Read Kishkushim for real time updates from Haifa.

There's a major wave of missile attacks across the north at the moment. It looks more and more like ground forces are going to have to be deployed to deal with this.

Just caught a clip of Bush and Blair talking on Channel Two. They didn't know they were being filmed and the results were truly marvelous. Quoth George Bush:

If they just stop Syria from doin' this shit its all over.

Yeah. I really like that guy.

Fox News just reported that the IDF has entered southern Lebanon. Israeli Channel Two is not reporting this at the moment. I'll keep you posted.

UPDATE:
So far none of the Hebrew media is reporting this. I'm inclined to think its false.

UPDATE:
Apparently there was a brief incursion today but no major ground forces were deployed.

One of the worst things about this current situation (among many) is the anti-Hezbollah Lebanese who are caught in the middle. This blog has some very tough commentary by a liberal Lebanese writer. He's plenty mad at us right now and I would probably feel the same way if I was in his shoes. I wish people like him had the political power to change the situation, but they don't. Someday, I hope they will. Many times, Israel has to act as if it has no friends. I pray that after this is over some of the connections between Israel and liberal Lebanese, and liberal Arabs all over the Middle East, can be repaired. Ultimately, that is the only real hope for this region. As the poet said: "Peace comes dripping slow." At the moment, we fight. Tomorrow...

Here's an interesting interview with Natan Sharansky, one of the more extraordinary human beings alive today (you try surviving seven years in a Soviet jail). He thinks that Israel has a very short window of opportunity to destroy Hezbollah before world opinion forces us to stop. I'm not entirely convinced of that, since I think Hezbollah is just dumb enough to keep attacking us until they're completely crippled by our retaliation. However, the increasing outcry about the damage being done to Lebanon will be a major political factor. He has some very interesting things to say about the contrast between Olmert and Sharon. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but he knew both men, so don't take my word for it.

According to Israeli Channel Two at least two of the workers killed this morning in Haifa were Israeli Arabs. Apparently, Hezbollah isn't only a gaggle of pestilential fanatics, they're also incredibly stupid.

My friends over at Kishkushim have moment by moment updates on the missile attacks in Haifa. Take a look.

A Moment of Clarity at the UN

Courtesy of Kesher Talk and Vital Perspective, here is Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman telling it like it is before the reprehensibles of that highly lamentable organization. Its an extraordinary statement and I fully recommend sending it to as many people as you can. I reproduce it here in full:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me take you back to a warm summer's day in Beirut 32 years ago -- exactly this very significant day for you and your people -- the 14th of July, 1974. I want to describe the scene to you and to my Lebanese colleague. Cafes and bars bustling with young people, beaches filled with happy holiday-makers -- the Switzerland of the Middle East.

How different this scene is from the one on Beirut streets today, 32 years later. But this difference did not start this week or last year. The difference started only one year after the scene I just described, in 1975, when the Lebanese began their long dissent into oppression, depression and terror. This is a country that has been held hostage for more than 32 years by tyrants from the north and terrorists in the south, a country whose fun-loving, business-minded entrepreneurial and liberal population has been tormented by decades of oppression, sectarian strife, fundamentalist violence, religious conflict, Syrian control, political assassinations, terror, and full- fledged civil war...

In May 2000, Israel took the painful and politically difficult decision to fully withdraw from southern Lebanon, having been compelled a few years earlier to establish a security zone there in order to prevent terrorist attacks and rocket-shelling from Lebanon into Israeli towns and villages. This council acknowledged Israel's complete withdrawal from southern Lebanon and its full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425 in a presidential statement on June 18th, 2000.

This was Lebanon's moment of truth. Would its government look inward and free its people from the stranglehold of terror, or would it allow its territory to become a base from which Hezbollah terrorists would launch attacks against Israeli civilians.

Tragically, Mr. President, the Lebanese government chose the latter.

The Lebanese government got a second chance after the partial implementation of Security Council Resolution 1559, which resulted in the withdrawal of most Syrian forces from Lebanese territory. Again, this council and the entire world were waiting to see how Lebanon would respond to this historic opportunity. Yet again, unfortunately, the Lebanese government chose to succumb to terror rather than vanquish it, to let its southern region be occupied by terrorism rather than disarm it, and to relinquish control over its country rather than exercise its full sovereignty.

Seldom before has the description of a people as never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity been so apt. Lebanon sadly did not heed the demands of the international community and did not obey the repeated resolutions of this aghast council. Today, sadly, the Lebanese people are burying the costs of this inaction and ineptitude.

Mr. President, two days ago Hezbollah terrorists, operating with impunity in southern Lebanon, unleashed a sudden and unprovoked attack into Israeli territory. Scores of Katyusha rockets rained down on Israeli towns and villages, causing many civilian casualties. In the midst of this horrific assault, Hezbollah terrorists infiltrated Israel, killing a number of soldiers and kidnapping two more, who were taken deep into the terrorist stronghold of southern Lebanon. Israel had no choice but to react, as would indeed any other responsible, democratic government.

Having shown unparalleled restraint for six years while bearing the brunt of countless attacks, Israel had to respond to this absolutely unprovoked assault, whose scale and depth was unprecedented in recent years.

Let me emphasize this indisputable fact -- Israel's actions were in direct response to an act of war from Lebanon. Although Israel holds the government of Lebanon responsible, it is concentrating its response carefully, mainly on Hezbollah strongholds, positions and infrastructure.

The hundreds of Katyusha rockets fired from Lebanon in the last few days demonstrate the magnitude of the immense arsenal of rockets and weapons that Hezbollah has amassed over the last few years, a danger we have repeatedly warned against. Many of the long-range missiles that have hit Israeli towns, including Nahariya, Safed, Rosh Pina, and the port city of Haifa, were launched from private homes, with families residing inside, where a special room was designated as a launching pad, with a family playing host to the missile. This is yet another example of the cynical and brutal way the Hezbollah organization uses civilians as human shields, with complete disregard for human life.

Mr. President, over the last 48 hours, more than 500 Katyushas and mortar shells were fired into the northern part of Israel, killing two civilians and wounding hundreds more, among them women and children. Israeli civilians and eight soldiers have been killed, hundreds have been wounded.

It is very important for the international community to understand that while Hezbollah executes this vicious terrorism, it is merely the finger on the bloodstained, long-reaching arms of Syria and Iran. Hezbollah, together with Hamas, Syria and Iran, comprise the world's new and ominous axis of terror, an infamous club -- infamous club, the entry fee to which is the blood of innocents and the terrorizing of the entire world.

Membership to this club requires an unfathomable capacity for evil. The president of Iran has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, while gleefully preparing the next one. Many of the long-range missiles fired into Israel in recent days were Iranian missiles, made by the same regime that is now trying to possess nuclear weapons, the same region that is funding Hezbollah to the sum of $100 million a year.

Do we dare to ask ourselves how many families in Lebanon today are being prepared to house dirty bombs and other weapons of mass destruction courtesy of Iran?

Syria, another member of this club, is a well-known protector and financier of terrorist organizations, playing host to them in its capital, Damascus. The Syrian government, which still regards Lebanon as "southern Syria," works ceaselessly to undermine all efforts towards a peaceful future in the region.

Lebanon is today occupied by terror, whether in the south, where it is directed at Israel, or in Beirut, where it kills opponents of Syria and former prime ministers. The real occupying power in Lebanon is terror, terror instigated by Hezbollah, but initiated, funded and perpetrated by Syria and Iran.

The Lebanese government, having missed so many chances in the past, at such a horrendous cost to its people, today has another chance to free itself from the stranglehold of terror, another chance, Mr. President, to release itself from the evil control of Syria and the deadly influence of Iran, and deploy its forces in the south, exercising its sovereignty over a free Lebanon.

Mr. President, there are words that speak far louder and clearer than anything I can voice today. These are voices of Lebanese -- brave, patriotic Lebanese parliamentarians and ministers who, just over the last two days, have cried out to all of us from the brink of the abyss in their beloved country. Let me quote some of these courageous statements to you.

The words of Lebanon's communications minister, Mr. Marwan Hamadeh, only yesterday saying that -- and I quote -- "Damascus gives the orders, Iran supplies the equipment, Israel reacts, and Lebanon is the victim."

Or the words of Alias Attala (sp), a Lebanese politician representing the majority of its parliamentary members, and I quote, "We welcome any Arab and international support, but strongly oppose any enforced involvement of Lebanon by regional players' considerations" -- a reference to Syria and Iran -- "that are not within the interests of the Lebanese people, for the sole attempt to achieve opportunistic benefits at the expense of the Lebanese people. The Syrian regime indulges itself in teaching Lebanon and Palestine lessons according to its own interests through these peoples. Why do those who always protect their regime express understanding of its reasons and preferences and do not express any understanding of Lebanon's reasons and preferences?"

Or the words of an unnamed Lebanese minister who said, again only yesterday, and I quote, "The Hezbollah has not only kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, it has taken the whole of Lebanon hostage," end quote.

Mr. President, with your permission I would like to make a personal appeal to my esteemed Lebanese colleague.

Your Excellency, you know deep down that if you could you would add your own brave voice to those voices of your brave compatriots and colleagues. You know deep in your heart that if you could you would be sitting here right next to me right now because you know that we are doing the right thing, and that if we succeed, Lebanon will be the beneficiary. And I believe that most members around this table, as well as many in this chamber, including our neighbors, realize this reality.

Mr. President, this council and the international community have a duty today to help the Lebanese people achieve the goal of a free, prosperous, democratic Lebanon. The sad and tormented life of this war-torn land has today entered another sad chapter in its history. It is up to every one of us to help right this chapter to ensure that this opportunity is seized not only for the benefit of the Lebanese and Israeli people, but for the sake of generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Guardian's coverage seems pretty typical. Almost the entire article deals with Shia supporters of Hezbollah and their "defiance" of Israel (which involves supporting unprovoked acts of war like kidnapping soldiers). Other groups are mentioned as if in passing and then only to note that they're fleeing the country. From this article you'd never know that the majority of Lebanese are not supporters of Hezbollah. Hezbollah was, after all, the only political group in the country which opposed the Syrian withdrawal, an issue which brought thousands of Lebanese into the streets. Apparently, the only voices worth mentioning are those which hate Israel and support acts of terrorism. This is the Arab world according to the Guardian. And I thought they were anti-racist...

Ha'aretz has the details on the overnight attacks in Lebanon. Things were extremely tense yesterday. The newspapers all had "WAR" as their headline in massive block letters along with pictures of the dead and kidnapped soldiers. News kept trickling in all day about more attacks in the north, culminating in the rockets that hit Haifa, which is a major escalation on the part of our friends across the border. The worst part was waiting to see what our response would be, so now that its happened things may calm down a bit. I don't think the Lebanese government has the power or the will to stop Hezbollah on its own, so Nasrallah would seem to have overplayed his hand. He doesn't seem to realize that the possibility of the Lebanese army de-escalating the situation was his only chance to get out of this moderately intact. Big Pharaoh has some very interesting commentary from our fellow anti-Chomskyites in the Arab world. I wouldn't be shocked to see major Israeli ground incursions into southern Lebanon over the next few days. Oddly enough, the silent majority of Lebanese who don't support Hezbollah may not be too unhappy with this. I await the "international community"'s inevitable condemnation.

Hitting the Fan

The you know what is flying thick and fast these days. Michael Totten, it appears, is prescient. I'm not sure what is going to happen now, but major operations in the north and in Gaza are certainly on the agenda. Seven soldiers were killed this morning and two kidnapped. The IDF has been retaliating along the northern border all day. A major reserve call up is underway. That usually indicates a large scale operation in the making. Meanwhile, Gilad Shalit is still in the hands of God knows who and they are likely doing things to him neither you nor I wish to contemplate. A boiling point is coming. What the response will be, I don't know. The world seems have grown somewhat bored with bashing Israel on a constant basis, and may have moved on to some other, more fashionable whipping boy. We can only hope. One thing is certain: the situation is bad and its about to get a lot worse.

The Obvious Ignored

The Good Professor has recently weighed in on the side of appeasement (of course) in relation to Iran and its prospective nuclear weapons program. The text is rather chilling, and well worth examination, if only for an abject lesson in academic double-talk. As per usual, Chomsky asserts that everything is the fault of the United States.

A near-meltdown seems to be imminent over Iran and its nuclear programmes.

Before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported these programmes. Today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons programme.

Thirty years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: "They were an allied country."

Chomsky, of course, loathes Henry Kissinger as only a Jewish antisemite can loathe another Jew; especially when said Jew manages to be successful in precisely the arena in which the antisemite has the most unjustified and yet vociferous pretensions to expertise. We are bound to point out the rather obsequious obvious: Namely, that anyone in their right mind wishes an allied state to be stronger than an enemy state. And that, moreover, to ensure such a situation is the sworn duty of any Secretery of State. Chomsky, as ought to be clear, desires America's enemies to be stronger than its friends, since such an imbalance holds out the possibility of America's destruction. But, as with all courageous intellectuals who speak truth to power, he lacks the courage to say that openly. This refusal to acknowledge blatent implications extends to the most salient of Chomsky's denials: the nature of the Iranian regime.

Iranians are surely not as willing as the West to discard history to the rubbish heap. They know that the United States, along with its allies, has been tormenting Iranians for more than 50 years, ever since a US-UK military coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the Shah, who ruled with an iron hand until a popular uprising expelled him in 1979.

There was, of course, an undeniable popular uprising against the Shah. There was also a coup d'etat on the part of a theocratic minority that destroyed all collaborators in the uprising excepting itself and installed a totalitarian Islamist government. Chomsky rather desperately erases this essential event. In fact, Chomsky spends a total of seventeen paragraphs explicating his stentorian opinions on the Iran nuclear crisis without mentioning even once the nature of the Iranian regime. This is an omission of convenience, no doubt, but it is so immense in its implications that omission becomes a meaningless evasion: it is, in fact, a despicable and extraordinary lie. It is an essential lie, however, as it allows Chomsky to evade, for instance, the series of protests which have intensified over the past several years against the Iranian regime. All brutally put down by its theocratic rulers and completely ignored by self-styled guardians of human rights such as Noam Chomsky. But its true meaning is as a granting of indulgences to what inevitably follows.

There are ways to mitigate and probably end these crises. The first is to call off the very credible US and Israeli threats that virtually urge Iran to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. A second step would be to join the rest of the world in accepting a verifiable Fissban treaty, as well as ElBaradei’s proposal, or something similar.

It is, of course, pointless to mention that it is not Israel which has threatened Iran but quite the opposite. Indeed, violating every principle of Chomsky's precious international law (which is, for Chomsky, merely a tool of his own hypocrisy) Iran has threatened Israel with genocide. Chomsky generally claims to disapprove of genocide, although we must grant that he shown himself remarkably sanguine on the subject so long as the correct ethnic/religious/political group is being slaughtered. We all, apparently, have our little contradictions. Nonetheless, this deliberate ommission clearly does not strengthen his case. In fact, it rather ungenerously points to its absurdity. A man with a good case to make does not need to engage in lies in order to justify it. Chomsky, as per usual, admits the paucity of his opinions by way of the method by which he justifies them. Such is the cost of an engaging lack of frankness.

Nor are we prone to granting much credence to Chomsky's other proposals. He claims, for instance, that negotiations will be sufficient to allieviate the crisis. This ignores, of course, the apocalyptic nature of Iran's ruling ideology, as well as the precedents of history. Chomsky's legendery genius has apparently failed to appreciate the example, for instance, of North Korea, which made several "good faith" agreements regarding its nuclear program only to announce (as any anti-Chomskyite could have predicted) that they had violated them all and produced nuclear weapons. At which point, of course, there was nothing anyone could do about it short of nuclear war. This is, apparently, and despite his claimed horror of nuclear apocalypse, of little concern to Chomsky. The capacity for Armageddon appears to be of little consequence to Chomsky so long as it is in the correct hands. In the hands, that is to say, of those who are enemies of the United States and are therefore prone to attempting to use said capacity against the America Chomsky loathes. Or the Israel Chomsky loathes. The two countries are, in any event, almost interchangeable in Chomsky's mind.

What all this blubbering points us to, however, is a true intention. What Chomsky wants for Iran is not a peaceful solution (because he obviously knows, judging by his deliberate omission of it, that the nature of Iran's regime precludes the possibility of a peaceful solution) but time. Which is, of course, precisely what Iran is playing for. Chomsky wants talks without threat of sanction and agreements with no possibility of enforcement. Without the credible threat of military consequences, such would be the conditions of any talks or agreements. What this amounts to, in other words, in the case of Iran is several more years in which to develop its nuclear program. Chomsky is either a fool (which he may well be) or he knows this already. If the latter is true, then we may assume that Chomsky's role is not that of observer but that of collaborator. What he desires is, essentially, to do everything possible to insure that nuclear powers hostile to the United States and Israel, governed by regimes mad enough to make use of said nuclear power, will come into existence with as little harassment as possible. Hegemony or survival indeed.

Declare Victory and Leave

The total failure of one's life's work is a terrible thing for an old man to contemplate. For Noam Chomsky, who has spent a lifetime advocating the annihilation of the American political and economic system, it must be especially galling to contemplate a United State which is simultaneously farther than it has ever been from his vaguely articulated but nonetheless passionately held visions of leftist utopia and the most powerful political-military-economic entity in human history. The fact that this situation is unlikely to change anytime in the near future must be even more sobering a topic for the good professor's incontinent musings. The Roman empire, after all, lasted some eight hundred years, and the United States has already proven itself superior to the ancient hegemon in terms of both political stability and capacity for adaptation. Chomsky's response to this rather depressing existential state of affairs, namely that the United States and not Noam Chomsky has won the battle for history rather decisively, has resulted in what may be the most spectactular of Chomsky's long series of leaps off the deep end. He has, apparently, now dedicated himself to expounding the thesis that the United States is, in fact, a "failed state." The fact that this assertion is an absurdity of Biblical proportions does not make it any less fascinating. It seems to be a manifestation of that not particularly constructive suggestion made by certain moderate opponents of the Vietnam War back in Chomsky's heyday: declare victory and leave. An edifying solution, no doubt, but not one likely to have much effect on reality, historical or otherwise.

Chomsky articulates his dissent from the real world in a lengthy but fascinating interview with Amy Goodman of the publicly funded radio program Democracy Now!. Miss Goodman appears to be a combination of the worst features of the bad journalist and the psychopath. Which, of course, makes her the perfect choice for a Chomskyite interviewer. Chomsky would, of course, never allow himself to be interviewed by anyone else, such is the measure of his moral courage. The title of Miss Goodman's program must be taken as a subtle attempt at satire, since democracy would of course, demand that Miss Goodman cease robbing the American taxpayer at proverbial gunpoint in order to enrich herself making a program which, in a free market system, would not be capable of existence itself, let alone profitability for its authors. Miss Goodman is, after all, despite her ostensible concerns for social justice, a very unjustly wealthy woman.

The interview is, of course, less an interview than a glorified version of what is called the "teach-in." That is, it is several passionately uncritical adolescent minds contemplating the visage of their all-knowing guru from a rather low vantage point - that is to say, his feet. The less said about such exercises, the better. Suffice it to say, they are unconducive to critical thought, or anything else for that matter. Nonetheless, they do serve to stroke the ego of failed intellectuals.

Chomsky explains his basic assertion with his usual attempts at the rhetorical invocation of self-evidence:

The U.S. increasingly has taken on the characteristics of what we describe as failed states. In the respects that one mentioned, and also, another critical respect, namely the -- what is sometimes called a democratic deficit, that is, a substantial gap between public policy and public opinion. So those suggestions that you just read off, Amy, those are actually not mine. Those are pretty conservative suggestions. They are the opinion of the majority of the American population, in fact, an overwhelming majority. And to propose those suggestions is to simply take democracy seriously. It's interesting that on these examples that you've read and many others, there is an enormous gap between public policy and public opinion. The proposals, the general attitudes of the public, which are pretty well studied, are -- both political parties are, on most of these issues, well to the right of the population...Their policies are strongly opposed by most of the population. How do they carry this off? Well, that's been through an intriguing mixture of deceit, lying, fabrication, public relations.

This is indicative of a leftist mythos which I have written about before - namely, that of the Silent Leftist Majority. Since Chomsky cites absolutely nothing in regards to evidence as to what the "opinion of the majority of the American population" actually is, we can only assume that it consists of his own assertion. Leftists who invoke the SLM mythos usually try and mention one or two polls taken by highly biased organizations and/or a study claiming that Americans want socialized health care without mentioning that the same study shows that Americans also don't want their taxes raised to pay for it. Chomsky apparently believes that his reputation is enough for his audience (which it is) or that his genius gives him the telepathic ability to read the secret mind of the American public. Neither of these excuses, however, makes his assertion any less comic. What the SLM mythos really is, of course, is an expression of contempt for the very idea of representative democracy. To avoid unnecessary repitition, I will adopt one of Chomsky's more famous methods and quote myself:

What we are really seeing here, of course, is not so much a commentary on the recent election but yet another asinine display of Chomsky's hopelessly narcississtic contempt for democracy and the intellectual and moral capacities of his fellow citizens. He is unwilling to accept the possibility of a real and meaningful election or a real and meaningful democracy should it fail to enshrine his pseudo-prophetic blubberings into official policy. Thus the system which fails to enshrine becomes a farce and the people who fail to heed become easily manipulated dupes incapable of forming or expressing their own opinions and values through a representative system.

Contempt for those one claims to be respresenting is, of course, a well-known characteristic of radicals on all sides of the political spectrum. Nonetheless, the ubiquity of the phenomenon hardly makes it less frightening. The negation of democracy in the name of democracy, or rather, in the name of the people, is the first step towards totalitarianism: the destruction of the people in the name of the people. Generally, one can spot a totalitarian mind by the extent to which it refuses to accept the existence of any politics except its own. Chomsky's version of the SLM mythos essentially makes the case that everyone actually agrees with him. Turning this from a clumsy attempt to salve one's wounded ego into the basis of dictatorial rule is, of course, only a matter of guns. And, for Chomsky, the gun - from a comfortable distance, of course - has always been the final measure of political legitimacy.

It should be noted that throughout this extensive lecture Chomsky rants at length on the US as a terrorist nation, the violations of various human rights, etc...but says, in fact, very little about why the US is, as he puts it a "failed state". Beyond the "democracy deficit", which is only a fanciful term for the old SLM mythos, Chomsky remains resolutely silent on why the most powerful economic, military, and political force in the history of civilization ought to be considered a failure.

We must presume that Chomsky believes his word is enough in this matter, but we should look to that certain desperation which, as I have said, strikes the elderly upon the approach of death. Particularly upon those who have set their ambitions to the changing of the world. With the exception of Alexander the Great (who died, after all, at the advantageous age of 33) and a handful of other figures, almost no one can claim success in this regard. By this reckoning, it is hardly a surprise that Chomsky has been a failure. But the height of such ambitions must make their undoing a particularly bitter pill to swallow.

The solution, of course, is simple fantasy. Chomsky declares victory and leaves. The US is a failure, the revolution is around the corner, the "world" is on his side. There is nothing left to worry about. Either the fall of the United States or the end of the world (it is normal for frustrated intellectuals to declare victory and apocalypse simultaneously) are imminent. Such appears to be the dialogue of irrelevancy. It would be pitiable, of course, had Chomsky not spent much of his lengthy sojourn on earth slandering men better himself and attempting to undermine the country which has made him both famous and rich. His declaration of victory is farce, of course, as is his departure. Were he a better and smarter man, it might have been tragedy. Unfortunately for Chomsky, even his tiresome extrapolations before fawning sycophants cannot alter the unmistakeable rejection of everything he stands for at the hands of history and the American people he claims to aggrandize. The voice of history is the voice of God, one imagines. Even upon a misspent life.

New Blog

A friend of mine, also a student at BGU, has an interesting new group blog called Kishkushim. Its a nearly untranslatable Hebrew word for chatting up a storm about something, more or less. They're a bit to the left of yours truly, but we all have our vices. Check it out.

The Mythology and Its Masters

The fracas over the recently published polemic - “study” would be a criminally inaccurate term - on the Israel lobby at Harvard University has revealed, unsurprisingly, very little about the Israel lobby, but quite a bit about the mythology of antisemitism on today’s left. Tropes of Jewish control, power, and influence are as old as antisemitism itself, which is to say, they are very, very old, and no more accurate now than they were then. The mythos of antisemitism, however, has clearly undergone a sea change, and a large one, which is what makes the plethora of nonsensical lies being foisted on us by the polemic’s supporters all the more fascinating.

Tony Judt, the last man on earth who thinks a federated Europe is going to work, sees fit to proclaim for all the world that a dialogue may finally be opened about Jewish power and influence in America. He has hit on something, presumably without realizing it, since Judt strikes me as neither particularly insightful or intelligent. What he explicates, albeit indirectly, is the metamorphosis of the mythology of antisemitism.

The essay and the issues it raises for American foreign policy have been prominently dissected and discussed overseas. In America, however, it's been another story: virtual silence in the mainstream media. Why? There are several plausible explanations. One is that a relatively obscure academic paper is of little concern to general-interest readers. Another is that claims about disproportionate Jewish public influence are hardly original - and debate over them inevitably attracts interest from the political extremes. And then there is the view that Washington is anyway awash in "lobbies" of this sort, pressuring policymakers and distorting their choices.

Each of these considerations might reasonably account for the mainstream press's initial indifference to the Mearsheimer-Walt essay. But they don't convincingly explain the continued silence even after the article aroused stormy debate in the academy, within the Jewish community, among the opinion magazines and Web sites, and in the rest of the world. I think there is another element in play: fear. Fear of being thought to legitimize talk of a "Jewish conspiracy"; fear of being thought anti-Israel; and thus, in the end, fear of licensing the expression of anti-Semitism.

This mythology is based on an old idea: the mythos of Jewish power. But its form is entirely new: the mythos of Jewish power as a weapon of oppression. Whereas the Jews were once assaulted as a disease, now they are denounced as tyrants. How humanity has progressed in fifty short years.

The fact of this mythology as a mythology is evident because it is so evidently a lie. Like its predecessors, the lie is essential to the new metamorphosis. And it is a lie as large as it is simple. This is its genius. The lie is this: we are silenced. The entire charge against the Jews is one based on the mythos of rebellion. That those who speak lies about the Jews are, in fact, speaking truth to power. A power which endlessly seeks to silence them.

In fact, there is almost no issue today which is more talked about. Far from silence, we have a limitless chorus of denunciations, all carefully composed to include the obligatory exhortations to break the silence that does not exist. As far back as its origins, the widespread support for Zionism among American Jews has been the target of opprobrium and sanctimony. Far from being suppressed, the “dialogue” on the Israel lobby, and on Jewish power, such as it is imagined, is inescapable. Edward Said, for instance, a sacred cow of Judt's, published his assault on Zionism, including its influence in America, called "Zionism From the Standpoint of Its Victims", in 1979. They Dare to Speak Out, a book length attack on the Israel lobby, was published in 1989 by a former congressman. Hardly new and hardly original. Nightline broadcast a special in 2002 on the conflict in the Middle East in which Ted Koppel asked Newt Gingrinch about "the mystique of the Jewish lobby". Koppel, the great liberal journalist, seemed unfazed by the fact that the man he no doubt considered the great spokesman of conservative intolerance considered the question vaguely suspect. Said himself spent much of the 1990s and beyond spitting rhetorical poison (Said was not particularly good at anything else) at American Zionism and its varied establishments. Noam Chomsky's Peace in the Middle East?, which contains an entire chapter denouncing American supporters for Israel and their supposedly dominating influence, was published in 1974. This is not even to mention Russell Kirk and Pat Buchanan, who made much of the Israel lobby and its supporters as a wedge against neoconservatism during the '80s and '90s. Is it even necessary to mention that the New Left's denunciation of Israel and its American supporters was one of the primary motivating factors for the defection of such leftist luminaries as Norman Podhoretz to the other side? Or that even Chomsky himself and others, such as Tikkun's Michael Lerner, have been denounced by their own comrades for aiding and abetting the cause of Zionist suppression? The "silence" regarding Israel and its American supporters is, in fact, a shrieking cacophony of rage that permeates discussion to the point where it is no longer noticed. It is so ubiquitous that the only defense against cliché is the claim of revolt. Revolt, in fact, against the brute weight of history itself. A Judt puts it:

In the eyes of a watching world, the fact that an Israeli soldier's great-grandmother died in Treblinka will not excuse his own misbehavior.

This is, of course, the real enemy. Not the supposed terrors of totalitarian Zionism nor the necessity of beginning a debate which has been raging for over twenty years. It is the need to negate, to fundamentally annihilate, the fact of Jewish history. A history which is, of course, among other things, a series of catastrophes for which a reckoning must be made by the world which is overwhelmingly not Jewish. David Ben-Gurion once said that Zionism was not merely a case of Jews confronting the Arabs, but the Jews confronting the world. Against this, the inescapable mountain of wreckage upon which the Jewish people have built an improbable but nonetheless undeniable survival, and ultimate triumph, the only weapons are denial, reversal, and righteous condemnation. The accusors of Israel are in revolt against history itself.

Revolt, of course, is not new for antisemitism. It has been the cornerstone of leftist antisemitism since the days of Prudhon, the great revolutionary and prophet of man's liberation who declared that by fire or fusion the Jew must cease to exist. Replayed again, history, as the notable antisemite Karl Marx put it, becomes farce. From the depths of the establishment, Harvard University, we hear a self-described voice in the wilderness proclaiming war on the establishment, that is, upon the Jews. Whether Jewish influence outstrips that of Harvard is left an issue of speculation. Suffice it to say, it is not even necessary to ask the question. The ease with which the new mythology has been accepted is proof enough.

Inhumanity on Display

Allyson Rowen Taylor of the AJC suffered through the UC Irvine conference I mentioned in the previous post. Shocked and stunned doesn't even begin to describe her experience. There are no words for the despicable violence that is now being practiced upon the Jewish populations of America's universities by their fellow students and the cowardly or racist administrators who facilitate them. It is, apparently, not enough for American higher education to subject their Jewish students to consistent intimidation and slander, affirmative action policies that deliberately limit their numbers, and an attitude of at best indifference and at worst total contempt for their concerns. They must also, it appears, be brought to tears by the total negation of their existence, enforced by the campus police. The Muslim Student Association is, of course, guilty of the most vile form of racism in holding this conference, but the true villians are the administrators who should, and claim to, know better. Ms. Taylor asks a desperate question which gets to the heart of the matter.

I was with an associate and after I was escorted from the area behind the "apartheid wall" to sing with the supporters of Israel, we chatted with one of the campus police. My friend asked if this was a rough event to cover, as it was contentious and very hostile. The campus officer said, "Protecting the MSU is easier than than the Campus Republicans". How very sad. Conservatives on this campus are treated with more hatred than students who wear Kyffia's and support Iran and it's daily calls to eliminate not only Israel, but the United States of America. I wonder to whom these students' loyalty belongs. Iran? Syria? North Korea? Is this the new radical chic?

The terrifying answer is, of course, yes. But Ms. Taylor is wrong about one thing, what is happening here is not sad, it is inhuman. I don't wish to fly off the emotional handle, but the truth must be faced. If something does not change, and change soon, it is only a matter of time before the second genocide of the Jews becomes radical chic as well.

Thanks to LGF for the link.

Shocked and Stunned

It takes a lot to render me speechless these days, but this managed to accomplish it.  There are moments when self-hatred ceases to be pitiable and becomes moral barbarism.  “Israel: The 4th Reich”?  “Holocaust in the Holy Land”?  Is Norman Finkelstein so far off the deep end that he doesn’t grasp how viciously hurtful and obscene such rhetoric is?  Or is he such a demented adolescent that it actually appeals to him?  Either way, the man has clearly long since crossed the line that separates humanity from its enemies.

Since the Chancellor appears too cowardly to have his own email address, you can let Vice Chancellor Susan Menning know how you feel about the University of California, Irvine hosting this monstrous little pageant at smenning@uci.edu.

Happy Independence Day! : !יום העצמאות שמח

Then the Lord your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion upon you, and will return and gather you from all the nations...
If your exiles be at the utmost ends of heaven, from there will the Lord your God gather you, and from there will he take you
And the Lord your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it
And he will do good unto you

-Deuteronomy 30:3-6

Memorial Day:יום הזיכרון לחללי צה"ל

Thy glory Israel, is fallen upon the heights
How the mighty have fallen!
Mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, nor rain upon you, nor fields of offerings
For there is the shield of the mighty cast away…
From the blood of the slain, from the flesh of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty
Saul and Jonathan, they were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in death they were not divided
They were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions…
How the mighty have fallen
And the weapons of war cast away

-Second Book of Samuel, 1:20-27

Blessed be the memory of the fallen.