Category Archives: Israel

UPDATED (8/24/018): Taki: Not Very Bright

Anti-Semitism, Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Neoconservatism, South-Africa, Terrorism, The West

In “From Russia With (Less Than) Love,” I asked—and answered—the question as to why Russia and Israel don’t cooperate more. For one, both nations live adjacent to terrorist entities—the Russians to Chechnya; the Israelis to the Palestinian Authority. Putin must put up with Shamil Basaev (a Chechen terrorist and advocate of an Islamist state in the Northern Caucasus); Israelis have to contend with the new Dalai Lamas of Gaza (Hamas).

And both Israelis and Russians “are hectored by elements in the Bush and Blair administrations and the Europeans about granting statehood to their terrorism-endorsing neighbors. Against insuperable odds, both are expected to trust terrorists and their fan base to stop butchering babies and embrace Jeffersonian democracy and a Bill of Rights.”

Note the consistency of my position: Assailed by savages, Russia and Israel have my sympathies and support on this front.

A year later, Taki, a moldy scribe, with life tenure in various publications, makes a similar point in The American Conservative (TAC). He is smarting over the administration’s double standard: “American policy makers” are “bear baiting” Russia about its mistreatment of Chechen jihadists, whom the administration (as I pointed out) lionizes. Chechens are freedom fighters, but the Palestinians are terrorists? What’s up with that, he wants to know.

This is rich because Taki’s writing is laced with exactly the same illogic:

In fawning, radical-left fashion, he and TAC finesse everything about the savage and dysfunctional Palestinian society, yet evince a loathing of all things Israel. Or, if a little honesty pierces the fog, and they acknowledge the facts on the ground, it is invariably to blame Israel, Ã la the left’s theory of culpability. Apparently, if not for Israel, a veritable economic oasis and a culture of life would flourish where a black hole now threatens to collapse upon itself.

Yes, this is rich because it exposes Taki’s inability to detect the same category of contradiction he rightly accuses the administration of in his and The American Conservative’s oeuvre.

That’s good for a laugh.

UPDATED (8/24/018): Praised by a cult.

 

Arab Universalism?

Islam, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Terrorism

The Boston Globe assures readers that “in the Arab world, Zarqawi tactics bred disgust.”

“If you are fighting foreigners, how come you kill 5,000 [Iraqi goons have killed multitudes more than that] or other innocent civilians and only a few Americans?” asks Bashar al-Akhras, whose “father was killed in the November 2005 suicide bombings of three Amman hotels, claimed by Zarqawi as retribution for Jordan’s support of US policy in the region.”

“His extended family,” Akhras relates, “consists of hard-working Palestinians who live across the Arab world and are bystanders in the war between Al Qaeda and the United States.”

So Akhras disagrees with the Mayor of London’s favorite “progressive” theologian, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi draws a sharp “moral distinction” between suicide bombings against ordinary Londoners (not good) and those against ordinary Israelis (perfectly good). He is not alone among Muslim ulama (scholars).

I’m eager to hear this lad extend his indignation and disgust to the slaughter by terrorists of all civilians—Jordanian, Iraqi, American, and Israeli.

It would be good too if the press avoided sweeping, unsubstantiated and unqualified generalizations.

Updated: The Death of A Devil (No, Michael Berg is Alive & Well)

Islam, Israel, Terrorism, War

Al Zarqawi was scum. Even Ayman al-Zawahiri, another bottom feeder, sent him a letter, asking that he reconsider the wisdom of culling so many Iraqi Shia.
Al-Zawahiri had broached the topic by telling his murderous mate that, although it is necessary to bring “the Muslim masses to the mujahed movement,” killing so many of them is probably not conducive to recruitment. Yes, the Shia are a handful, Zawahiri conceded. They aren’t kosher theologically, have cooperated with the Americans against Saddam and the Taliban, and, all together, have a history of “connivance with the Crusaders.”
If it were possible for the mujahedeen to kill all Iraq’s Shia, Zawahiri’d be game, but it wasn’t.
So, Zawahiri is no fan of the Shia. But logistics being what they are, he thinks they ought to be forgiven—not slaughtered for—their “ignorance.”
Al Zarqawi, as we know, disagreed. And now he’s dead. I say good riddance. Many jihadists are grieving. So is Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas al-Zarqawi beheaded.
Berg said the following: “I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that… I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace [toward Zarqawi].”

In some ways Berg is more evil than was Zarqawi: The latter had his own idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong and he’d, at least, fight for those he considered his clan. The former has no moral preferences, and no loyalties, not even to his poor son.

**
Civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz offers an interesting observation:

“As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as ‘targeted assassination’ or ‘targeted killings.’ This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews,” writes Alan Dershowitz on the Huffington Post.

“When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: ‘targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified.’ The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.

Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community?”

The rest of the post is here.

Updated: The Death of A Devil (No, Michael Berg is Alive & Well)

Islam, Israel, Terrorism, War

Al Zarqawi was scum. Even Ayman al-Zawahiri, another bottom feeder, sent him a letter, asking that he reconsider the wisdom of culling so many Iraqi Shia.
Al-Zawahiri had broached the topic by telling his murderous mate that, although it is necessary to bring “the Muslim masses to the mujahed movement,” killing so many of them is probably not conducive to recruitment. Yes, the Shia are a handful, Zawahiri conceded. They aren’t kosher theologically, have cooperated with the Americans against Saddam and the Taliban, and, all together, have a history of “connivance with the Crusaders.”
If it were possible for the mujahedeen to kill all Iraq’s Shia, Zawahiri’d be game, but it wasn’t.
So, Zawahiri is no fan of the Shia. But logistics being what they are, he thinks they ought to be forgiven—not slaughtered for—their “ignorance.”
Al Zarqawi, as we know, disagreed. And now he’s dead. I say good riddance. Many jihadists are grieving. So is Michael Berg, whose son Nicholas al-Zarqawi beheaded.
Berg said the following: “I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that… I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace [toward Zarqawi].”

In some ways Berg is more evil than was Zarqawi: The latter had his own idiosyncratic notion of right and wrong and he’d, at least, fight for those he considered his clan. The former has no moral preferences, and no loyalties, not even to his poor son.

**
Civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz offers an interesting observation:

“As the civilized world justly celebrates the long overdue killing of Abu M al-Zarqawi, it must recall that his death was brought about by what has come to be known as ‘targeted assassination’ or ‘targeted killings.’ This is the same technique that has been repeatedly condemned by the international community when Israel has employed it against terrorists who have murdered innocent Jews,” writes Alan Dershowitz on the Huffington Post.

“When Israel targeted the two previous heads of Hamas, the British foreign secretary said: ‘targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified.’ The same views expressed at the United Nations and by several European heads of state. It was also expressed by various Human Rights organizations.

Now Great Britain is applauding the targeted killing of a terrorist who endangered its soldiers and citizens. What is the difference, except that Israel can do no right in the eyes of many in the international community?”

The rest of the post is here.