Do the Israelis fear that they might make the Palestinians *more* murderous towards them? Killing Arafat might have the appealing consequence of sparking a bloody civil war among Palestinian factions.

The situation in Israel reveals something tremendously depressing about the power of leftist ideology. I would like to think of the anti-American blather of American intellectuals as the product of a pampered and remote elite, but in Israel, where everyone faces death daily, there is still a powerful fantasy left. If al-Quaeda were carrying out suicide attacks every day in America, how many Americans would there still be whose psychological need for distinction from the contemptible masses would cause them to undermine any effective response?

It is amazing that utopian notions survive in Israel, a country without any of the buffers from harsh reality that we in the U.S. have, with our enormous size and wealth.

I explain Israel’s paralysis as resulting from several factors: (1) world-wide leftism, which does everything it can to preclude decisive military action by the “oppressor” Israel; (2) widespread anti-Semitism, which does the same; (3) the Europeans’ desire to placate Arabs for oil and other reasons, including the growing numbers and influence of Muslim immigrants in Europe; (4) America’s involvement in the “peace process,” which has repeatedly had the effect of stopping the Israelis from taking more decisive action; (5) Israel’s own liberalism, stemming from the Jews’ own history as oppressed people, which makes it inconceivable for them to expel the Palestinians (in my opinion the only solution, which in previous periods of history any country in Israel’s position would have done long ago with the complete approval of the world); and, of course, (6) Israel’s tiny size and the fact that it is surrounded by mortal enemies.

Note that factors 1 through 5 are all of a moral, mental, and political nature and therefore COULD BE CHANGED. If the world had consistently supported Israel and insisted that the Arabs accept her existence (instead of justifying Arab rejectionaism and terror as they have actually been doing), then I think Israel could have been established on a secure basis and we wouldn’t be having the chronic horror that we’re having over there. More than Israeli liberalism, I believe it is the world-wide liberalism and hostility to Israel that is the main factor in creating and prolonging this terrible crisis of Arab terrorism.

The disease of liberalism is no respecter of persons or of nations. Agricola’s point is right on the mark: It would make no difference if there were daily homocide bombings right here in the US. The leftists would continue to blame the whole thing on the evil, racist West. I do wish that Mr. Buchanan and some of the Paleos over at AR would take note of the power of leftist ideology in Israel and how it threatens that nation’s survival just as surely as it does our own. A Jewish conservative I know told me that he thinks that liberal Jews’ real religion is liberalism, not Judaism.

As several posters on this forum have pointed out, liberalism is a disease unique to the West (Israel included) and is ultimately parasitical. If the West dies, liberalism will die with it. The religion of the Western elite doesn’t exist in Islamic or African cultures, and is present in Asia only to the extent that the country in question is Westernized. Even in Westernized Japan, there is no evidence of multiculturalism or a desire to replace the native Japanese population with immigrants from Africa.

“Don’t expel Arafat, kill him”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 12, 2003 09:45

lawrence auster’s modest proposal is interesting, but

how about trial by a jury of his peers? or have we now become so immersed in our modernist culture that we have forsaken that civility?

Israel’s situation is extremely difficult. The only physical solution that promises any security is a firm border on the Jordan, with the full incorporation of Judaea, Samaria, Gaza and probably the Golan into Israel. For what it is worth, that was also the conclusion of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1967 as they analyzed the aftermath of the Six Day War. That border would only work if the Moslem population of those areas (of all Israel?) were deported to Jordan, there to have their home in Trans-Jordanian “Palestine.”

There are three problems with a full territorial resolution, however. The first is that there is not the political will among Israelis to do it. The second is that it would create a casus belli among Arabs that might lead them to act with some semblance of unity. (While it may still be true that Israel could win a war against a Pan-Arab coalition, that is nothing to risk lightly). The third is the ambiguous position of native Christians in Israel: to create Eretz Israel, must they be deported too?

Underlying all of this is another ambiguity, one Mr. Auster has alluded to a few times in this thread. Ultimately, the claims of the Jewish people on the specific land of Israel as their homeland are religious. There is now a Jewish state in the land of Israel, but it is secular, Leftist even, in society and politics. Until that ambiguity is resolved in favor of greater faith, making the case for Israel as the Jewish state in the land God gave the Jews is harder to make than it should be.

I am a supporter of Israel, and I am neither a Jew nor a dispensationalist Christian. Still, I would support Israel more wholeheartedly if she were truly a Jewish state, instead of a secular state with a preferential option for Jews. I believe many Orthodox Jews are unsettled by Israel as she is for much the same reason. While as a Catholic Christian I pray that all may become Catholic Christians, short of that happy event I don’t think it is too great a contradiction to hope for an Israel of greater Jewish faith even as I hope for an America of greater Christian faith.

An Israel with firm Jewish faith stands a far better chance of withstanding both her Arab enemies and false friends who urge suicidal concessions on her. HRS

Regarding my idea that Israel should kill Arafat instead of expelling him, Abby writes:

“how about trial by a jury of his peers? or have we now become so immersed in our modernist culture that we have forsaken that civility?”

Has Abby never heard of … war? And what jury of Arafat’s “peers” is Abby thinking of? A jury consisting of members of Fatah?

Good comment by Mr. Sutherland. I don’t think that the deportation of Christians would be in anyone’s mind.

“Has Abby never heard of … war?” Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 12, 2003 12:25 PM

i liked your comment better before you edited out your question of what planet do i live on. it appears to be mars or pluto btw.

it’s a rather odd war where israel can apprehend arafat at its leasure. and since it can do so, to do other wise as you propose is not very civil.

“And what jury of “peers” of Arafat is Abby thinking of? A jury consisting of members of Fatah?” Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 12, 2003 12:25 PM

i mention peers because governments in such circumstances have a rather unfortunate habit of prefering trials where justice is an afterthoght, if thought of at all. the spirit of choosing peers is that it avoids such an unfortunate habit.

since lawrence auster proposes execution, we must assume someone shall be judging arafat’s life forfeit since men do not act without forethought to the end. i simply prefer men to be proved guilty in some civil manner prior to demand of forfeiture.

Would Abby agree or disagree that Adolf Eichmann was fairly tried?

Two points on Mr. Sutherland’s comment on the basis of Jewish claims to the land of Israel, and the ‘ambiguity’ he mentions:

1. As far as the religious claim to the land, the Biblical prophecies indicate that the regathering of the Jews to the land occurs while they are still in unbelief. The spiritual revival is to follow, (though many passage indicate this occurs only after a great time of trouble.)

To cite one example: “Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD: I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name, which ye have profaned among the nations whither ye went… . I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land… .And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you …” (Eze 36:22-27)

The majority of Israel are still in unbelief — even by Jewish standards — but this is only consistent with what the Lord revealed to us.

2. Whether one accepts the Biblical account as Divinely inspired or not, the Old Testament is still a written record of a claim to the land of Israel by the Jews. The religious nature of the writings cannot detract from that fact. It is still an ancient land deed of a people who have remained identifiable and culturally intact through the centuries, and whose attachment to that land has remained an integral part of their identity.

israel’s threat against witnesses in eichmann’s defense, and the personal interests of the judge and jury could not please any with a desire of justice. nor could the method of eichmann’s kidnaping please anyone an interest in preserving national sovereignty.

but even given the above, adolf eichmann’s treatment does come off rather well compared to the recent u.s. kidnapings and future military tribunals or permanent detainments.

i would prefer something a little bit better than either.

The Eichmann case presents some dilemmas for sure. I still have difficulty with a nation assuming jurisdiction over something that occured before the nation officially existed. And I haven’t reconciled to what extent and under what circumstances one is guilty for following orders handed down from superiors.

I also think that Eichmann deserved to be executed. It is unlikely that he would have seen justice any other way. I mention this case only to illustrate how justice, as administered by man, can’t always be perfectly effected. It’s sometimes a choice between imperfect justice and no justice, where the latter seems in this case the greater of 2 evils.

I would agree of course that we should always strive for perfect justice, insofar as we’re able. And we should call out obvious flaws observed in its legitimate pursuit.

In the case of Arafat though, it’s about taking out the head of an opposing hostile force whose presence represents an ongoing threat to many lives. It’s not merely an after-the-fact judgment; everyone knows by now what Arafat’s been responsible for. It’s that he’s still inciting and enabling terror. This is sufficient reason to take him out, which they should have done long ago. (Imagine, if only Gen. Von Stauffen had succeeded in HIS task, which I think most would have approved.)

Israel should just have Arafat shot and be done with it. Here’s an Arab American who agrees:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34559

“And I haven’t reconciled to what extent and under what circumstances one is guilty for following orders handed down from superiors.”
Posted by: Joel on September 12, 2003 06:09

this is what eichmann’s defense of his evil acts finally came down to, and as such, he forfeited his life by so acting. but if we in turn forfeit by approval the safeguards of our own liberty for expediency and safety, by having men such as eichmann or arafat summarily shot, we will have indeed sold our birthright for pottage.

He cannot be shot without a trial, as an enemy combatant, if he is already in a kind of custody. So put him in jail and start trying him for all his crimes. Ordinary citizens capable of evaluating the evidence and applying the law would be sufficient peers, if a jury trial is called for, otherwise let him be tried by the legally appointed magistrates. Most important, freeze his assets.

When he’s through being tried for crimes against Israelis, bring him here to try him for crimes against Americans.

The discussion of liberalism as the root of the suicidal failure to defend oneself is always interesting. Is it ultimately based on a denial of the significance of the creation, an assertion that we have our true being in the realm of ideas rather than in the created flesh? And that therefore we must preserve our purity in the realm of ideas at the cost of extinction in the flesh? Is there a gnostic heresy underlying that belief, and if so which one?

Or just lock him up as a danger to the state of Israel and don’t let him communicate with anyone outside.

“Is it ultimately based on a denial of the significance of the creation, an assertion that we have our true being in the realm of ideas rather than in the created flesh? And that therefore we must preserve our purity in the realm of ideas at the cost of extinction in the flesh?”
Posted by: Bill Carpenter on September 12, 2003 07:40 PM

since creatures have being in so far as they reflect God, i.e. the incorporeal has more being than the corporeal. just as separate substances, i.e. angels, have more being than rocks. to say that ideas, i.e. the objects of the intellect which is incorporeal somehow have less being than the corporeal, is most peculiar.

to place the flesh above the intellect is to reverse Christ’s admonition, to paraphrase, “fear not those who would kill the flesh, but those who would kill both flesh and incorporeal soul.

further more, without going into fallen nature, God’s creation is not at war with its self, but all conforms to its creator, the incorporial is in unity with the corporeal. to say otherwise is manichean.

Yes, I think denial of the created unity of the corporeal and incorporeal is fundamental to the liberal mind, so “manichean” is perhaps the right label. I did not mean to advocate our fleshliness at the expense of spirit, but to advocate the unity you describe, which I think “liberals” reject and refuse to lift a finger to protect. But any one heresy is just a particular manifestation of sinful rebellion.

I’m not sure I agree with the concept of fallen nature, however. Fallen man, yes. But nature? Milton’s idea that the fall of man knocked the earth off its axis and caused the seasons seems heretical to me. The world the Lord presents to Job is not fallen, though it is inhabited by fallen beings.

Mr. Auster’s article is stunning. He shows how dangerous liberalism is. A tiny non-Islamic nation surrounded by enormous hate-taught Islamic nations actually believes a non-Islamic nation can ever have peace with Islamic neighbors. Liberalism is the Trojan horse of Islam, communism, totalitarianism, nuttyism, and perhaps Nazism (if I understand Matt correctly).
An example of liberalism was Israel giving the Sinai buffer back to Egypt. The Sinai would have been an excellent strategic base for American offensive formations, which could have been plausibly deniable as peacekeepers. The base would be valuable in the current war against Islam. Unfortunately, Mr. Aster’s stunning announcement indicates that Israel (and its liberal imitators worldwide) would have been relentlessly critical of the American “impediment to the [so-called] peace process.” This attitude possibly would have soured American support of Israel. So I am concerned that Israeli liberalism places Israel in an impossible situation. Israel and the U.S. would benefit by driving Muslims behind strategic borders until the Muslims give up their aggressiveness toward non-Muslims.

Mr. Carpenter said, “The world the Lord presents to Job is not fallen.”

I agree except that the term ‘fallen’ probably isn’t the right word here. God told Adam, “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” The material creation certainly is affected negatively by man’s sin, and positively by Christ’s redemptive work. We had a discussion of this in a previous thread:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001594.html

Joel, thanks for sending me to the other thread. I’m still not convinced that the material creation was affected by the Fall. The ground being cursed for Adam’s sake shows that his relationship to the earth was made a painful trial, not that the earth itself became less fertile or more likely to put forth tares. I also note the reference in the same thread to the opinion that the corruption of the creation by the Fall is a gnostic heresy. I look forward to more such discussions.

The perception that the US is restraining Israel from dealing with Arafat is a major impediment to our success in the war on terror. How can Israel be thought to be serious if it grants effective immunity to Arafat? How can the US be thought to be serious if it is believed to be protecting this merchant of death? The message sent is that we are only half-hearted in our efforts, and that terrorists and terrorist supporters at sufficiently high levels will be protected. In fact, it is essential to our dealing with a world in which thug states see dabbling surreptitiously in terrorism as an important tool of power that we give the message as we did in Iraq that doing so can cause them to be taken out. Immunity for Arafat contradicts that completely.

You’re right, Thucydides, and that’s why Bush is such a %$*&!+*& $## @&^!!

It’s bizarre. In some ways Bush is an unusually honest politician, saying just what he plans to do, whether you like it or not. And in other ways, he is almost unprecedently dishonest and contradictory. Thus after the Passover bombings and the Israeli incursion in 2002 he stood next to Powell on the White House lawn saying “Israel has a right to self-defense … I call on Israel to withdraw its forces.” Or, saying in June 2002 at West Point, “We will have no more dealings with the Palestinians until they renounce and dismantle terror,” and then a year later starting the “road map” even though Arafat was still in effective charge. Or the way he supported the plaintiff and opposed race-conscious preferences in Grutter v. Bollinger, and then, when Grutter lost and race-conscious preferences were embedded in the Constitution, he came out and applauded the decision!

So, while I earlier thought of Bush as basically quite honest (though I didn’t vote for him), it’s no longer possible to think of him that way, or even, at times, as minimally logical. I hasten to say that this does not mean that I agree with those who say Bush misled us into the Iraq war. On the basic reasons for the war he has been consistent and honest throughout. That’s why I say he’s strange and contradictory, honest in some ways, dishonest in others.

I wrote a few negative comments about Mr. Bush and decided not to post them. He is liked by a substantial number of quasi-liberals, and I just don’t see how directing my anger at Mr. Bush will be productive. Traditionalists need all the help they can get. I would like to see Bush partisans come to this site, where they might be reasoned with. Of course, I am imperfect and will not always follow my own advice, so I cannot expect others will be perfect either.