|  |
|
"Oppression and persecution cannot exterminate us. No nation on earth has survived such struggles and sufferings as we have gone through. [White-hating] has merely stripped off our weaklings; the strong among us were invariably true to their race when persecution broke out against them...Those [whites] who were advanced intellectually and materially entirely lost the feeling of belonging to their race." In the above paragraph
I changed "Jew-baiting," to "White-hating," and "Jews,"
to "whites" and I left out a few sentences that weren't relevant, but
the rest is as it |
| While Zionism set forth the philosophical foundation for the establishment of Israel, there are basic questions presented by the founding of Israel that involve the founding of the United States as well. We might ask, for example: Who has the "right" to any nation size piece of land? Is it the people who are there now? Is it the people who were there before them? How is it determined who shall own the land and make it theirs? The
answer in ancient times is the same as the answer today: those who take and hold
the land have the right to the land. It is a right born of might and nothing else,
even though there are all sorts of rationales that are always posited to give
the color of authority to the right. It is a brutal truth, but it is nature's
law played out in human societies, as surely as it is played out in ant colonies.
Might makes right in the Middle East and might makes right in America and in virtually
every other nation on Earth. No nation and no people have been free from claims
on their land made by other peoples. Sometimes, those previously in the nation
had more might and sent the invaders scurrying. At other times they didn't, and
then what was theirs become the property of those who wanted it. |
was
written by Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, in his book "The Jewish
State." Zionism is the movement to find and take land in order to establish
a Jewish state. The U. N. has called Zionism, racism, a charge that is usually
vehemently denied by Zionists. However, I don't have to tell conscious non-Jewish
white European-Americans that had one of their number written the first paragraph
above, he or she would be called a racist. |
First, let's dismiss, as irrelevant, Limbaugh's assertion that none of the countries around Israel are democracies. Whether they are or aren't democracies isn't relevant to anything other than to serve as a rationale for a knee jerk sort of propaganda that tries to bond America to Israel because both are democracies. And, what
about the rest of Limbaugh's statement "Since 1948, Israel has been forced
to fight 4 wars with the hostile nations surrounding her. Despite defeating her
enemies on the battlefield, the international community has never permitted Israel
to completely destroy any of these regimes..."? Such a statement begs for
a foundation. Instead of doing this by supplying more background details, Limbaugh
continues the propaganda game and simply lets that statement sit out there to
ensnare the minds of those incapable of critical thinking. The questions he should
have asked and answered for readers are "Why has Israel been forced to fight
4 wars? Why since 1948? Why are the nations around Israel hostile to Israel? Why
won't the international community permit Israel to completely destroy any of these
regimes?" |
Pop-conservative
Rush Limbaugh wrote a column the other day entitled "Unleash Israel and Win
Peace." In this column, we read the following: "Since 1948, Israel has
been forced to fight 4 wars with the hostile nations surrounding her. Despite
defeating her enemies on the battlefield, the international community has never
permitted Israel to completely destroy any of these regimes--none of which are
democracies."| Limbaugh doesn't answer these rhetorical questions, either because he doesn't want to, or because he didn't ask them of himself. Instead, he sidesteps into fuming against terrorists. Without answers to these questions, the situation in the Middle East doesn't make much sense to those who want to know WHY things are the way they are. Here's a brief timeline background that Limbaugh could have incorporated in his column and which would have shed some light on the situation, instead of just pushing one point of view. In 1895, Palestine had a population of about 500,000 people. Of these, about 47, 000 or only 9.4% were Jews. In 1896, Theodore Herzl, who had been born in Budapest and who then moved to Germany, set the foundations for Zionism in his aforementioned book, "The Jewish State." In this book, Herzl wrote about creating a Jewish state either in Argentina or in Palestine. In 1906, The Zionist Congress decided on Palestine. In 1948, (the date mentioned by Limbaugh) Zionists proclaimed the State of Israel on land "owned" by the Palestinians. In response, Arab armies attacked. In 1949, a cease fire was called. At this time, the Zionists had taken over about 77% of the land of Palestine and forced more than a million Palestinians out of their country. The fight for Palestine has been going on ever since. Today, Israel demands that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist. For the most part, the Palestinians consider Israel an artificially created nation that is on their land, and refuse to acknowledge it has a right to exist there. They claim this right by having been there before the Zionists came and took it over.
Therefore, the equivalence between Israel and the U.S. is not really one based on the fact that they're both democracies, but on the fact that they're both recently invented artificial nations in the sense that the dominant people in these lands came to them from elsewhere, and with force of arms, took over the land from the people who were already there. Of course, as much could be said about almost every other nation on Earth, at some time or other, as all of them are populated by peoples who came to them from elsewhere and displaced earlier peoples, and often by force of arms. Those who have taken over other lands don't always win out, however. Take a look at Rhodesia and South Africa. Those lands were taken over by Europeans, and then eventually the original peoples took them back. Is there a lesson in Rhodesia and South Africa for the U.S. and Israel? You bet. Might doesn't ultimately refer to who has the biggest weapons, but to who has the highest birth rate and the greatest number of people. This doesn't bode well for Israel, as a state, because its situation is close to the one that was found in Rhodesia and South Africa in the sense that those who took the land were in the minority. Also, one of the bedrock reasons for founding Israel was so that the Jews could survive, as Jews, and not be absorbed into another, larger population. This mitigates against Israel being able to even try to use the current U.S. model for survival in which some wrongly believe that the U.S. will survive by absorbing very different peoples into its massive self. If Israel were to follow the U.S. melting pot model, then the very reason for Israel's existence will be gone, as the land and the people are absorbed into a much larger Arab population. In the U.S. by contrast, if the founding people--Europeans--are eradicated through intermarriage, then the U.S., at least in name, will "survive." In the U.S., the survival of the European peoples on these shores is even more tenuous than is the survival of Jews in Israel. This is so, because the Israelis see Israel as a Jewish nation. This has well defined parameters. Even though, because of the temper of our age, Israeli and Jew are no longer completely synonymous (which, if they were, many would consider as a de facto admission that Zionism is racism), the two terms are still more synonymous than American and White European in the U.S. today. In other words, there are some deep religious/philosophical/identity barriers against Israeli Jews--the us--of Israel, from being absorbed into the Arab masses--the them. These barriers serve to protect the integrity of Israel as a Jewish nation. In the U.S., by contrast, we are seeing a walking invasion of Third Worlders who instead of being resisted as "them" are being welcomed as "us," partly because of a lack of a strong sense of identity among the descendants of the founders of this nation--Europeans. This welcoming is furthered by the harmful national mind set in the U.S. born of clichés about this nation being a nation of immigrants and about it being a melting pot, and it is furthered by the notion that genes don't matter and that people are therefore, fungible.
In the U.S., those who took the land had the greater numbers, and there is little chance the American Indians, who have low numbers, a low birthrate, and a high rate of intermarriage with other groups, will ever be able to make credible demands that they should be given their land back, as the Arabs are demanding Palestine. However, there is a philosophical broadening and even a switching of who is "us" and who is "them" at work in the U.S. today that defines white people as them, and us as non-white people (and not just American Indians). Thus, it is not just American Indians who might demand the land back; but all non-white peoples siding with American Indians--as non-white brothers. Of course, such demands are less likely as Americans are absorbed into the Third World and as European-Americans are transformed into non-whites via intermarriage.
|
It
would seem that the Israelis and Palestinians are playing a Middle East version
of the old American Cowboys and Indians. In this case, however, the Cowboys are
using jet planes instead of repeating rifles, and the Indians are using human
bombs instead of bows and arrows. Just as in America, one side was already in
possession of the land and then the other side decided to take it over.
The
problem in the U. S. is that many of the Third Worlders now flocking to this nation
have not come to be assimilated into the American way of life--which, is seen
by many Third Worlders, as a white way of life--but to assimilate Americans into
their way of life. Unlike Israel, which was founded on a consciously strong sense
of Jewish identity and survival as Jews, the U.S. was not founded on a consciously
strong sense of European identity and survival as Europeans. Indeed, as already
mentioned, the U.S. seems to have been founded--at least it the modern telling--to
destroy any unique European identity.
| # # # |
|
|
