Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Post-Zionist Hatikva

1. As you know, the Israeli Left has been jihading about against "Hatikva",
the national anthem. You see, Hatikva mentions the Jewish soul yearning.
And we can't have any of that in "a state of all its citizens", you see,
some of whom are not Jewish and others of whom have no soul. Never mind
that the "state of all its citizens", that meaningless slogan of the
Moonbatocracy, happens to contain a very large majority of Jews. So when
"all the citizens" is that state make a decision democratically, it is
often likely to be one that serves the interests of the state's Jews. The
"state of all its citizens" is the one that passed and maintains the Law
of Return and the state use of Jewish symbolism. Such symbolism drives
the Left to conniptions of course. Never mind that they have never
objected to any of those crosses on the flags of Europe or the Christmas
accouterments everywhere in the West. Not to mention the Islamofascist
slogans and symbols of the "Fat'h" and the Palestinian Authority.

Meanwhile, with Israel Independence Day barbecue odors still in the air,
here is an English translation of Hatikva:

As long as deep in the heart,
the soul of a Jew yearns,
and towards the east
an eye to Zion looks out.
Our hope is not yet lost,
the hope of two thousand years,
to be a free people in our land,
the land of Zion and Jerusalem.
To be a free people in our land,
the land of Zion and Jerusalem.
Here is an example of how the Post-Zionist post-survivalist Left in Israel
would like Hatikva to be rephrased:

As long as deep in the pocket,
the soul of a secularist postmodern consumer yearns,
and towards the east
an eye to Iran's struggle against Western imperialism looks out.
Our hope is not yet lost,
the hope of forty years,
to be an unfree people in our land,
the land of Palestine and al-Quds.
To be an unfree people in our land,
the land of Palestine and al-Quds.

2. From *Washington Post*:

Why Boycott Israel?
By Richard Cohen

In Iran, the government overturned the convictions of six men who, among
other things, killed a young couple because they were walking together
in public. In China, local authorities seized about 60 women and
forcibly aborted their pregnancies. In Russia, the Putin government
expanded its control of the media. In Cuba . . . oh, well, you already
know. But what you may not know is that given such a vast palette of
injustice and depredations, the British National Union of Journalists
made a truly original move: It singled out Israel to boycott.

The boycott, mind you, is not a journalistic one. Instead, it will
extend to lemons and melons and that sort of thing. The boycott was
issued as "a gesture of support for the Palestinian people," some of
whom, as it happens, abducted a BBC correspondent, Alan Johnston. One
group has claimed that it executed him, although no proof has been
offered. Suffice it to say the situation is dire.

What possessed the journalist union's board -- in a vote of 66 to 54 --
to take such action? The question is worth posing because it followed a
similar vote last year by British academics (later rescinded) to avoid,
under pain of death or something, their Israeli colleagues. And, more
important, it is yet another bleat, in Europe and in this country, from
people and organizations that, for good reasons and bad, have simply had
it with Israel. Why won't the pushy Jewish state shape up?

In some sense, it is a fair enough question. The wrongful and
counterproductive occupation of the West Bank is now in its 40th year.
Settlements continue to go up, and the government of Ehud Olmert, weak
and hapless, is unable or unwilling to contain them. The government
proved its incompetence in the Lebanon war of the summer past, managing
to enhance Hezbollah's standing and not managing to retrieve the two
captured soldiers in whose name the war was launched in the first place.
For Israel -- but really for Lebanese civilians most of all -- the war
was a disaster.

But Sudan kills by the score in Darfur and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe
beats his opponents to a pulp, and in almost all of the Arab world there
is no such thing as freedom of the press. In Israel there not only is,
but the press is as rambunctious as can be found anywhere.

The British journalists say they are moved by the plight of the
Palestinian people, and they are right to be. But the misery of a Gazan
or a West Banker is not solely Israel's doing. The government of Gaza is
the political arm of a terrorist organization, and if the West Bank is
suffering -- and it is -- the cause is not only Israeli land lust but
also a morbid Israeli fear of terrorism. British journalists would no
doubt approve similar measures if London's city buses had not once but
repeatedly been blown to smithereens by passengers with the exact fare
and belts of explosives.

So what explains this fury at Israel -- and only at Israel? What
explains this need to denounce, to boycott? Some of it surely comes from
the uncritical support that Israel gets from the United States, which to
lefties all over the world is a vile state, maybe worthy -- if it were
not for jeans, movies and hip-hop -- of a boycott itself.

Some of it no doubt reflects frustration from the efforts of Jewish
organizations to suffocate any criticism of Israel and to hurl the
epithet "anti-Semite" at anyone with an odd bent to his thinking. But
some of it, surely, is anti-Semitism itself, a rage at the impudent,
pushy Jew and this state created in the midst of the Arab world.
Forgotten, conveniently and appallingly, is history itself and the
reason for Israel's creation. This does not excuse injustice to
Palestinians, it merely explains. But it is an explanation so soaked
with the blood of Jews as to seem utterly concocted: It cannot be! But it

The British journalists, like the academics before them, dare to tread
where an army of goons has gone before. If they do not recognize the
ember of anti-Semitism still glowing within them, they ought to park
themselves before a mirror and ask why, of all the nations, they single
out Israel for reprimand and obloquy. This business of assigning to Jews
a special burden, for seeing in them more of mankind's bad qualities and
less of its good, has a dark and ugly pedigree: the Chosen People, again
-- and again in the wrong way.

3. Campus Double Standards:

4. Shilling for the Hezbollah:

5. .I found Saddam.s WMD bunkers.
Melanie Phillips

6. From Yehuda Poch:
Gary Bauer's posting contains the following:

Ban Toilet Paper?

Pop singer Sheryl Crow had a busy weekend. Saturday night, Crow and Laurie
David, a producer of Al Gore.s eco-fiction .An Inconvenient Truth,.
decided to mix it up with Karl Rove over global warming at the annual
White House Correspondents. dinner. According to numerous press reports,
Mr. Rove didn.t take too kindly to their interruption and heated words
were exchanged. I.m willing to give Rove the benefit of the doubt,
especially if Ms. Crow was attempting to explain her latest theory. In an
effort to save the planet, the environmentalist Left has devised a
.brilliant. plan . ban toilet paper. No, I.m not making this up. Ms. Crow
has been traveling the country on her .Stop Global Warming College Tour,.
visiting our institutions of higher learning and preaching from the
.Gospel according to Gore.. She has maintained a blog on her web site, and
here is part of her entry from April 19th:

.I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy
ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming.
Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in
my mind, worth investigating. .I propose a limitation be put on how many
squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. .I think we . can
make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course,
on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required..

Given the source, it would be easy to dismiss such bizarre statements.
(You may recall Crow once informed us that her foreign policy solution to
terrorism and war was .not to have enemies..) But, these folks are
serious. Last month the New York Times ran a 2,200 word report entitled,
.The Year Without Toilet Paper,. about a Manhattan couple that well, you
get the point. Granted, Ms. Crow admits she.s only in the .earliest
stages. of developing her thoughts, but I have wonder how she plans on
enforcing this. Does she propose we start rationing toilet paper so you
can buy only one roll a week? Should the government require metered
dispensers in every bathroom assessing taxes on excessive square usage?

The fact that Sheryl Crow can indulge herself by pondering how much toilet
paper we consume is a testament to the greatness of our country, and our
extraordinary liberty and opportunity. At the same time, it demonstrates
yet again just how out of touch Hollywood liberals are with Main Street,
U.S.A., where most folks are more concerned about paying their bills,
protecting their kids, and preserving our prosperity.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?