Posted on 07/31/2007 9:15:42 PM PDT by goldstategop
On Saturday in Jerusalem, I participated in a moving religious service to honor one of Israels most celebrated heroes from last summers war against the Hezbollah terrorists.
Lieutenant Eli Kahn, 23, led a unit of elite Paratrooper Commandos advancing against heavily defended Hezbollah positions in the Southern Lebanon town of Maroun al-Ras in the early days of the fighting. The Israelis, hoping to knock out Katyusha rockets that had already taken a bloody toll on civilian targets, drew unexpectedly intense fire from the enemy and sustained heavy casualties.
While tending to one of his wounded paratroopers, Lt. Kahn saw a terrorist run toward them and throw a grenade that landed at their feet. Rather than jumping out of the way and abandoning his comrade to certain death, Lt. Kahn immediately picked up the grenade and threw it directly back at the Hezbollah fighter --- killing the terrorist and turning the tide of battle. For his leadership and quick thinking, he received the Medal of Valor Israels equivalent of Americas Medal of Honor. The young heros father, Howie Kahn, remembered that his boy played Little League before the family immigrated to Israel from the United States and suggested that his skills as a slick-fielding shortstop paid off with that one fateful and well-aimed toss on the field of battle.
Hearing the story of Eli Kahn, most Americans would feel gratified and inspired but the service I attended at the lieutenants Orthodox synagogue nonetheless serves to highlight the deeper, unspoken reasons that Israel provokes such visceral hostility from the international left.
The Middle Easts only democracy has recently enjoyed spectacular economic progress and unprecedented success in blocking and deterring terror attacks from its many Islamo-Nazi adversaries. Why, then, the increasingly shrill demands from politically correct activists throughout Western Europe and from college campuses in the United States for boycotts, UN condemnation, sanctions and diplomatic isolation aimed at punishing the Jewish state?
Why does the death of a few dozen Palestinians (mostly gunmen or racketeers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad) provoke more international indignation than the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Darfur, or the butchery of additional thousands by Muslim terrorists in Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Algeria, Yemen, the Philippines and even Thailand?
The common explanations for singling out Israel for international denunciation make no sense when placed in any reasonably well-informed historical context.
For instance, leftist critics like to suggest that Israel deserves the worlds hostility because of its long-term occupation of lands captured in defensive wars. But the Jewish state has already withdrawn from the overwhelming majority of the disputed territory it ever controlled, hoping to demonstrate its eagerness to trade land for peaceabandoning the vast area of the Sinai Peninsula in 1978, its South Lebanon Security Zone in 2000, and all the Gaza Strip in 2005. Moreover, in the remaining zone of occupation in the West Bank, the results of Israeli rule can hardly count as brutal: according to UN figures, by all measures of economic prosperity, public health, and standards of living before the Second Intifada broke out in the Fall of 2000, West Bankers did better than their fellow Arabs in neighboring countries like Syria, Egypt and Jordan.
The historical record makes clear that Arab fury against Jews in the Middle East bears no connection to any occupation policy or to the plight of refugees, since this murderous rage claimed countless victims long before Israel occupied a single square inch or territory and before a single Palestinian had fled his home.
A brief history of the early conflict (published by the indispensable Israel Pocket Library) offers a necessary reminder of Palestinian terrorism as long ago as 1929. In that year, the bitterly anti-Semitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (who later traveled to Berlin and spent most of the war years at Hitlers side) claimed that the largely unarmed and loosely organized Jewish community harbored secret designs on Muslim holy places, and launched bloody attacks on the Jews of Jerusalem. As the grim story unfolded, The violence spread to other parts of the country. On Sabbath, August 24, the Arabs of Hebron fell upon the small, defenseless Jewish community in the town and slaughtered some 70 men and women. Old people and infants were butchered; the survivors, numbering several hundred, being evacuated to Jerusalem.
Attacks on Tel Aviv and the Jewish quarter in Haifa were repulsed, but on the fifth day of the riots an Arab mob killed 18 Jews and wounded many more before the Jews could take refuge in the police headquarters while the mob ransacked and burned the historic Jewish quarter. In Beer Toviyah all the settlers held out in a cowshed while the mob plundered and destroyed the village. Huldah, too, was destroyed after the Jewish defenders held out for many hours against thousands of Arabs and were evacuated by a British army patrol.
A mere eight years later, in 1937, unprovoked Palestinian violence broke out once again with even bloodier results: 415 Jews were killed by the terrorists in the period 1937-39, over half of them between July and October 1938.
The most striking revelation in these all-but-forgotten chapters of Middle East history involves the brutal, determined, vicious nature of Palestinian terrorism before Israel occupied any territory whatever, or caused the departure of any refugees (the Palestinian population went up sharply never declining for even a single year as Jewish return to the ancient homeland intensified). As a matter of fact, the devastating riots of 1929 and 1937-39 (not to mention other deadly attacks in 1921, 1926 and 1936) occurred long before the state of Israel even existedmaking clear that Palestinian violence against their Jewish neighbors arose from fanatical Jew-hatred, not any objection to the specific policies of a non-existent state.
Clearly, the same deep-seated anti-Semitic instincts help to explain some of the hostility to the Jewish state today, especially among purportedly enlightened Europeans.
Theres also the undeniable factor of worldwide anti-Americanism Israel earns contempt as one of the closest, most reliable allies of the Superpower labeled by many leftists (including Michael Moore in his previous America-bashing film, The Big One) as the real Evil Empire. But other nations (like Britain, Canada and Australia, most obviously) align themselves equally closely with the United States and even more enthusiastically embrace Americas reviled culture, without provoking the animus that faces Israel in many corners of the globe.
One of the secrets of the world-wide suspicion and resentment toward the Jewish state involves the unmistakably prominent, even dominant, Israeli role for two institutions loathed by leftists everywhere: religion and the military.
While two-thirds of Israelis describe themselves as secular, the increasing popularity and influence of Orthodox religiosity remains an undeniable factor in Israeli society. Meanwhile, even the states famously agnostic and atheist founders made regular reference to Bible in urging their compatriots to return to Zion. The fact that Israel counts as the Holy Land to the worlds more than two billion Christians also provides a religious flavor and perspective to the nations existence that makes secular purists distinctly uncomfortable.
Meanwhile, the military continues to play a huge and necessary part in the life of the perpetually embattled nation. Some 75% of young people still do three full years of military service after their high school graduation, and continue with yearly reserve duty for 25 years after that. Even the leader of Israels leading party on the left (former Prime Minister Ehud Barak) is a one-time war hero and the most decorated soldier in the countrys history.
In other words, for trendy liberals who feel profound, instinctive distaste for the influence of armies and organized faith in human life, its only natural to feel somewhat uncomfortable with Israel.
The same attitudes, by the way, help to explain some of the fashionable anti-Americanism thats taken hold among European and other international elites. Religion remains a vastly more potent force in the US than in any other Western nation, and our military remains far larger, more potent and more revered than the armies of other major nations. Those who love to denounce the impact of militarism and organized faith will inevitably find much to dislike about America and about our close ally in the Middle East.
This US and Israeli devotion to both armed forces and religious institutions brings me back to the synagogue celebration I witnessed for Lt. Eli Kahn. Called to the Torah before a clapping, singing, admiring congregation, the young war hero chanted the weekly Haftorah (a passage from Isaiah) and received a good-natured pelting of candy tossed at him from all directions by his friends and neighbors. This treatment had little to do with his battlefield exploits of exactly one year earlier, but actually reflected his status as the communitys next bridegroom: in Jewish tradition, all young men receive similar honor on the Sabbath before their weddings. (Lt. Kahn stands under the wedding canopy with his bride tomorrow night, Thursday).
In Israeli eyes, theres no contradiction between love of God and admiration of the military between celebrating the beginning of a loving new family along with the courage and dedication of a battle-hardened soldier. Both religious and military institutions exist to promote life, not death; to facilitate peaceful communities and growing families, not bloodshed and martyrdom.
Americans and Israelis understand the connection between our soldiers and our survival, between faith in a compassionate God and the maintenance of military strength that allows decency and kindness to flourish. And of course, much of the rest of the world that believes that theyve already moved on beyond such outmoded relics as organized religion and mighty armies, hates us for our decidedly different perspective.
I think you captured it exactly — the Jewish God beat the Islamic moon god, and they cannot tolerate that.
Thank you.
First, you have to remember that liberalism is, in fact, a mental disorder. Reason plays no part in their thought process.
They are enamoured of the head-cutters for no other reason than they are perceived as victims of imperial America. Their sorry lot in life is the fault of evil corporate America. If we weren't mucking about in their countries, stealing their oil, those poor deluded souls would go back to praying five times a day to their false gods and leave everyone alone.
Plus, by trying "educate" us about Islam by shoving it down our kids throats in public school, they promote "diversity". Little Johnny goes home after school and starts questioning his parents about his own faith. And if all faiths are equally good, then why stick with any one in particular when you can just hang a crystal around your neck and proclaim yourself "spiritual". Plus, anything they can do to poke a sharp stick in the eye of Christain is just good fun.
Not only were the Jews buying the land, they were buying from those same Ottoman landlords the palestinians were complaining to. In addition, the Ottoman title holders were selling it to the jews for many times its actual value. Much of the land that was sold was the worst possible available; no water, bad soil, etc. The ottomans were laughing all the way to the bank. They sure pulled a fast one on those dumb Jews.
Once the land was purchased, local muslim authorities did everything to drive them off the land or prevent them from being able to work it, in spite of the jews willingness and desire to work with their neighbors.
And in spite of every roadblock thrown in their way, they turned legally purchased land (most of which had been idle and non-productive for centuries), into flourishing farms that raised the standard of living for all.
And that is historical fact.
The Middle East's only democracy has recently enjoyed spectacular economic progress and unprecedented success in blocking and deterring terror attacks from its many Islamo-Nazi adversaries.ZC, this is something worth carving on the Statue of Liberty:
There is no such thing as an "autochthonous" or "indigenous" people. Everyone came from somewhere else.
Thanks for the kind words!
Did the attacks upon the Jews occur, or not?
You were in Guatemala in 1974?
Yep. Sort of similar to how American government officials treat American jobs.
In addition, the Ottoman title holders were selling it to the jews for many times its actual value.
Many times what the local market thought it was worth. Ultimately it was the Jews, with their modern technology and superb work ethic, who got the great bargain.
Much of the land that was sold was the worst possible available; no water, bad soil, etc.
This has been exagerated. If it had really been that bad no amount of effort or technology could have redeemed it.
Once the land was purchased, local muslim authorities did everything to drive them off the land or prevent them from being able to work it, in spite of the jews willingness and desire to work with their neighbors.
This too has been exagerated. The attitudes of the authorities were mixed. At different times Jews were supported in their efforts in the hope that they would lead to modernization of the larger society. At first, though, this was the rule...but then Jews learned how to play the game. No protection, no further purchases, and no international loans...and there was always armed resistance. Certainly, you remember that the Jewish Legion under Zhabotinsky fought with the British against the Ottomans - gross treason - for which the received the Balfour declaration in payment.
And that is historical fact.
Not really, you've slanted it quite a bit...but even if it were true you've overlooked the central facts. Jews were coming into a foreign country with the intent of making part of it their own, with their own separate laws, religion, culture. This went way beyond what the Ottoman culture could tolerate, beyond what any culture could tolerate.
Why were they doing this? Because they were sick of living in other peoples' countries. Sick of pogroms in Orthodox Russia, in Catholic Poland, in Protestant Germany, in the Caliphate, in Catholic and Almohad Spain, in Byzantium, in Rome. Sick of it all. They were determined to take back their ancient homeland and if others didn't like it they could go to hell.
Of course. How else could I see it?
Of course they occured. And the Grand Mufti was an actual, real-life Nazi...intent on extirmating every Jew he could find. Arabs weren't saints. At best they were primitives, 500 years behind the West as Zhabotinsky said. At worst, they were complete savages.
Why the facination with Jabotinsky? He represented not even the majority view in Palestine during the time. It seems to me that you are making his viewpoint the primary one. It was not.
You seem to put the horse before the cart in alot of your analysis of what happened in Palestine. Of course, without knowing what you posted in #11, I am at a disadvantage.
In trying to draw power back to Istanbul and away from the periphery, the Ottomans leveled taxes against the farmers in all of the empire. The system was corrupt and the taxes were far too burdensome for the local farmers to bear. To stop paying taxes, the farmers made a deal with the effendis. They would sell them their land and keep working it as if nothing happened. This very real sale had consequences. The effendis sold it to the Jews. The local farmers failed to recognize the sale. The Jews bought 7% of the available land in Palestine. Not all of it swamp land and desert. Most of it the best land in Palestine. Those were legitimate sales.
But the real division between Jew and Palestinian came when the British, hoping to stop Arab riots in Palestine, which broke out when the French removed Feisal as king of Syria, curtailed Jewish immigration into Palestine. Now, Jews could only immigrant if their was a job waiting for them. Many of these jobs, previously held by Arabs in both industry and agriculture, were given to or held for immigrating Jews.
One cannot look at the desperate need of 1946 and 1947 and use it to judge Jewish aspirations and Jewish politics from 1880 onward. It evolved according to internal and external realities. One certainly cannot make Jabotinsky the standard. You would be better served to use David Ben Gurion's slow realization that the Jews would have to fight for Palestine. He did not arrive in Palestine believing that to be true, and he worked hard to prevent it from happening. When he realized Israel would have to be won militarily, did he turn his attention to making sure that the Israelis won.
I am trying to figure out what it was that you saw in Guatemala. What exactly are you trying to say about Guatemala that is relevant to the situation in Israel?
Apparently, then, Mr. Medved's comments were not "complete bulls**t," as you originally charged. At worse, his history was incompletewhich of course is what one would expect when the writer or speaker offers "a brief history of the early conflict."
At least we can agree on the character and conduct of the Grand Mufti.
His English was pretty good, too.
At worse, his history was incomplete
No. It was a gross distortion. Since I find it impossible to believe that a man of Medved's stature was unaware of Zhabotinsky I think he knowlingly and purposefully distorted history in order to solicit support among conservatives.
And what of your failure to mention the fact hat more Arabs than JEw igrated to Palestine from 1890 to 1945 or that 3/4 of Palestine was set aside exclusively for Arabs?
What I saw in Guatemala was rich Guatemalans of Spanish descent pushing Indians off their ancestral lands so they could sell it to Americans and Europeans. All done legally, of course. Do I have to spell out the parallels?
What of it?
Arabs were citizens of the Ottoman Empire (or kindred of such living in nearby states which had formerly been Ottoman), European Jews were not. Do you want to compare post WWII migrations of Americans to different states to Mexican immigration to this country?
... or that 3/4 of Palestine was set aside exclusively for Arabs?
Gee, how about returning the Pacific Southwest to Mexico? That would still leave us with 3/4ths of our country.
In it I pointed out that Zhabotinsky (or Jabotinsky) wrote "Wall of Iron" in 1923 before the riots Medved cites...and that complaints by Arab farmers against Jewish landlords went back to 1890, almost to the time of the first aliyah and the beginning of the Zionist dream. Therefore Medved was distorting history significantly.
It's true Zhabotinsky's was a minority view but history has shown that his was correct and the majority socialists' wrong. Also his importance in the formation of the state canNOT be exagerated. It was he who founded the Jewish legion and, by extention, the Israeli army. He died in 1940 after desperately warning the Jews of Europe to flee. Menachem Begin was his successor...but not his equal.
But the real division between Jew and Palestinian came when the British, hoping to stop Arab riots in Palestine, which broke out when the French removed Feisal as king of Syria, curtailed Jewish immigration into Palestine.
I disagree with your interpretation. The real division between Jew and Arab was quite apparent to Zhabotinsky in 1923. The British did their best to heal the rift, trying not to alienate either Jew or Arab (for their own reasons). They failed...and everyone else since has also failed.
You do make an important point here...which might bear generalization. The Ottomans were a declining power showing all the characateristics of such. The late Romans and the Byzantines did the same thing. Cilizations, it seems, either expand or die.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.