The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc. - (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

This blog once bore the name 'EDL Extra'. I supported the EDL until 2012. As the reader will see, the last post which supports the EDL dates back to 2012. This blog, nonetheless, retains the former web address.

Thursday, 14 March 2013

Jim Wallis on Israeli Terrorism & Disproportionality (2)



This second piece is also a commentary on Jim Wallis’s book, God’s Politics, written in 2005. It specifically refers to the chapter ‘Against Impossible Odds’ (chapter 11).




Reverend Jim Wallis is a leader figure in Christian politics in America. He has been categorised as a “public theologian”, a liberation theologian, a preacher, a “faith-based activist” and such like. He is closely connected to the Democratic Party and is even the personal friend of our very own Gordon Brown. (As well as being a friend of Michael Lerner – the Jewish “anti-Zionist”.)




Israeli Disproportionality Towards the Palestinians? 

 


Jim Wallis tells us that



“the Israelis regularly use such incidents to justify shelling Palestinians in massive, disproportionate retaliation… Such deliberate and lethal violence against civilians must also be called terrorism.” (175)

 

That very old chestnut – “Israeli disproportionality”! What does it actually mean? What sort of Israeli actions against rocket-fire or suicide bombs would be proportionate? I’ll tell you. For each rocket fired into Israel, a proportionate response would be to fire a rocket back into Gaza (there have been tens of thousands of them). For every suicide bomb attack on Israel, Israel should respond with its own bomb attack on Gaza (there have been dozens of suicide-bombs in Israel). But, of course, Jim Wallis wouldn’t accept that true and literal proportionality, would he? Of course not. Because he’s not actually for proportionality at all. He actually demands and wants Israel’s non-response to rocket attacks and suicide bombs. After all, this man is a soi-disant “peace activist”, pacifist and ideologue of ostensible non-violence. (But he’s only against, really, Israeli violence.) So his kind of proportionality would be no proportionality at all!



Apart from all that, no superior power, or indeed any power whatsoever, ever responds proportionately to attacks against itself. If it did, the attacks would continue forever. Indeed proportionality may – and probably would - result in the aggressor eventually winning the war (or just benefiting from their attacks). 



Proportionality simply doesn’t work when you’re fighting against an aggressive enemy – especially if that enemy wants to annihilate you. No government or state today, or in history, has ever practiced proportionality. But Israel, as ever, is expected to be the exception to that rule. And in so doing, be destroyed. And this is precisely what Jim Wallis wants. Hence the talk of “proportionality” is utterly and knowingly bogus.




Israeli Terrorism?

 

Pamela Geller & Jim Wallis (small images).
  
Jim Wallis often says that the actions of the Israeli state are “acts of terrorism”. He says that “an Israeli pilot in an Apache gunship firing rockets into a refugee camp” is “terrorism” (183). But the whole point of the word “terrorism” is that it isn’t just another word for “violence”. It isn’t a synonym for “violence”. But this is how Wallis, and numerous other Leftists, treats the word. 


If all acts of violence, at least within a political context, were terrorism then there would literally be no use for that word.



A good example of the overuse of the word terrorism is again provided by Jim Wallis himself. He even claims that the Israeli settlements and “closure policies” are examples of terrorism. They are, in fact, “Israeli acts of terrorism against Palestinians!” (176) Saying Israeli settlements are terrorism is no better than saying that a punch-up in a pub is an act of terrorism. It isn’t an act of terrorism! It is an act of violence. “Violence” and “terrorism” are not synonyms – even when used by Wallis, Muslims and Leftists in order to score some ideological point against Israel (or the United States). 



In the Israeli settlements case, these aren’t even acts of violence. Acts of violence have occurred because of them, sure. But most of them have occurred because Palestinians, and their Leftists enablers in the West, want both the West Bank and Gaza to be Judenrein (free of Jews). 



As for the “closure policies” – they are acts against Palestinian violence. Indeed often against acts of Palestinian terrorism. Jim Wallis appears to be living in some Lewis Carroll world in which responses to terrorism are actually worse than terrorism itself.



There is a world of difference between the acts of unelected individuals deliberately killing civilians and an elected state accidentally killing civilians in the process of stopping the terrorists from killing further civilians. Wallis doesn’t believe it’s that simple. Hence the way he phrases things. He states that “an Apache gunship” fired “into a refugee camp”. He deliberately makes it sound like the pilot deliberately selected random refugees and then went ahead and killed them. I doubt that that has ever happened on the side of the Israelis. (If it did, then the Supreme Court would have been immediately on the case.)That’s precisely the sort of thing Muslims and Palestinians do – as they have repeatedly done in Syria, Lebanon and many other Muslim countries. 



What the pilot would have been doing is search-and-destroying Palestinian terrorists within a refugee camp – for that’s where some of them live. In addition, it’s highly likely that the terrorists would have deliberately placed themselves amongst civilians and even fired their rockets from amongst civilians. That is the Palestinian terrorist tradition and it’s been shown to be the reality on countless occasions. Not only that. Most of the “refugees” would have supported the terrorists too.

No comments:

Post a Comment