Popes, Despots, Americans And Jews
September 21, 2006
Why were Pope Benedict’s remarks considered so ‘politically insensitive’? Why were are the remarks made by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad at the United Nations considered alternative ‘political’ worldviews? Why is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seen as tortured ‘political’ issue only?
Simply stated, by clothing evil or immorality as ‘political,’ we make evil and immorality more palatable and at times, if packaged cleverly, evil and morality can become acceptable and even agreeable.
In portraying the Pope’s remarks at Regensberg as ‘politically’ extreme or ‘politically’ insensitive, the Church is put on the defensive, as if they and they alone, are responsible for the backlash in the Muslim world.
This morning, Fausta in Rage, Epictetus And Benedict, quotes the Muslim blogger, Iraq The Model (link at Fausta’s)
So why don’t we admit that the “other” is better than us at responding rationally when criticized? Why don’t we learn from others?
When we closed our ears to anything that doesn’t match our beliefs and refused all criticism wasn’t that enough reason for the deterioration of our civilization?
How is it that question is asked by a Muslim blogger and not by the media or even critics of the Church? How is it that even the most vociferous of Church critics or opinionated media editorialises, who want us to see the world through their moral eyes, ignore far more egregious statements made by some major Islamic religious figures?
When evil is presented as nothing more than alternative ‘political expression,’ it becomes acceptable to question the singular truth that defines America and the western democracies. The proponents of a particular agenda and the media compare the idea of bringing freedom and democracy to nations under the boot of repressive and dysfunctional regimes, as no more than a moral equivalent to those who would usurp freedom.
For decades, the Palestinians (and most of the Arab world) have done little, if anything, to conceal their contempt for Israel and Jews. Routinely, vicious anti Jewish and anti Christian expressions are ignored or dismissed by the agendistas and much of the media as ‘merely rhetoric.’
The Pope, America and Israel express politically unacceptable ‘racist’ ideologies, by demanding human rights, freedom and civilized behavior.
Everyone who else who expresses even the most vile hate,racism and bigotry are expending mere ‘political rhetoric’ and need not be taken seriously, even when the bigotry and hate lead to violence. When that happens of course, it is always the fault of the victim.
The classic example of that kind of upside down logic is the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the face of an onslaught of obvious one sided proclamations and unfairness in the UN, in the media, Israel has to defend herself for exercising the right of defending herself from the violence, racism and bigotry and hate that has become a part of the culture, education and religious expression of virtually all the Middle East.
Notwithstanding the stated desire for a ‘political solution,’ in the region, it is clear for anyone to see that when it comes to achieving that ‘political solution,’ violence is either acceptable or ignored when it comes to the media or the agendistas of the left. Americans are excoriated for sending military advisers to combat the Colombian drug trade- at the request of that nation, but groups that have blown up school buses filled with children, among other obscene acts of terror, are considered thoughtful and civilized.
There is another not so subtle distinction between the Israel-Palestine conflict and other territorial disputes. In virtually every other dispute, the object of mediation is to restore rights that are violated. Tibet, Kashmir, Sakhalin Islands and a myriad of other disputed territories are matters of real estate- no more, no less.
The Israel-Palestine issues are very different. Israel has accepted the rights of the Palestinians to establish their own state. Nevertheless, radical and not so radical Palestinians in both the religious and secular communities call for the destruction of the Israeli state. In addition, Palestinian media and religious expression clearly reinforces the idea that not only the political state is unacceptable, but the Jewish inhabitants are to be eliminated as well. Somehow, the agendistas of the left and the media ignore those kind of expressions.
Notwithstanding those truths, the Israelis have agreed to a two state solution, in the hope (and prayer) that a Palestinian state would behave responsibly and equitably. They are clearly willing to go a long way to make that idea work and enter negotiations with the Palestinians in the hope that despite the election of the rejectionist (and blatantly anti Jewish) Hamas, Palestinians really do want peace.
The Palestinians are equally clear. They have never given any mandate to their leaders to negotiate a peaceful solution. In fact, every Palestinian negotiating position that has even a remote chance in resulting in peace with the Israelis, has been met with resistance. Mass demonstrations opposing a settlement are de riguer, as are the charges of treason. Resignations are demanded of leaders who even appear to seek a resolution to the regional conflict. There is no peace movement, and the moderate voices among the Palestinians are repressed or extinguished by various Islamist or other hard line exterminationists.
Like it or not, that is the reality, and not even the agendistas or media can fully hide away those truths.
That highlights another truth. With whom shall the Israelis negotiate? Who speaks for the Palestinians? What guarantee does Israel have that a treaty would be honored by a new regime? That is not ‘rhetorical.’ The recently elected Hamas government have repeatedly made quite clear they have no intention of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence or honoring past agreements. The agendistas of the left and the media ignore those realities even as they make demands on Israel and her allies.
Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad, the Palestinians and much of the Arab world are representative examples of hard line ideologies adopted by failed and brutal regimes, all given credibility, gravitas and moral equivalence by the agendistas and a morally bankrupt media. For decades, the media have turned uncritical and blind eyes to the corruption, brutality and failed policies that have left hundreds of millions stripped of a present and future. They will not be forgiven or find redemption, easily.
In fact, it will takes decades to clean up the mess the failed and oppressive regimes have created. The infrastructure of new century will have to be brought to those who barely had the infrastructure of the last century. A culture of government responsibility, accountability and the preservation of real human rights and property (see this) are still unknown to most citizens of this planet.
Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad and all those who support the leaders of these failed and oppressive regimes, including the media, aren’t really progressives at all. In truth they are anti progressives, dedicated to fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo of corruption, incompetence, dysfunction and oppression.
While there is no shortage of the agendistas of the left or a deliberately biased media, their numbers do bestow upon then any kind of relevance or credibility. The civilized will not regress and support the ideologies of regimes that espouse hate and repression. It really is that simple.
As a troubled world looks for solutions, they overlook the straight line.
Unless and until those leaders that are the real anti progressives are repudiated, there will be no world peace. As long as the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad are accorded any kind of credibility, real peace and progress will elude us. As long as they demand the kind of ‘democracy’ abroad that supports their agenda, and they continue to deny even the most basic of freedoms at home, we will continue to live in a world of a many more ‘have-nots’ than ‘haves.’
Then again, outrageous expressions of hate, racism and bigotry have always sold newspapers.
The Anchoress too, sees the imbalance and inelegance of the media and the agendistas. Her post, Cap’n Goes Int’l, Hugo Goes Home, Press Goes Missing, is like fresh squeezed orange juice- no freezing, processing and with nothing added.
This clown comes to the United Nations, calls the American President a “devil,” (not that the religion-hating folks minded that – the irony!) and the other clowns in the room (whom we fund much-too-much) laugh and applaud, and it’s not a leading story the next day? Well. I guess we can quickly figure out that the “mediating intelligences” who determine what we will and will not see have decided that – for some reason – we’re better off not seeing the behavior of a pack of mad jackals…we might not want to continue funding them, or rushing to their aid when disaster strikes, you know? Or maybe, they figure the American public would look at yesterday’s very telling absurdities and say, “you don’t come to America and say that about her president…”
Rangel detailed earlier this week some of his “problems” with this president (Rangel is going to rescind every tax-cut he can, if the Dems win in ‘06), but he is exactly right – you don’t do what Chavez did. Good for Rangel.
Good heavens, even Nancy Pelosi – not the brightest meat cleaver in the pork store – has managed to figure out the right side of this issue. She calls Chavez “a thug”. Which is probably less harsh than some of the things she routinely calls Bush, but that’s okay. She’s an American; she can call the president names…
Much smarter than Clinton, it seems, who couldn’t work up a proper sense of umbrage, even as a former president.
Actually, that particular post really is chili-like. It gets better with a second reading.
So, the press is trying to go as quiet as possible on Hugo and the UN gigglers and Ahmadinejad – so beloved of Mike Wallace – didn’t come off too well, either. I said yesterday that a “smart” press “would bury” the Chavez and Ahmadinejad stories…
Yeah, that’s probably why the press has gone missing on a rather big story. They seem distracted, those “mediating intelligences,” and perhaps that’s why they missed the 35,000 people protesting Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN, a protest which included speakers such as John Bolton, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, New York Gov. George Pataki and Alan Dershowitz. That’s a pretty luminous bunch of speakers and a lot of people, but the intelligent ones mediated that we did not need to know about it. Meryl Yourish points out that the only paper to mention this large protest was the NY Sun.
The ummm…approximately 2,000, who showed up to protest President Bush and the Increasingly Popular Iraq War, though, they got plenty of headlines. Note that all of those headlines read “thousands,”of protesters, not “only 2,000.”
No one makes reality as clear as the Anchoress.