I have been invited to post at Israel Thrives, and decided to make use of the opportunity.
In doing so, however, I wish to make clear that my expressions are my own and should be always be seen in that light.
For example, I am not a former Democrat, but one who believes that
most Democrats are not supportive of the tactics used by anti-Israeli
crusaders. That said, I appreciate the general argument that the
Democratic Party is too tolerant of antisemitic forces within its ranks,
and remain watchful.
I believe in substance over personalities and demonization of ideas, not people.
I believe it is not Islamophobic to expose violations of
human rights, aggression and pronouncements of inferiority by regimes
and leaders directed toward women, children and non-believers of Islam.
I believe my principles and values are liberal because they prioritize individual human dignity and potential, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, compared to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that prioritizes an ideology of religion. As such, I believe in free expression for people and oppose blasphemy laws and the notion of defamation of religion.
I believe too
many anti-Israel crusaders promote illiberalism and effectively support
some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet, with whom they
share common ground.
I believe too many of the "intelligentsia"
and self-anointed moralists throughout Europe and increasingly in America, particularly in the
universities and media, are indiscriminate and disproportionate in
scrutiny, engage in double standards, and practice humanitarian racism
of lower expectations.
Of course, there is much more. This is merely a synopsis
for today, to give an idea of where I come from and am going, and to
distinguish myself.
One place where I wholeheartedly agree: The day of the dhimmi is over!
And you have my thanks, school.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that I want to learn more about and discuss is the historical and ideological connection between the National Socialists and the Jihad.
It seems to me that in the long term, this is a discussion to be had and the kernel of an argument to be built.
There is a lot of info out there.
ReplyDeleteThe question is why it is Islamophobic to offer the idea, based on historical evidence, so people can decide for themselves what to make of the infusion of European antisemitism into the Arab society on top of its pre-existing persecution of Jews.
Jews are not allowed to be victims, and cannot gain that status even when bullied and threatened by much larger groups with histories of a history of persecution, virtually at will.
I suspect that it has to do with multicultural ideology in which the victims are people of color and in the progressive-left imagination that leaves Jewish people out.
ReplyDeleteIdeology is a filtering system in which all data passes through the filter in order to derive a pre-drawn conclusion.
In this case, huge pieces of Jewish and Arabic and Muslim history are filtered out entirely because they do not serve the ideology which promotes "the narrative."
One can be highly intelligent and still be an ideological robot. Heathlander, for example, immediately comes to mind. He's got a piece up right now about Cast Lead, which he refers to as a "massacre" without even the slightest acknowledgement of the 8 to 10 thousand rockets fired at S'derot and Ashkelon.
That part simply got filtered out.
btw, I mentioned the Nazi connection as something to be explored, but there is, of course, also the Soviet inspired transformation of the Palestinian cause as one of "pushing the Jews into the sea" to that of "an oppressed people seeking national liberation."
It was a genius move on Arafat's part. He not only conjured up a national movement, he conjured up an entire ethnic identity behind that national movement and we swallowed it all, hook, line, and sinker.