VII. LEFT HOOK: The Palestinians

Hatred constricts; hatred corrodes. Hatred feeds on itself. Hatred is first; hatred is blind. Hatred shuns reason. Hatred metastasizes (like cancer). The same is said of love. When a concept segment is bent into a circle, love and hatred share the same point. Love and hatred are the same.
----------------------------------------------
Yet, as hatred leaves hopeless chasms in its wake, love is optimistic. Love confidently bridges all obstacles. The difference between love and hatred, if not material, must then be one of perception alone. Whether one loves or hates is determined by where one is willing to mark the start of time. Love looks toward the future. Hatred marks the beginning with death. Both views are equally passionate in that both inspire action. Both views validate the life force by acknowledging its role in achieving some end. As such, the difference between love and hatred appears to be dependent on one’s disposition towards the future. Love celebrates the eternal; hatred demands just enough time to force an end to something. The antithesis to love and hatred is indifference.

In Albert Camus’ novel, The Stranger, the last sentence reads, “For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” The story is that of a man who unwittingly commits a murder. He is then tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Camus cleverly casts his protagonist as a person without the ability to discern right from wrong; safety from danger, love from lust. He approaches every situation in the manner of a child and reacts to it in the most expeditious way. This novel, though first published in 1942, is almost a precise allegory for the relationship between the West (especially Western Europe) and the Palestinians today. In fact, the author has even seen fit to cast the murder victim as an Arab. In a larger sense, Camus demands accountability for the crime of indifference. Though not explicitly stated, Meursault, the protagonist of The Stranger, cannot expect there to be a sizable crowd at his execution, for he is nobody, and quite undeserving of hatred or of any emotion.

Clearly, the West is invested in neither, the Palestinian nor the Israeli, side of the conflict and quite willing to sacrifice either party just to get the entire annoyance off the table. The intractability of both positions has frustrated any reasonable attempt to identify a compromise, even to the point of forcing consideration of tortured solutions. The media’s reporting of the conflict reflects a vicariously inspired obsession with the depth of Palestinian hatred, which, in contrast to its own cynical indifference, nevertheless tends to give the appearance of being alive.

If a crime is being committed by all this, it cannot be laid at the feet of the Palestinians or the Israelis alone. To do so would be to criminalize policy differences and any number of governments (if not all) would be compelled to face a reckoning. No, the colossal crime as relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be put squarely at the doorstep of western politicians and decision makers - not for appearing to favor one side over another, but - for their profound indifference, allowing them to change their positions with every shift in the political wind while the lives of innocents hang in the balance.

If there are people in the world today, of whom it can be said that they are motivated by hatred alone, it is surely the Palestinians. Free elections have left little doubt that their hatred for Jews trumps every other consideration any reasonable population might be expected to have. To this end, they have affirmed their preparedness even to sacrifice their earthly future.

As soon as Palestinian children learn to listen, they are taught to hate Jews. Golda Meir was once to have said, “When Palestinian parents begin to love their children more than they hate us, there will be peace between us.” In the meantime, Palestinian kids are routinely told to clean their plates thoroughly that they might grow up strong to serve as martyrs (which is another way of saying, fodder) to fuel a group obsession. Jews, in Palestinian schools, are routinely painted in the most grotesque light possible. They are said to drink the blood of babies; sleep with pigs, and the like. No contact with Jews or with those pledged to protect them is ever allowed. Only in a closed society could a myth, like the one about the Jew dog, be perpetuated without fear of being exposed as a ploy to mask the real root of the Palestinian’s wretched condition.

Suffering from the a similar disease, other Islamists in the region have consistently encouraged the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to continue unabated, funding the families of suicide/homicide bombers and other groups dedicated to the destruction of Israel. They have been successful in regionalizing the conflict with the expectation that their sheer numbers will effectively isolate Israel from the community of nations. Their intent is plain as day. It is a medieval, savage vision that clearly does not deserve inclusion in any catalogue of commonly accepted (civilized) behavior. Yet, the world press consistently condemns Israel’s attempt to limit attacks on its territory by broadcasting images of bloodied Palestinians, while deliberately downplaying the fact of repeated Arab provocation. Is it not obvious by now that if Israel were to unilaterally disarm, withdraw from occupied territories, and tear down its walls, it would be overrun within hours and most of its citizens murdered? Is it not clear, if the opposite were to happen and the Palestinians would stop their provocations, there would be peace and cooperation? Why this bias in the media against calling a spade a spade, that serves only to encourage the Arab’s lethal intent and prolong the agony of this conflict?

I recently read an account in The Hindu (our local paper here in India) of an international conference of newspaper editors and media moguls. Their discussions centered on assigning blame to themselves for not having been more vocal in opposing America’s Iraq adventure in its planning stages. Whereas introspection is always a commendable exercise, I did see a sampling of the roster of those present at the conference. Without exception, these were all people in sympathy with left-wing causes. Not one conservative voice was included in the gathering, prompting the conclusion by some observers that a laudable opportunity was essentially wasted in favor of creating just another platform from which to disseminate political talking points. This shows once again that the media in general harbors a clear political anti-American bias and fights tooth and nail to keep alternative views from being brought up for discussion on the public stage. Hamas - among other such organizations that operate freely and unopposed in any number of trouble spots around the globe - too makes sure that all those under its direct control adhere to the dogma of a singular template. In large parts of the Islamic world today, the inspiration that gives rise to voicing even the suspicion of doubt, (concerning any and all matters) is punishable under sedition statutes. Children are taught early in life never to risk asking questions.

When some shells exploded on a Gaza beach, wounding and killing members of a Palestinian family who were enjoying a picnic by the sea, the press immediately blamed Israel. Israel apologized. It was later found that the wounded, brought to Israeli hospitals for treatment, arrived with shrapnel already having been crudely gouged from their flesh. It seems what really happened was that a Palestinian shell had gone astray, landed on the beach and exploded. The metal in the bodies of the victims, if identified, would have shown the true source of the shelling and a propaganda opportunity would have been lost. The Palestinians are well aware of how to play the sympathies of the western media. In the above example, they were quite certain that not much would be made of their deception, even if discovered. They would be proven right in that assumption.

Clearly, as things now stand, the Arabs can only hope to achieve their objective of driving Israel into the sea is by continuing with their war of attrition. They are counting on sheer exhaustion setting in, particularly in the West, so that Israel would be left to fend for itself. Arab presence abroad has now given them significant leverage to affect the political climate in Western Europe as well as in the United States. Working in consort, primarily with the Communists (who for the time being share similar aims and tactics), their influence has grown to the point of where it can no longer be ignored. This is why we now are reading almost daily of great debates concerning the legal and human rights of the enemy, tying the hands of our soldiers and law enforcement agents into Gordian knots in the process. In the meantime, they continue to operate closed societies within their own borders, keeping their own populations animated by false fear and hatred with their unrelenting cradle-to-grave propaganda campaigns to demonize the Jews as well as other non-Muslims.

What is happening in the Arab world is not unprecedented. Any number of groups have historically resorted to fascist methods to establish and maintain control. The Moguls invading India, destroyed Hindu temples, wantonly killing Hindus in the process. Hindu women needed to be prepared at all times to cover their heads with the ends of their saris and pretend to be Muslim, as Islamic law allows its men to brutalize infidel women any time, any place, without consequence. The Nazis held public book burnings. Pol Pot of Cambodia ordered the killing of anyone who wore glasses, assuming that such people had committed the crime of reading (foreign) books. The Taliban blew up centuries-old Buddhist statues and banned women from school and from working outside the home. Chinese attempts to censor the internet are widely documented. The American Left, having made its home in academia, continues to fights every effort to include conservative views in any serious scholarly evaluation. Their efforts in this regard have already born fruit, launching virtual armies of lockstep lackeys to disseminate anti-American sentiment worldwide.

What would compel a people to deliberately pursue a path that history has shown to end in disaster time and time again? One answer might be ignorance. This may well apply to the Palestinians, as few would deny that they have indeed been kept in squalid ignorance for generations. It would not apply, however, to the Communists who, by all accounts, appear to be among the best-educated people on the planet. Education then too must have its pitfalls. Picture a man who has formally studied history all his life and arrived back at the beginning. He concludes that history was written by the winners of wars and, on this basis, would stipulate that the study of history (as it has been traditionally configured) can be no better than incomplete by half. If he happens to be a professor of history, he would then likely be tempted to deny his students the very same opportunity he himself enjoyed in arriving at his conclusions, thinking he would save them the trouble. This, would also have to be taken as a sign of some degree of elitism having taken possession of the good professor’s mind in that he now actually believes he can predict what other people will be thinking in the future; that there is only one conclusion of substance any of his students could possibly arrive at. Such a leap, besides taunting the boundaries of good sense, also smacks of a dangerous arrogance, a lethal combination that sometimes leads to madness. Having just reasoned himself out of a job, he continues teaching his own version of history that now imposes no structural limits and is apt to include anything from holocaust denial to proclaiming the glories of Stalinist Russia.

It is apparent, that the more tenuously one’s belief system is linked to reality, the more extreme one is apt to act (out) in support of it. As long as there continues to be no consensus among the people of the world that the killing of others is a bad idea (this would include war, suicide, abortion, beheadings, capital punishment, genocide, euthanasia and the like), there are those who will mark the start of their calendars with death. Whereas, the great unwashed recognize the obscenity in the emperor’s nakedness, the so-called 'smart' people – the degreed people, the thinkers, the educators, the writers, the opinion makers, even Meursault (Camus’ hapless protagonist in The Stranger) – all bat it around, giving it a status it doesn’t deserve. (“I’m just not ready yet to have a baby; it would disrupt my lifestyle.”) They succeed only in affording it time to incubate, and to metastasize into a full-blown cancerous condition. (“God, I’ve wasted my life; nobody wants me! I guess it’s too late even to have a baby.”) I use this metaphor in an effort to reach my friends on the left. They have been obsessed with the idea of cancer from the beginning. Well aware of the ferocious intensity with which it consumes a living body (particularly the young), they have been blaming virtually every advance in the past fifty years for causing it. I might just as well have said “evil” but this word, like “God”, is not one the Left is comfortable with. In fact, it too has been stricken from the academe-accredited lexicons because it pre-supposes a value system that dares to be a bit too cozy with what has been traditionally referred to as morality.

As it is tempting to attribute human qualities to God or to animals, it is equally tempting to attribute human attributes to evil. Evil (like God and animals) does not require a reason for doing what it does. As such, it cannot be reasoned with. If it is deemed to pose a danger, it must be cut out, defeated. Unlike communism, which still claims (albeit deceptive) positions that can be exposed in debate, radical Islam has been allowed to fester within hermetically sealed societies for far too long. It has grown too ponderous; too intractable. It is now at a point where, not unlike cancer, it poses a threat for all, including itself. Now, cloaking itself in an eschatological vision, it proclaims a thousand years of peace with the coming of the 12th imam who, it is said, will only appear after every last Jew has been killed. It can no longer be assumed that the imams embracing such prophecies are reasonable men who engage in radical rhetoric simply to gain concessions. While, the whole thing may have started as such - or even served fitfully to define a scapegoat to deflect charges of corruption in the home court - it has long since ceased to serve any justifiable function. As we have seen, they have been encouraged in their lunacy by the West’s relatively weak response. Support on the “Arab street”, however, is total as anyone even skeptical of the foil hat mentality is threatened with death. This is why moderate voices are barely inaudible within the Islamic community.

Outside academia, the arts and the media, free speech is still alive and well in America today. It is perhaps the most obvious and potent of all our freedoms that we can exhibit to the world. Why do we take such passionate joy in criticizing our leaders, our country, even ourselves? Because we can do so without consequence to ourselves! Try doing the same thing in China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or in any other two-bit dictatorship around the world; you’ll end up in jail or worse. Ridiculing authority has always been great sport. It inflates anemic egos. The cure, however, is never permanent, requiring ever-higher doses of divisive, hate-filled diatribes to fill the endless void. At some point, however, the audience no longer laughs, as was the case with the shock jock-inspired spectacle of two people having live sex on the radio inside St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.

In the West, we protest and criticize authority out of sheer boredom, or simply in an effort to bury the bone of our own pathetic insignificance. Protesters marching on the streets of New York or Berlin, who are interviewed and asked why they are protesting, seldom give coherent answers. Most do not even remember to articulate their slogans correctly. For them it is a lark, a happening, an opportunity to get face time on TV.

It is quite different in the Arab world. Here the people protest to give voice to their wounds. Instead of blaming their governments (or themselves), they have been taught to divert their fury at Israel and America. Their anger is potent and real. It is not for sport or amusement as it is in the West. It stems from a deep-seated pain; the pain of a people who see the world passing them by; the pain of a people who have come to view mere existence as the ultimate insult to their dignity. When a leader emerges who promises salvation in reckless flailing - even culminating in death - it is perceived as deadly serious. He is bound to be received as a Messiah.

Some say the only constant is change. Clearly, we are now different from the first signs of terrestrial life that crawled up out of the slime. Clearly, lifestyles have changed over the centuries. Just in the past 40 years, the way we fight, communicate and travel has changed as advances in technology have largely outpaced our ability to fully appreciate their consequences. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect that it is within our power to curb this momentum towards modernity and beyond, no matter what happens politically. We talked about the swinging pendulum of history; how no nation has ever been able to remain a dominant force. We must assume this too to be a truism. As such, we cannot expect the present world order to continue indefinitely. Indeed, we are already witnessing signs of our own devaluation as significant numbers of people eagerly anticipate a new day and applaud each fresh defeat and embarrassment heaped on America. Only today, the challenge is coming from those who seek to curb human expression either by force or by death. These are the hallmarks of weakness and will never claim ultimate victory. Yet, make no mistake, in the short run, every freedom-loving nation remains vulnerable and must be prepared to defend itself. The Chinese as well as the Russians continue to be firmly entrenched in the communist camp. Their relatively recent headlong plunge into embracing the principles of capitalism should not be construed as capitulation to Western values. They see themselves simply as weaving the rope by which they one day hope to strangle the principles of faith and freedom in the name of egalitarianism. Their aggressive stance with regard to funding their militaries, coupled with their continued support of rouge regimes should give the West pause. By giving tacit approval to the demonization of both Israel and America by ideological kin, Western media have been able to convince significant numbers of folks that if these two nations were not to exist, all would be right with the world. Again, this ignores the historical record by refusing to recognize a second truism: that, as long as there are politicians to exploit them, political divides - like waves in the ocean - will never cease. As such, there will always be discord. Even if we (or they) were to capitulate to every current challenge, or even if we (or they) would win every current battle, we (or they) would still not find ourselves excused from tomorrow’s conflict. Victory is always fleeting, after all. It belongs to those left standing after the dust has settled; to those who remain undaunted (like Sisyphus) by the often thankless task of maintaining their advantage; to those who manage to stay confident with a clear vision of what is sacred to guide them; to those who remain willing to fight for what they believe.

The same can be said of the Islamists, of course. And their standing in the game would be laudable were it not for the embarrassing fact that their energy and passion have been hijacked by the Communists to further a cause that runs contrary to everything they stand for. They think they’re being clever in scouring mental institutions for people who may not be bright enough to know what happens when you strap on a suicide belt and pull the chord. They have yet to realize that their entire movement is the victim of a similar deception; that they will be ruthlessly crushed once the Communists have free reign.

By studying history, we may be able to gather a listing of factors common to dominant powers at various stages of their existence. We might be able to determine in which phase of development or devolution we ourselves may be. Time would likely not be a determining factor as the speed with which change occurs has demonstrably increased. One hundred years today might well translate into one thousand years, a thousand years ago. However, there are other signs: civil wars; foreign invasions; economic distress; all serve as bullet points that mark the milestones of history. It is the degree to which a nation is willing to identify and confront threats that either adds to or subtracts years from its potency. Its policies ultimately depend on the mood of the electorate, which will choose or tolerate leaders according to its will (or the lack thereof).

It is essential that symptoms such as cynicism, corruption or general malaise not be interpreted as causes for the demise of a culture. Neither can optimism, morality or efficiency in any way be regarded as reasons for its perceived ascendancy. These are merely the signs of a particular stage of the cycle in which a culture may find itself. It is ever tempting to treat only the symptoms without regard to the underlying condition, which may simply be exhaustion (due to old age). One cannot whip an exhausted dog into the frenzy of a fight. Neither can one expect a virile dog not to accept the challenge.

We hear daily about how Americans no longer want to do certain types of work, how we must import masses of immigrants to tend our lawns and build our highways. The same trend extends to the higher end jobs that require math, science and computer skills. My work used to take me to numerous office complexes, run by high tech companies and financial institutions. It is getting so one hardly encounters Caucasian faces anymore. Instead, one increasingly sees Asians working the levers of our economic infrastructure. Last year, I attended the commencement exercises of my (Indian) wife’s son at a college in New Jersey. As the names of the graduates were read, I came to realize I could count the traditionally American names (like Anderson and Johnson) on the fingers of one hand. This does not alarm me as it does some. There are so many jobs needed to run the largest economy in the world. Our own educational system stands so degraded; it can only prepare individuals for a fraction of these. I know that a significant percentage of today’s foreign graduates will elect to stay on in America and become good citizens like the Germans, the Irish and the Poles did before them.

Relatively open immigration policy has become the lifeblood for our nation. Many agree that without the foreigners here, our economy would collapse. Because of our sensitivity, sharpened by decades of “political correctness” indoctrination and constant litigation by the ACLU, we only give lip service to screening immigrants effectively. Therefore, those who would do us harm are bound to slip in. These, unfortunately, are the ones who will grab the headlines. Our own failing in this regard should not be used as an excuse to suspend our tradition of welcoming immigrants with open arms and hearts, a policy that has always served us admirably in the past.

When grass root sentiment flared within the nation demanding for the government to seal our southern border, people could not believe that the President would fail to respond. Even those within Bush’s own party were baffled by his silence. Though normally in support of open borders, the media, sensing a weakness in the President’s (non) position, lost little time in portraying him as insensitive, corrupt, and/or stupid. Never once was any consideration given to the likely consequences were the President to speak out publicly. Mexican elections in which the Communist candidate posed a serious challenge were just months away. Clearly, by openly proposing measures to keep illegals (primarily Mexicans) from entering the country, he might have handed the Mexican Left the advantage it needed to win power. Clearly, Bush and Fox had discussed this privately. Quite aside from the fact that the American Left would have applauded a Communist victory in Mexico (just as it applauds Castro, Chavez, Mugabe and the rest), considerably more in terms of positive cooperation in any number of areas between our two neighboring countries lay at stake. His critics were well aware that the President had only silence to counter their accusations. It was an entirely predictable tactic by the opposition. Time and time again, they would bank on his inability to speak out on sensitive matters to sling their dirt unimpeded, knowing that the press would eagerly follow their lead.

Once the confidence in a leader has eroded, the nation opens itself up to blindly pursuing any crackpot policies that may be severely at odds with its over-all goals and interests. Clearly, not everyone can be expected to understand all the repercussions of any given public pronouncement by the head of state. But everyone can be expected to put their trust in a leader who has been duly scrutinized and elected. My foreign-born wife, working competently at our local library was confronted by a woman who refused her help because she did not agree with the idea of outsourcing. She made a scene, embarrassing herself and the others who witnessed it. The director of the library, who had made it his policy that the customer is always right, apparently never realized that he himself was in effect stoking the fires of discord (albeit in a small way) by sporting an anti-Bush bumper sticker on his car.

The Bible advises its readers to obey their leaders so that leadership would not become a burden to them. (Hebrews 13:17) It understands that governance on a global scale entails a far wider grasp of issues than what can be reasonably expected of the electorate whose relatively narrow social and economic concerns tend to dominate their attention. So too, the failure of the Dubai port deal would prove to be a foreign policy disaster for the U. S. in that it prevented a demonstration of trust between two nations with similar interests. The fact that the AE sits smack in the middle of the Arab world would have made it even sweeter. But no, the word had gone out that every Bush initiative must be defeated for the Democrats to win the next election. The press was called upon to exploit a latent prejudice against Arabs. The population would be riled up to oppose the deal. Polls were taken and broadcast widely. Politicians on both sides of the aisle would quickly jump aboard a wave of manufactured public sentiment. Reading the tea leaves, the Dubai businessmen took themselves out of the running rather than face a humiliating showdown in the American congress - and an opportunity to build a bridge was lost forever.

One of the reasons given for scuttling the Dubai ports deal was that the United Emirates do not recognize the existence of Israel. What Arab nation does so without peril? Is it not the essence of effective diplomacy for a nation to protect itself by voicing its public stance while pursuing its vital interests quietly and in private? Why put oneself in danger by uttering words that are certain to inflame the sentiments of unhinged neighbors? It is utter lunacy for a small Arab country to publicly support Israel in this day and age. By doing so, it would immediately set itself up as a target for extremists. Similarly, Bush obviously thought it wise not to inflame Mexican sentiments by attacking their government’s policy of encouraging its citizens to pursue job opportunities north of the border - a policy, all agree, acts as a safety valve in the effort to maintain social and economic stability (primarily in Mexico) - at a critical time in that nation’s history.

Even so, much damage was done by American media attention focused on this particular issue. Bush’s standing was diminished (and that was the point, after all), and the margin of victory in Mexico was slim, lending strength to Obrador’s claim that the election was stolen. It would subject our neighbor to the south to endless strikes, demonstrations, protests and the like, tactics the left unfailingly engages in when things do not go exactly their way.
----------------------------------------------

The condemned man was brought into the courtyard a few minutes before noon. It was stifling hot as the ancient walls blocked any breeze there might have been. Many of us, wearing our dress uniforms, were beginning to feel faint as we leaned heavily on our rifles. The prisoner too was clearly unhappy. One could hear his muffled protests through the black cloth he wore wrapped around head. After he had been chained to the post, one of the guards removed it. Despite myself, I looked at him. He was silent now but blinking hard in an effort to adjust his eyes to the midday glare. It was evident he was trying to recognize our faces. I looked away, ashamed.

He might have been anyone of us. We all harbored the same sentiments. We all went to the same schools; worshipped at the same mosques. We all hated the Jews.

Ahmed had volunteered to carry out a suicide mission in Jerusalem. When he reached the restaurant, he saw it had decent crowd. He smiled and thanked Allah for offering him the opportunity to make his sacrifice a worthy one.

Moments later, he was inside, ready to detonate his vest. He positioned himself near a table of eight, three of whom were children. He felt certain that all the eight would die and was hoping for some additional corpses on the other side; though, conceding that his own body would shield these from the full force of the blast.

When the vest failed to detonate, Ahmed grew enraged. He drew out his knife and fell upon the nearest person. It turned out to be the mother of the children. He managed to slit her throat before being subdued by the guard who had temporarily left his post by the door to light a cigarette in the adjoining alley.

Ahmed’s trail took seven years, his sentencing another five. Today was the day of his execution.

We were ordered to line up and face the condemned. I tried to look everywhere but at the target. I wondered vaguely why the entire wall was pockmarked with shot. As far as I knew, the condemned were always chained to the same post and executed one at a time.

There were twelve shooters in our line. The sergeant only carried a sidearm. One of our rifles held a blank. In this way, no one would ever know for certain which one of us delivered the fatal bullet.

The order was given to aim and fire. My eyes grew moist just as I was about to line up the barrel. Already, I heard shots. I pulled the trigger despite my inability to see clearly. The blast made me stagger. Instinctively I knew my gun was not the one that held the blank.

We were ordered to turn to the left and march single-file out of the courtyard. A small wooden door stood open to receive us. Inside it was cool. We stood around like dumb herd animals, clutching the hot barrels of our guns. Then, through the closed wooden door, the one through which we had entered, we heard another: the report of a single discharge.