Slowly but surely, led by Iran and its allies in the HISH Alliance (Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Hamas), the ideology of anti-Semitism is beginning to supercede all competing political ideologies in the Middle East. Al Qaeda's narrative has become stridently and overtly anti-Semitic; countries as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Morocco have tolerated, enabled, and overtly pressed anti-Semitic narratives in their state controlled press; Iran is in a class of its own when it comes to genocidal public policy. Haviv Rettig discusses a new report (that) discusses Muslim anti-Semitism in today's Jerusalem Post:
Muslim anti-Semitism is growing in scope and extremism, to the point that it has become a credible strategic threat for Israel, according to a 180-page report produced for Israeli policymakers by the semi-official Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) and obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post ahead of its Tuesday release.
According to the report, by educating generations of Muslims with a deep animus toward Israel and Jews, this anti-Semitism, actively promulgated by many states in the region, holds back the peace process and normalization efforts between Israel and Muslim countries. It also forms the intellectual justification for an eliminationist political program.
"This isn't ordinary prejudice," explained ITIC director Col. (res.) Dr. Reuven Erlich, formerly of the IDF's Intelligence Directorate, who heads the team of researchers that produced the report. "This prejudice is evil because it isn't theoretical. It is ideological incitement by states and organizations with the practical means of translating it into action."
Those who have been paying attention to MEMRI, Camera, et al, and sifting through the white-washed version of the news in MSM outlets, have been aware for quite some time that anti-Semitism as an organizing structure for Arab/Persian society has gained tremendous traction and has increasingly replaced prior structures and been incorporated into the narrative of Muslim supremacy and Islamic radicalism. This endangers Israel and Jews everywhere. It also makes the Middle East an increasingly dangerous place; that is because the logic of anti-Semitism is inexorable and genocidal.
In my post Pity the Poor Anti-Semite, I made the point that anti-Semitism essentially irreversibly fixes the deep seated feelings of inferiority that reside within the anti-Semite, projects the disavowed rage onto the Jews, and then allows for sanctioned murderous rage against the Jews.
Here is the crucial point for those who imagine that a tiny group of people, barely 60 years out of an almost successful genocide, left with nothing more than the clothes on their backs, comprising approximately .05% of the world's population, who came to the desert in Palestine and built a modern technological nation, would have the time and interest to simultaneously devote themselves to oppressing the Muslim world, with almost 100 times their population and oceans of oil:
The anti-Semite necessarily defines himself as monumentally inferior to the Jew.
This resides in the core of the anti-Semite and renders him permanently damaged and weakened. Only the aid of a being much greater than themselves, Allah, can save them from disaster. Short of such divine intervention, they are doomed to remain defeated. The Muslim nations of the world do not see it as within their abilities to compete in a world of high technology, higher education, competitive open economies; no, they look to nuclear weapons, only available to them by virtue of their Allah given oil money rather than by the sweat of their own brows, to bring them relief from the often imagined depredations of the now conflated Jewish/American demi-Gods.
For those who have the hubris to attempt to destroy the Gods, there are only two outcomes possible:
If they partially succeed, as the Nazis did, they imagine they have become Gods, intoxicated with their power; and, as with all who pretend to be Gods, they over-reach themselves and are inevitably destroyed. Only those with the egotism of the Malignant Narcissist would dare attack England, invade Russia, and antagonize the sleeping American giant, at the same time.
Should they attempt to destroy the Jewish American God-beings and fail, they will surely be destroyed themselves. The most recent example of such spectacular self-destructive failure is Osama bin Laden, who though perhaps still alive, is frightened and in hiding; while he may perhaps be able to prick the God, he is no more able to slay Israel or America than the fly can kill the eagle.
The anti-Semite, whether out of the true conviction of a Hitler or the evil opportunism of a Goering, externalizes all the problems of the "volk" onto the hated, scapegoated Jews. Since the primary responsibility of the leader is to protect and defend his people, it follows that once the Jews have been so defined as the source of all problems, fixing the problems requires destroying the Jews. This is an old pattern, repeated at regular intervals for the last several thousand years.
I might add that this implies the great danger that arises from those well meaning "statesmen" and diplomats who buy into the construct that the source of the problems of the Middle East arise from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once such an equation has been accepted as a model of reality, solving the equation requires pressure on the Israelis to make concessions that have the effect of allowing the Palestinians to more easily indulge in their greatest gratification, martyring themselves while killing Jews; the Palestinian's "success" then destroys the "peace process." That is the reason that every effort to make peace has failed; all prior attempts have refused to recognize that the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Arab intolerance of the existence of Israel.
The pattern is clearly repeating again. Hillary Clinton promises that if she were elected President, a nuclear attack on Israel from Iran would elicit an American nuclear response. Glenn Reynolds takes an approving tone in his description of Hillary Clinton's remarks:
I'VE OFTEN ECHOED THE PREDICTION that Hillary Clinton would make the most uncompromising wartime President in United States history, but here's some evidence that it just might be true:
Hillary: If Iran Attacked Israel With Nukes 'We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them'
If the Iranians are smart, they'll believe her. I think she'd kinda like obliterating somebody.
Glenn Reynolds clearly sees that Iran's posture is suicidal though, in actuality, Hillary Clinton's comments are a bit of a non-sequitor; if Israel is attacked by Iran they have more than enough fire power to obliterate Iran as a functioning state.
Yet the important point is that Iran is following a path that has been trod by tyrants and anti-Semites before. It has a poorly functioning economy, its people have highly restrictive life choices, and the Persian "street" has been nurtured on anti-Semitism. Each time they have successfully stood up to the international community, the feelings of power and strength of the leaders increases. Chuck Freilich at MESH wonders if it is Too late to dissuade Iran?
How then can we get Russia and China on board for serious sanctions in the Security Council? Russia objects, not without reason, to enlarging NATO to include Ukraine and to the American plan to deploy an anti-missile system in Europe. The United States claims the system is designed to counter the threat of Iranian missiles to Europe. The danger that Iran would actually fire missiles at Europe is negligible to begin with, but why not get at the true source of the problem through a deal with Russia? No anti-missile system and no NATO enlargement (a worthy cause in its own right, but not an urgent one), in exchange for real sanctions in the Security Council. China does not like being in the position of “odd man out” and is likely to follow suit.
Should both this approach and multilateral sanctions outside of the UN fail, it would then be time to consider a U.S. naval blockade. The Iranians might seek to exact some small price, e.g. attack a U.S. vessel, but they are not crazy. It would be like a guppy attacking a whale: The Iranian navy and many additional sites would rapidly cease to exist. It is important that we not engage in deceptive, fearful self-deterrence. (The same holds true for the highly exaggerated fears of Iran’s capacity to retaliate against the United States in the event of an attack on its nuclear program.) The Iranians, in any event, will be far more realistic about this.
Iran may indeed not be crazy enough to attack a US vessel; they may recognize that they are a guppy attacking a whale, but the anti-Semite is always in danger of falling prey to his own defective reality testing. The guppy, having staved off real sanctions and an American attack, may well, once armed with nuclear weapons, imagine itself to be a barracuda. Perhaps the American whale is too large to attack, but the anti-Semite can easily convince himself that Israel is so tiny that one bite may be sufficient to destroy it.
The greatest danger is that once the anti-Semites have established that all of their internal failures are attributable to the Jews, as their dysfunctional system descends into greater and greater depths of despair, the choice of change from within versus a last ditch attack designed to destroy the enemy and rescue the Mullahcracy may well become irresistible.
Recent Comments