At the movies: 'Straw Dogs' (1971)

In his column today, entitled “Israel Will Never Have Peace”, Bret Stephens (WSJ) makes the point by citing among other things UN resolution 194 which states that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”. Clearly, this hasn’t happened. Why?

Has it not become clear that a majority of Palestinians that have been shut out would not live peaceably within a Jewish State? Let’s say that Switzerland had been created (for the Swiss) in some barren Alpine region. Would it have to build a fence to protect itself from its neighbors (Germany, Italy and France) who were intent on nothing less than genocide? Or would life go on peaceably, neighbor visiting neighbor and abiding by the relatively simple rules of good neighborly graces?

I’m reminded of Sam Peckinpah’s film, “Straw Dogs” (1971) I saw way back when it first came out. It was one of a handful of films I remember seeing with a pounding headache which progressed towards a crescendo throughout. A young couple had moved to what they both thought would be an idyllic place for them to live: a remote cabin near the village in Cornwall where she had grown up as a child. It turns out through a series of unfortunate incidents that the couple is targeted by townsfolk. Rotten Tomatoes says this: (The film) “expresses the belief that manhood requires rites of violence when a young couple's idyllic life is disrupted and forever changed when the violence and savagery they sought to escape suddenly engulfs them.” As all Peckinpah’s films, this one is violent alright. I sat tensed up from start to finish.

The reason for this (or any) violence was ignorance. Palestinians are fed hatred for Jews from birth. It’s there in their mothers’ milk. Reason plays no role in it. Israelis understand this. If they were to open their borders – as our border with Canada is essentially open – Palestinians would immediately stream in and wreck the place. At least, this is the assumption. And Palestinians have done nothing to show it to be otherwise.

The same way we don’t open the tiger cages in a zoo, Israel does not dare to open her borders. Unfortunately for Israel, the situation is reversed. It is Israel that lives in a cage. Of the estimated 7.6 million living in Israel, 20% are Arabs who also enjoy representation in the government. Their standard of living is markedly higher than that of most Arabs living outside of Israel.

The world has turned its back on Israel and decided to side with the tigers. Like David in “Straw Dogs”, it will be up to Israelis to protect themselves. Even if Israel should win – another myth those mildly sympathetic to Israel usually comfort themselves with – the resulting losses would be insurmountable all around.

The enmity between the Palestinians and Israel is a trigger. We have put our worst elements in charge of it. Once tripped, there is no turning back. Even if Netanyahu decides not to fight (or decides only to go through the motions of fighting) the world will never again be the same – no matter the outcome. Washington keeps mouthing off about its infantile ‘reset’ button. War in the ME would definitely qualify as ‘reset’.

At the end of the film, David (Dustin Hoffman) is driving the injured Niles (the village idiot) to town, when the latter turns and says, "I don't know my way home." David smiles and says, "That's okay. I don't either."

We Are Building a Religion

As we go back and forth and speculate about what might yet happen (in Egypt), we should go straight to the horse’s mouth. Let’s ask our president directly what it is that he wants to happen. And while we’re at it, let’s ask him straight out what he has in mind for the U.S. Let’s ask him to explain why he is doing what, and what he is hoping to accomplish by doing so. And let’s pretend to believe what he says.

By the way, there’s a great opinion column in the WSJ this morning (Feb. 1) by Bret Stephens entitled “Being Mubarak”. It takes an interesting slant, speculating that the old fox (Mubarak) may yet have some tricks up his sleeve.

It is what it is (and has been for some 30 odd years). There was a reason for why we supported Egypt and, I might add, Israel. With the election of Obama, those reasons have eroded. We turn our backs to both - and things happen. Read Caroline Glick’s column in the JPOST today. What we (in the West) define as ‘success’ is not defined as ‘success’ among Islamists (or communists). Our metrics are not valid there. Any attempt at such comparison may be regarded as ‘category error‘.

What if the revolution succeeds? What if the dominos fall, one by one; and an Islamic Caliphate emerges - one that is hostile to the West? And there is a genocide? Would it end with the destruction of Israel? Maybe so. Or would it gather steam and push into Europe? By the way, would Europe be capable of defending itself?

What if it were found that the American president actively participated in engineering the revolution in the Middle East by withdrawing key supports; manipulating food prices world-wide; deliberately crashing economies by way of monetary policy; supporting radical elements in the name of ‘social justice’? Would we be spared the indignity of shariah? Would he? Not likely. Traitors are universally despised, even under the minimal discipline of chaos.

The twelfth imam is likely to credit his own and pay scant attention to the welfare of foreign accomplices.

In any case, it’ll be the Atlantic that will shield us from the worst of it. Having allowed ourselves to come to this point, however, will haunt us into eternity. We will spend the rest of our lives apologizing, wearing sack cloth, wailing, and tearing our hair. No more arrogance; no more illusions of ‘American exceptionalism‘. We’ll have to rebuild slowly and painfully; our civilization will re-emerge, (this time) stripped of excess and bravado. We’ll have to harden ourselves to the hurled scorn of the betrayed, and forever suffer the weight of insurmountable guilt.

Only the Germans currently have a sense of it. They have been blessed with every attribute that would facilitate achieving unparalleled success; but, at the same time, they know they have forever forfeited their chance at enduring greatness.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Grasping At Straws

Of course Obama 'stands pat' with the script. He is the anvil on which our political system is forged into a new beast. Suppose in the next election cycle we are faced with four parties instead of two. Would we be prepared to deal with that? We are not used to a parliamentarian system. We still worry about what would happen if a third party were introduced into the mix. What about four? Clearly, the Republican Party has fractured; clearly, the Democrat Party is fracturing.

Already words like 'ungovernable' are being heard. Today there was an editorial by Bret Stevens in the WSJ entitled: “Iraqis Embrace Democracy. Do We?” Why are we so willing to have the whole notion of representative governance undermined? Why would so many of us agree that legislative gridlock can be blamed on a leader who is either inept or prevented from executing his mandate by a fatally flawed system? It never occurs to many of us that the agenda itself could be flawed. It never occurs to us that the real agenda may not be health care, cap and trade, comprehensive immigration reform, gay rights, abortion or even jobs. The agenda may well be to paralyze our system of governance. Four or more political parties could do it, leaving only the executive branch as a viable way forward.

Of course Obama stands pat and pushes for the impossible to happen. When it doesn't, the system is declared broken; ergo a new system is called for; a system along the lines of totalitarian rule. Obama is not behaving like he's worried about the next election. Why? Could it be because he believes he will have broken the system by then? All the calamities that are certain to accrue will only strengthen his hand. He will not blame himself; he will not apologize; he will not commit seppuku. He will offer himself as the only viable alternative to broken, discredited governance. And the people, in the throes of calamitous upheavals will grasp at straws.

Rush may only be partly right when he says that the aim of putting a majority of Americans on the public dole is for the sole purpose of keeping Democrats in the majority in perpetuity. The real purpose of this sordid exercise may not be so much to keep Democrats in power, but to keep Obama in power (in perpetuity).