Terra Incognita 41 Aipac, Samir Kuntar and Europe

Terra Incognita
Issue 44
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

Website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com/

July 21st, 2008

‘The Israel Issue’ Celebrating 60 years since the establishment of the first falafel stand in Afula

1) Pandering nonsense: AIPAC, the political action committee in the U.S devoted to gaining support for Israel, has played a dangerous game by showing off its power so much in the wake of Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. The pandering of both presidential candidates to it is only part of the power it claims and appears to have. The irony is that other, more important, lobbies that wish to remain in the dark, such as the Gulf Arab oil lobby, are all too happy to watch Israel’s friends take the limelight and fall on their swords. All the while a more sinister lobby manipulates the U.S even more.

2) Liberalism and Islamism’s Hero: Samir Kuntar and No Sympathy: Two articles exploring the story of Samir Kuntar, his release by Israel and the media’s description of him. The first explores the story of New York Times reporter Craig Smith’s description of him. The second argues that the U.K’s description of him and other media deserves a very real re-thinking of how we should describe the world. Perhaps the KKK was just a militant organization? Who knows these days?

3) Convincing Who? Israel has succeeded in convincing much of the Arab world of its right to exist. But what many people forget is that during that same 60 year period Israel has not succeeded in convincing the Europeans of its right to exist. More properly stated: The Europeans are unable and unwilling to accept the existence of Israel. This is a much greater danger than any Arab ever was. It is also a much more disgusting and shameful turn of events.

Pandering nonsense
Seth J. Frantzman
July 15th, 2008

There exists in Jerusalem a little known Committee for the Introduction of Salsa to Israel (CISI), known among its members as 'sissy'. Barak Obama is scheduled to arrive soon in Israel for a visit to the West Bank to see its 'cultural capital', Ramallah. He will do the inevitable fist-bump with locals and meet the Pashas of Fatah. We will be forced to hear him mince words some more about Jerusalem, no doubt visiting Arafat's grave to promise a Palestinian capital for East Jerusalem, when just a week ago he was speaking of an 'undivided' Jerusalem for Israel. Sources do not say whether he will be attending a meeting of CISI, but given the importance Salsa has for the all-important voting block of Mexican-American Jews one can assume he will put in an appearance.

But Barack Obama is not to blame entirely. All the American presidential contenders this year have had to take out their pro-Israel jerseys from the closet and don them. They have all had to suck up to 'the Jews', which nowadays supposedly means supporting Israel (in the old days pandering to American Jews meant supporting Civil Rights, kissing African-American babies and being a socialist). Jewish columnists have had a field day, first challenging Obama on his view of Israel and now preaching to the African-American loving Jewish choir about how Obama is 'good for the Jews'. If it weren't all so disgusting and degrading one might have assumed that Israel was merely another state in the Union.

The tragedy of this year's pandering is that it comes on the heals of the book by 'scholars' Mearsheimer and Walt entitled The Israel Lobby. They have been responsible for extending the use of the words 'the lobby' outside the halls of conspiracy theorists and anti-Semitism to the mainstream public. Everyone now speaks of the 'the lobby'. Newspapers across the world review the book with wonderful images of the Star of David emblazoned on the American flag, not realizing the tragically anti-Semitic nature of the image. As if the candidates were out to prove Walt and Mersheimer correct in their thesis that a Jewish lobby subverts American foreign policy, both McCain and Obama have not only pandered to pro-Israel groups but Obama has actually changed his opinions to suit them. Obama has surrounded himself with pro-Israel democrats and operatives who have told him that supporting Israel will help him win the election. Thus the man who once called for talks with Hamas and was clearly anti-Israel has reintroduced himself.

As if AIPAC was out to prove Mearsheimer and Walt correct they too have donned the symbolism of the Star of David in the American flag on their latest video released after their June 2nd, 2008 AIPAC Policy conference. Yes, right on the cover, is a puzzle depicting the Star of David and the American flag all mixed up, as if they fit together if only they are re-arranged properly.

What is wrong with these people? Americans supported the creation of Israel before AIPAC. American Presidents were close to Israeli leaders before AIPAC. But in the good old days when American Presidents actually spent time campaigning about things that have something to do with America we were spared this obsession, bordering on dementia, fawning over Israel and pro-Israel groups in America. AIPAC has become a victim of its own arrogance. Rather than seeing 'the Israel Lobby' book and thesis as a shot across the bow, as a dangerous suggestion, they have rallied to its findings. It is like a high school quarterback in a small high school who allows himself to be convinced, because he is the star among his local audience, that he is a great football player. Except in this case it is even more strange because it takes the form of a racist insult being turned around by the victim and 'made his own'. This is akin to the way blacks call eachother 'nigger', to the extent that white people have now taken to saying 'what's up with my niggers' to eachother. Its akin to the way women, once considered stupider than men, now act stupid to get the attention of males. It is, basically, a bunch of people living up to the stereotypes of them. Someone told the Jews they control American foreign policy and now the Jews have decided that they actually do control American foreign policy. This must be the stupidest thing any minority group has ever done. The short term gain of AIPAC believing what they are accused of and even being able to convince the candidates that 'speaking at an AIPAC conference is essential to becoming president' will result in long term harm. As the candidates pander they also lie. When candidates lie the media accepts the lies. This is why Jews are now being told 'its ok to vote for Obama'. Wouldn't it be better if the candidates were honest?

The genius of AIPAC's belief in its own supremacy is that it allows the real lobbies in America to go unnoticed. The greatest of these is the Gulf Oil and Saudi lobby. This lobby directs billions in foreign direct investment (or what is known as sovereign wealth funds) towards America. Most recently Abu Dhabi purchased the Chrysler building. The way of the Saudi lobby is a soft sell approach. It is an approach the gets under the skin of the politician, slowly coaxing him to support the Saudi regime. The Saudis have been able to dissuade American newspapers from running negative stories about them to the extent that when one editorial ran in a tiny weekly paper in Tucson Arizona the Saudi Embassy felt it was important enough to respond with an official letter to the editor. Elsewhere in the world the Saudis rely on the lawsuit for defamation, libel and slander to keep criticism quiet. But can there be any greater knowledge than the fact that the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi citizens and Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. If we call America's hatred was turned very quickly away from Saudi on 9/11 and towards Afghanistan. America was then encouraged to invade the one country that had challenged Saudi (and Iranian) dominance in the Gulf, Iraq. But the brilliance of the Saudi lobby is that it was able to use the soft sell to encourage Americans, through Mersheimer and Walt's book, that the Iraq war was actually part of the Zionist control of American foreign policy. When Mearsheimer and Walt visited the Middle East in June of 2008 (just after the AIPAC conference, which is not a coincidence) they spoke at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where center-right Israel correspondent Gil Troy admonished people that "By hosting Mearsheimer and Walt, Hebrew University can showcase one of Israel's great assets - its robust democracy." (Israel is always said that its 'good side' is that it has people who hate it, as when Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times recently noted that the best people in Israel or 'Israel at its best' is the leftist Israelis who fight for Palestinian rights i.e. the only good Jew is the one who helps non-Jews). Uri Avnery, an extreme anti-Israel writer, celebrated their visit and noted how well received they would be in the West Bank and the Gulf Arab states by preaching to the converted that 'the Israel lobby dominates American foreign policy'. That is exactly what happened. After preaching to left-wing anti-Israel Jews in Jerusalem Mearsheimer and Walt continued on to Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Who paid for their hotel rooms while they were there and their first class air fare to those countries? It must have been nice for the wealthy Arabs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi who were, at that very moment, finalizing the purchase of the Chrysler building and sipping cafe without the threat of Saddam that these two American 'scholars' were sitting down with them and complaining that the Jews run American foreign policy.

Remember Saddam Hussein? He fired Scuds at Israel. He was a hater of Israel. But Saddam was something else as well. He hated the Iranian mullahs, his vitriol against the Islamist regime in Tehran was every bit as extreme as the current vitriol that pours out of Iran directed at Israel and the West. Saddam hated the 'mullahs' and they in turn called him 'satan'. He unleashed his army on Iran (which is more than Israel or the West is willing to do) and gassed them in the tens of thousands with his chemical weapons. Saddam also hated the Gulf Arabs. The royal Kuwaiti Army and the Kuwaiti king and his legion of servants and wives fled too fast in 1990 for us to know what Saddam would have done with them, but we know that Saddam was no lover of the opulence and greed of the Gulf Arabs. In fact Saddam considered them traitors in 1988 when Kuwait increased her oil production, thus making the Iraqis lose money. This was the catalyst for war. In fact George Bush Sr. posited that America was fighting a war for her national security to protect the oil fields of the gulf from falling into the hands of Saddam who was intending to lower output and use them as a weapon against the West. Perhaps 18 years later we have seen this come full circle. With Saddam removed and America doing the dirty work of wealthy Gulf Arabs the Arabs have not increased production and oil prices are skyrocketing. Except today, suddenly, the price of oil is not vital to national security. Thus while Americans pay $4.50 a gallon it is Israel that supposedly controls American foreign policy. Israel accomplishes this, not with oil or money, but because other lobbies allow Israel to be perceived as the puppet master so they can avoid attention and thus accomplish their jobs.

Its not the first time people had to fight and die so Gulf Arabs and Saudis could live the good life, running what amounts to a giant concentration camp in the desert where foreign workers and prostitutes are imported to do all the work. Saddam sent millions of Iraqi men to fight and die so the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Gulf Arabs could live well with their Pakistani maids. While Iraqis died fighting the Iranian Islamist menace the Saudis gave $26 billion to Saddam so that no Saudi would ever have to learn to use a rifle (except perhaps to shoot in the back of the head prostitutes who lived pass their 'prime' of 17 years of age). The Saudis feared the spread of the Iranian revolution in the 1980s to its Shia populated areas, where most of the Saudi oil is located. So other Arabs died and Saudis enjoyed their sex shows and the Riviera and their Johnny Walker. (In the new Television series 'Generation Kill' an American Marine quips that lack of 'good pussy' is what makes Arabs into Islamists. He perhaps was not aware that the 9/11 hijackers received all the 'pussy' they needed at the Olympic Garden strip club in Vegas, Pink Pony strip club in Daytona beach.)

Does anyone recall how much oil was in 1990? The 'oil crises' that was caused by Saddam's invasion forced the price of oil to rise to $50.50. That’s right, $100 less than it is today, 18 years after American servicemen died so that Arabs could live a wealthy lifestyle. 18 years after the First Gulf War the idea that Israel controls American foreign policy is firmly cemented in the mindset of Americans and people around the world. The Israel lobby believed this nonsense and uses the imagery of anti-Semitism on its conference videos. Leftist Jews and leftist Israelis also believe this and invite the 'scholars' to Israel to preach. Everyone agrees, even Obama.

Americans will keep dying for Saudi greed and liberalism will keep encouraging the myth of Jewish control and Saudi money derived from oil production will keep funding Islamic extremism around the world until someone says 'enough!' There was a chance to say 'enough' on September 12th, 2001. A true visionary president would have begun the bombing of Saudi Arabia immediately. Now we are faced with two presidential candidates entirely beholden to the Saudis who bend over backwards to make it look like Israel controls American foreign policy. Shame on AIPAC. Oh, shame on them for believing the lies about them. And, in the long run, Israel will still not be a Salsa eating country. Oh, the humanity.






Liberalism and Islamism’s Hero: Samir Kuntar
July 17th, 2004
Seth J. Frantzman

A great hero of Islam returned home on July 17th, 2004. He was, according to Islamic culture, a great warrior, a courageous and brave man. Samir Kuntar was born in 1962 to a Druze family in Lebanon. According to a biography of him in the New York Times by Craig Smith he went to Beirut to fight in the Lebanese Civil War when it broke out in 1975. He was 13 at the time. At the age of 16 he got involved with Marxist ‘revolutionaries’ in Beirut. These were the Western and Palestinian backed ‘progressives’ who were fighting against the Maronite Christian Lebanese in the Civil War. During the late 1970s and early 1980s leftists from the West became terrorism tourists in Lebanon, joining the ‘revolution’ in Beirut. Kuntar evidently became a devotee of Palestinian nationalism at this time and joined the Palestinian Liberation Front (even though, as a Druze, he had no connection to them). Like a long line of non-Palestinian born Palestinian nationalists (Fauzi Kaukji who fought for the Palestinians in the 1948 war was from Syria for instance), he became enthralled with the idea of being a “part of a military operation against Israel.” Craig Smith, as a good liberal-leftist acts as if this was a legitimate logical goal for a young Lebanese man in the years 1975-1978. For Smith and those like him in the West the idea of being a terrorism tourist is a logical move for any young youth who decides that his day for murdering civilians has come.

On April 22nd, 1979 his day finally came. Kunter, 17 at the time, led a group of “teenage commandos”, as Craig refers to them, on a rubber dinghy past the Israel-Lebanon border and landed on a beach near the Israeli town of Nahariya. Supposedly their goal, according to the Westerner Craig Smith, was to “take hostages to exchange for Palestinian prisoners.” They met a policeman soon after coming ashore and shot him. He was not ‘taken hostage’. According to the westerner and Times coorespondent, Mr. Craig Smith, what happened next is that the “raid went terribly wrong.” Although they only meant to “kidnap Israelis” they ended up slaughtering people. Kuntar and his “friends” took an Israeli man named Danny Haran “away.” Meanwhile Smadar Haran “accidently smothered her two-year old daughter as she tried to keep her quiet.” According to Craig Smith’s version of the story “Kuntar and another man were subsequently captured in a shootout that left two of his colleagues and another policeman dead. Danny Haran and his daughter also died. Israeli media soon carried graphic reports of Kuntar shooting Haran in front of his daughter and then brutally killing the child….Kuntar claimed at his trial in 1980 that Danny Haran had been killed by Israeli soldiers’ bullets…whatever the truth.”

Kuntar was sentenced to six life sentences. On July 16th he was freed along with other prisoners and exchanged for the dead bodies of two Israelis abducted by Hizbullah in 2006. On July 17th he was greeted by the Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Siniora and other Lebanese dignitaries as a ‘hero’. In an article that ran the same day as Mr. Smith’s piece the readers of the Times were given a slightly different account of what happened on April 22nd, 1979. According to Dina Kraft, also of the New York Times, “an Israeli court found that the four men broke into an apartment building and kidnapped a young father, Danny Haran, murdering him in front of his 4 year old daughter, Einat. Then, the court found, Kuntar turned to the child and crushed her skull against a rock with the butt of his rifle.”

There are two things that are taking place in the case of Mr. Kuntar. The most disgusting and awful is not what he did. It is not that Islam regards him as a hero. What is most degrading and disturbing is the way in which the West, as represented by one of its most noteworthy newspapers and two of its correspondents, Dina Kraft and Craig Smith, have turned this story into one in which there is some doubt as to what Kuntar did that day. Smith says “Danny Haran and his daughter also died.” Kraft prefixes everything that Kuntar did with “the court found” in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the ‘Israeli narrative’. One wonders if Mr. Smith and Ms. Kraft were asked to write a story about the Oklahoma City bombing or the assassination of Martin Luther King if they would also mince their words. Would it be “150 people died” in the Oklahoma City Bombing and “the court found…”? Did “the court find” that Mr. King was assassinated and thus it cast doubt on how he ‘really’ died? What is most sad in this case is that these two western leftists have made this into a story where there is some discussion over whether Mr. Kuntar is a ‘hero’. Mr. Smith speaks of Kuntar being a ‘commando’ as if he was on a legitimate military operation. They speak of Kuntar having ‘colleagues’ and ‘friends’ as if they were just out for a stroll.

One must be very clear. Einat Haran had her head smashed in. She didn’t die in a shootout (as Mr. Kuntar claims Danny Haran did). Her brains were splattered on rocks. It must be said again. Her head was smashed in with the butt of a rifle. Again. A four year old girl’s head was smashed in with the head of a rifle wielded by an Arab. Again. A little girl was beaten to death by terrorists who murdered her in the most brutal manner. Again. Young men illegally crossed a border intent on murder, they shot a cop, and then they invaded a house where they abducted a little girl and when they were fleeing they murdered the little girl by cracking her head open. Again. Arab terrorists were responsible for murdering five people (Danny, Einat, two policeman and the two year old girl who suffocated while hiding).

It must always be said again and again. Liberalism, post-humanism and its allies seek to brainwash us and dumb us down through mincing words in carefully crafted articles that obscure the truth. Liberalism will tell us that a “court found” something when there is no doubt as to what happened (does one need a court to ‘find’ that a little girl’s head was smashed open?) Liberalism will tell us that people merely “died” rather than they were “murdered.”

There can be no quarter given to liberalism. How can one even think of forgiving a person like Mr. Craig Smith and Ms. Kraft for their crimes? Their crimes are worse than the terrorism because they excuse and obscure the terrorism. They excuse the murder of children. This must be repeated again and again. They excuse the murder of a four year old girl. Islam tells us that murdering a four year old girl is ‘heroic’. That is because Islam is a religion built on the murder of children, enslavement of women and genocide of minorities. This tells us all we need to know about Islam. If Islam were a religion of heroes and brave men then it would not send 17 year olds to murder women and children and civilians. It would send them to fight against soldiers. That is what a ‘commando’ does. Mr. Smith has evidently lived in the Middle East as the New York Times correspondent to long. He has come to believe that a ‘commando’ is someone who fights against civilians. A ‘hero’ is a man armed to the teeth who guns down defenseless children. Smith says the Lebanese believe Kuntar is a ‘courageous fighter who has sacrificed.’ A fighter? Who did he fight? Did he fight the four year old girl or the two year old one? Did he have to ‘fight’ to smash that girl’s head in? Was that part of his ‘courage’? Was his ‘sacrifice’ the fact that he had to murder children? Do Muslims mean he sacrificed his honour? No. Islamic ‘honour’ has everything to do with murdering one’s own sister or daughter because she has betrayed the ‘family honour’. It is not about ‘honour’ in the western sense. There is no honour in Islam. There is only an entire religion of cowards who believe that a hero is a ‘commando’ who beats a child to death. Islam deserves such heroes. This is why Muslims are terrorists. They can’t fight as real fighters so they blow up civilians. That is the Muslim way. But that is Islam’s problem.

Out problem is that we must live next door to people like Mr. Smith and Ms. Kraft. We must shop at the same supermarkets as them and go to the same theatres. That is our sacrifice. We must live in a world where the deaths of children are called ‘heroic’ and excused by our own educated intellectuals.

One can hate the West. It deserves to be hated for creating Craig Smith. It deserves to be hated because its leading newspapers have men who excuse the murder of children. Mr. Smith is not an opinion writer. He is a journalist. He was produced by our best Universities. He and Ms. Kraft are among the elites of our society. They are the ones who excuse the murder of a child.

We deserve more Mr. Kuntars. We deserve them to fall upon us in the West like rain. We deserve them for we have no conscience. We have no honour. We have no decency. We have no self respect, self-worth or responsibility. We are unable to tell the difference between good and evil. We are unable to write in our own press that Kunter murdered children and that he was a terrorist. Instead we mince words. Craig Smith deserves Mr. Kuntar. If only Mr. Craig had suffered the fate of Danny Haran, what a different world we could say we live in. But Mr. Craig did not. Mr. Craig jets from one Arab capital to another working as a high paid propagandist for Islamism, excusing its crimes and even spitting on the grave of a four year old girl. The ground cries out for justice for Einat Haran. It cries out not just for revenge upon Kuntar and his ‘friends’. It calls out for justice against Craig Smith. Will justice come? Will Craig Smith one day suffer the loss of a family member in a terror attack and will he no longer accept that the murder of his family members should be categorized in terms of ‘the court found’ and ‘they died’. We in the West would be so lucky to know that every one of our elites who excuses terrorism would become a victim of it sooner rather than later. But they will not. One could not wish that anyone would harm the family of Craig Smith. His daughter, if he has one, is innocent. It is he who is guilty. It is he who deserves justice. When a person excuses the murder of another, especially when they excuse the murder of a child it is as if they themselves murdered that child. There is no difference. There is no difference in terms of morality and responsibility. When one excuses the murder, especially the brutal senseless murder of a 4 year old girl they have lost all morality and they have championed the murder of that child. Pray that Craig Smith suffers for his crime.

Mr. Kuntar is free. It is Craig Smith who deserves to be serving six consecutive life terms for excusing the murder of a 4 year old girl. The blood is on your hands Craig. It will never come off and you will reap the thing you have sown. You have sown this thing, this despicable tasteless excusing, in the soul of the West and the West, if it wants to survive, must vomit forth this thing, it must excise this culture of excuses, it must do away, once and for all, with the elites who excuse the deaths of ordinary people. When the liberal elite can cast to their deaths the children of the honest ordinary civilians then it is the people who have a duty to rise up against those elites and cast them down in the very manner that they excused. If it is the bashing of the heads of children in with rifle butts than that is the manner that liberalism must die. That is what it must reap. Millions of Einat Harans have died and their deaths have been excused, time and again. From the excuses about Pol Pot’s genocide to the excuses about Stalin’s Communism. From the excuse for terrorism to the excuse about genocide in the Sudan. An entire world cries out, an entire world of dead, murdered innocents cries out for justice and the hand of justice points not only at the Communist and Islamist perpetrators. It also points to ourselves for we have not stood up against those in our own society who always excuse the murder of innocents. We fight a war on two fronts. We fight against the Craig Smith that lurks in our own society and we fight the Islamist. We fight these two Jihads at the same time. One is an inner struggle, the ‘greater Jihad’ against the Craig Smith and the other is the outer struggle against our enemies, the lesser Jihad, against Islamism. Either we win in this struggle or we perish. But we will not perish like Einat Haran. For Islam to defeat us and our way of life it will be forced to stop fighting our children, raping our women and murdering our elderly. No. Islam will be forced to learn what ‘fighting’ and ‘struggle’ really means. Only when Islam is bathing in its own blood, the way it has forced everyone else to bathe, can one perhaps begrudge the fact that somewhere among 1.3 billion Muslims there are a few genuinely courageous people. But there are no courageous Craig Smiths. There are only parasitical rats called Craig Smith who suck the blood of our murdered children.

No Sympathy
Seth J. Frantzman
July 17th, 2008

If it was a white supremacist or KKK member who had crossed into a county, shot a policeman, killed a father in the midst of a shootout and smashed a 4 year old African-American girl's head on a rock would he still be called a 'militant'? If, 27 years later, men crossed into the same county and kidnapped two policeman and then murdered them while holding them as hostages would their activity be called a 'raid'? Yet these are the words used by Reuters in their dispatch from Lebanon on July 17th, 20008 to describe the homecoming of Samir Kuntar (a Lebanese Druze who participated in murder of five Israelis in 1979, including a 4 year old girl). Would the media speak of a 'narrative' where 'one side calls him a hero and one calls him a murderer'. Come to think of it, we had a KKK member who blew up a black church in which a few girls burned to death. Reuters didn't pull any punches calling the people that did that 'terrorists'. In the UK Israeli army officers are not allowed into the country for risk of being prosecuted for 'war crimes' and Israel politicians such as Moshe Feiglin may not visit the UK because of their 'incitement' in Israel against Palestinians in Israel. Yet the UK would brand Mr. Kuntar a 'militant' and allow him to visit. Mr. Kuntar decided to come to Israel and murder civilians. His family and his community were never affected by Israel. His actions were as arbitrary and pre-meditated as any murderers. Later more Lebanese men, this time under the flag of Hizbullah, crossed into Israel to kill more soldiers. They not only 'raided' Israel but abducted and murdered to soldiers. Reuters and the Western Media tell us that they were just intending to capture the soldiers. But in the UK when a person murders POWs he is called a 'war criminal'. Yet Hizbullah leaders are welcome in Europe.

There is Mr. Kuntar on the front page of the New York Times in army fatigues giving a strait arm salute in Beirut. This is a militant? This man who chose to murder is a 'militant'? No. This is what Reuters calls a 'militant'. Reuters refuses to use the word 'terrorist' in its reporting and apparently also the world 'murderer'. This is the same Reuters that deliberately circulated forged photographs of Israeli bombing of Beirut in 2006 trying to show that the bombing was worse than it was. Reuters is a symbol of the West. Like the West there is nothing it deserves more than the terrorism it refuses to name.

The BBC does no better. For them 'Samir Qantar' merely "attacked" an apartment complex and "a policeman, another man and his four year old daughter were killed." The BBC described Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev as "Prisoners" in Lebanon, as if they were lawfully seized as prisoners of war. The BBC says they "were captured". As for Gilad Shalit, the BBC says he too was "seized in a raid" and was "the first Israeli soldier captured since 1994." Captured? How about abducted or kidnapped? If I went to England, the home of the BBC, and I snatched a UK soldier and transported him to Israel would the BBC describe my action as a 'raid' in which I took a 'prisoner'. One should test the BBC on this. In fact the BBC was tested when its reported Alan Johnston was kidnapped in 2007 by Hamas and held for 114 days. The BBC reported his being 'seized at gunpoint' and he said later in a report that he had been 'kidnapped'. So when the victim has a nice sounding British name and speaks the Queen's English he is 'kidnapped' but when the victim has a foreign name he becomes a 'prisoner'. Its strange to grow up admiring England and thinking well of a nation that fought the Nazis. But when realizes that the true England is nothing but a racist, disgusting hypocritical, lying society that excuses the murder of two Israeli soldiers at the hands of terrorists and at the same time would have charged those same Israelis with 'war-crimes' if they had visited England, one realizes there is no connection between the UK in 2008 and decency. England is dead. It is morally dead. When the government funded press uses one term for its own reporters when they are victims and another term when it is a foreign soldier who suffers a similar, but worse fate, there must be no sympathy for England.

But it gets worse. The BBC reports that Regev and Goldwasser "are believed to have died when they were ambushed in 2006." Oddly enough in another article on the same website the BBC claims " A senior Hezbollah official has now told the BBC that the soldiers were captured alive. The official claims that they were injured in the cross-border attack but that they subsequently died." In addition we learn that the imprisonment of Kuntar in Israel for the murder of four people in 1979 was "a catalyst for the 2006 war between Hizbullah and Israel." What does the BBC mean by this? This is brilliant logic. It requires the reader to believe that in 1979 a Lebanese Druze choose to infiltrate illegally into Israel and murder four people, including smashing a 4 year old girls head with the butt of his rifle. Next we are supposed to believe that this forced Hizbullah, a Shia movement, to illegally invade Israel in 2006 and murder two Israeli soldiers during or after an ambush. This is what a liberal truly thinks. A liberal believes that it is acceptable that a person should come to a country and murder people and that by daring to imprison him that country thus deserves to be attacked again and again.

The BBC describes Kuntar as one of "five detainees" in Israel. In the UK are murderers described as 'detainees'? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7509992.stm)
Later, in a separate article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7511001.stm) it describes them as "militants." I would suggest that all those imprisoned in the UK for murder should now be described as 'militants' and 'detainees'. All those imprisoned in England on charges of terrorism are, to my mind, now 'militants' and 'detainees'. That is right. There must be no sympathy for the UK. Did 52 people die in a militant attack in London on July 7th, 2005? Yes they did. Perhaps it was merely a raid intended to secure them as prisoners to swap for detainees currently held in prisons in England. There must be no sympathy for the UK. The UK has betrayed the world and it has betrayed innocent people who were brutally murdered by the terrorist Kuntar. The UK likes to talk about its boycotts. I for one will never visit the UK again in my life if I can help it. Never again. The British deserve exactly what they get. It is a wretched country with no soul and no respect for human life.

As for America and its liberals. From now on the KKK should be described as a 'militant' organization. From now on its lynchings should be described as 'raids' and those blacks it murdered should be described as 'prisoners' who 'died' in the process of being ambushed. From now on KKK members in prison should be described as 'detainees'. Yes. The West and its liberals want to mince words? They should choke on them. What will a white leftist liberal woman do when she hears that the death of an African-American in a lynching was a 'militant raid'? What will the liberal do when he learns that the death of Matthew Shepherd, the celebrated gay man who was murdered, was just a 'militant raid'. What will the liberal do when he finds out that the deaths of those three blacks who were chained and dragged behind a pickup in Texas died at the hands of 'militants' and that their killers are just 'detainees'? The liberal leftist wants to play propaganda for Islamism and legitimate murder and terrorism. Then the West must taste its own medicine. Timothy Mcveigh was a militant who raided the Oklahoma City Federal Building. He then became a detainee in an American prison. Any attacks on Americans designed to free him should be thus justified as attempts to free him. The Sept. 11 attacks were thus another raid by militants designed, perhaps, to free Mcveigh. The Western liberal must reap. It has sown. It has sown its hatred and its disgusting attempts at turn murderers into 'militants' and massacres into 'raids'. No sympathy for the West. The media's narration of the release of Kuntar must never be forgiven. It represents the complete decline of western civilization and the western ability to think and reason. The West is but a dumb beast who does no know up from down and black from white.

There can be no sympathy for the West in the wake of its reporting on the release of Kuntar. The West deserves everything it gets. I must never be forgiven for turning a murderer who smashes the head of a child into a 'militant' and turning war criminals who murder abducted soldiers into 'raiders'. The next time Reuters tells us to mourn one of its journalists who is killed in a foreign country we should celebrate. No sympathy for those who excuse terror, murder and war crimes. No sympathy for the West, its institutions or its media. No sympathy for a lying hypocritical West that would label the murderer of a black child in the American South a 'terrorist' but will label an the murderer of a Jewish child in Israel a 'militant raid'. No sympathy. No sympathy for a country that deems the kidnapping of its reporter unacceptable but views the kidnapping of people from other countries as 'raids'. No sympathy. How can there be when we see the double standard that is inherent in the reporting by the Westerner? Liberalism has conquered the mind of western man. Post-Humanism has succeeded in its ultimate goal, it has prevented us from thinking logically about things, it has changed the meaning of words and twisted facts around so no one knows what is truthful anymore. Post-humanism has distanced us from being human. It excuses the murder of a four year old in its attempt to remove any sense of humanity we might have. When we can be convinced that the death of a four year old girl is part of a 'militant raid' we are dead to the world. We no longer exist in society. One is not a member of a society or a civilization if he cannot judge morally the death of those around him, the deaths of the most tender and innocent members of his society. This is Post-Humanism and it has spread throughout the body politic. Only a complete deracination of that politic can save it. We are no longer Western. There is no West. We must satisfy ourselves by declaring that we are human. It is better to be human than it is to be western for the West is but a post-human shell of horrible excuses and terrible characterizations and 'narratives'. The world is divided. It is divided between those who are enlightened and realize their own humanity in the face of the horror they are forced to learn in school and from the media. Today the world is composed of small numbers of humans who at war with post-humans and their Islamist allies. One should be proud to place themselves on the side of the human. The human is the man with heritage and patriotism and decency, self-respect, honour and personal responsibility.






Convincing who?
Seth J. Frantzman
July 15th, 2008

There is a moniker that is often employed about the Israeli-Arab 'conflict'. It is always believed that Israel must force the Arab states to accept her existence. This is why 'right to exist' is such a mantra among those who support Israel and why at least one book has used these words in its title. Golda Meir once quipped that there will be peace when 'Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.' The ideology of 'land for peace' is also part of this desire for recognition and acceptance in the region. Israel remains, quite simply, one of the few states whose neighbours do not recognize her. (she is not the only one: Puntland in Somalia has this problem, as does Kosovo and Taiwan among others. Israel is unique only in the sense that, until recently, her neighbours wanted to see all her residents, the Jews, removed, rather than simply disputing whether or not she is a country). However since the mid-1970s this has begun to change. More and more Arab and Muslim states do accept the existence of Israel, at least on paper. Today's greatest haters of Israel are not even Arab Muslim states but the petty leaders of other Muslim states such as Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia.
What Israelis and Israel advocates seem to have missed is the fact that they have largely convinced the Arab world that Israel does exist. What Israel has failed to do is to convince the European and other westerners that she has a right to exist. Thus the questioning of Israel's existence has moved from the local neighbourhood to the international level and on an international scale Israel has failed to convince the intellectuals and high brow pashas of the West. This is supremely interesting, for it is the West that is primarily responsible for the creation of Israel both because of the West's genocidal programs, the creation of the United Nations, the ideology of nationalism and socialism and the First World War. Although Jews shouldered the physical burden of building Israel is was the west that helped propel her to statehood. The First World War, colonialism and the legalism employed in the 'mandates' granted after the First World war helped create Israel in much the same way as Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia were created.
But while the West has not decided that the other states it served as a midwife for deserve to be dismantled, prominent westerners have decided that Israel is a 'mistake' that was 'conceived in sin'. Without going into the irony of how the West and Europeans, who are mostly secular and godless, like to use imagery such as 'conceived in sin', one must challenge the way Westerners have betrayed Israel and the degree to which the West must be brought to justice for this betrayel.
The West plays a double game with nationalism and 'anti-colonialism' and 'post-colonialism'. Tunisian and Algerian nationalism was seen by Albert Memmi and Franz Fanon as a wonderful development, a natural 'indigenous' reaction to French colonialism. Intellectuals in Europe celebrated all nationalism that took place in foreign countries outside of Europe so long as those nationalisms could be considered 'anti-colonial'. Thus the leftist intellectuals in Europe first exhibited their love for the other and this contradictory 'love it abroad, hate it at home' approach to the world: nationalism was good so long as it was being carried out by 'coloureds' and was taking place against 'the white man'. Other types of nationalism that manifested themselves over the years, for instance that of the Afrikaners, the Israelis, the Serbs and the Russians was considered 'chauvinistic'. But Hugu Chavez was not a chauvinist, even if he looks like an ape and beats his chest like one during long drawn out harangues on state controlled radio and television. Fidel Castro, although he was born into a wealthy family and although his 'comrade' Che was similarly wealthy and white were both considered anti-colonial romantics, mostly because of their beards, fatigues and interest in cigars. In fact the use of fatigues and uniforms, which were much hated and spat upon in 1960s Europe and America, were celebrated so long as they were worn by someone pretending to be 'anti-western', 'anti-capitalist' and 'anti-colonialist'. Thus while few could countenance Meir Kahane or Timothy Mcveigh and their respective JDL and militias, one could find love in Arafat and Pol Pot.
So the West gave birth to nationalism. The West exported it abroad by educating the natives in the West (this is an obvious fact as we can see that Gandhi, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Idi Amin, Laurent Kabila, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, to name a few, all learned their nationalism either in Europe or through Europeans). Then the West came to hate nationalism at home and love it abroad. But then there were the Jews. Jewish nationalism, once in vogue among westerners who admired Israeli's socialist kibbutzim, became tainted as Western intellectuals began to re-write their race playbooks so that the Jew became part of the 'white' world. Once Israel was redefined as 'white' and 'western' and 'European' it could be considered, like Afrikaner South Africa, an extension of Europe, an evil weed of the Old Europe, that had to be beaten back. Europeans saw themselves in the Jew and the Afrikaner and were profoundly shocked. So between 1968 and 2008 the European intellectuals began to believe that Israel did not have a right to exist. This was precisely the same period where the Arab was just catching up with Europe and accepting the existence of Israel.
Europeans are at the forefront of Israel hatred. Throughout Europe Jews cower in fear over the all-too often assaults on them by Muslims who Europeans have invited to settle in Europe as 'refugees', often in former Jewish parts of town. Europeans have convinced themselves that Israel is a 'nazi' state and that its crimes are 'like Apartheid' (In fact a recent visit by 'anti-Apartheid activists' from South Africa claimed Israel is worse than Apartheid because Israel 'wishes the Palestinians would disappear' whereas the Afrikaner at least met blacks in his day to day life).
The fact that Europeans sell technology to Iran, which threatens to destroy Israel, is merely one part of the European hatred of Israel and her attempt to destroy Israel. Europeans have a profound belief that they have a right to dismantle Israel since they believe, incorrectly, that they created Israel. Europeans have come to believe their own rhetoric, they believe Israel is a colonial extension of their continent and thus believe they can dismantle her the way they did the other colonies. The truth is that the Europeans will celebrate the destruction of Israel. But they will reap what they have sown. In the European war against Israel the European has employed the Muslim refugee, the ever tear filled eyes of the Arab women with her headscarf and her children, always parading as 'victims'. But now Europeans are stuck with fifty million of those Muslims they invited as 'victims' to settle in their midst. While Europeans pray everyday for the destruction of Israel they do not realize they have brought the destruction on themselves.