabs and Muslims with such triumphalism, that their Jihad in Western Europe and elsewhee (inluding the Americas) would receive a gigantic boost. Some believe that if only they are thrown a sop, they will be content and go home. Not at all. The Qur'an and Hadith and Sira do not tell us that Muslims somewhere have read "be content with the Land of the Jews and leave the other Infidels alone." No. The duty is to make sure that Islam covers the globe; that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule.

The Infidles owe a terrific unacknowledged debt to Israel. Why? Because, before the OPEC oil revenues, and the complete end to colonialism (the French left Algeria in 1962; the British garrisons left the Persian Gulf sheikdoms in 1971), before those OPEC trillions and before the millions of Muslims permitted to settle in Western Europe, the main Jihad that attracted the world's attention was the Lesser JIhad against Israel. In the West, Islam was seen -- especially by the Dulles brothers but also by their successors -- as a "bulwark against Communism." No one noticed what was happening within Muslim or Arab countries. In Lebanon, the Muslim war against the Christians was depicted as something else, and the Christians, massacred at Damur and so many other places, were referred to with the Homeric epithet "right-wing." Those "right-wing" Christians. It was a stupid adjective, stupid and misleading. But how soothing to the Western world not to have to comprehend that the Maronites of Lebanon, who had lived there before the Muslims arrived, before Islam was invented, were under assault, and would lose control of the last sure Christian refuge in the entire MIddle East.

Similarly, the assorted versions of pan-Arabism -- Nasserism, Ba'athism -- were seen as alternatives to Islam, when in fact they were not alternatives at all, but merely displayed, for quite specific and local reasons, an emphasis on "Uruba" or Arabdom that is explicable, given the impoverished state of the "Islamic world" and given the fact that there were local stumbling blocks -- in Turkey Kemalists were in control, in Iran the Shah, trying in his maladroit way to emphasize the pre-Islamic past -- to pan-Islamism (including the lack of financial wherewithal), pan-Arabism was a version of pan-Islamism, a subset, which at the time seemed to be as much as one could hope for. Nasser or Saddam Hussein could dream of being King of the Arabs, but the idea of a much bigger operation, especially since for both Nasser and Saddam Hussein the most dangerous political opposition was mosque-based (the Muslim Brotherhood for Nasser, the Shi'a clerics for Saddam Hussein).

So, until the early 1970s, the Lesser Jihad against Israel took up the time, attention, money of the Arabs. Now that they have so many more resrouces, now that they have received ten trillion dollars from OPEC, have seen millions of Muslims settle deep behind what Muslims regard as enemy lines, have seen how the inventions of the West -- audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, the Internet -- can be harnessed for the dissemination of Islam and for Jihadist propaganda (beheadings of Infidels, that sort of thing that is apparently an inspiring recruiting tool), the Lesser Jihad against Israel can be seen, correctly, as only one part -- still the part that gets far too much attention -- of a wolrd-wide phenomenon. Of course, all during that period until about 1973, the local Jihads within countries against non-Muslims continued, but without either Western support or sympathy or even comprehension for what those non-Muslims were enduring.

How often did any Western power protest the persecution of Hindus or Christians in Pakistan or of Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh? Ever? How many Western countries extended diplomatic recognition to the Christians of Biafra, as they tried to fight against what Col. Ojukwu correctly described (in the Ahaiara Declaration of 1969) as a "jihad" by the Muslims? How many Western reporters noted the steady pressure on Christians in what was always depicted as easygoing Indonesia, all batik and gamelans, when that was really Bali with its Hindus they were talking about, and not Aceh, not much of Java and Sumatra, where the fiercest Muslims lived?

Meanwhile, Israel's failure to identify its real problem, the product both of innocence (the Israelis knew no more about Islam than did most Westerners in, say, August of 2000) on the part of many, and calculation on the part of others (after all, if Israel hoped to find friends in the Muslim world, and it did, making alliances with Iran, which ended when the Shah fell, and more recentl, an even briefer one with the army and secularits, but not the government, or real Muslims, of Turkey), did neither Israel, nor the peoples of Western Europe, any good. Had Israel all along understood that it faced a Jihad, one disguised in all sorts of ways after 1967 -- especially by Arafat's use of islamochristians (always useful to disguise the essentially Islamic nature of the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a permanent presence), and by the invention of the "Palestinian people" with their supposedly "nationalist" cause.

Now that some in Western Europe are coming to their senses about Islam, they will inevitably begin to realize that the steady suffusion of their media with anti-Israel propaganda has created a situation that imperils not only Israel, but themselves. And they will begin to see things differently.

Will a sufficient number of Israelis begin to see things differently, and become disgusted with many of their journalists, their unimagiantive politicians, their insensate holier-than-thou or terminally naive figures, such as Shimon Peres?

Whether they do or not, Israel cannot be allowed to commit suicide. To take, and apply the phrase that used to be used by such committed haters of Israel as George Ball, Israel "must be saved in spite of itself." For its own good. For the good of the Western world's morale, and for continued access by Christians as well as Jews to the Holy Land -- which would not happen if Israel could no longer protect all the holy places and they fell under Muslim control, and not the kind of lackadaisical control that was exercised by an indifferent Ottoman regime until World War I, when Mandatory Palestine was put under British, i.e. Christian, control. If the Muslims ever got control of the Holy Land again, that would be it. Perhaps the world's Christians do not care sufficiently, or do not realize all the reasons why they have a stake in supporting Israel to the hilt -- but they should understand this one.

There's more one could say, but that will have to do as a brief and prelimiinary answer to the question, which one hopes was merely rhetorical: "if [Israel] has a death wish, why even bother?"

For every conceivable reason under the sun -- for our own mental and moral stability, our physical and civilizational survival. That's why.

Posted by: Hugh at June 16, 2006 9:28 AM

Hugh,
thanks for that excellent piece!

I do believe Israel represents the western world in microcosm. If Israel falls we are in trouble. Islamists will be so emboldened they will never stop.

I once saw a statistic which is most interesting. (It was several years ago - before 9/11).

If the whole islamic world was the size of a football oval, then Israel is but one square inch.
Therefore, it seems to me the arabs want a lot more than that "square inch" of real estate.

I hope they keep their ever-diminishing "square inch"! (Maybe more?)

Posted by: Gramfan at June 16, 2006 9:38 AM

Kim:

As far as Ohmert's stupidity goes, it's not like he's not under a great deal of pressure from the US and EU nations plus Israel's "doves" to help Abbas out, the "great white hope for peace" that Abbas truly is.

No, what's amazing here is yet another brazen admission from a "Palestinian militant" ostensibly loyal to Abbas, that they are killing unarmed Israeli civilians and intend to keep on doing it.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 16, 2006 10:19 AM

Aren't people forgetting about the micro-transmitters (so small that they're visually undetectable) which the Israelis have secretly embedded in those weapons to track movement by satellite so the IDF can target persons carrying those weapons?

Each person given one of those weapons to carry around with them has been turned into a collaborator with the Zionist Entity who unwittingly helps the IDF track and assassinate their own people. Too funny!

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at June 16, 2006 10:19 AM

Ben Gurion is turning in his grave.

Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at June 16, 2006 1:45 PM

What I'm saying is this: when a people elect a leadership, which publicly states: "We're tired of fighting, we're tired of winning", to me this translates to: "We're tired of living, we're tired of life."
The way I see it, life is a struggle, both on an individual level as well as on a national level. If you stop fighting for what you believe in, you WILL die. Mentally, if not physically.
Hence my assertion that Israel must have a death wish.

As for supporting Israel, I base what I said on the assumption that is makes no sense helping someone, who is not willing to help himself. And I think that assumption is valid.
However, you are right when you say that there are good, selfserving reasons for the West to support Israel.
Only in that sense was my remark rhetorical.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at June 16, 2006 4:42 PM

If Olmert wants to turn over something, he could start with that idiot daughter and those two chickens**t sons of his. Toss in his wife for good measure.

Of course, the pali-mohammedans might consider that an atrocity and a war crime. They wouldn't be too far off the mark.

Posted by: Eisenhund at June 16, 2006 5:21 PM

This smacks of something in the same idiotic vein of 'helping those who are sworn to destroy you' that the U.S. military in Iraq was involved with a month or so ago when the leaders ordered troops not to shoot at Iraqi insurgents or foreign jihadis with ammo obtained from Israel. They were only permitted to fire the 'Jew bullets' in target practice, but had to kill the enemy with politically correct U.S. slugs only.

It seems our enemy has no such compunction.

Nor should we.

I say beat the Islamofascists to death with a menorah if need be.

Smother them under gefilte fish.

Choke them with a used yarmulka.

But render them hors de combat.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 16, 2006 7:32 PM

profitsbeard,

Do you have a story to backup your story about jew bullets? I'm in Iraq now and have not heard that AND it is ridiculous to even think about it. Would love to see the story you read this from. I will also ask around and see if there were any ammunition restrictions here. I think we should dip all the jewish bullets in pigs blood and make sure they know it.

Posted by: Matt at June 17, 2006 3:13 AM

Matt,

Here's a good link for that story:

http://news.1918.com/article.php?article_id=5241&type=read

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at June 17, 2006 8:48 AM

"I did this because we are running out of time and we need to help Abu Mazen," Olmert told reporters Tuesday.

This is a perfect example of "sending coal to New Castle." They don't need more guns. This should go into the Dhimmi-Dimwit file.

Posted by: Frank at June 17, 2006 12:28 PM

If you dip the Jewish bullets in pig's blood, I don't think they'd be kosher. I'm not Jewish, but it seems like that would be the case.

Hm, pig's blood or kosher? Which, for a jihadi, would be worse? Could be interesting if they spent their last seconds or minutes thinking about it as they were turning the ground underneath them into red mud.

I heard something similar about the Sepoy Mutiny in India in the mid 19th cent. Apparently, someone trying to stir up trouble spread the rumor that the British Army waterproofed the paper cartridges for its new Enfield muzzle-loaders with lard or tallow. You had to bite off the top of the cartridge, pour the powder down the barrel, stuff the paper in for wadding to seal the barrel, then seat and ram the bullet. Using either kind of fat was guaranteed to upset either the mohammedan or Hindu soldiers.

Seems that the lard/tallow issue was just another rumor in a different time/different place, however.

Posted by: Eisenhund at June 17, 2006 12:36 PM

Hugh says that pan-Arabism is merely a veneer over pan-Islamism. Indeed, the egalitarian Arab nationalism that some Christians dreamed of in the 19th century never came to reality. Even Adeed Dawisha agrees with that.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 18, 2006 6:26 PM