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 Israel’s most celebrated heroes from last summer’s 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 – Israel’s equivalent of America’s Medal of Honor. The young hero’s 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 lieutenant’s Orthodox synagogue nonetheless serves to highlight the deeper, unspoken reasons that Israel provokes such visceral hostility from the international left.
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. 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 world’s 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 peace—abandoning 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 Hitler’s 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 Be’er 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 existed—making 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.
There’s 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 America’s 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 state’s 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 world’s more than two billion Christians also provides a religious flavor and perspective to the nation’s 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 Israel’s leading party on the left (former Prime Minister Ehud Barak) is a one-time war hero and the most decorated soldier in the country’s history.
In other words, for trendy liberals who feel profound, instinctive distaste for the influence of armies and organized faith in human life, it’s only natural to feel somewhat uncomfortable with Israel.
The same attitudes, by the way, help to explain some of the fashionable anti-Americanism that’s 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 community’s 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, there’s 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 they’ve already moved on beyond such outmoded relics as organized religion and mighty armies, hates us for our decidedly different perspective.
The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing (Fascinating!)
PolicyReview.org | Dec, 2002 | Lee Harris
Posted on 05/08/2004 6:45:29 AM EDT by Remember_Salamis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1131830/posts
I, for one, do not discount the Arab complaints of the Jewish settlements. They complainted repeatedly against the Ottoman's policies in Palestine brought forth by representatives to the Porte as soon as the Aliyah started. The Ottomans chose to ignore Palestinian complaints in favor of continuing land sales to the Zionists.
Legally though, the Palestinians had little to stand on. They sold the land to the effendis. The fact that they believed they still had a title to these lands was somewhat naive. But it was the way it was. The Jews had a bill of sale and the land was their both legally and with the express permission of the Ottomans, who allowed the sales and encouraged Jewish immigration.
No, Jabotinsky did not found the Jewish legions. Bar Giora organization was founded in 1907 in the home of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who was David Ben Gurion's right hand man. From within these communes of workers and guards Hashomer was founded in 1909 to defend the moshavs and kibbutzim from the Arabs.
In 1920 the Haganah was formed as a "grassroots" military organization. The Haganah along with the Palmach became the IDF in 1948.
In 1931 a group of Haganah members seceded from the organization, which was headed by Avraham Tehomi. This breakaway groiund was known as the Irgun or Etzel. This organization received the full backing of Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Revisionist Party.
I disagree with your interpretation.Well, that is certainly allowed, but besides your fascination with Mr. Jabotinsky's writings, the tensions between Jews and Arabs were a slow boil brought on mainly by British policies. The 1920 riots and the White Paper of 1922 would be more important in the context of history than your reliance on Jabotinsky's writings.
But let us not deceive ourselves. The violence directed at the Jews was due to the fact that the Muslims could not tolerate the Zionists, their socialist ideals, and the fear that rising Jewish immigration would mean Arab land would be used for a Jewish state. What Jabotinsky wrote in 1923 would come to pass in 1948, but I think it is wrong to impose The Iron Wall on the Histadrut at the time Jabotinsky wrote it. In fact, Jabotinsky was labelled an extremist and his ideas discounted. His approach was not the politics of the Jewish Agency until the Arab riots of 1936, the White Paper of 1939, and of course the Holocaust, which would change everything.
PS - You sound like a man who has read Avi Schlaim!
Legally though, the Palestinians had little to stand on
So much for legality. The Ottomans forced Arab farmers to sell their lands, then sold them to Jews. The Arabs didn't like the Turks, but they liked the Jews even less. Everyone had good reasons for doing what they did.
No, Jabotinsky did not found the Jewish legions
Even if what you say is technically true Zhabotinsky played a major role in their organization and use in WWI...and his influence hardly disappeared in the interwar period.
...the tensions between Jews and Arabs were a slow boil brought on mainly by British policies...But let us not deceive ourselves. The violence directed at the Jews was due to the fact that the Muslims could not tolerate the Zionists, their socialist ideals, and the fear that rising Jewish immigration would mean Arab land would be used for a Jewish state.
Here you contradict yourself...
What Jabotinsky wrote in 1923 would come to pass in 1948
Here you admit to Zhabotinsky's importance
but I think it is wrong to impose The Iron Wall on the Histadrut at the time Jabotinsky wrote it. In fact, Jabotinsky was labelled an extremist and his ideas discounted. His approach was not the politics of the Jewish Agency until the Arab riots of 1936, the White Paper of 1939, and of course the Holocaust, which would change everything.
And here you show how wrong the socialist were, how intolerant they were, and how, ultimately untruthful and unwilling to admit error.
They behaved the same way all over the world.
I am glad that you are fascinated by Jabotinsky's insight, but to David Ben Gurion and the other leades of Yishuv, he was an extermist. Ben Gurion's policies are the ones that held sway over the Yishuv and not Jabotinsky's.
No, Jabotinsky did not play a major role in the organization of the Haganah or the Palmach of which the IDF would emerge.
I hope I did not contradict myself. But just in case I did, I will try to say it again.
The situation in Palestine was not black and white as some would make it. The Palestinians had a real fear that their land would be used to make an Arab state. They saw British policy as the means to that end. The violence perpetuated in Palestine from 1920 until 1948 was against the British, but because they could not attack the British directly, they attacked the Zionists. But it was British policy that would be the major source of Arab violence and British capitulation in the face of Arab violence that would keep producing violence against the Zionists as a means of trying to rid Palestine of both Zionists and the British. The Palestinians wanted their own state. They did not want to share it with the Jews or lose any portion to the Jews, which they detested on religious and political grounds. I don't think that is a contradiction. The fact that they rioted and murdered Jews had to do with British policy. So, the 1920 riot and the White Paper that followed produced much more tension in the Yishuv than the sale of 7% of the land. The 1922 White Paper caused 30% of the Arabs to be forced from their lands and jobs since the British forced the Jews to absorb the immigrants, which meant jobs and a livelihood had to be waiting.
No, I do not give importance to Jabotinsky's. He was an extremist with a minority following. The events from 1920 to 1949 were what determined what happened in the Yishuv and how the Histradrut responded to both the British and the Arabs.
Where did I show how wrong the socialist were, how intolerant they were, and how, ultimately untruthful and unwilling to admit error?
I don't think we discussed what I think of Ben Gurion and the actions taken by the Yishuv during this time frame.
No, the Ottomans did not force the Arabs to sell their land. The Arabs did that so they would not have to pay their taxes. There is a difference.
from an earlier post:
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.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation.
Well, I’m sure you consider yourself an expert on the subject. But have done a bit more homework on this subject than just reading a Medved article. I stand by what I written, general as it is, until convinced otherwise by a cited and reputable historical source.
The Ottomans imposed heavy taxes on the farmers that they could not bear. So, to get around paying the taxes, the Arabs sold the land to the effendis and kept working the land as if nothing had happened.
The Ottomans did not force the Arabs to sell the land. The Arabs sold the land quite willingly to circumvent the Ottoman tax system, which was burdensome.
I do not understand what has gotten you so upset that you have broken off all conversation.
I was in Guatemala in 1974-1975, and was not aware of any large influx of foreigners into the Indian towns or villages. I am not saying that it never happened, only that it did not seem to be a common occurrence. Although I met Europeans and North Americans who were living in Guatemala City, I saw none in Totonicapan other than a few Catholic priests.
In short, the parallel you draw between Guatemala and Israel seems tenuous at best.
Did you visit Lake Atitlan? I sat on its shores one afternoon as a priest explained it all to me. I also spent a lot of time visiting mountainous Indian villages - where I saw no foreigners - and a factory town ( one of the -tenangos) where I couldn't help contrasting the downtrodden appearance of the Indians with what I'd observed in the mountains.
a) you win the lottery
b) you are selected to compete on American Idol
c) your possessions are sold off in lieu of payment
Under the Ottomans it was
a) the same
b) different in that you were forced to convert to Judaism
c) different in that you received 26 virgins to practice on
Well, you are right. This conversation has just descended into the inane. Sorry to have wasted your time.
2. The Ottomans settled Bosnian Muslims expatriates in Palestine after Austro-Hungary captured Bosnia. Likewise, they settled Circassians and Tatars there who were refugees from Russia. I feel for these people, but they have no historical ties as settlers. The Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews who came to Palestine do.
Do you want to compare post WWII migrations of Americans to different states to Mexican immigration to this country?
Why would I?
Few Mexicans lived in territories acquired by the US. The native peoples were not Mexican anyway.
Gee, how about returning the Pacific Southwest to Mexico? That would still leave us with 3/4ths of our country.
Non sequitor. See above.
I focused on the Pre WWI period in my response...and it actually began around the time of the first aliyah, just after Mark Twain's visit.
During the war immigration came to a halt, obviously.
I don't know what happened during the inter-war period 1920-1940...except that Jewish immigration was severely curtailed by the British.
Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire, which ended in 1919, came to take advantage of new infrastructure and development, most of which was built by the Zionists
That's right...but it doesn't change the realities that they were citizens of the Empire and the Zionists were not. Doesn't change the realities that they were Arab-speaking Muslims and the Zionists were not.
These people have no historical ties. They are opportunists, who later participated in attempts to steal land from (dead) Jews.
You couldn't be more wrong. Some may not have had specific ties to Palestine but all had very strong ties to their culture and way of life. So Zhabotinsky said in 1923 and I value his opinion far, far more than I do yours. He was there, after all, his credentials are much, much better than yours, and history has shown him to have been correct.
The Ottomans settled Bosnian Muslims expatriates in Palestine after Austro-Hungary captured Bosnia. Likewise, they settled Circassians and Tatars there who were refugees from Russia
Yeah? So where are they? If they were settled in numbers where are their descendants? I never hear of them.
I feel for these people, but they have no historical ties as settlers. The Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews who came to Palestine do.
Arabs certainly do. Arabs who have been inhabitants of the land for generations, Arabs who had been there for only 50 or 60 years, Arabs who had never been there. All of them do. The Bosnians and Circassians also if they were refugees from other places. You're just flat-out wrong. Think about how first or second generation Americans feel about this country.
I'm pro-Israel and pro-greater Israel but, quite frankly, people with your opinions embarrass me.
Few Mexicans lived in territories acquired by the US. The native peoples were not Mexican anyway.
Even fewer Americans lived in those territories before acquisition and we had even less connection to the aboriginal inhabitants.
But that wasn't my point.
Migration of citizens of the Ottoman empire, or of citizens of any country, is very different from immigration of non-citizens...even if those non-citizens had some tenuous connection to peoples who had lived in the land 2000 years prior.
Non sequitor. See above
Nope. Again you fail to understand. People of any country are loath to relinquish title to any part of it for any reason. It's not that we wouldn't want to return the Pacific Southwest to Mexicans. We wouldn't return it to descendents of the original inhabitants. Not willingly.
ping
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.