Liberals, Israel & Wolves Among the rampant contradictions attendant to liberal thinking and behavior is this:
From Boston to Berkeley, "scientific” liberals boast of their devotion to the idea that life on earth evolved through a blind struggle for survival.
However, when it comes to human affairs, liberals blithely urge the taking of enormous gambles regarding survival or ignore its demands entirely — as in the case of pacifists, whom Orwell correctly described as enamored of a perverted "moral phenomenon” that was (and will always be) "objectively pro-Fascist.”
These thoughts come to mind today as the result of the current act being played out in the ongoing tragedy of the Middle East, a tragedy whose enduring, fundamental theme was established in 1948 when Arab monarchies and Palestinians reacted to the establishment of Israel by dedicating themselves to the cause of Israel’s destruction.
Indeed, Israel’s enemies have pursued their goal with such astonishing violence and hatred that sensible people agree the fear Israeli Jews have not just for the survival of their state but for their lives is based firmly upon reality and reason.
Sensible people agree ... but not liberals.
Moreover, and more frightening, liberals are so certain about the correctness of their vision of Israelis as paranoiacs (or emotional jellyfish whose intractable depressiveness and raging anxiety exaggerate the threat to their lives) that they denounce Israeli policies with the same angry ferocity associated with the filth that flows from the fascist mouth of an Iranian ayatollah or president.
For evidence of this perfectly arrogant, perfectly stupid liberal perversity, let us turn first to Jimmy Carter, the self-anointed ambassador of peace extraordinaire who revealed his shameless pride in the following statement quoted by the Washington Post:
"I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.”
Is it even possible to imagine the mass of this arrogance, exhibited by a person who claims wide and intimate knowledge of the Middle East but speaks of how "easily” Israel can find another, infinitely less "devastating” avenue with which to reach an honest, lasting accord with terrorists committed to its destruction?
(Of course, Carter’s liberal admirers will disagree with that assessment, quickly informing us that the Jimmy Peanuts whose magic music had charms to sooth the savage breast of Kim Jong-il can easily reprise his act to soften the rock that is Ahmadinejad and bend the knotted oaks called Hamas and Hezbollah.)
We move on now to Roger Cohen (New York Times), who laments that he has "never previously felt so despondent about Israel, so shamed by its actions ...”
Surely, Cohen must feel such shame because he "knows” how "easily” Israel can live happily ever after with its "perceived” enemies.
Of course, Cohen must also believe that unending bliss for Israelis is possible only if they place their survival into the hands of liberals who will be happy to "rehabilitate” fascist, psychopathic terrorists of the Middle East in the same way that from bud to blossom to fruit, they bring out the humanity of the most vile murderers, rapists, and pedophiles in America.
(Ah, liberals, our modern alchemists who turn not base metals but base humans into gold, along the way viciously mocking infidels such as Steven Pinker, who dared to condemn "horrific genocides inspired by Marxist pseudoscience about the malleability of human nature.”)
Finally, there is Rosa Brooks (LA Times), bashing Israel with this bit of lecturing mockery: "Wring your hands every now and then, but don’t engage seriously with European, Turkish or Arab actors anxious to propose compromises that could end the conflict [in Gaza].”
So, what does one do about Ms. Brooks’ hallucination that pictures the French, Swedes, Spaniards, Turks, and assorted "Arab actors” kicking groins, biting ears, and scratching eyes in a fight to be first in line to propose, help negotiate, and meticulously enforce a just peace between Israel and it enemies?
Well, to protect one’s sanity and insure one’s survival, one first thinks carefully about how Europe reacted to the institutionalized murder, torture, and rape inflicted upon innocents in the part of the European backyard called Bosnia.
Next, one considers how "Arab actors” have responded to genocide in Darfur.
Then, to fulfill one’s responsibility to morality, one pleads with Rosa to make an appointment with the best pharmacological psychiatrist she can find — immediately.
The image of the liberal as a raving lunatic —
What an excellent way to end; for it explains at least three important facts about liberal behavior vis-à-vis Israel, facts that Israelis and their friends should never forget in the name of "Never Again.”
... Why, with the ugliest of angry insults, neurotic guilt ridden liberals condemn a people who are in a terrible fight for their survival against rabidly wolfish enemies.
... Why, with an air of smug superiority, arrogant liberals dismiss the Russian proverb that advises, "If you live among wolves you have to howl like a wolf.”
... Why, with a fierce certainty that dismisses the entirety of human experience with a dismissive wave of a prideful hand, megalomaniac, appeasement loving liberals deny there are crucial lessons to be learned from the fearful wolf that confronted Dante:
"And she has a nature so malignant and ruthless, That she never satisfies her greedy will, And after eating is more ravenous than before.” |
