Lost In Translation

This entire essay was an attempt to rationalize or, create a false moral equivalency between statements made by opposing political leaders. It was not very effective. Here is the counter-point:
Statements made by Iran and Hezbollah to “wipe the Zionist cancer off the map” are not equivalent to Israel warning Hammas to stop shooting rockets into its civilian centers OR ELSE!, Mitchell spends his effort trying to define “or else” rather then trying to correctly delineate the circumstances. He says that the President of Iran is not capable of following through with his threat and therefore, his threat should be devalued if not ignored. Nonetheless, Iran’s genocidal threat is a per-se violation of the United Nations charter, whereas Israel’s warning is what any country might issue if under rocket attack. Is there any doubt what the USA might do if Mexican missiles were landing in San Antonio? Some of these “peacenik” countries such as Switzerland, or Norway, would react exactly the same as Israel–if not with greater force. The problem intensifies and Israel is exemplified because in the minds of its critics, Israel sits on illegally usurped Arab land to begin with. Therefore, it lacks the same right to defend those borders since those borders are considered illegitimate. The same holds true re: the security wall. The wall itself is not what bothers its critics as much as the borders which the wall exclaims.
Which brings us back to square one. The nature of the dispute and its origins.
Many Islamic theologians believe the Qur~an commands that: “no two religions will come together in the Arabian peninsula”. This is the core nature of the “holy war” against Israel and also, to a slightly different degree, against Lebanon. Lebanon has solved its ongoing problems by slowly giving concessions and thereby postponing the conflict. Also, as a Catholic nation, Lebanon has had the benefit of backing from other Catholic powers and to some degree also from the Vatican. Minimally, Lebanon is seen as a different situation because, frankly, it is not a Jewish question or problem. Israel has chosen to hold its ground and fight. That is what this is all about. Its not about rockets or threats or warnings. Its not about Iran or Hezbollah or Hammas or Abbas. Its about the affront to Islam (and pan-Arab nationalism) which is posed by any religion other then Islam or any nationality other then Arabian. So has it been since the beginning. And so may it be for the entire world, eventually. To their great misfortune, Israel is on the front lines. For that they should be pitied, not condemned.

1 people reacted on this

Isidor Farash {a.k.a. Prof. Cornelius deBusse Trollstein} says:

March 2, 2008 at 6:17 am

This entire essay was an attempt to rationalize or, create a false moral equivalency between statements made by opposing political leaders. It was not very effective. Here is the counter-point:
Statements made by Iran and Hezbollah to “wipe the Zionist cancer off the map” are not equivalent to Israel warning Hammas to stop shooting rockets into its civilian centers OR ELSE!, Mitchell spends his effort trying to define “or else” rather then trying to correctly delineate the circumstances. He says that the President of Iran is not capable of following through with his threat and therefore, his threat should be devalued if not ignored. Nonetheless, Iran’s genocidal threat is a per-se violation of the United Nations charter, whereas Israel’s warning is what any country might issue if under rocket attack. Is there any doubt what the USA might do if Mexican missiles were landing in San Antonio? Some of these “peacenik” countries such as Switzerland, or Norway, would react exactly the same as Israel–if not with greater force. The problem intensifies and Israel is exemplified because in the minds of its critics, Israel sits on illegally usurped Arab land to begin with. Therefore, it lacks the same right to defend those borders since those borders are considered illegitimate. The same holds true re: the security wall. The wall itself is not what bothers its critics as much as the borders which the wall exclaims.
Which brings us back to square one. The nature of the dispute and its origins.
Many Islamic theologians believe the Qur~an commands that: “no two religions will come together in the Arabian peninsula”. This is the core nature of the “holy war” against Israel and also, to a slightly different degree, against Lebanon. Lebanon has solved its ongoing problems by slowly giving concessions and thereby postponing the conflict. Also, as a Catholic nation, Lebanon has had the benefit of backing from other Catholic powers and to some degree also from the Vatican. Minimally, Lebanon is seen as a different situation because, frankly, it is not a Jewish question or problem. Israel has chosen to hold its ground and fight. That is what this is all about. Its not about rockets or threats or warnings. Its not about Iran or Hezbollah or Hammas or Abbas. Its about the affront to Islam (and pan-Arab nationalism) which is posed by any religion other then Islam or any nationality other then Arabian. So has it been since the beginning. And so may it be for the entire world, eventually. To their great misfortune, Israel is on the front lines. For that they should be pitied, not condemned.

Loading...

Comments are closed.

Lost In Translation

Share this:

Like this:

1 people reacted on this

Discover more from