FrontPage magazine.com :: Apocalyptic Muslim Jew Hatred by Andrew G. Bostom
See the long article that puts Islamic theology and eschatology at the core of the intense anti-semitism behind Hizbollah and Hamas.
I wonder what Karen Armstrong says about this. Frontpage is always aggressively pro-Israel, but I don't assume that its articles of this nature are inaccurate for that reason.
4 comments:
Whereas you do assume anything in the Palestinian media is suspect.
I don't think the Lebanese need to be antisemitic to feel that Israel is a rogue state targeting their civilian population. Apparently the US has given them the green light for a week more of destruction.(in the Guardian today)
I've been waiting for your professional opinion on the legality of the Israeli actions. I can't get my head around a nation like Israel that was born out of their own terrorist opposition to oppression thinking that this is a solution. (For balance I should say that what is being done against Israel is provocative, stupid and evil. Israel's response is also provocative, stupid and evil.)
As you say, there is little good news out there.
geoff
Geoff: I was starting to worry you had stopped reading because of my ill informed but persistent bias against Karen Armstrong and (it would appear) nearly everything Islam.
The last line of my post was deliberate bait this time. If it makes someone comment, I feel better at least for showing I have a readership of sorts.
As for doubting stuff in the Palestinian media: well, as far as Arab media goes, I have been surprised by the moderate-ish nature of the stuff on the al-jazeera site. But, generally, isn't there a good argumentfor having a high degree of scepticism for a lot the media from nations which do nothing at all about the conintuing regurgitation of the Protocols of Zion (including via recent TV series?)
The point of the Frontpage story was also about Hizbollah and Hamas ideology in particular, certainly not that of the entire Islamic population of Lebanon. (There has been much comment about how a lot of the Lebanese would like Hizbollah to go.)
As for legality: modern conflict is extremely murky on this, if you mean it as a stictly legal question. No one seems to question the Israeli right to take some action; how much is the question. (Continuing to shoot missiles into Israeli territory doesn't help build a "legal" case against it either.)
The only encouraging thing to come out of the conflict is that most commentators seem to agree that the Arab response has been very muted, indicating a possible permanent fracture in (what I think) was a former united front in support of the terrorist militias.
Certainly action to prevent missile launches from Lebanon was justified (Gaza is another matter). The question is what do you do. Israel's options were to support the efforts of the Lebanese to follow up their expulsion of the Syrians with a delicate act of working on Hezbollah while not provoking civil war in Lebanon or bombing the whole country into the stoneage to make sure that Israel is never safe for the forseeable future. Isn't it amazing that we are praising Arab forbearance over Israel's targetting of civilian targets and collective punishment in a sovereign nation.
That Frontpage site is a real horror - have you seen the T shirts they sell - my God.
I've been away a couple of weeks and then very busy. I'm still reading - by the way, I did take the intended offence over Leunig. His biases are those of classic Catholic moral ethics. As a relativist, I'm resigned to everyone having their biases, but insist they acknowledge their own.
Sorry, did you mean my post about Leunig caused offence, or the Leunig cartoon itself?
As to the Israeli response, given the large numbers of missiles, and uncertain response at the start of it all, I thought it made sense that they bomb supply lines from Syria. (The major highways, eg.) Whether the port or airport ever had anything to do with that, I don't know. Certainly, Fisk claimed the airport was secure and safe like a normal Western one. (Not that I trust his accuracy much.) I thought that the airport bombing might have something to do with preventing the captured soldiers from being flown out, although if that was the sole purpose that is a drastic step admittedly.
Also, is there any military co-use of the airport? Or possibility that Syria or Iran would use to fly in aid to Lebanon? Just how many airports are there in Lebanon? It doesn't hurt to make it difficult for Lebanon to judge if it is a long term thing or not. Apart from bombing fuel tanks and the runways, did they do any damage to terminals etc? If not, I suspect the airport can be repaired relatively quickly at the end of a short campaign.
As to ports: similar questions.
Power stations near Beirut: much harder to avoid the description of collective punishment. I read somewhere that the US warned them off doing too many of them. Did they only do one?
Anyway, there's no way it could be fairly described as a "bombing back to the stoneage" if you actually meant that was a fair description of the damage caused by the current campaign. If you think that is a fair term already, I would warn you off a mid life career change into diplomacy.
Post a Comment