Defense Issues

Military and general security

How a pro-Palestinian American reporter changed his views on Israel (with comment)

Posted by picard578 on February 16, 2017

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/how-a-pro-palestinian-american-reporter-changed-his-views-on-israel

The link above has a good discussion of anti-Israel media bias. It has hit home because I used to be affected by the same bias myself, and description is quite close to my own experience – except for the fact that I never personally witnessed things described in the article, with main factor in my own change of heart being learning about Islam itself. Also, I was never really a liberal myself. I was a socialist at times, but due to history of my nation (being from Croatia), I always was a nationalist. And that is a danger of knowing facts without context. It is a fact that Israel is bombing Palestine: but context is that they are only doing it in self-defense. It is a fact that Europe had colonized Islamic world: but context is that said colonialism was merely an act of self-defense against Islamic aggression. It was very successful self-defense as well, forcing Islam to fight against infidels on its own home turf, instead of coming over to fight in Europe.

Today, Islam is carrying out aggression against both Israel and Europe, through a combination of terrorist cells and mass immigration. How this war will end, nobody knows. And Israel, with hostile Arabs in front and hostile, increasingly Islamic liberal Europe in the rear, is in dire straits. Both Islam and liberalism are dogmatic, illogical sets of beliefs, and are working together to destroy Europe. Left reacts with outrage whenever West attempts to protect itself against Islam, and so acts as a Trojan horse enabling Islamic conquest. Israeli “colonization” of Palestine works under the same logic as European colonization of Africa and the Middle East: it creates a tampon zone to protect Israel itself from Islamic aggression, and moves the violence to Islam’s home turf. Islam has an inbuilt hatred against all non-Muslims, but this hatred is especially pronounced against the Jews. Palestinian terrorists intentionally use civilians as human shields in order to make Israel look bad in the eyes of emasculated liberal West.

Liberal West itself uses double standards: what is acceptable for Muslims to do, is not acceptable for Israelis to do. Reason for this is inbuilt liberal anti-white, anti-Western racism: they see conflict as a developed Western country beating on underdeveloped Arab neighbour because it fits their narrative of Westerners always being the oppressors. When facts cannot be made to fit the narrative, they deny the facts, positing that Islamic terrorism is not endemic to Islam, but is in fact created by the West.

A reading that may help explain causes of liberal antisemitism: “Nazi roots of multiculturalism

Advertisements

8 Responses to “How a pro-Palestinian American reporter changed his views on Israel (with comment)”

  1. Israel Or Illustrating That: No Maximal Context, No Maximally Wise Truth

    Picard: [There is] “a danger of knowing facts without context. It is a fact that Israel is bombing Palestine: but context is that they are only doing it in self-defense. It is a fact that Europe had colonized Islamic world: but context is that said colonialism was merely an act of self-defense against Islamic aggression. It was very successful self-defense as well, forcing Islam to fight against infidels on its own home turf, instead of coming over to fight in Europe.”

    The full context, with Israel, goes back 3,200 years or so. This is also the full context of Islam, as Muhammad’s fundamental justification for Islam is that Jews and Christians were not respecting “the Book” (that is, “the Bible”, as Byblos means Book).

    Another justification for Islam was given by Muhammad himself: the huge war between Rome (capital Constantinople) and Persia has left both empires at their weakest in more than 1,200 year, and the Arabs have thus their best shot at starting large scale raids upon the rich Greco-Romans. I am not making this up: it’s in Islam’s most sacred books (Qur’an, Hadith).

    Islam then proceeded to destroy Persian civilization, eradicating its 2,700 old religion, and 3,700 years of secular laws and proto-democratic systems (Sumer cities invented the bicameral system, 5,000 years ago), replacing civilization with sexist tyranny of the “Successor” (“that is what “Caliph” means).

    Thus it is progress itself, not just Israel, which has been under Islamist aggression, ever since there was Islam and it thrived.

    Islamists quickly destroyed the whole adult male population of Syria in the 730s. In the following decades, Persia was annihilated as an independent civilization. However Constantinople, protected by its walls and its Grecian fire equipped Navy, was able to resist. The Islamists then conceived the plan of seizing North Africa, and then Europe from the West (ultimately, the plan was implemented somewhat accidentally, as Visigothic defenses proved weak). Spain was conquered in a few years, 20%, or more of the Catholic population was killed (although the war was between Arian Visigoths and Muslims).

    By 715 CE, Muslim spearheads were fighting inside Francia (Imperium Francorum, Western Rome). In 721 CE, the Franco-Roman Dux, Eudes, fled next to Toulouse from a huge Muslim army, then caught the stretched out enemy between pincers, and annihilated it (killing around 100,000 Islamists).

    The Franks completely changed the nature of their society to oppose Muslim aggression. The Eighth Century was crowned by the coronation of Charlemagne as Roman emperor (with the agreement of Constantinople, then ruled by a regent). However, that was just the crown for generations of spectacular progress: the Franks nationalized the church, thus paid for the largest professional field army since the apogee of the Roman Republic. The Franks also forced the church to implement mandatory, universal education (creating the school and university systems).

    Islamists lost giant armies at Poitiers (732 CE), Narbonne (748 CE), and many smaller battles. Devoid of its dead “martyrs”, the Damascus Caliphate fell (and was replaced by the Abbasids, Arabs who fronted for vengeful Iranians).

    Centuries of Islamist attacks against Europe and the Mediterranean were followed by centuries of counterattacks. Islamist raids, for centuries came all over France, Italy, even Switzerland. Ultimately, the Franks threw Muslims out of Italy, Sicily, while the Reconquista in Spain took 8 centuries. Vienna was besieged twice, saved at the last minute. Athens got freed from the Islamists only in 1834.

    Not coincidentally, the Franks also known as the French, had just reconquered Algeria (the French authorities actually argued to the baffled, ahistorical natives, that they were reconquering in the name of Rome).

    Islamist aggression against Europe would last… to this day.

    So how come so many in the European intellectual class are Islamophiliacs (Islam lovers, my neologism)?

    It has to do with whom has profited from Islamophilia.

    [First part, to be continued and posted as an essay on my site… PA]

    • picard578 said

      “The full context, with Israel, goes back 3,200 years or so. This is also the full context of Islam, as Muhammad’s fundamental justification for Islam is that Jews and Christians were not respecting “the Book” (that is, “the Bible”, as Byblos means Book).
      Another justification for Islam was given by Muhammad himself: the huge war between Rome (capital Constantinople) and Persia has left both empires at their weakest in more than 1,200 year, and the Arabs have thus their best shot at starting large scale raids upon the rich Greco-Romans. I am not making this up: it’s in Islam’s most sacred books (Qur’an, Hadith).”

      Indeed. In fact, a close reading of islamic texts reveals that Islam started out – in part at least – as a divine justification for Muhammad’s personal enrichment. In islamic holy books, it is written that a part of the looted treasure is always to be given to Mohammad, and by his death Muhammad was the richest person in whole of Arabia.

      “Islamist aggression against Europe would last… to this day. ”

      And we are seeing it all over the Western Europe.

      “So how come so many in the European intellectual class are Islamophiliacs (Islam lovers, my neologism)?
      It has to do with whom has profited from Islamophilia.
      [First part, to be continued and posted as an essay on my site… PA]”

      Looking forward to it!

      • Muhammad also stole wives. Not just from enemies (including a famous case with a Jewish woman), but also from his companion (there again, there is a famous example, the evocation of which generally drives Islamists crazy…)

  2. […] Picard in Defense Issues: [There is] “a danger of knowing facts without context. It is a fact that Israel is bombing Palestine: but context is that they are only doing it in self-defense. It is a fact that Europe had colonized Islamic world: but context is that said colonialism was merely an act of self-defense against Islamic aggression. It was very successful self-defense as well, forcing Islam to fight against infidels on its own home turf, instead of coming over to fight in Europe.” […]

  3. Fred Thompson said

    This is appalling chauvinism and racist apologetics for slow-motion genocide. I enjoy your military analyses a lot but I have to say that as of late, your politics are degenerating into a sort of ultra-reactionary waste dump. The fact is that Israel is programmatically dedicated to colonialism, racism and state terror not for reasons of “security” but for reasons of Jewish supremacism that hark back to the early writings and pronouncements of the founders of Israel. It’s getting nauseating reading these apologetics, Picard, especially given that you fully acknowledge the existence of American imperialism, which one would think might preclude you from such massive blinds spot when it comes to Israel (a mercenary state with long links to anti-communist violence, settler-colonial violence in the form of its own repression and crimes against Palestinians and its support for apartheid South Africa, and its status as essentially an arm of American hi-tech industry).

    There’s nothing at all hypothetical about Israeli colonialism. Anyone who places quotation marks around the word is effectively acting as an apologist for theistic land theft. Equating Palestine and Palestinians with “Islam” and designating that as the cause of Israeli violence and terror is short-sighted at best, horrifically racist, chauvinist and Orientalist at worst. Israel has deployed violence regardless of the mode and politics of Palestinian resistance: whether the latter was pacifist, liberal, religious-conservative, or Marxist-Leninist, the policies regarding how to keep the Palestinians from “raising their heads” have never significantly deviated. Therefore, Islam cannot be “the cause” for Israeli colonialism and terror, especially since Israel 1) initially favored the rise of Hamas as a counter-weight to the secular Fatah group; 2) is a de facto ally of Saudi Arabia, the most religious extremist Islamist regime on Earth; 3) is lending assistance to Islamists in Syria, right on its border. I hope that your next post won’t be calling for the overthrow of Assad or for an American-Israeli attack on Iran.

    “Anti-white” is just a convenient go-to cliche that “alt-right” (fascist), conservative and man-brat commentators use to obviate the need for any structural analysis of how their own favored policies necessarily must result in violence against non-whites which far outweighs the violence they cite against white people. This “former pro-Palestinian reporter” is now just a garbage monster for reaction and racial xenophobia, and whose favored policies are absolutely guaranteed to feed and sustain Islamism and Islamist terrorism. He seems not to know much at all about Israel and the nature of its violence, the thoroughly colonial nature of the Israeli state and its policies, deeds and doctrines, the historical role of Israel and its relationship with the United States and imperialism more generally, or of the political spectrum of Palestinian resistance. To these reactionary imperial chauvinists, the only thing that matters is “Islam” and whether liberals are being “anti-white”.

    • picard578 said

      I do support Plestinians having their own country. But fact is that Israel is basically under siege. Israel is the only non-islamic country in the region, it is literally surrounded by muslims, and that is a problem because antisemitism is inherent in Islam. In fact, Nazis took quite a few cues from Islam itself, and it is written in one of Islamic holy texts (Hadith, I think) that the Judgment day will not come as long as the Jews exist… which is to say, Jews have to be exterminated for Paradise to come down to Earth.

      I am aware of Israeli imperialism. But fact is that much like earlier European imperialism, Israeli imperialism is de facto a defensive one. European imperialism started because of Islam, and in large part – starting with Crusades – was directly defensive. The basic logic behind it was “if you can control it, it cannot harm you”. Of course, it did not stay there, it evolved into exploitation. Same thing is with Israel. They are being forced to develop into an imperial power in order to defend themselves. Does that make it right? Definetly not. But israeli imperialistic policies such as building a wall and creating Jewish settlements in Palestine are aimed at creating a buffer zone towards Israel itself, much like Roman Empire used to do. It is a form of imperialism, but originated from a need for safety.

      And do keep in mind that the original article was written by a pro-Palestinian reporter who did a 180-degree turn and became pro-Israeli. I suggest that you read it. I have gone through similar experience myself. Besides, two wrongs don’t make it a right. Fact that I despise US imperialism is no reason to support islamic imperialism. There is a lot of blame to go around in the Middle East. Israelis are not exactly innocent, but neither are Palestinians. Both sides had refused the US plan for dividing Palestine, and Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas have made it no secret that they want to destroy Israel itself. Both sides have refused any possibility of a peaceful settlement.

      You want to see slow-motion genocide, take a look at what is happening in Europe right now. Europe is well on its way to become an islamic continent. And “anti-white” is definetly not a cliche, not when you take a look at what is happening from outside the liberal bubble. Multiculturalism is being forced only onto white lands. In Africa it is a result of European colonialism, but it is not being actively forced at the moment. In Asia, it is not being forced at all.

      • Fred Thompson said

        “Israel is the only non-islamic country in the region, it is literally surrounded by muslims, and that is a problem because antisemitism is inherent in Islam. In fact, Nazis took quite a few cues from Islam itself, and it is written in one of Islamic holy texts (Hadith, I think) that the Judgment day will not come as long as the Jews exist… which is to say, Jews have to be exterminated for Paradise to come down to Earth.”

        Firstly, Israel is a de facto ally of the most notorious anti-Semites in the region, namely the Saudi regime and the jihadis in Syria. Its enemy Iran is actually very tolerant of Judaism and even built a monument to its Jewish soldiers who died during the Iran-Iraq war. Even Hamas acknowledges Jews as “people of the book”. The Syrian state, a religious pluralist and secular state which Israel is busily undermining by conducting air strikes against it and mending jihadis to send back into Syria to behead civilians, is unable even to take back the Golan Heights. Secondly, Hitler took far more cues from American frontier expansionism and from Christian motifs than from Islam. Third, hadiths are not binding on all Muslims, and Islam is rife with division and different interpretations of holy texts (and which ones even count as holy texts). Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not derived from Islam but from his own view of Jesus as a victim of the Jewish “vipers” and of Jesus as a “fighter” against these Jews. Hitler spoke of himself as doing the “Lord’s work”. That Muslims have had similar inclinations does not therefore mean that Hitler derived his policies from Islam. The two are simply separate instances of Antisemitism. The extermination of European Jews by the Nazis was a historical culmination of Christian white supremacism and colonialism against the backdrop of a bruised imperial ego being funneled through the path of least resistance: the old European motif of Jew-baiting.

        “I am aware of Israeli imperialism. But fact is that much like earlier European imperialism, Israeli imperialism is de facto a defensive one.”

        Far from being defensive, Israeli aggression is essentially just a luxury afforded by the umbrella of American imperialism. Israel often does things that the US would rather it not do (because they make the US look bad since the US is the one providing the planes and bombs), but ultimately the relationship between the two countries is akin to that of a parent and a spoiled child who is (lightly) reprimanded from time to time but is then rewarded with more toys. Israel actively creates problems for itself through its lunatic behavior that it then uses as the reason for more lunatic behavior (the technical term for this that is used by Israeli political and military officials is “creating a fait accompli” by “creating facts on the ground”).

        “They are being forced to develop into an imperial power in order to defend themselves. Does that make it right? Definitely not. But Israeli imperialistic policies such as building a wall and creating Jewish settlements in Palestine are aimed at creating a buffer zone towards Israel itself, much like Roman Empire used to do. It is a form of imperialism, but originated from a need for safety.”

        Really, I don’t see what sort of a “buffer zone” some self-entitled settlers are going to provide. When Israel withdraw most of its forces from Gaza it also made sure to stage a “national tragedy”, where crying settlers were forcibly removed by the IDF in front of the TV cameras so that the media could thunder “never again” and Israel could paint itself as the victim. Many of these settlers are Orthodox Jews who themselves refuse to serve in the military, but expect to be protected by the IDF. These areas are, if anything, a drain on Israeli resources, such as the military forces that have to be permanently stationed to keep these people safe. They are also a massive moral drain on Israel which has seen much of its Jewish support in the US and other places (as well as its non-Jewish support) ebb and decline. Many Israel soldiers who have served in the Occupied Territories themselves refuse to serve in them again.

        • picard578 said

          “Firstly, Israel is a de facto ally of the most notorious anti-Semites in the region, namely the Saudi regime and the jihadis in Syria. Its enemy Iran is actually very tolerant of Judaism and even built a monument to its Jewish soldiers who died during the Iran-Iraq war. ”

          I know full well that politicians have no brains. But politicians are not the country… no matter what they might think.

          “Even Hamas acknowledges Jews as “people of the book”.”

          That doesn’t mean as much as you think. In Islam, both Jews and Christians are acknowledged as the “people of the book”, which in political terms basically means that they should be enslaved and not outright exterminated. To Islam, all non-Muslims are the enemies.

          “Secondly, Hitler took far more cues from American frontier expansionism and from Christian motifs than from Islam.”

          Actually, he took cues mostly from notions of “master people”, and very much preferred paganism to Christianity. He did have a lot of respect for Islam though, seeing it as a war ideology far more fit for his needs than comparatively pacifist Christianity.

          “Third, hadiths are not binding on all Muslims, and Islam is rife with division and different interpretations of holy texts (and which ones even count as holy texts).”

          I am well aware of that. Problem is that Islam itself has dualistic ethics, which means that *all* interpretations of said holy texts are valid… while at the same time “unbeliever” is merely the one who does not “toe the party line”. Hence constant inter-Islamic warfare. Also, Islam is mostly based off the life of Muhammad – Qur’an alone is not enough – and Muhammad himself became steadily more violent with age.

          “Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not derived from Islam but from his own view of Jesus as a victim of the Jewish “vipers” and of Jesus as a “fighter” against these Jews. Hitler spoke of himself as doing the “Lord’s work”.”

          Hitler’s hatred of Jews was based primarily on the fact that they were people without a country, same reason he went after Gypsies as well. Also, I might say I am a Martian… doesn’t mean I am; this might be a good read:
          http://www.equip.org/article/was-hitler-a-christian/

          Basically, Hitler believed himself a Christian, but he was actually a cultist, a heretic. Makes me wish that there was an active Inquisition in Germany at the time, he would have gotten burnt at stake for his beliefs. Wether that would mean less people killed by Inquisition vs the Nazism, I don’t know.

          “The extermination of European Jews by the Nazis was a historical culmination of Christian white supremacism and colonialism against the backdrop of a bruised imperial ego being funneled through the path of least resistance: the old European motif of Jew-baiting.”

          Actually, it is nothing like that. First, “Christian white supremacism” never existed. White supremacism did exist and was used to justify European colonialism. But while it did, sometimes, work in accord with Christianity, it was not a fundamentally Christian phenomenon. Christianity itself is quite globalist set of beliefs, “all humans are children of God” and all that, and albeit Bible itself supports ethnic nationalism – it was the God who created the ethnic groups – it does not support any kind of racial “supremacism” (national supremacism of Israel in the Old Testament, maybe, but that is quite different from “white supremacism”). It is true that anti-Semitism has, at least partly, roots in Christianity, and cause of that is basically the same as the cause of Islam’s anti-semitism. But whereas Christian anti-semitism is not codified but rather extrapolated, and could thus take many forms or even not appear at all, Islamic anti-semitism is codified in holy texts of Islam.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: