An Unholy Marriage

Pages: 1 2

One of the most profound conundrums of our time is the passionate love affair carried on by the young inheritors of the liberal and presumably enlightened West with the totalitarian specimens of the Arab Middle East. They tend to be meltingly soft on Islam—the “religion of peace”—and, obviously, the chief beneficiaries of their misplaced adoration are the Palestinians. Our fellow travelers arrive in the Middle East’s ideological swamp where the terrorists eagerly await them, like crocodiles passing the mustard. Why Western advocates for justice, peace and democracy, as they like to style themselves, believe it could be otherwise almost beggars comprehension.

Is it a case of chronic and pervasive brain cramp among a media-and university-indoctrinated class of adolescent donzels, fueled by the faux idealism of miseducated youth? Today’s youth, as is common knowledge, is mainly oriented toward the dreamscape of the utopian left, which sees reality as a binomial construct: evil here in the world we inhabit, good there in the world to come. And the glorious world to come is already prefigured in Gaza and the West Bank where revolutionary “heroes” fight against tyrannical oppression in the name of freedom and justice. Thus a cohort of our young people, accompanied in many instances by their stunted elders, cluster under the banner of a spurious humanitarianism and sail away or troop off to join their imagined partners in the quest for a better future.

Or does it go deeper than merely arrested development? Is Jamie Glazov right in his analysis of the constitutive factors of leftist utopian thinking, which he regards as predicated on the loss of a sustaining identity or, essentially the same thing in its effect, the repudiation of an unwanted self? According to Glazov, there arises as a result a compelling need to fill the vacancy by committing to a large and powerful collective that promises to restore a sense of meaning, purpose and value to the empty shell of an absconding or rejected self. “This psychological dynamic,” Glazov writes, “involves negative identification whereby a person who has failed to identify positively with his own environment subjugates his individuality to a powerful, authoritarian entity, through which he vicariously experiences a feeling of power and purpose.” As Erich Fromm points out in his definitive study of the integrals of self-abdication, Escape From Freedom, what we are witnessing is the “craving for power over men and the longing for submission to an overwhelmingly strong outside power.” The paradox is only apparent.

More likely, the various elements we are considering are not mutually exclusive but readily combine in an explosive mixture of immaturity, ignorance, and surrender of the will, leavened by the illusion of noble self-sacrifice to a higher cause. And today that cause is chiefly associated with the blatantly false Palestinian narrative of historical innocence, brutal victimization at the hands of Zionist irredentism, and the justification of terrorism under the name of “resistance.” A potent and ever-serviceable strain of antisemitism, cloaking itself as anti-Zionism, also plays into this malignant amalgam of righteous vindictiveness. The callowness of youth prolonged, the emptiness of the self and the ancestral hostility toward Jews together form the principal ingredients of this devil’s brew.

Take for example the “martyred” 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, a member of the antisemitic International Solidarity Movement, who threw herself in front of an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza where she was protesting the demolition of a terrorist’s house. Corrie, recently the subject of a venomously anti-Israeli play co-written by Guardian editor Katherine Viner, has become the antisemite’s answer to Anne Frank, the new suffering heroine who, as the putative victim of the Jewish state, cancels out the Jewish claim to the world’s sympathy and understanding. The fact that Corrie’s death was self-inflicted in the service of a dubious and ill-considered cause, and under circumstances that have been cleverly manipulated to appeal to the uninstructed “morality” of a gullible public, is of no account to the antisemitic left. In fact, it is its modus operandi.

The left’s response to the fate of Corrie’s successor was equally “correct” and opportunistic. When, on August 10, 2006, 24-year-old Angelo Frammartino was stabbed to death by a Palestinian Arab in East Jerusalem, the NGO he worked for, ARCI (or Active Citizenship Network), issued a statement describing the incident, not as “a terrorist attack, or a manifestation of ethnic hatred” but as “a worrying symptom of the ever-worsening socioeconomic crisis in the marginalized areas of East Jerusalem.” The idiocy of this whitewash was only enhanced by the irony of a letter Frammartino had sent to an Italian newspaper several months earlier in which he regretted, among other things, “the blood of Palestinian youths from the first intifada.”

Similarly, a group going by the name of The Palestinian Civil Society Organizations exonerated the killer by laying the blame on Israel, rehashing the usual boilerplate of “massacres against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians” and “grave human rights violations committed by the Israeli Occupation.” The killer was plainly so upset by the Israelis that he decided to murder an Italian. These muddled equations constitute standard reasoning in the minds of the Palestinians’ besotted suitors.

Pages: 1 2

  • bob maram

    liberal jews who have unholy alliances with enemies of israel are entering political marriages with strange bedfellows and are susceptible to strange diseases including those that can be fatal. please my fellow jews wear moral and protective condoms when having your left wing political affairs.

  • jzsnake

    Once again I believe Corrie was a useful idiot but I have never seen it documented that she threw herself in front of the bulldozer. We do not have to stoop to lies like the left wing do we?

    • HLD
    • PhillipGaley

      So dimly as I remember, the footage which I saw, was of her standing in front of it, . . .

      • Rifleman

        Yep, a woman under 5'6" in front of an armored D-8 with a 7ft blade. It's even dumber than that idiot that sat on the tracks in front of the train carrying those nukes that time. She was an America hating terrorist jockstrap, but she probably died from ignorance of earth moving equipment. Still, unlike many of those murdered by those she aided and died for, she chose it. That infant her comrades slaughtered never got to make a real choice of any kind.

  • g_jochnowitz

    Andrei S. Markovits, writing in the relatively progressive magazine Dissent, said in the Winter 2005 issue, “A new European (and American) commonality for all lefts—a new litmus test of progressive politics—seems to have developed: anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism (though not anti-Semitism, at least not yet).”
    Here are some further thoughts of mine on the subject: http://www.jochnowitz.net/Essays/AntiSemitism.htm

  • JosephWiess

    It's because Liberals have a mental disorder that prevents them from seeing what's right in front of them, including the wolf that will rip out their throats.

    • http://www.crusaderknight.blogspot.com James Pawlak

      Please translate the following into modern Hebrew for me: "Kill them all, G_d will know his own!"

  • nunyainct

    Unfortunately, Liberal indoctrination excoriates Conservative principles while glorifying diversity and multiculturalism. All cultures are perceived as equal, which they are not. As stated above, Utopia is a fantasy and by design and can never be reality. This perfect fantasy place will always be, fantasy. Liberals say they are for diversity, human rights, rights for gays, a just and impartial legal system, equality of the sexes and all these things are absent in Islamic countries. Shariah law condones the beating of women, the stoning of women to death, beheading of homosexuals, women are considered property, always throughout their lives. The cotillion dance between Liberals and Islamists is dangerously naive and potentially deadly.

  • PJG

    When I was a teacher (not for long) I noticed that compared to my own education when we were asked to "discuss" a topic when writing an essay, kids are now expected to have an opinion and argue it forcefully. I felt this is wrong, because if kids form strong opinions too early in life they tend to hang on to them from sheer pride. Of course, not only are kids expected to have strong opinions, they are pretty much told exactly which strong opinions to hold.

  • http://www.howtosaveamarriageincrisis.com/ save relationship

    Fantastic site. A lot of helpful info here. I’m sending it to some pals ans additionally sharing in delicious. And obviously, thanks on your effort!