Peres Spoke The Unspeakable--Or He Told It True

Israeli president Shimon Peres initiated a diplomatic and political controversy in an interview with a Jewish website. He made very specific reference to the long standing pro-Arab tilt in British foreign policy--and in the larger life of the UK. Then he went further, too far in the estimate of many in Britain, when he characterized the public as being anti-Semitic.

Not too many who are familiar with British policy during the years of the Mandate would dispute Peres' assertion of a pro-Arab tilt. Whitehall was quite pro-Arab; it was even filled with people who were antisemitic in a genteel sort of way. British diplomats in a manner identical with the British elite of the day were not boorishly antisemitic, but nonetheless did, as Peres noted "hated the Jews rather more than was necessary."

At the same time, in the late 1940s, before the full horrors of the Nazi genocide had become widely known and assimilated, the British attitude was not dissimilar from the views held by many, perhaps most, Americans. Both were a comfortable sort of antisemitism, the sort which took a measure of pride in being able to look down on Jews as different, lacking a certain polish, a bit of upmarket politesse, as being, "you know, not quite like us."

The British view of Jews, the condescension, the relative admiration of the presumably romantic Arabs, persisted long after the days the "gentlemen's agreements" vanished from all respectable circles in the US. In some semi-mystical way, the educational system of the UK, the interlocking web of public schools and old line universities, continued to implant the romantic view of the Arabs which had emerged a century and more earlier from the pens of the first British travelers and explorers in the region.

The attitudes and perceptions which might have been marginally justified regarding the "noble lords of the desert" in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire soldiered on in a completely inappropriate way in the years after World War II. Peres was absolutely correct, even understated, in his description of HMG attitudes and behaviors from 1947 on through the Fifties and Sixties. Save when it met the needs of the British government as in the days of the Suez crisis and subsequent British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, London was quite willing to favor Arab states at the expense of Israel.

Arguably, the attitude at the center of the British "establishment" continued decade in and decade out right on to the present day. It is difficult to the point of near impossibility to find a good example of the British acting in a way which favors Israeli interests at the expense of Arabs. It is an equally arguable proposition that the tilting toward Arabs specifically and Muslims more generally has not only increased in recent years but has done so with the support of the majority of the British electorate--or their well timed indifference.

This dynamic raises the question of at what point does reputable criticism of Israeli policy become the more general proposition of "anti-Zionism," and, more centrally, when does it merit elevation to the status of antisemitism? It is both easy and attractive for the government of Israel and its supporters at home and abroad to claim that any criticism of Israeli policy is either motivated by antisemitism or equivalent to antisemitism.

Of course, such a broad gauge approach to any who dissent from Israeli policy is both unjustifiable and cowardly. So also is the counter of hiding ones antisemitism behind the cloak of being an honest critic.

Peres' statement is a challenge to all. He has slapped the face not only of the UK but all in the West to properly distinguish between the criticism and opposition to which Israel like any sovereign state is legitimately heir to and antisemitism in disguise. There have been (and are) any number of public figures in the UK who have hidden profound antisemitism behind the far more respectable appearances of anti-Zionism or the totally unobjectionable stance of criticism.

The same may be written of public figures, of politicians, pundits, public intellectuals, academics and so on throughout the West who have painted over their antisemitism with the varnish of anti-Zionism or the lacquer of legitimate criticism. It is not a new phenomenon nor is it limited to the UK.

The howls of protest, the screams of outrage which have greeted Peres' remarks in the UK constitute an inappropriate response. A far more positive response, one which would have benefited both the UK and Israel, would have been one which examined the degree to which Peres expressed views which are both well based and accurate.

Of course that would be an impossible response no matter how beneficial might have been the outcome. This sort of creative, forward looking answer to a (possibly) sound critique is as unthinkable as would have been a balanced appraisal by David Cameron as to just why life in the Gaza Strip was life in a "prison camp" for the vast majority of the population.

Mr Peres has offered an apology--or at least an explanation--for his remark. He has denied calling the British antisemitic regardless of what the record of his remarks shows to have been the case. This automatic rush to the politician's default position of apology is regrettable.

It would have been better for Israel, for the UK, and the West generally had Mr Peres stood by his original remarks, perhaps even amplifying on them. The challenge he inadvertently presented to us throughout the West deserves better of the man who made it. We deserve, for our own better interests, to meet the challenge by properly separating criticism of Israel from both anti-Zionism and its most evil parent, anti-Semitism.

"Jews Infect Food With Cancer"

That's the view of a Muslim cleric preaching on al-Nas TV a little less than a month ago. The Egyptian cleric, Ahmad Abd Al-Salam, went on with similar antisemitic vitriol in order to prove his point.

His point?

"The Jews are never remiss – they invest their utmost efforts, day and night, in conspiring how to corrupt the Islamic nation, the nation led by the Prophet Muhammad. " He concluded by remarking, "This is why we hate them." ( http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2035.htm)

The Mideast Media Research Institute's Anti-Semitism Documentation Project archives are laden with similar clips from Muslim clerics and political figures from across the Mideast. Taken in total these outbursts of hatred constitute the richest, most frightening exhibition of hate-mongering and violence-promoting statements extant today.

These religiously based sermonettes and akin statements have the net effect--whether intended or not--of promoting violence against Jews generally. They are a blot upon the human race. And, they go by unchallenged and unremarked by the mainstream media of the world.

These hate filled incitements to violence certainly are not challenged by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Oh, no, no way! The OIC is too sensitive to the presumed existence of a phantom. A phantom the OIC wants to battle relentlessly.

Unlike the "Jewphobia" which is present somewhere on television or in print throughout the Muslim states every day of every month, the OIC chooses to fight the figment of its collective imagination--something it calls "Islamophobia."

The OIC has become so afrighted of the lurching golem, Islamophobia, that it is robustly promoting a UN effort to ban free speech. It seems that the OIC has defined its mythical beastie as consisting of any--even truthful--exposure of the links between the religion of Islam and acts of violence or terror. The OIC wants absolutely no criticism nor commentary (unless laudatory) of Islam.

No mention of "honor killings," no whisper of stoning women and other forms of gender specific torture, no allusions to suicide bombers yelling, "Allahu Akbar" as they push the clicker and exterminate men, women and children.

Certainly, the ever-so-sensitive men of the OIC want no quoting of the Quran or Hadith--or at least those parts which justify and approve of killing, enslaving or otherwise degrading the infidels which comprise the majority of the human race. And, no mentioning of jihad as the waging of holy war--lest some Muslim, somewhere, somehow be disquieted.

A bigger bunch of flat-out hypocrites is impossible to imagine.

Where is the OIC on the issue of religious defamation when it comes to the billingsgate of Muslim preachers? Where is this bloc of sensitive and concerned humanitarians when it comes to Muslim clerics and political leaders urging or inciting hatred, violence, murder directed against the Jews and other despised infidels?

Or to put it bluntly: How many members of the OIC were among the forty nations whose representatives composed the London Declaration Against Antisemitism? This document is new, so new that only one national leader, Gordon Brown, has signed it. Perhaps it is so new that the OIC's you-infidels-must-stop-talking-about-us noise machine hasn't been silent long enough to hear of it.

The London Declaration calls upon signatory states to confront and challenge antisemitic statements. Further, it calls upon them to live up to previously agreed obligations to combat antisemitism. That's all. No denial of the right of haters to spew poison against Jews. Just the duty to confront, challenge and combat with more speech--better speech, true speech.

How many OIC member states are willing to both sign and abide by the provisions of the London Declaration? How many of the OIC governments are willing to confront or challenge, let alone combat, antisemitic outbursts?

To zero in on one recent cry for holy war against the Jews, let's go to the videotape. Again it's from MEMRI. (http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2033.htm) The preacher is one more Egyptian cleric, Zaghloul Al-Naggar. He's on al-Rahma TV. His message last January 6th was simple and blunt.

"Let me be clear. Jihad is the only way to resolve this issue. With the Jews, one cannot achieve anything by means of peace, or a settlement, or open borders, or diplomatic and commercial ties. They are devils in human form."

The one way to deal with the Jews to which the cleric refers?

The interviewer asked, "So, are you calling to wage jihad?"

The cleric answers, "Absolutely."

When the OIC can find the moral and intellectual courage to challenge this sort of blatant appeal to violence, to war, to jihad, then and only then will it deserve any polite hearing before the UN or the UN's Human Rights Commission (or Council, whatever they are calling that groups of fools, hypocrites and Islamist apologists today.)

Only when the member states of the OIC step up and both sign and abide by the London Declaration will the group and its constituents have the ethical and political foundation to make demands (or even mildly worded requests) of the civilized states of the world. Until such day as the Islamic states can behave with civility toward those states and peoples of differing religious views can they make any claim of their own.

The Obama Administration has the opportunity to draw a bright and shining line with the OIC as well as any and all who wring their hands over the phantom of "Islamophobia." Not only must the US sign the London Declaration without delay. It must go further.

The Obama Adminstration must use both the planning process for Durban II and it must use Durban II itself as the forum to challenge, confront and combat the OIC and its partners in crime not only on blatant, violence provoking and justifying antisemitism but on the move to ban criticism or comment on Islam itself.

Not only does the truth set one free. The truth is an absolute defense. It is the leakproof defense against the Islamist assault on the rest of the world.

It is the sovereign remedy to the hate and bile of the Islamists and their armed expression, jihadism.

It is the first, best weapon to assure that our values and core beliefs are not sacrificed to the idols of hyper-sensitivity, political correctness and fear of Islamist violence.

The Obama Administration must use it or there is no hope--only change, for the worse.

What About Muslim Anti-Semitism?

In an add-on to yesterday's post on the PRESS-TV article (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=56834&sectionid=3510303) and a closely related interview confusing "hate" speech and free speech (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=6244&sectionid=3510302), the Geek has a question for the alleged signers of the open letter to the West, "Thousands of academics, intellectuals, poets, writers, artists, journalists and scientists of the Islamic countries."

The question?

Here it is. Where are your righteous protests regarding the decades of anti-Semitic diatribes, cartoons, films, songs and writings?

Or don't Jews count as religious people deserving the same respect as that which you demand for Muslims?

It can't be that Jews are not a religious people, can it? After all your whining missive specifically mentions Moses and Abraham. Aren't they major figures in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament? Doesn't the Prophet Mohammad make some favorable reference to them?

If it is--as your own writing implies--true that Judaism is a religion deserving respect then why don't you condemn the defamation of Jews and Judaism conducted for years, decades, centuries by Muslims?

Or perhaps your "intellectual" sensibilities are non-existent with respect to the vile billingsgate spewed by Muslim governments, Muslim non-governmental entities, Muslim clerics, Muslim individuals. Perhaps you don't believe that true believers in the Religion of Peace and Tolerance would--could--act in such a disgusting, inhuman way.

Well, Deep Thinking and Profoundly Offended Intellectuals, take a look at the web. You might try http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FI=D=253&PID=0&IID=644&TTL=Major_Anti-Semitic_Motifs_in_Arab_Cartoons. That particular post dates back a few years, so you might take a virtual walk through http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?isSearch=yes&isT8=yes&searchText=T99&pid=119&sid=15&preview. This site is current through the past month.

Both sites are Israeli but don't worry, neither has cartoons of Mohammad. They only show Muslim cartoons, children's books and scribblings for grown-ups(?) of a virulently anti-Semitic nature. The Geek is sure that no Muslim "academic, intellectual, etc" could possibly be offended.

Before the Geek leaves this subject and returns to matters of the real world, there are a couple of final points regarding the open letter.

The Geek would really appreciate it if the folks at PRESS-TV or whoever wrote the open letter could use the English language with precision. It would. for example, be both nice and accurate if the term "intellectuals" had not been employed to describe the "signers."

Why?

Simple. Intellectuals have been long noted for their constitutional inability to subscribe unquestioningly to dogma. An intellectual has too darn much fun playing with ideas to believe for a nanosecond that censorship is somehow justified. This, after all, was why the Communist Party not only in the US but the USSR had so much trouble co-opting authentic intellectuals and why intellectuals made up such a distinguished portion of the population in the frozen Gulag.

Then there is the word, "scientists." Islamic science is an oxymoron. For centuries the best that could--or can--be said of Islamic countries is that they produce technologists. Derivative technologists at that.

Science cannot flourish in rigid, authoritarian environments such as those which typify Islam dominated countries. While the Geek acknowledges the accomplishments of Muslim astronomers, physicians and mathematicians a thousand and more years ago as Europe lay intellectually prostrate under the heel of a repressive Church, in recent times, science--the methodical seeking after incremental truths about the universe and all that is in it--has been conspicuous by its absence in Muslim societies.

The Geek can believe that the letter was written by journalists. It has all the superficiality and notes of special pleading that characterize the product of journalists. The Geek can even believe that poets were involved in crafting the letter. It has the lack of firm connection with the cold world of reality which gives poetry its piquancy.

Most of all, the Geek can believe that the letter, like the interview and all the other outpourings of outraged Muslim sensibilities, was the product of insecure men.

Men driven by fear.

Men who accept the principles of doublethink.

Men who would mob together and chant, "Death to -----!" Men who accept, even applaud the killing and maiming of women as the will of the deity.

Men who approve of suicide bombers attacking non-combatants.

In short, men lacking in courage. Men without manliness.