In the aftermath of the suicide bombing in Eilat, the kumbayista community (not to mention the Israel-haters) have spared no effort to say how “there is hatred on both sides”, hatred that needs to stop if there is to be any chance of peace. Presumably, drumming and chants and other tried-and-true tactics of the 1960's can “heal the rift between the Israelis and the Palestinians” and make the conflict history. But enough of ranting about the hopelessly naïve, and on to refuting their main thesis.
First off, it’s actually true there is hatred on both sides; but—and that’s the crucial, oft-overlooked point—it’s not the same kind of hatred. I hate the Muslims (not “Palestinians”) for what they perpetrate against us, and the latest event only fuels my hatred, but it must not be overlooked that if the hostilities against us were to cease, I would cease hating them. That’s a very important difference between Israeli Jews’ hatred toward their enemies and the converse.
[...]
The Muslims of the West (Europe and Israel, for example) have standards of living there that their brethren in the Middle East hell-holes can only dream of. Do they, then, live normally? (I’m not talking about showing gratitude—that’s really too much to expect.) Not a chance. Not in Britain, not in Australia, not anywhere. Wherever they live, far from integrating to their host society, they do everything to lower it to their 7th-century level. And they hate, hate, hate their non-Muslim hosts, not because of any “legitimate grievance”, but because they believe they are to dominate and not to be dominated. Their religion commands them to harbor and show everlasting hatred toward the other, no matter the circumstances. Greater a contrast between two types of hatred there could not be.
[...]
In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
3 comments:
Something in the post I just got thinking about... an anticipation of a possible gripe:
The part where I say, "We Jews do not turn the other cheek; we are commanded to hate our enemies. But we are to cease hating them once they have repented, and we are not to hate sons for the deeds of their fathers" (and so on to the end of the paragraph) wasn't meant as a jab at the famous Christian teaching (which I know doesn't apply to states, only to individuals); it's to say that, although we don't turn the other cheek, we aren't into perpetual, individually-executed vengeance like the Muslims are. Just to tell you the thought-process that went into writing that part.
G-d bless.
ZY
ZY,
There are a lot of Christians who take the turn the other cheek thing way too far.
It is, as you say, meant to be a personal challenge that the individual is supposed to work out with His God on an everyday basis. It is not to say that we ought to abandon all civilization and culture for the sake of "peace" and leave our children living in barbarism.
I know, Pasto. I remember, some time around the Pope Benedict XVI Byzantine Emperor Quote Affair, an assembly of Catholic cardinals made an announcement about the need for demanding reciprocation from the Muslims, and titled it, "Enough about turning the other cheek!", no less.
Most religions have some problem in this fight. A Hindu, for example, may have to deal with ahimsa. For all parties, the reasoning "X is not a suicide pact" should be employed.
G-d bless.
ZY
Post a Comment