|
What should be the paleocons’ stand toward Israel?
Sam J. writes:
I like a lot of your writings, but let me mention, I am a paleoconservative, and not a neo.
I would be willing to support the ethnostate of Israel that nearly all Jewish organizations support across the political spectrum, if they are equally willing to support white ethnostates in Europe and the USA. Tit for tat. If it were not this way, it would be far easier for use paleocons to get steamrolled.
I have not seen changes; instead, I see the overall thrust of major Jewish organizations geared towards policies that will displace whites and encourage multiculturalism. The more this changes the more we will support Israel. See, it goes both ways. We need some leverage, you know.
LA replies:
I think your points are sincere and I welcome the chance to reply. First I need to identify several premises in your argument that I think are incorrect. Also, since your position is roughly typical of that of paleoconservatives generally, I am going to respond to that general position, not to you personally. That way I won’t get caught up in making assumptions about you that may not be true or fair.
Let’s consider the premises of your position, which I am taking as the paleocon position.
First, and most importantly, the main objection to various paleoconservative and white nationalist writers vis a vis their views on Israel is not that they don’t support the state of Israel, and it’s not that they merely criticize Israel; it is that they actively delegitimize Israel and side with its Muslim and leftist enemies who seek to destroy it. Personally I don’t think that I have ever attacked a paleocon (or a Buchananite or white nationalist) for failing to take a pro-Israel stand. I have attacked various paleocons for taking vilely anti-Israel stands. The same is true of other defenders of Israel. They have not criticized people such as Patrick Buchanan and Taki for not actively supporting Israel. They have criticized them for actively siding against Israel and with its Muslims enemies.
Second, as I’ve said a million times, but almost no paleocon gets it, it is evil, and, I would argue, anti-Semitic, to attack and demonize Israel because of the politics of American Jews. Israel has nothing to do with U.S. immigration policy and the debates on American national identity. Israel is not responsible for American Jews’ support for open borders and for their view of America as a universalist entity that must take in everyone in the world. Israel is a besieged state facing a continual threat to its existence. To treat Israel as an enemy because one doesn’t like the politics of American Jews is to say, “Because I don’t like what these Jews are doing, I am going to harm those Jews.” That is amoral—or, rather, immoral—tribalism. It is wicked and anti-Semitic. .
I call it anti-Semitic, rather than just anti-Israel, because the sole reason the paleocons—by their own admission—are targeting Israel is because of the thing that Israel has in common with American Jewish neocons—its Jewishness. Going back to my 2002 article, “An Open Letter to Patrick Buchanan,” in which I declined to call Buchanan anti-Semitic, even though my editor, David Horowitz, urged me to do so and couldn’t understand why I didn’t, my general rule has been that anti-Semitism is such a serious and hurtful charge that a person should not be called anti-Semitic unless he explicitly attacks Jews as Jews. However, there is an exception to this rule. When people, even without making explicitly anti-Semitic statements, openly declare that they are attacking Israel to get back at American Jewish neocons, they are admitting that they are attacking Israel for its Jewishness. And that is anti-Semitism.
Third, many American Jews are leftists who have supported the far-left “Peace Now” camp in Israel, which, far from being gung-ho for Israel, supports radical accommodations with the Palestinians and endless surrender to Palestinian terror. Such leftist Jews are consistently anti-national. They are against a national identity for Israel, and they are against a national identity for America. These leftist American Jews cannot be accused of the double standard of which the paleocons accuse all American Jews and particularly the neocons.
Fourth, even in reference to the Jewish organizations that take a harder line, it is not correct to say that almost all such organizations support Israel as an “ethnostate.” Rather they are primarily concerned with defending Israel’s very existence as a state and the lives of its Jewish citizens against those who seek to eliminate Israel and Jews. For example, for American Jews to oppose the Palestinians’ claimed right of return is not to assert Israel as an ethnostate; it is to defend Israel’s existence and the lives of its citizens against Muslims whose openly stated aim is to destroy Israel and mass murder its Jews by invasion and conquest.
Paleocons interpret American Jews’ support for Israel’s safety as support for an ethnostate per se. I don’t think that that is correct, or, if it is correct, is needs to be highly qualified by recognition of the fact that Israel is under continual threat to its existence. If Israel were not under that threat, American Jews would seem far less “national” about Israel, and their general liberalism would assert itself more clearly with regard to Israel.
Now, to return to my opening point, paleoconservatives say that their position is that they refuse to support Israel because American Jews refuse to support the ethnocultural identity and survival of America and other Western countries. In reality, the paleocons position is that they oppose Israel because of the anti-national policies of American Jews.
So, what should be the position of the paleocons? At a minimum, they should simply stop the anti-Semitic practice of conflating American Jews with Israel and seeking to harm Israel as payback for the offensive politics of American Jews.
That’s it. If paleocons just did that, if they stopped delegitimizing and demonizing Israel, I would be happy. I would no longer call them anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.
However, I would go further and argue that paleocons should not simply stop taking a bad position, but embrace a good position. And that is, they should look at Israel as a country, indeed, as a Western country standing at the borderlines of the Islamic world which threatens all of us. They should recognize that Israel has both the right to exist and the right to exist with an ethnocultural identity. They should declare that America also has the right to exist and to preserve its historic ethnocultural identity, and they should call on American Jews to support both Israel’s national existence and America’s. This would be a morally consistent and principled stand, unlike their present, unprincipled stand, which is to demand an ethnocultural identity for America while siding with the would-be destroyers of Israel.
The paleocons’ current position is based on sheer emotional reactiveness: “The (Muslim) enemy of my (Jewish neocon) enemy is my friend.” This relativistic and immoral approach results in the paleocons’ deserved banishment from any place of influence in American politics. What the paleocons ought to do is take a righteous and realistic position that would raise them miles above the neocons: “I support the national existence of all Western countries, including Israel and America, and I call on the neoconservatives to drop their double standard and support my principled, pro-Western position.”
In short, instead of being childishly angry bigots, as they are at present, and thus powerless, they would become moral and adult leaders, and increasingly influential.
- end of initial entry -
Urban Grind writes:
I really liked your response to Sam J. the paleocon regarding Israel.
If he responds to you, you might also want to let him know that many Israelis support land for peace, as well as the release of Arab terrorist prisoners, as a “good will” gesture. You should also let him know that far from being a Jewish only ethnostate, that there are Arabs who sit on Israel’s Supreme Court, and that there are Arab Knesset members, who openly side with their terrorist brethren. Also, don’t forget the lefty Israeli professors who get paid to tell their students that Israel shouldn’t exist. And finally, you should remind Sam J. that the late ultra nationalist Rabbi Meir Kahane was banned from Israel for being too radical.
You might also want to suggest that Sam J. visit Masada2000.org, which has what they call a Self Hating Israel Traitor list (which is very long) consisting of Jews who would like nothing better than seeing Israel destroyed.
So if you really think about it, there’s not much difference between the nutso Jews in America and their Israeli counterparts.
Anyway, keep up your great work.
April 17
Mike Berman writes:
This business of getting Jews to move away from liberalism generally and specifically to end their suicidal antagonism towards immigration restriction while simultaneously having American ethnonationalists disassociate themselves from Jew haters seems a tough nut to crack. The origins are of a chicken or egg nature. It is easy to see why the ethnocentrists are genuinely angry with Jews. Aside from the fact that Jews are religiously and culturally different from their “hosts” and that they are resented for their successes, Jews have been at the vanguard of the civil rights and open immigration movements. They also have an inordinate influence over the culture, the media and the academy. Put yourself in the shoes of the ethnonationalists and you would likely be hot under the collar as well.
As for Jews, their history precedes them. Jews have been immigrants for almost their entire history. They also have a collective chip on their shoulder over being the quintessential persecuted minority. Even when I succeed in convincing a Jew that it would be for the greater good to recognize racial differences and question immigration policies, they are repulsed by the Jew haters they soon encounter at ethnonationalist venues.
Larry wants responsible immigration restrictionists to disassociate themselves from Jew haters. That wish will remain in the realm of political fantasy until American Jews start behaving more as American whites do. As long as American Jews are willing to set themselves apart by, for example, voting for BHO in a greater percentage than even America’s minorities, nothing will change.
LA replies:
I think Mike Berman is conflating two separate issues. I am not expecting or requiring that ethnonationalists’ drop their dislike of Jews for their differentness and their liberalism and their success and their influence. I am expecting and requiring that ethnonationalists stop making their dislike of American Jews an excuse and pretext to side with demonic exterminationist Muslims against Israel. The dislike of liberal American Jews is understandable; the siding with demonic exterminationist Muslims is evil.
Roland D. writes:
One element you’re missing is the continued heavy lobbying and covert intelligence/espionage which the Israeli government and security organs direct towards the United States. Yes, all nation-states seek to influence one another, and, yes, all nation-states do spy upon one another to a certain degree—but Israel takes both to extremes, which provides ammunition to the anti-Semites, and encourages said conflation in the minds of the less politically nuanced.
Another thing the state of Israel could do which would go a long way towards mollifying paleos is to finally acknowledge that the USS Liberty attack was a deliberate one by out-of-control elements within the IDF (the evidence of this is nigh-incontrovertible), apologize for same, and re-affirm that the U.S. and Israel are allies and that Israel will “never again” launch an armed attack upon the military forces of the United States as long as we remain allies.
Sam J. writes:
Excuse my brief reply.
It may be immature to threaten to punch someone in the face if they are threatening to punch you in face, but it is an effective deterrent. And if someone punches you in the face sometimes you need to punch the other person in the face (on the macro level, that is how countries operate). So when I see the overall thrust of Jewish organizations in the West, America and Europe, pushing towards multiculturalism, immigration, etc., that is evil, because the result is the destruction of a people and culture. And yes Israel is indeed under threat by Muslims, but America is under a threat as well, albeit not to the same extent in terms of its violent nature, but to a very, very strong one in terms of the very survival of the European genotype, which if not preserved has a consequence of an eternal catastrophe.
So I am taking the step to tell Jewish organizations that I will support a Jewish ethnostate; I am extending an open palm—but carrots work best with sticks, so I cannot support the Jewish ethnostate unless they start to support a White ethnostate. Or at least meet me halfway and I will do the same, both to protect my people in America and throughout the West.
LA replies:
I see two problems in Sam J.’s reply. First, he is acting as though Jews alone are pushing the end of Western nations, and therefore are uniquely guilty and uniquely deserving of retaliation, when in reality it is the entire Western establishment that is pushing the end of Western nations. This makes him seem obsessed with Jews, rather than with the total agenda of the liberal West. Are Jews pushing the Islamization of Sweden and Norway? That’s not a rhetorical question. I ask Sam to answer. And why doesn’t he talk about punching Christians in the nose, since the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches have been in the forefront of pushing open borders, bringing in totally unassimilable refugees such as Hmong and Somalians, and so on? Again, not a rhetorical question. For Sam’s position not to seem merely anti-Jewish, he should be threatening retaliation against and seeking a quid pro quo with all the major pro-open borders groups. Instead, he singles out the Jews, and says he will not support Israel against its exterminationist Muslim enemies, Israel, a country that has nothing to do with European and American immigration policies.
Thus he translates this vast catastrophe of Western suicide into a merely Jewish question, he fails to confront the liberal establishment of the entire West-that is bringing about this catastrophe, and he makes himself seem preoccupied with the Jews, thus discrediting himself and his pro-Western concerns. There you have paleoconservatism / white nationalism in a nutshell.
Sam’s basic mistake, which is the basic paleocon / white nationalist mistake, is looking at this issue as a tit for tat among tribes, rather than standing for what is right and standing for our civilization.
Second, by offering to support a “Jewish ethnostate” in Israel he is not even speaking language that the Jews will relate to, since they don’t think of Israel as an “ethnostate”; that is the language of the paleo right, not of Jews. If you want to appeal to Jews, tell them that you will support and defend the existence of Israel.
Sam J. replies:
First, he is acting as though Jews alone are pushing the end of Western nations, and therefore are uniquely guilty and uniquely deserving of retaliation, when in reality it is the entire Western establishment that is pushing the end of Western nations. This makes him seem obsessed with Jews, rather than with the total agenda of the liberal West.
Yes, Jews are not alone responsible for the West’s predicament; however, the point of my initial e-mail was addressing the Jews and major Jewish organizations—their general thrust, politically. Jews do have a special position of power in Western societies where they are numerous, and as such, Jews are going to be singled disproportionately to their numbers, but the ultimate responsibility rests within the majority population of the Western nations.
Are Jews pushing the Islamization of Sweden and Norway? That’s not a rhetorical question. I ask Sam to answer.
The ADL or SPLC would be fine with that, as would many Jewish organizations in Europe; they would not bat an eye. But nor would many liberal Norwegian and Swedish, including of course Christian congregations.
And why doesn’t he talk about punching Christians in the nose, since the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches have been in the forefront of pushing open borders, bringing in totally unassimilable refugees such as Hmong and Somalians, and so on? Again, not a rhetorical question.
Tit for tat there too, but they do not take hypocritical stances towards ethnostates; ADL, Horowitz, and other Jewish groups seem to take that line, but not all, and I find that inexcusable. [LA replies: So it all comes down to that again. Because there is a Jewish state, which happens to be under constant mortal threat and therefore requires constant defense, Jewish pro-immigration liberals in the West are uniquely guilty of hypocrisy, uniquely guilty period, and punishing them by siding with Israel’s enemies is the needed response. This line of thought is so nowhere. It’s picking out one component of the whole picture and effectively making it the whole picture. ]
For Sam’s position not to seem merely anti-Jewish, he should be threatening retaliation against and seeking a quid pro quo with all the major pro-open borders groups. Instead, he singles out the Jews, and says he will not support Israel against its exterminationist Muslim enemies, Israel, a country that has nothing to do with European and American immigration policies.
I am for the tit-for-tat angle there too, however America does so much for Israel, financially and militarily, I think Whites should demand some support in return. Catholics are not bringing us into wars nor do we send billions to form a Catholic state, so it is an inaccurate comparison. When Jews/Jewish organizations in Europe do not care if America gets swamped by immigrants are open to the consequent destruction/extermination of our genes because of miscegenation, then yeah, I have a major problem with that. The same goes for Jews/Jewish organizations in America promoting the same exterminationist policies for Europe or simply being silently compliant.
Thus he translates this vast catastrophe of Western suicide into a merely Jewish question, he fails to confront the liberal establishment of the entire West-that is bringing about this catastrophe, and he makes himself seem preoccupied with the Jews, thus discrediting himself and his pro-Western concerns. There you have paleoconservatism / white nationalism in a nutshell.
Believe me I speak out against liberals in general, too… [LA replies: By your own admission, and by your repeated statements, Jews and Israel are the transcendent problem for you.]
Sam’s basic mistake, which is the basic paleocon / white nationalist mistake, is looking at this issue as a tit for tat among tribes, rather than standing for what is right and standing for our civilization.
Tell that to the ADL and other Jewish groups too. We need leverage, and that is why I am for tit-for-tat. Anything otherwise is idealistic at best and could be characterized as even naive. If we simply did what was right but many of the hypocritical Jewish groups did not, that would be an advantage for them and a disadvantage for us, as they would have more time and resources to promote their ethnic interests while would could not do the same tot he same extent.
Second, by offering to support a “Jewish ethnostate” in Israel he is not even speaking language that the Jews will relate to, since they don’t think of Israel as an “ethnostate”; that is the language of the paleo right, not of Jews. If you want to appeal to Jews, tell them that you will support and defend the existence of Israel.
We can get into semantics here but Israel is and designed to be an ethnostate so that is what I will call it. There is nothing wrong with the word and it should be used. Every people should be able to form one.
LA replies:
I’m disappointed in Sam J.’s reply. Notwithstanding some rhetorical gestures toward a wider view of the problem of Western suicide, he hasn’t moved at all from his wrongheaded and counterproductive focus on the Jews and Israel.
And in this he seems to be representative of the paleocons in general. Instead of defending the West, and opposing the forces and agendas that threaten the West, including, when appropriate, the anti-American liberal Jewish agenda (as I do, for example, here), the paleocons remain mired in an obsession with Jews and Israel that does nothing to help the West, and only serves to discredit and marginalize the Western patriot cause. As I’ve said before, they hate Israel and neocons more than they love America.
William A. writes:
Thank you for taking on the paleoconservatives, and exposing the double-standard of their position on Israel.
Your courage in confronting this issue is commendable, although obviously not on a par with your far greater and even more commendable courage in confronting the evil ideology that masquerades as the “religion” of Islam.
I’m afraid that the bottom line is that many if not most of the paleoconservatives in the USA are anti-Semites (i.e. Jew-haters). That’s really all there is to it. When you show them that their position vis a vis the State of Israel is inconsistent with their paleoconservative nationalism, or that they conflate the worldwide Jewish diaspora with the State of Israel, or that they hold the State of Israel to an imaginary standard of purity, you’re just going to get the same booshwa back. Because the bottom line is, they are allergic to Jews, period, and their views on the State of Israel are NOT inconsistent with their underlying anti-Semitism. And as is so often the case, their anti-Semitism trumps everything else in their ideology.
Mark P. writes:
I have to tell you, those arguments you made about paleos and Israel were truly right. It is simply not right to blame Israel for the political leanings of American Jews…especially since many American Jews support policies that would destroy Israel. Heck, with friends like these, Israel does not need enemies.
What would save Israel is building an American base in Israel and deporting the Arab fifth column. But AIPAC money is hardly purchasing that.
Worst conspiracy ever…
LA writes:
Continuing my above comments I would say this. Even if there were no reform forthcoming and no likely hope of reform on the part of liberal and anti-national American Jews, we should still support Israel’s right to exist. The fact that lots of Jews in America are leftists and anti-American is totally irrelevant to the question of Israel’s right to exist. Hell, half the population of Israel is leftist and anti-Zionist. Do patriotic Israelis say that Israel has no right to exist, because half its population is leftist and anti-Zionist? No, they support their country. Half the population of the U.S. is leftist and anti-American. Do we say, down with America, because so much of America is leftist? No, it’s our country, we must try to save it. Most of the West is leftist and anti-West. Do we say, down with the West, because so much of the West is leftist and anti-West? No, it’s our civilization, we must try to save it. The Christian churches are at present almost totally dominated by liberalism. Do we say, down with Christianity, because Christianity has become so liberal? No. Christianity must be brought back from liberalism and become true Christianity again.
Israel is a Western country, it is part of our civilization, its return from a two thousand year extinction was one of the noble and inspiring events of the twentieth century, it is the number one target of the Islamic world, our civilizational enemy, and its destruction by the Muslims would be a material and moral defeat for the West. For all these reasons, we should support Israel’s right to exist, regardless of how liberal most American Jews and most Israeli Jews are, just as we support America’s right to exist or Britain’s right to exist, regardless of how liberal most Americans and most Britons are.
James N. writes:
With regard to Sam J. and the paleos in general, he is and they are probably anti-semites, which explains their fixation with Israel.
But I am surprised at your reticence with regard to calling Israel what it obviously is—an ethnostate, and further an ethnostate which occupies its territory by conquest and lives by the gun as its source of right.
Israel’s identity as an ethnostate and a machtstaat is not caused by its enemies. Its enemies are real, and I hope they are defeated. But Israel, however many Arabs are in the Knesset and whatever welfare benefits they get, is for Jews, and is a place where Jews are meant to rule. Do you question this?
I guess the logical question is, do you accept the use of the word “Jewish” as defining an ethnicity?
LA replies:
I said that the Israelis do not use the word “ethnostate” for themselves, and that that is not a term they would relate to.
Of course “Jewish” defines an ethnicity. But if you tell that to any committed Jewish person, without exception, you will be told that that’s not true, that Jewishness is not an ethnicity. I’ve had many exchanges with Jews on this and got nowhere with them, and I have written about this odd Jewish idea.
In any case, the universal Jewish rejection of the idea that Jewishness is an ethnicity only underscores my other point that talking to Jews about their “ethnostate” will only turn them off. If you’re trying to offer people a quid pro quo, you’ve got to speak in language they will relate to. That’s all I was saying to Sam J.
James N. replies:
Your reply is fascinating to me.
A word of background: I grew up on Long Island, and I lived in Brooklyn (East Flatbush) from 1976-1979. I lived in Newton, MA from 1980-1993 and again from 1995-2002. I have a lot of experience with living in majority-Jewish areas as a non-Jew.
I find it amazing that you think Jews would deny that they are an ethnicity. They ACT like an ethnicity. They THINK like an ethnicity. Nothing which is true of an ethnic group is untrue of Jews.
My son’s playmate from across the street was forbidden to play with him after she reached the age of 7 (literally—couldn’t even say hello from across the street)—lest she fall victim to intermarriage. If that’s not an ethnic group, what is it?
LA replies:
Just bring up the subject with any Jewish acquaintance and ask him if Jews are an ethnicity. Or lead into the point that Jews are an ethnicity, and see what he says.
Mark A. writes:
LA wrote:
“To treat Israel as an enemy because one doesn’t like the politics of American Jews is to say, ‘Because I don’t like what these Jews are doing, I am going to harm those Jews.’ That is amoral—or, rather, immoral—tribalism. It is wicked and anti-Semitic.”
At the same time, most Jews that I have met have taken the position because of what these gentiles (i.e. Germans) did in the 1930s and 1940s, they are going to, at minimum, indict gentiles here in the United States for being anti-Semitic and being one pogrom away from Treblinka or Auschwitz. (And yes, I have had a lot of exposure to Jewish culture. I went to a Jewish university, law school (where 70% of the faculty and much of the student body were Jewish), and have numerous Jewish friends and colleagues.) There is almost a rebuttable presumption in their mind that a gentile in the United States is an anti-Semite. Yes, you can rebut the presumption, but the presumption exists. Isn’t this immoral tribalism as well? To indict me for the crimes of some Austrian psychopath and his gang of criminals 75 years ago because I am a gentile myself?
I think much of the debate between you and Sam J. boils down to this: you are arguing that anti-Israeli attitudes in the U.S., based on the politics of American Jews, is anti-Semitic. However, you also stand for the presumption that anti-gentile attitudes and politics in the West is not based upon anti-gentile racism, but rather it is based on the construct of modern liberalism and the desire not to discriminate. I think Sam J. doesn’t accept that the modern liberal construct is the cause of anti-gentile politics in the West, but rather racist attitudes towards gentiles.
Thoughts gentlemen (LA and Sam J.)? I am thoroughly enjoying this dialogue. It is very interesting. (Must be why I always read VFR!) :)
LA replies:
You misunderstand my position. I’ve never said that anti-gentile attitudes among American Jews are due only to the liberal belief in anti-discrimination. I’ve repeatedly pointed to specifically Jewish concerns, which in some cases are understandable, and in others deplorable, that make Jews identify with the idea of open immigration and compel them to seek to weaken the majority white gentile culture.
Please peruse the collection of my articles on anti-Semitism and the Jews. It has just been expanded, with the main subject areas clickable at the top of the entry.
LA writes:
Here, from a 2006 entry, “Thomas Fleming, Nowhere Man,” is a typical exchange with paleocon Israel-hater. He starts off by repeating Fleming’s view that there is no moral difference between Israel and its enemies, and he argues that my position of supposedly saying that people are wicked if they don’t “attach” themselves to Israel is irrational and disgraceful. I then reply that people like him claim to be neutral, but actually demonize Israel. And then he comes right out and—expresses his admiration for Muslim terrorists!
This type of thing has happened so many times in e-mail and VFR discussions I can’t tell you. Why do these people bother putting up the front of neutrality, if only to shatter it a moment later by admitting the truth and thus discrediting themselves? Does anyone have an explanation for this behavior?
Her is the exchange, which starts about half way down the page of the original entry.
A reader writes:
Why should Fleming give a damn for Israel? He also happens to be an anti-Islamic crusader, a position I reject, but no one should be such an idiot as to call him a nihilist. I’ve taken the magazine for twenty years and know exactly what he stands for. So do you, you just disagree. The moral difference between Israel and the surrounding Arabs is what is at issue and that is roughly the difference between Jacob and Esau. If you’re interested in the mythic dimensions of the Holocaust you’re sitting at the only place you’ll be able to do any useful investigation of those questions. I’ve not written before but your smears of Buchanan, Sobran and the rest are disgraceful. They believe our attachment to Israel is contrary to our long term interests in the region. You seem to think this belief is wicked and indicates some perversity of character. Fleshing out this incredible belief you seem to think you’re engaged in rational criticism.
LA replies:
Nihilism is the denial of objective moral distinctions. Fleming and you say that there are no moral distinctions between Muslim terrorists and Israel, between Nazis and America, between those who deny the fact of the Holocaust, and those who don’t. Therefore you are nihilists.
On the question of Israel, there is a profound contradiction on your side that you need to face up to. On one hand you piously insist that all you believe is that our support for Israel is not in our interests. Now that could be a reasonably argued position. I would disagree with it, but I wouldn’t call it nihilistic or anti-Israel. But you guys never stay consistently with that reasonable position. Instead, you always end up demonizing Israel, actively seeking its destruction (like Buchanan calling for the one-state solution), or (like Fleming) saying there’s no moral difference between Israel and terrorists. Instead of you guys consistently arguing that support for Israel is not in our interests, you always flip over into attacking Israel’s right to exist and equating Israel with terrorists and Nazis. So your supposed position—that you’re not anti-Israel, but that you simply think support for Israel is not in our interests—is as fake and phony as a three dollar bill.
The reader writes back:
I won’t speak for Fleming but I didn’t say anything if the kind. I’m sure there are decent Israelis and decent Arabs. I know, too, that there are many disgusting Israelis and lunatic Arabs. The Arabs in Gaza and Lebanon have been treated badly by Israel and I admire the courage of those who will take the fight to the Israelis. I don’t expect Israel to be there 100 years from now but the Arabs, I expect they will. So my sympathies are with the Arabs. But I don’t think it is in American interests to remain involved closely in the conflict. There is, after all, no obvious solution to it. If an Arab or an Israeli had exactly my opinion it might be fair to call him a nihilist. But, you see, I hail from Michigan and would call myself a realist.
LA writes:
Thanks for being honest. Your position has nothing to do with the supposedly reasonable position of “not thinking it is in our interests to support Israel.” Your position is that you support and sympathize with the Arabs against Israel, and in particular you “admire the courage of those who will take the fight to the Israelis,” i.e. , you support terrorists.
Thanks again for coming clean. If more people on your side did the same, instead of feeding us the pious lying bull about, “I’m not against Israel, I just think supporting Israel is not in our interests,” we could all save a lot of energy. You’re anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist. End of story.
[end of excerpt from 2006]
Paul S. writes:
If terrorists planted atomic bombs in Tel Aviv and Kansas City and you could stop one but not the other from going off, which city would you save?
LA replies:
This is the kind of unreal and perverted “ethical dilemma scenario” that is used in today’s schools and other liberal venues. They go along lines like this:
“If you could save a million starving people in Africa from imminent death by shooting your mother, who only has a week to live, in the head, what would you do?”
This is not a legitimate type of question and I’m not playing.
April 18
Paul S. replies:
No, I don’t think so. But that is why I asked you the question. To see what your response would be. I did not think you would give an answer.
The hypothetical question that you asked is, of course, absurd. Mine is not. It forces an answer. What are your primary loyalties? Not giving an answer is the answer.
I had a dear friend from college throughout my life, who died a few years ago. He came for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner every year. I put dirt on his grave in Queens. A lovely man.
And I asked him, was he a Jewish American, or an American Jew, and his answer was the later. Jews have a long history and the United States is but a blip on their historical record. They are reminded, trained, indoctrinated (whatever you want to call it) that this history takes precedence over any national allegiance.
Stephen Steinlight shows this dilemma in one of his papers describing a summer camp for Jewish boys. There every morning both the flag of Israel and the flag of United States flew. As he describes it, that it was never said but it was made clear which was more important. Steinlight never makes a clear choice, as you will not make a clear choice. The paper is somewhere on CIS.
I am a practicing Catholic, baptized, an altar boy, married in the Catholic church and will be buried in it. But for me if asked, which would I save, Kansas City or Rome? There would be no question that it would be Kansas City. Catholicism is my religion. It is not my primary, underlying, fundamental identity. I don’t think that is the same for Jews.
I bring this up not to be an antagonist, but our of respect for you because I think you are wrestling with your own loyalties, and posing the question might help you (and Steinlight).
LA replies:
I’m not wrestling with any loyalties and I reject and resent the entire drift of what you’re saying. You’re totally off-base and you ought to re-think what you’ve been saying to me.
My satirical illustration of an “ethical dilemma scenario” was exaggerated but not by much. Though my scenario was elaborate and yours was not, the common ground between them was that both put the recipient of the question in an unreal, godlike situation where he is expected to decide on other people’s lives and deaths. It is morally obscene to make up a scenario where a person is expected to consign millions of people to nuclear death. And then to go further and use such a morally obscene scenario as a loyalty test is far more obscene.
If you had asked me such a question about choosing between Kansas City and Dallas, or between London and Hong Kong, I also would have refused to answer. I care a great deal about England and English people, and don’t particularly care about Chinese people, but I still would have refused to answer, because it is not my place, even in a thought experiment, to consign millions of Chinese people to death.
LA continues:
Also, you said that you were speaking out of respect for me.
A person who respects someone does not subject him to a morally obscene thought experiment and then accuse him of lack of loyalty to America because he refuses to answer.
Also, for your information, I have no connection with the Jewish community. I have no connection with Israel. I’ve never even visited Israel. I have no knowledge or interest in internal Israeli affairs, other than related to the security issues. I side with Israel because the world does not accept her right to exist and sides with her evil enemies in seeking to destroy her. Other than defending Israel’s existence and her right to exist, I have no particular interest in Israel.
That you, knowing nothing about me, would, on the basis of my refusal to answer your offensive question, compare me to an ethnocentric Jew and professional Jew such as Steinlight who (according to you) has an equal or greater loyalty to Israel than the US, is an insult and shows the opposite of the respect that you say you have toward me.
Adela G. writes:
The minute I saw Tel Aviv and Kansas City juxtaposed, I knew where he was headed. Did he think you wouldn’t? How incredibly insulting. And how dare he question your loyalty to America? That’s not just weird, it’s contemptible.
I’m sick sick sick of the anti-Semitism which the kudzu-like growth of liberalism not only permits but encourages. Unfortunately, you see it on the right, too. My husband and I have no wish to live in a multicultural community. But many if not most conservative white majority groups are also infected with anti-Semitism to the same degree.
I wish both sides would put that animus where it belongs: on the religious group that has actually earned it. ;)
By the way, I saw an interesting program on the Great Plague a few weeks ago. I was horrified to learn that even in the midst of an unprecedented social upheaval, the anti-Semites were out in full force, blaming Jews for the plague and killing them. I’d have thought the Gentiles had worries enough just trying to stay alive but no.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 16, 2009 09:24 AM | Send
|