Category Archives: Israel and the Middle East
Multiculuturalism: Anti-Semitism’s New Mantel
This week, a Washington University student’s group by the name of Universal Beatz, is hosting “U.S.-Mideast Hip Hop Exchange Week.” They received some $12,799 from the Student Union’s individual appeals account. The event, as it was sold to them, intended to “[break] down the misconceptions Americans have about the Middle East and Middle Easterners have about America through the artistic medium of hip-hop.” Group president Nicole Lopez said, of hip-hop, that “It’s a medium for people who otherwise wouldn’t have a voice to criticize society or talk about the day-to-day realities they might face.” Naturally then, one would expect a diverse roster, selected apolitically.
In broad terms, one might argue that the original line-up fit such a description. It included rappers of both genders, local acts, and those hailing from countries such as Morocco and Israel. Marvin Casey’s Tribe 13 was the only Israeli representation on a heavily Arab list, but given the relative percentage of the Middle East’s population, that would’ve been entirely fair. I stress “would’ve,” because they have since been disinvited. Why? Because the St. Louis Palestine Solidarity Committee reached out to some of the other rappers performing, and talked them into threatening a boycott if Tribe 13 remained invited. This led Universal Beatz to “[evaluate] the effects of this on our event” and conclude that Casey and Tribe 13 should be disinvited.
In what may be the most feeble attempt to justify caving into such pressure that I have ever witnessed, the group claims that they behaved in a politically neutral capacity by not pandering to Sharif “the Truth” and BiRD, the no-name rappers who had threatened to boycott. Their invitations were not so much withdrawn as they were not extended for a second time after the named individuals first refused to appear. Yet, to Nicole Lopez, this keeps the event “politically neutral in the matter by physically representing neither side of this conflict.” Giving into one side, but only accommodating their wishes in full, without supplemental groveling, is not neutral. Not is a decision like this apolitical. By disinviting the only Israeli representation, there becomes a relative homogeneity of voices, which seems antithetical to a supposedly multicultural event.
But then, such is the nature of multiculturalism, is it not? In practice, multiculturalism means the promotion of minority cultures, from which Jews seems categorically excluded, as we are grouped with caucasians when such matters are being considered. The essence of the STL-PSC’s complaint is that any is Israeli not actively shunning their home country and treating it as an apartheid state (which, for the record, is an idea rejected by the black community) is diverting attention away from Palestinian suffering, and thus is to be boycotted. Never mind that Mr. Casey is not a part of the Israeli political right, or that the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement never condemns the heinous crimes of the Palestinians. Instead, the issue here is that simply being an Israeli renders one a villain by default in the eyes of these champions of multiculturalism.
British journalist Melanie Phillips stated that “Anti-Semitism is protean, mutating over the centuries into new forms. Now it has changed again, into a shape which requires a new way of thinking and a new vocabulary. The new anti-Semitism does not discriminate against Jews as individuals on account of their race. Instead, it is centred on Israel, and the denial to the Jewish people alone of the right of self-determination.” And that is exactly the force at work behind the actions of groups like the STL-PSC. Overt racial or religious anti-semitism has been deemed socially unacceptable in the civilized world since the full horrors of the Holocaust became known. Israel provided the answer, in the it is essentially Jewish, but being a nation, is open to more stringent criticism than would ever be tolerated of Jews directly in our modern context.
As Mrs. Phillips puts it, “This has produced an Orwellian situation in which hatred of the Jews now marches behind the Left’s banner of anti-racism and human rights, giving rise not merely to distortions, fabrications and slander about Israel in the media but also to mainstream articles discussing the malign power of the Jews over American and world policy.” This is exactly what we’re witnessing, and what we need to speak out against.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Israel’s Mexicans
With the Egyptian government having all but collapsed, concern has risen in Israel regarding the possibility of war. After all, it is evident that the Muslim Brotherhood has played a significant role in fanning the flames of unrest, and will almost certainly form the core of Egypt’s government, if not in a transitional capacity, then soon thereafter. Already, the group has announced their plans to attack Israel. Even if that proves not to become a reality, there is little question that the less Israel-friendly Muslim Brotherhood will gladly relax their border security to facilitate the easy transfer of weapons to Hamas. If nothing else, it is a safe bet that the Egypt-Gaza fence won’t be completed by the next regime.
On the subject of fences, it is worth thinking about those that Israel has built. True, they created a somewhat temporary, and readily breached one between Egypt and Gaza with the permission of the former. But, more controversially, they’ve been building one around the West Bank to match what they’d built around Gaza in 1994. The chief argument made in favor of the fence is that it has saved countless Israeli lives through impeding Palestinian terrorist efforts. And the data supports this. In 2002, before construction of the fence began, 457 Israelis were killed at the hands of Palestinian terrorists. In 2009, that number was 8.
But, even supposing that Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and countless other smaller entities permanently renounced terrorism, disarmed, and fully committed themselves to peace, removing the fence would be folly. What few seem either to realize or openly admit is that the Palestinians represent a threat not only in absolute security terms, but in political and economic terms, analogous to the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States.
Let’s put this in perspective in numeric terms, first comparing Mexico and the US[1]:
| US | Mexico | |
|---|---|---|
| GDP (per capita): | $47,400 | $13,000 |
| GDP Growth: | 2.8% | 5% |
| Unemployment rate: | 9.6% | 5.6% |
| Percentage Below Poverty Line: | 12% | 47% |
| Economic Freedom Ranking: | 9 | 48 |
Now, let us perform the same comparison for Israel and the Palestinian Territories[2]:
| Israel | Palestine | |
|---|---|---|
| GDP (per capita): | $29,500 | $2,900 |
| GDP Growth: | 3.4% | 7% |
| Unemployment rate: | 6.4% | 23.25% |
| Percentage Below Poverty Line: | 23.6% | 58% |
| Economic Freedom Ranking: | 43 | Unranked |
Notice the similarities. In the case of both Mexico and Palestine, the economic growth rate is faster than the wealthy nations they neighbor. But, this growth is attached to an economy that is significantly weaker to begin with, such that the US and Israel represent considerably more economically attractive options respectively.
The United States is a first-world, economically prosperous nation replete with opportunity. So too is Israel. Mexico is an impoverished, chaotic nation with a inadequate educational and health care infrastructure, whose somber reality compel many of its people, especially its poorest and least skilled, to seek opportunities elsewhere, even if illegally. So too is Palestine. Even ignoring the long-term harm done to Israel’s Jewishness by mass, uncontrolled immigration of Palestinians to Israel-proper, the immediate impact of relaxing the border would be to invite a flood of illegal Palestinian immigrants into Israel, which would constitute a significant economic burden, especially since Israel has universal health care. It is therefore worth remembering that Israel has a compelling interest, not only in security terms, but in economic ones, to build a border fence. Much like the US, Israel doesn’t have the good fortune that Europe enjoys of being surrounded by peaceful, economically stable nations between which open borders are viable.
Footnotes:
1. Economic Freedom Rankings from the
Heritage Foundation. All other data via CIA World Factbook.
2. CIA World Factbook lists Gaza and the West Bank individually. In cases where the numbers differ, an unweighted average has been listed.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Previously Unreleased: The Changing Nature of Dhimmitude and the Jizyah
What follows is a short academic work I authored in 2009 but have never released. My hesitation to do so was out of concern that it might be misunderstood, in that Christian Europe in centuries past did abuse Jews more greatly than the Islamic world, but that says nothing of the present condition, where Islam seeks to violently eliminate the Jewish community around the globe, and Christians do not (at least not as a matter of religious doctrine). Thus, I ask that this be read with the understanding that any claims seemingly defensive of Islam do not reflect support for the faith in the 21st century, where it foments violence and human rights violations like no other.
In order to preserve formatting, specifically as related to footnotes, I have this as a PDF and uploaded it to Scribd. The essay is embeded below, though you may download it as well.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Why Israel Needs to Cut Off the United States
In a recent interview with Joods Actueel (Jewish Actuality – a far left Jewish news magazine in Belgium), Filip Dewinter, leader of the Antwerp faction of Vlaams Belang, the nation’s largest political party, the question of Israeli membership in NATO and the EU arose. Contrary to how the Anglophonic media might lead one to assume he would respond, since after all they have slandered the party under the misnomer of “far right Neo-nazism” (as though Nazism could be anything but a liberal ideology), Dewinter gave an answer that would no doubt please most Israel supporters. He stated that while geography ruled out EU membership, the same was not true of NATO, where he would welcome Israeli membership. This begs the question though of what role Israel has in the international order, and in what way it should seek to redefine itself.
Unpopular as it may be to say in the United States, increasingly those on the Israeli right, for perhaps the first time since Kach was disbanded, are suggesting that Israel is disadvantaged by its relationship with America, and needs to redefine the terms of association if bilateral relations are to be retained. And indeed they have a compelling case. Historical precedent shows us that land won in a defensive war, as Israel fought in 1967, need not be restored to the losers or be given independence of any sort. Israel made the mistake of not formally annexing the territory at that time, but it did not become a problem until President Carter, who has proven himself to be deranged on all matter of Mideast policy, strong-armed the “right wing” Begin into surrendering a massive portion of territory to Egypt in the name of peace. Never mind that four consecutive military defeats would’ve sufficed as a deterrent against open warfare. Instead, let us ask whether the peace Israel supposedly has with Egypt is of any value. When it so readily facilitates arms smuggling for the fifth-column Palestinian insurgency and could readily fall to the increasingly powerful domestic Islamist factions, what good did such massive concessions do?
If you answered “paved the way for yet more dangerous land concessions,” pat yourself on the back. Using the return of Sinai as precedent, Clinton was able to compel Rabin, who to that point was not nearly so enthusiastic about displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes to create a new enemy state, to sign the Chamberlain-like Oslo Accords. Rather than rise to crush the violent Muslim threats as Israel had so often needed to do in decades past, Oslo marked Israel’s loss of credibility, in that it began Israel’s formal recognition of the Palestinian Authority and their territorial claims on Israeli land. Even when Palestinian violence prevented the agreement from coming to fruition, Oslo went on to serve as a pretext under which every post-Rabin Prime Minister has made efforts to displace citizens for the purpose of creating yet another hostile regime in the region. And under the Bush-backed Sharon government, the very first steps to creating a new jihadist state were taken.
In the more than three years since Israel expelled its own citizens from Gaza, destroying 21 established communities to create a Hamastan where crucifixion is now a legally authorized form of punishment, Israel has suffered the consequences. Those terrorist organizations that seek to destroy it can now more easily arm themselves, and have added yet more population centers to the total territory they can rain their rockets upon. This surrender of land has of course done nothing to placate the international community, the United States included, which still refuses to recognize Israel’s capital city as Jerusalem. After Costa Rica and El Salvador moved their embassies to Tel Aviv, the international norm of allowing a country to choose its own capital within its territory is globally violated only for Israel. And indeed, that is but one of many examples of the unequal treatment Israel faces on the world stage. At best, the US occasionally votes against anti-Israel UN resolutions, usually along side the South Pacific island nations it heavily subsidizes. In practice though, this does little other than create a false illusion that the US-Israel relationship is vital only to the latter, and that Israel should be grateful for what little it gets. Nothing could be further from the truth. Israel, for its part, has always offered military assistance to the United State, who rejects it routinely, and has served as the only trustworthy and powerful ally in one of the globe’s major powder kegs. And, at least under the present system, Israel essentially obeys the suicidal commands that its American master gives it.
So what is it that Israel gains? Chiefly the benefits are financial, and truth be told, not nearly as vital in the present as might have been true decades ago. Given the global financial recession and the hostile nature of the current American government, that number can only shrink, thereby reducing the value of such an alliance for Israel. While mutual technological development, commercial exchange, and military cooperation are all part of the bilateral relationship and are worth preserving, they are far less valuable than having the freedom to set its own policy and respond properly to the grave security threats Israel faces. So until the United States is willing to redefine its relationship with Israel as one between equals, it may be better for Israel to terminate the alliance and begin to more proactively seek out different partners around the globe.
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
More on the Universal Beatz Controversy
Apr 16
Posted by Caleb Posner
Recently, I wrote about Universal Beatz, and their decision to bow before anti-semitic pressure groups and disinvite the lone Israeli participant from their supposedly multicultural hip-hop week. Unsurprisingly, in expressing this view in the comments of the campus paper, I got many negative responses. Given the unreliability of the Student Life website when it comes to archiving, I have copied my responses below.
“Bre” stated:
To which I replied:
And then some ISM folks affiliated with the university, who apparently are blind to reality, wrote a rather lengthy defense of the disinvitation of Casey.
My reply to their message is as follows:
If you liked this post, you may also enjoy these recent articles:
Share this:
Like this:
Posted in Campus Issues and Personal Commentary, Israel and the Middle East
Leave a Comment