printLarry Auster on the meaning of the devious deployment of the apartheid epithet against Israel by “paleostinian conservatives” who, arguably, once were able to see separate development in South Africa as a desperate survival strategy by a besieged minority (now being ethnically cleansed by the majority):
“It wasn’t just paleos, but mainstream conservatives, who opposed the divestment strategy against South Africa. But such is the paleocons’ hatred of the Jewish state that they now adopt as a weapon against Israel that same left-wing policy which they themselves opposed when it was used against South Africa and which by their own estimation has led to the ruin of that country. There are no words to describe adequately the sickness and evil of the anti-Israel paleocons.”
Read “The Paleostinian Conservative calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.”
To be fair to non-Israel-hating paleos, the “Paleostinian Conservative” isn’t much a paleo magazine anymore. I believe it had a recent cover article defending Hispanic immigration. Perhaps it should be renamed the Atzlan Conservative.
What is disheartening here is that there is no logical reason for the anti Israel sentiment in the west other than ancient anti-semitism or sympathy for the Palestinians. Basic anti-semitism is as old as the old testament and will always be around in one form or another. Sympathy for the Palestinians is a manifestation of the Americans and Brits being suckers for propaganda. Anybody who is reasonably intelligent and has taken a good look at the Israeli-Palestinian situation can’t possibly condemn the Israelis.
[well-put]
Isn’t it interesting that while most paleos support strong U. S. borders, and are opposed to the ongoing migration of large elements of the Mexican population into the U. S., they are simultaneously cheerleading for the destruction of Israel by the so-called “right of return” which will erase the Jewish character of that state? That’s intellectually inconsistent, but I guess such inconsistencies do not trouble some paleos. (If they were to be consistent, they would cheerlead for erasing the traditional character of America, along with her Anglo Saxon-inspired founding documents.)
If there’s anything that makes me want to vomit, it’s the constant intellectualism by some who advocate policies that will lead to the very situations they claim to oppose—in this country, but apparently not for others (read Israel.) How about “multiculturalism for thee, but not for me” or (as the article Auster references makes clear) “let’s do a careful review of the tactics utilized against apartheid S. A. to see if they would work against Israel.”
Auster states, “There are no words to describe adequately the sickness and evil of the anti-Israel paleocons. A special place in hell is reserved for them.” Correct.
That’s intellectually inconsistent, but I guess such inconsistencies do not trouble some paleos.
It’s consistent if hatred of Jews is your prime mover. I forget the exact quote, but I remember Lenin saying that that which is for the revolution is true, and that which is against the revolution is false.
Even so, it takes an impressively twisted mind to romanticize some of the most insanely violent people on the planet.
Folks paleos don’t hate Israel. [You could have fooled me.] They are just using Israel as a tool in the ongoing culture war in the USA that they are unfortunately losing.
They hate the fact that many prominent American Jews, whether on the political left or right, espouse mass immigration and multiculturalism for the USA while wanting to shield Israel from the same fate.
Yes, I know BAB stated that Israelis and Jews should not be conflated. I am just telling you what I believe. I am certain if mainstream Jewish groups in the USA came out against mass immigration, amnesty and all the other multicultural crap, Paleos would no longer have reason to criticize Israel. After all, Paleos are generally not interested in foreign affairs. Their battles are more on the domestic front.
Because that will never happen, Paleos will continue to criticize [that’s too soft a word; heap hate and scorn on Israel is more like it] Israel as a way to point out what they see as the hypocrisy of American Jews.
Desch’s article “Divestment Diversion”
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/jun/01/00037/
is certainly not a robust endorsement of Israel but it actually argued AGAINST the Divestment strategy – although more on pragmatic grounds than on a moral case for Israel. Subheading: “Boycotting Israel will not foster peace.”
Israel seems to the be perfect place for double standards – if one is a NEOCON, you can denounce “racist” “chauvinistic” Arizona and the build the wall crowd while applauding Israel which builds a wall. If one is a PALEOCON, then Arizona is to be congratulated while Israel gets denounced for keeping out trespassers. And if you are a LEFTIST, you can defend Islamic treatment of women/gays… as their unique culture while screaming at “human rights violations” of Israel. And if you work for the STATE DEPARTMENT, you go apoplectic over a dozen killed in Gaza while American drones wipe out Afghan wedding parties from 50,000 ft.
I am not arguing that Israel [or Arizona] are perfect; rather, there is a common thread (see Matthew 7:3):
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”