Sunday, March 16, 2008
Richard Landes has a lengthy piece exploring the connection following some reactions by his academic colleagues: Mercaz Harav And The G-Word. Yes, there is still seriousness in academia:
...In sum, SPME's statement struck many thoughtful people who are by no means hostile to the State of Israel as loose talk that both discredits the organization and debases the language in ways that do not serve to benefit either a responsible and free society or the Jews.
I must confess that I too, upon first reading the statement found it excessive in its rhetoric, unnecessarily insistent that the reader share the writer's indignation at this wanton slaughter, but that they also assent to a "reading" of the conflict that drew sides in black and white. But as I read the objections, in particular the comparison with Baruch Goldstein - whose name Alan Weisbard is justifiably loath even to mention - I became increasingly convinced that the statement, rather than immoderate in its rhetoric, had only missed a critical step of reasoning that many of us on the board of SPME have already made, even if reluctantly and with much regret.
The missing piece here lies in the culture that produced this deed. Anyone who doubts that Palestinian culture, both "secular" (i.e., Fatah, Palestinian Authority) and religious (Hamas, Jihad Islami) has terrifying genocidal tendencies must visit the site of Palestinian Media Watch. There one finds documented in every aspect of public culture, from sermons on TV and educational programs to crosswords, sports, and children's programs, a culture steeped in genocidal hatreds...
This is the evil that the mainstream -- advocacy groups, media, government, non-government -- refuse to face, because the implications are too grave and difficult, as Landes addresses in the piece. It's one of the important questions of our times.
"This is the evil that the mainstream -- advocacy groups, media, government, non-government -- refuse to face, because the implications are too grave and difficult,"
Well, it stands in contrast to the sentimental fallacy which people like to believe, described by Bertrand Russell as "The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed". People feel extreme, exclusive pity for those they deem "oppressed" and like to attribute their choice of pity to their moral discernment by bestowing upon the object of their pity some sainthood.
In the case of the massive support for Palestinians, there is simply an adamant refusal to understand what's really going on; the genocidal will is firmly and doggedly located in the side they see as "oppressed". This simple and easily verifiable factor is pooh-poohed away as a legitimate response to oppression.
The questions that they need to ask is in what way are the Palestinians oppressed, or are they indeed oppressed, with 400 million Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims behind them, which fully and unswervingly legitimize Palestinian aspirations to annihilate Israel and her 5.5 million Jews?