Let’s consider the case of the alliance between the Canadian Jewish Defense League and the Britain-based English Defense League.
Evidently, a police officer was injured and four protesters arrested during a recent demonstration in Canada by so-called anti-racist groups opposing the alliance.
These two “defense leagues” explain that they’re joining forces because they both recognize an existential threat from radical Islam.
As we all know, it is considered, in too many quarters these days, automatically racist to suggest that we need to be concerned about even the demonstrably violent, intolerant, homicidal radical Islamo-Fascists.
This kind of thing has a distinct Orwellian tinge to it.
“Peace and Justice” has come to mean anti-Israel. “Anti-racist,” as demonstrated in events like the Jew-bashing U.N. event in Durban a few years back, has come to mean anti-Jew, as well.
This is especially strange, loathsome and sad to anyone who recalls the impetus for much of the world’s fight for human rights being either directly championed by Jews or the result of what happened to the Jews.
Those opposing the league alliance say that “while Islamic fundamentalism is ‘a real threat,’ combating it with ‘generalized hatred against Muslims, as does the EDL, is only a recipe for fuelling more conflict.’
Do these folks offer an alternative, other than lying down and allowing the Islamo-Fascist freight train to run us all over?
By their own admission, these folks recognize “a real threat” from Islamic fundamentalism, but fighting it with angry rhetoric will fuel the conflict?
If by that they mean sparking violence among Muslims, it seems to me, just about everything fuels violence among Muslims.
Doing something and not doing something, fuels violence. Saying something, not saying something, drawing something… you get the picture. I also detect that not responding at all – even when it’s done strategically to not dignify something obscene or outrageous with a reaction – is seen by the enemy as weakness and fuels violence.
In fact, the violence that erupted in Canada appears to have been perpetrated by those expressing concern that this defensive alliance will spark violence.
Is it me, or do I detect some minor hypocrisy here?
Ever since the weird shift in the space-time continuum, or whatever it was it was that made it “conservative” to be in favor of the right of the Jews to defend themselves and survive, I’ve noticed that type of blatant hypocrisy among many so-called human rights groups.
Even the International Red Cross, which ordinarily is a wonderful organization, has a strong and evidently incurable case of anti-Israelism, which, in my view, is exactly the same as anti-Semitism, since half the world’s Jews live in Israel. So if something happens to Israel, it happens to half the world’s Jews.
The reason for this is clear. These groups, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, must suspend disbelief and perform seemingly impossible mental and historical contortions to be able to defend the violent terrorists in their drive to finish Hitler’s work under the delusion that they are fighting for the underdog.
As much as they want the Palestinians – a group of Arabs originally from the surrounding countries who only began identifying themselves as a separate ethnicity in the 1960s – to be the underdog, there are still more than 40 Muslim countries and a billion Muslims. There is only one Jewish country and only about 13 million Jews in the entire world.
And that 13 million are what’s left after the worst genocide in recorded history. An event that only ended about 60 years ago.
So, despite the fact that the Jews are smart and able to defend themselves, which seems to be at least part of the reason they’re labeled the aggressor, they remain, in reality, the underdogs. If they didn’t have those capabilities, they’d have been eliminated by now and the subject of curiosity at museums like the one Hitler had planned.
So, while I’m sure these organizations opposing an alliance of Jews and Britons trying to defend themselves against what even the demonstrators acknowledge is a threat, mean well, they were unable to conduct a rally to make their point without resorting to violence.
It seems to me that these are people in a glass house with no business throwing stones.
Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here