Standing up for the Jewish people (or: Stuart’s Folly)

It has to be understood that one cannot stand for the well-being of the Jewish people if one refuses to stand against political Islam.

The rise of political Islam is the foremost challenge to Jewish sovereignty and Jewish well-being in the world today. All throughout the Middle East imams and ayatollahs cry out for Jewish blood and tell their people that the Jews are the children of apes and pigs and that we are responsible for all war and that we eat local Arab children like Cheezy-Doodles.

Islamists and anti-Jewish racists throughout the Muslim world and Europe are creating an exceedingly dangerous environment for Jews everywhere and we must acknowledge that fact, particularly since the Jews of the Middle East represent a very tiny minority. There are sixty or seventy Muslims for every Jew in the Middle East and, for the most part, those Muslims do not accept Jewish sovereignty on historically Jewish land.

Thus political Islam represents a very real danger for Jewish people, but not only Jewish people. If we honestly believe in universal human rights, than we have to oppose al-Sharia.

That means we need to oppose politicians, like president Barack Obama, who offer moral and military support to enemies of the Jewish people and to enemies of the United States.

Furthermore, this has to be understood as a problem primarily grounded in the western-left.

For a variety of reasons, I have tended not to support the political right-wing in the United States or the Republican Party. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that it is the conservatives and the political right within the United States that has, for long decades, been far more friendly to the Jewish people, and the Jewish state, than has the progressive-left.

Jewish liberals may not like me saying so, but I am not saying anything that is not entirely obvious to anyone who is observing American politics with a mind that can comprehend that when an American president pledges F-16 fighter jets and hundreds of Abrams tanks to a country with an Islamist government, that such a president supports political Islam.

This conclusion is obvious on its face and those who deny that conclusion are deceiving themselves.

Some will say that speaking out against political Islam is “racist.” I do not agree. Standing against political Islam is to stand against racism. The movement for political Islam is the single most racist political movement in the world today. Just as we liberals stood against American slavery in the nineteenth-century, and just as we stood against the Klan and the rise of the Nazis and Jim Crow, so we should stand against the rise of political Islam.

Our failure to do so is a moral failure.

What we are seeing today is the abdication of the liberal-left dedication to universal human rights. The notion of universal human rights is central to western-liberal ideals and the degree to which the western-left fails to stand up for universal human rights is the degree to which it has betrayed its own values and, thus, betrayed its very reason to be. What is the point of supporting the progressive-left, or the Democratic Party, if neither will stand up for their own alleged values?

There are, it must be admitted, understandable reasons why the progressive-left has failed to stand up for universal human rights throughout the world. We refuse to stand for universal human rights because the “multicultural ideal” mitigates against it. Those of us who come out of the left want to respect other cultures and treat them the way that we would like to be treated. In Europe and the United States we tend no longer to believe in the “melting pot” theory of integration, but in the “salad bowl” idea. We want people with different languages and clothing and culinary traditions and religious traditions to live cheek-by-jowl and get along in comity.

This also means, within the tension between universal human rights and the multicultural ideal, that we are exceedingly slow to criticize “indigenous” cultures out of a recognition of the history of western imperialism. Who are we, after all – us allegedly privileged white people – to look down our noses at the off-spring of our former servants and slaves? By what moral right are we to condemn the children and grandchildren of those who we historically abused and enslaved and persecuted and exploited?

That tends to be the general mind-set of people who think of themselves as “progressive” or “liberal” or “left” and its the tradition that I come out of, as well. These are people seeking to be fair-minded and who have the finest of intentions. The problem is that ultimately they have, in an unspoken outplaying of this tension, chosen the multicultural ideal over the ideal of human rights because they do not wish to offend peoples in, or from, other parts of the world.

What this means, sadly, is that women continue to be stoned to death in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran, and we keep our mouths shut. Not only do we keep our mouth shut about these kinds of atrocities, we even denounce our fellow liberals who dare to speak up as “racist.” Throughout the Arab-Muslim Middle East Gay people are treated as something worse than criminals and are summarily murdered and, yet, even the western GBLT community generally remains quiet because it does not want to be thought of as bigoted toward Arabs or Muslims.

The diaspora Jewish community is, to my view, particularly egregious in this regard. Aside from a few rogue individualists, like activist Pamela Geller, diaspora western Jewry is sticking its head in the sand and refuses to speak out despite the fact that the Jews of the Middle East are a people under siege. We allow Arab leaders to tell us that any future state of “Palestine” must be Judenrein and we do not forcefully object. On the contrary, the western Jewish left tends to agree that Jewish people should not build housing for themselves on the traditionally Jewish land which, for some reason, they call by the Jordanian name “West Bank.”

The Jews are maybe fourteen million people throughout the entire world. Our numbers have been kept small by European and Arab-Muslim aggression. Until we are ready to honestly stand up for ourselves by denouncing our foremost enemies, the Islamists, then we will always be on the defensive and our natural allies will not stand with us, because we refuse to stand up for ourselves. The western left should stand with the Jewish people because the movement for Jewish self-determination, like other movements for national liberation, is a movement for social justice among an historically persecuted people.

There will never be peace until the vast Arab peoples, our former rulers, accept Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land and they will never do so until non-Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Australians and non-Jewish Europeans insist upon it. However, non-Jewish Americans and non-Jewish Australians and non-Jewish Europeans will not do so until we insist upon it and that means that we must stand up to this fascistic movement that is rising throughout that part of the world.

Unless we stand up for ourselves, no one else will do so for us. And unless we forcefully speak out against the rise of political Islam, we cannot really be said to be standing up for the well-being of the Jewish people, nor even for the ideal of universal human rights, within which contemporary liberalism is grounded.

In this way, the progressive-left betrayal of the Jewish people is nothing less than the progressive-left betrayal of the progressive-left, itself.

Cross posted at ISRAEL THRIVES here:

Israel Thrives

Check Also

Understanding Zionism.

Maligned, misunderstood, and derided, provocative, emotive and polarizing.  Often condemned, just the mention of the …

12 comments

  1. Your wake up call for the civilized world in response to a minutely organized Islamic onslaught is more timely as we observe the number of political crises within the Islamic world.

    For some time now, within the very epicenter of the Muslim traditional base, Middle East and Northern Africa, conflicts between aggressive strands of Islam have reached levels NEVER experienced. In addition, as part of the recent increase in Palestinian political/propaganda/para-legal adversity against Israel, the fundamental anti-Jewish aspect of modern Islamism has become more evident. The non-Islamic world is exposing to an existential danger ANY Jewish presence, be it in Israel proper and/or without.
    This situation demands all Western political entities to address all manifestation of anti Semitism with serious determination.
    It stands to reason that Islam regards any form Jewish identity as a prime target ,therefore its tangible methods of action in support of it must be seen as expressions of terror anxious to be released any time, anywhere Jews exist.
    Irresponsible political entities outside the Islamic world act more in aiding and abetting a pernicious force instead of demonstrating a resolute position of curbing it.

    ou are right that the US Administration is not sending a clear and strong message to political Islam. The strategies so far employed are evidently NOT working. Islam is regrouping with greater strength each time ostensively or otherwise some advances are made on the ground by those charged with curbing resolutely the destructive force of political Islam.
    I will quote just the recent absurd, irresponsible dribble emanating at the White House, Obama personally, in relation to the use of dromes against known international terrorists. USA is making excuses for dealings with its worst enemies, as if Islamic terrorists would have agreed anywhere, somehow that they would attack and destroy US targets, civilian in particular, under a certain “civilized” code of engagement !!!

    To this extent, Israel is, essentially, left to fend for itself. Yet, Israel is constantly presented in a negative light AND criticized each time takes strong action against its immediate foes. Absurdly, most of the critics are those who are most affected by the same general Islamist forces right in the centre of their own political abode. London, Paris, Stockholm, Madrid are in the Islamic fireline at the mercy of the inner Islamic branches of international terrorism, yet they still attack Israel, giving succour to known purveyors of anti-Western hatred – never mind the Jews as such !!
    Islam uses antisemitism only as a decoy for usurping the entire Western, non Islamic world.

    They know that traditional European antisemitism is a most profitable breeding ground for their ultimate jihadist fundamental, irreversible goal. Here I would be inclined to believe that someone is either chronically incapable to develop an efficient counter policy, or, just a fifth column force……………………

    • Y’know, Otto,

      I honestly feel that I have very little more to say.

      In my experience, the Jewish left – which represents the great majority of western Jews – has been exceedingly reluctant to stand against political Islam and even shuns and debases those of us who do as “Islamophobes.”

      If in my blog, Israel Thrives, I point to an imam calling for the slaughter of the Jews and say, “Oh, look, this is an imam calling for the slaughter of the Jews,” then western progressives Jews will denounce me as a racist.

      So, what’s the point?

      Present company excepted, I am ashamed of the diaspora Jewish community.

      • I’m with you all the way there Mike. We need to stand up and SHOUT it out, loud and often

        As I said in my email. EXCELLENT item thank you

  2. Michael
    I would despair if I didn’t perceive that, in fact, that Jewish left in Western Europe – to which we must add the same in Israel- wouldn’t be, in fact only a fraction of what it seems to be. I think that they are much more inferior in number but excessively superior in the size of their mouth and chutzpah. Here chutzpah stands for irresponsible idiocy, self-destructive. And, because Australia hasn’t cut off the umbilical cord with Mutter UK, our Bondi bronzed Jewish leadership behaves just like your stiff upper lip own Board of Deps. groisse machers. Masters of stumm and vane high society pantomime. And to think that one of the most important politicians in the Albion land, the head of the alternative Gov., would be “one of us ” !!!!! Here, indeed, a second generation Jewish lefty proves a few points too painful to develop.
    In these necessary conflicts of opinion, the numerical majority seemingly and lethargically on the good side of Yidischkeit, needs a few reality jolts. If only certain Brits would have stayed back home to do their job – as they are bloody good at doing it – instead of chasing the mentioned Bondi sun………………

    • Otto, I have to say, I love your way with language!

      “Masters of stumm and vane high society pantomime.”

      :O)

      But I would say that we should not underestimate the significance of the western Jewish left in regards Euro/American/Australian relations with Israel and those relations are key.

      What we need to do is frame the conversation within the context of human rights and social justice, which is to say, within progressive-left terms.

      In order to do this we need to expand the range of our conversation in both time and place.

      In time, we need to place the conflict within the context of the long Arab-Muslim domination and abuse of the Jewish people in the Middle East since the 7th century. The truth is that we basically got our teeth kicked in for 13 centuries by the Arab invaders until the fall of the Ottoman Empire, at which point they launched a war against us that continues to this day.

      In place, we need to frame the conversation not as one between Israel and the local Arabs (commonly referred to as “Palestinians”), but as between the six million Jews of the Middle East versus the much, much larger majority population in that part of the world.

      The western left remains obsessed with the David and Goliath story, but that is our story.

      It is long past time that we took it back.

  3. Michael, as always, a great article. There is a contradiction within the Western liberal tradition, which cannot be reconciled: we either support human rights or support multiculturalism. We cannot do both. We cannot respect a religion’s right to subjugate women as second class citizens (and I don’t mean not letting them be bishops or rabbis!), to practice fgm and honour killing, and at the same time support universal human rights.

    The contradiction is starkly reflected in the fact the main Jewish interfaith leaders are progressives, who support female rabbis, homosexuals and the GLBT movement. It doesn’t seem to concern them that their Muslim interfaith partners represent conservative Islam, with all the aforementioned quaint Islamic customs.

    So what do these progressives do? Simply ignore the obvious and enthuse about the similarity between their scriptures and customs. Yes, they make fools of themselves, but also pocket huge governments grants for their contribution to ‘harmony’ and ‘social cohesion’.

    • Pam!

      Why do so few people understand this?

      “There is a contradiction within the Western liberal tradition, which cannot be reconciled: we either support human rights or support multiculturalism. We cannot do both.”

      Precisely!

      I have been saying this for years and people gawk at me like I am speaking Swahili.

  4. Pam
    I am impressed by your devotion to a choice of clear principles.
    I am also inclined to look at the impact Islam has been having on our Western values from a slightly different angle.
    Your aversion to multiculturalism would be justified in light of the abuses observed at those intent on using it as a vehicle to destroy……….a multiculturalism which , unfortunately, has not been introduced/ explained, therefore, followed formally in a spirit consistent with the said Western values . We have culprits on both sides, i.e. the hosts by not anticipating the negative impact, the active new elements, accumulating numerical impetus whereby a conversion of initial intent ended with negative aggrandizement
    Genuine and exclusively POLITICAL consideration have been responsible for the introduction of the ethics of multiculturalism. Some “blame” Canada for its introduction and they are wrong big time.
    Post colonial Europe has changed the cultural/religious demographics of former colonial powers in Europe. The only exceptions at first were Germany and Scandinavia. Germany still lagging behind these days.
    Noble notions of equity have been turned into mechanisms of domination. A new interpretation of ethics weighs heavily in favour of the erosion of values proclaimed post WWII in a Western Europe conglomerate riddled with a chronic guilt of a destructive confrontational tradition. Open arms morality, to which economic advantages were added became incentives for the multicultural free access.

    I shall stop here for the moment, but will continue later………………

  5. Otto, I confess I tend to a more simplistic explanation than your more complex one as to what is happening in Western countries today. But I think that we both agree that the concept of multiculturalism, initially noble in intent, has had some alarming consequences. Thus, as you say “Noble notions of equity have been turned into mechanisms of domination. ”

    Certainly, the concept of multiculturalism has not been clearly thought out, nor have we realised the ethical contortions that would be necessary to keep it in place. Western guilt at past colonial domination has lead to the ethically dubious notion of moral relativity and has played a large part in justifying multiculturalism.

    What is certain is that we need to abandon the political correctness that prevents us addressing very real problems. We must not be afraid to acknowledge the increase in violence towards women and minorities, nor the suppression of free speech, that is happening in all Western countries.

  6. Pam

    let’s make it interesting………..

    Multiculturalism has not been planned, anticipated conceived as a necessary, beneficial social component. It was a realization of a non intended phenomenon, an afterthought, I will even venture a new category born out of a panic realization, an emergency band aid, obviously rendered useless once the ailment had become chronic. Is this better !!

    “Free speech” is an illusion, a utopian concept baked in the hot heads of anarchic fantasy.

    Brave and fearless Michael shall remember the controversy between the Sirs Berlin and Popper regarding Berlin’s insistence on the values of ancient/primitive cultures against what Popper conceived as a necessary move toward a society based on anti-historicity, with new values based on proven necessity, utility and consent toward a progress unhindered by redundant, backward, derogatory cultural relics.

  7. Michael,
    I must disagree with you.
    Those lefty Jews my have rely on vigor and noise, yet I would rely on the likes of Michael Lumish to enlighten, mobilise that MAJORITY Jewish fold comfortably aloof from the activism you promote.
    I am sure you will agree with me that it not only the substance of your argument, but precisely the reality that you have a harder job exactly because you need to address a larger mass.
    As both your substantive and structured approach hit nails where you identify them, time and persistence shall vindicate your mission. If I may suggest so arrogantly, religious leaders within our traditional structure must be asked all those pertinent questions you pose.
    Rabbinical authority has always been steeped into articulating the actualisation of Thora substance. Not only Rabbis are educated in the spirit of high morality, but also one of communal responsibility. They may taught by people like you how to apply themselves to the challenges you so precisely identify.

    • Hi Otto,

      thank you for your measured comment and, in truth, you are right.

      My tendency has not been partisan, but it has not tended to court the mainstream.

      As I write this, however, I am in a cabin in the High Sierra Mountains and my focus is, for the next few days, more on rainbow trout than pretty much anything else.

      You have a reasonable criticism and I want to give it further attention, but will not be able to do so for a few days.