Lies & Hatred

Genocide Blueprint: The One State Final Solution

It was simultaneous.  Happening just as activists were preparing to mount their anti-Israeli posters on Seattle-area buses.   Posters decrying so-called Israeli war crimes as “Your Tax Dollars at Work”.

What was simultaneously happening during Christmas, 2010?  For one thing, Mahmoud Abbas vowed that any future Palestinian state would be “Judenrein” — thoroughly cleansed of Israelis.  “If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” proclaimed Abbas to reporters in Ramallah.

For another thing, Hamas issued an ultimatum that Israel has only two options: die — or leave Palestine for parts unknown.  Meanwhile, as a Qassam rocket was exploding near the town of Ashkelon, Hamas was also reassuring gullible media that it continues to seek only “calm”.

It was all happening at once, this Christmas.  All simultaneous — and ever so surreal.  What other nation — never mind one smaller than New York (City!) in population — always fighting only in self-defense could be so maligned?  None other, of course.  Only Israel — the Middle East’s sole democracy.

Anti-Israeli bus ads in Seattle — when societies routinely vowing the destruction of Israel never cease attacking.  While Iran’s Ahmadinejad, at his very own official website,  calls for Israel to get wiped off the map.  While the Palestinian Authority and Hamas continue to be constituted and chartered, respectively, on Israel’s genocide.

The anti-Israeli posters on Seattle-area buses are no huge deal.  They are just too absurd. Too easily ridiculed.  Like, seriously — just to survive, Israel always fights only in self-defense. And how can there be war crimes in self-defense? Aren’t war crimes supposed to be totally offensive?

Indeed, what coherence can there be to the bitterness, rancour and acrimony concerning how Israel is forced to defend itself? How often Israel must shoot back in self-defense?  Perhaps, rather than demanding Israel shoot back more sensitively, critics of Israeli self-defense ought to consider the novelty of not shooting at Israel in the first place — so Israel won’t have to shoot back at all.

Even the relevance of Israel has become very questionable in glaring light of ongoing Islamist attacks against the international community. Ever since the attacks on New York, London, Bali, Moscow, Madrid and Mumbai — to name a spectacular few — there are far more burning questions. Such as why Islamists — militant Islamic fundamentalists — must always keep shooting, exploding and so forth.  Why only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions, terrorize every other culture there is and righteously enslave women.

As it turns, the anti-Israeli bus ads are no deal at all.  During the writing of this article, the advertisements have been rejected.  Yet the larger absurdity remains.  Why does Israel continue to be maligned?  Despite standing so far out as the Mid-East’s sole democracy?  Despite absorbing the lion’s share of total Islamist aggression?  Despite always fighting only in self-defense — merely to survive?

In considerable part, it is due to the concerted Islamist campaign of demonization and delegitimization.  A campaign to which Western media became full, eager partners during the latter 20th century.  And though much is now expressed, finally, in opposition to the concerted campaign against Israel, two particulars command emphasis.

First, the demonization and delegitimation campaign against Israel did not begin with Western media participation.  The campaign began far earlier — and endured despite decades during which, falsely, Israel could do no wrong in Western media.  In fact, the campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel effectively began shortly before Israel even existed — with the obscene Dir Yassin hoax.  A hoax designed to clear the way for invading Arab armies in 1948, scatter Israel’s muslims as refugees — and persisting as an incontrovertible ideological truth to this day.

Second, while all Islamist military efforts to eradicate Israel have dismally failed to date — the campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel has succeeded brilliantly.  As such, the campaign itself has become an article of cultural pride and irrefutable ideological faith.  Thus, the current international discredit of the once canonical Israel-Apartheid equation cannot mean the campaign itself shall wane.  It only means that efforts to construct the next great slander intensify.  There must be another successive international revilation to legitimate the increasingly genocidal anti-Israel hysteria.

Not every attempt to delegitimize Israel can become pandemic, of course.  Often fake footage and misleading false quotes allegedly by Israeli leaders are readily debunked.  The Seattle bus ads were too summarily ridiculed to even make it onto Seattle buses.  But the next great slander appears to already have been contrived.  One that could prove more potent, more pejoratively productive than any prior — including Deir Yassin and Israel-Apartheid.

Profoundly inspired by abject Obama Administration failure to broker even direct talks of a two-state solution, there is bursting fervor over the next blueprint for genocide.  Over the one-state final solution.  And one electric stimulus for the current blueprint’s flaring edition, as widely reported in Mid-East media — i.e., “Can Obama outwit Netanyahu?” — appears to be George Bisharat’s Washington Post “Israel and Palestine: A true one-state solution” article.

Bisharat begins with the typically misleading, standard, almost certainly deliberate falsehoods.  Lies.  But only half-heartedly.  He does not do the standard lies proper injustice.  Instead, he quickly segues to a more zealous message of hope.  That’s where his article glows, shines — ultimately, literally, flares.

“A de facto one-state reality has emerged,” argues Bisharat, “with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine.”  Incidentally, that’s a thoroughly standard lie.  Virtually 80% of the former Palestine was granted to (Trans)Jordan — a “Judenrein” state reserved exclusively for Palestinians and completely forbidden to Jews.  But never mind.

Bisharat continues:

Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people…  The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege…  History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.

It all sounds so eminently reasonable, doesn’t it.  Even if riddled with too many falsehoods to easily count.  For one, it is Muslim and Jewish citizens of Israel living together.  Non-citizen Palestinians, in what Bisharat himself denounces as “apartheid”, are now mostly barred from Israel.  Palestinians who, in the West Bank or Gaza, belong to tremendously distinct societies.  Palestinian societies so distinct, in fact — they are constituted and chartered, respectively, on the destruction of Israel.  On genocide.

Moreover, and yet more incidentally, all citizens of Israel — Muslim, Christian, Jewish — enjoy equal rights.  Too ironically, Muslim Israeli citizens enjoy human rights unavailable to them elsewhere throughout the Mid-East’s Islamic — and Islamist — societies.  Israel is the Mid-East’s sole democracy.

But again — never mind.  Let’s wink, nudge and ignore the almost certainly knowing falsehoods.  Regardless how false Bisharat’s premises — is his conclusion not, nevertheless, true?  Does it not rise far above the ideological mire?  Does in not give expression to a cornerstone of Western culture?  To a cherished ideal?

There’s no denying Bisharat’s appeal to “principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege.”  Bisharat is appealing to the most fundamental Western cultural principle.  To our Western tolerance.

What unbelievable travesty.  No doubt Bisharat would just love us to believe the conflicts between Islamist societies, the West and Israel are ethnic.  That our entire global trouble is how racist we are.  What’s really racist, though?  Precisely Bisharat’s analysis of the conflicts as if they were ethnic in origin.  As if.

Islam is every race and ethnicity.  Christianity is every race and ethnicity.  Judaism is every race and ethnicity.  How more obvious could it be that our conflicts are not ethnic in origin?  How more obviously could our conflicts be cultural — and ideological?

The one state final solution Bisharat so appealingly advocates is a blueprint for the cultural genocide of Israel — and only of Israel.  Because every nation may — at times must — defend its culture.  Yet Bisharat does not suggest rescuing Germany from German culture.  Or Quebec from French-Canadian culture.  Or the entire Mid-East from Islamic culture.  Bisharat only seeks to rescue Israel from being too Jewish.

Worse, the one state final solution Bisharat advocates is also a blueprint for physical genocide.  Because the conflicts are culturally ideological.  Because the cultural conflicts are so severe — Islamist societies routinely vow to genocide Israel.  Routinely.  Every Imam worth his salt does it.  When Ahmadinejad — at his own official website — calls for Israel to get wiped from the map?  This does not make him stand out objectionably from his cultural background.  It only means he is an Imam worth his salt.

The Palestinian Authority is constituted on genociding Israel.  Hamas is chartered on genociding Israel.  So why the heck not have Palestinians and Israelis living together?  In the same tent, as it were?  Why not have those promising to commit genocide live together with those they promise to genocide?  What could possibly, what could conceivably even go wrong?

Bisharat’s one state final solution is too obvious a blueprint for Israel’s cultural and physical genocide.  In many quarters, that will increase his appeal.

Last modified on 2011-09-16 12:27:20 GMT. 91 comments

Obama Humiliated?

There’s been a mass media blitz the past week about how Israel humiliates Obama by building in Jerusalem.  There’s also starting to be analysis deconstructing Israeli settlements as obstacles to peace.  Like the recent argument from the Guardian — of all places — that Palestinian demands to halt construction in East Jerusalem are a ruse to end negotiations, and delegitimise Israel.  Which analysis, however sound, must be shouted down and drowned out through sheer volume from all siding with Palestinians that Israeli buildings in Jerusalem are worse than killings.  That the worst detriment to peace is buildings — not killings.

Too much analytical superfluity.  Too much ignorance regarding what glares most obviously.  Do mass media pundits honestly expect consumers to swallow even tacit analogies between buildings and killings as legitimate?  As uncontroversial, even?

Perhaps people don’t know.  Rocketing has never stopped.  It has only been reduced to dull roaring since Israelis assaulted Gaza rocketing.  In the first quarter of 2010?  About 30 rockets penetrated into Israel.  Taken on average — two or three times weekly.  Except last week — while President Obama was allegedly getting humiliated by Israeli buildings in Jerusalem — there were three in one day.  Someone got killed.

But even if everyone agreed buildings are worse than killings.  Even then.  What’s with the humiliation language?

There should be no need to ask what more humiliates President Obama.  Israeli buildings in Jerusalem — or Palestinian television calling for Jihad against America.  Israeli buildings — or the Palestinian Authority naming an entire square after the murderer of an American photographer.  Buildings — or a Turkish anchorman doing skits in blackface while Obama visits Turkey.  Israelis not unconditionally respecting Palestinian aspirations to territories captured from Jordan in self-defensive war — or Islamist shooting, shelling, mortaring, bombing and rocketing at Israel never stopping?

There should be no need to ask.  First, because it would be absurd expecting unconditional respect when someone can’t stop shooting — instead of expecting shooting to stop so there can ever be any glimmering respect.  And second, there should be no need to ask what more humiliates President Obama — just because how presidential Obama is.  Because there’s no way President Obama can so easily be humiliated.  Regardless what side he’s on.  Regardless what he happens to believe worst.  Buildings or killings.

So.  Regardless what anyone believes worst — buildings or killings.  Regardless even who one blames all the killings on.  Islamist societies, for never ceasing shooting at Israel, for always bragging how they will genocide Israel — for going so far as to charter themselves on Israel’s genocide.   Or whether one blames Israel — if just because at this moment kill ratios so heavily favour Israel.  Regardless.  What’s with all the humiliation language in the media?

It isn’t new of course.  Some years back it seemed everything Israeli was deemed to humiliate Muslims.  It seemed there could be no coverage of the bitterness between Islamist and Israeli societies without humiliation of Muslims alleged in explanation.  Until someone, somewhere, suggested of course Muslims are humiliated each every time Israel defends herself successfully.  And, just like that, from one week to the next — all the humiliation language ceased and utterly desisted.  Until last week.

Of course successful Israeli self-defending humiliates Muslims.  How could it not?  Genociding Israel in 1948 was expected to require days or at most weeks.  Instead?  Nothing but epic failing when it first came to genociding Israel in 1948.

It must have been unbelievable.  Unthinkable.  As if there was some error in divine judgment.  That’s why Islamist societies absolutely had to unite and try again.  And again.  And each time they did?  Went from bad to worst.

Nothing can unite Islamist societies like their endlessly advertised genocidal ambitions when it comes to Israel.  Yet, in that sole and singular passion uniting Islamist societies?  There has been only shame of endless failure.  Islamism united cannot eradicate one country lesser than New York — City — in population.  Like, whose side is g0d on, anyhow?

Of course such failure in a peoples’ manifest destiny and identity entails the most agonizing humiliation.  It is the naqba.  The catastrophe.  Not the creation of Israel.  The ongoing failure to destroy Israel.

And while the meaning of Islam’s humiliation was not understood?  It was only natural for Western media to sympathize.  Yet the moment it was even suggested the humiliation of Islamist societies was due to Israel not hurrying up and dying already?  Then humiliation could not again be mentioned.  Since mentioning it could no longer evoke sympathy in Western audiences.  Only nausea.

Until last week, that is.  When Western media once again adopted humiliation language.  Not in reference to individual Muslims or to Islamist societies — but to Joe Biden and President Obama.

Never mind how humiliated President Obama isn’t.  It is a terrible idea for Western media to adopt language insinuating he might be.  Because once the connection has been made how Israeli survival entails Islamist humiliation?  That’s right.  Implications cannot be avoided that President Obama can be humiliated by Israeli sovereignty — and perhaps very survival — in the same way.  And that’s an idea too terrible for words or language.  The very idea that President Obama could feel in some manner humiliated by Israel independently surviving.

It remains to ask what prompted Western media to adopt humiliation language again.  Could there be Western media elements feeling humiliated by Israeli sovereignty — and perhaps very survival?  Might Western media elements be projecting that sense of humiliation onto President Obama?  That’s worth asking.  Next time.

Last modified on 2010-07-11 21:40:44 GMT. 76 comments