Sultan Knish › 2.0: The Blogmocracy

Posts Tagged ‘Sultan Knish’

Liberalism defines race, allowing white liberals to be defined as black and black conservatives to be defined as white

by Mojambo ( 85 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Hate Speech, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racism, Republican Party at September 5th, 2012 - 11:30 am

The Knish, in his inimitable way, points out the increasing flexibility of the overused term “racism” and how it is being used as a shield to deflect any criticism of The One. Did you know that if you refer to Obama as “The Golfer” – that is a code word for racism? How about referring to “Chicago” meaning corrupt Cook County politics? The Orwellian misuse of the term has served to stifle legitimate debate and criticism to the point where we twist ourselves into pretzels in order to prove a negative – that we are not racists.

by Daniel Greenfield

Once upon a time racism used to be relatively easy to pin down. It was segregated lunch counters and slave ships, it was nooses and chains, it was the legal oppression of a group of people on account of the color of their skin. Then racism stopped being a set of laws and became an abstraction, first a set of attitudes and then a set of attitudes implying another set of attitudes.

Racism changed from laws that deliberately discriminate against black people to policies that serve to disadvantage black people, whether or not that is their intent. In 1971, 17 years after its landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling, the Supreme Court decided that schools shouldn’t just not be forcibly segregated, but that they could be forcibly desegregated with the use of busing, even if there was no actual intent to segregate and where the racial differences were the result of geography. That same year in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Court ruled that a high school diploma job requirement was racially discriminatory because fewer black people possessed them.

From an attempt to overturn racist laws, the war on racism had shifted to forcibly legislating big government’s idea of racial equality. The goal was no longer removing inequality, but artificially creating a desired statistical Republican formula of Federalism as anti-racism and States’ Rights as racism. 150 years after the Civil War, federalism as anti-racism is a false formula imposed on a debate going back to the Washington Administration about where the center of political power should rest.

That formula is the one still being used to tar Republicans, who invented the formula of Federalism as Anti-Racism. In 1872, Thomas Nash was smearing abolitionist Horace Greeley as a racist for resisting Grant’s Republican Federalism. In 2012, Nast’s even nastier ideological descendants are treating any challenge to unlimited Federal power from Republicans as a cross burning on the White House lawn. If Nash was at least operating within a historical framework where Federal power was used to restrain racial violence, 140 years later those same attacks are the clothes of power worn over the frame of a naked cynicism.

Obama is neither Grant nor Eisenhower. When he wields unlimited power, race is only there to disguise the power of the naked emperor and his naked empire. Throughout the 20th Century, Democrats searched around for a compelling justification for seizing and wielding unlimited

[……..]

President Wilson did it in the name of a global crusade, imprisoning critics of his intervention in World War I. FDR did it in the name of an economic crisis and the underclass, even as he put his boot on small business and targeted Jewish and Italian immigrants for raids and show trials for economic crimes. But his Democratic successors zeroed in on race and made it their own, abusing power in the name of combating racism.

Like Wilson, Obama abuses power in the name of wartime contingencies. Like FDR, he abuses power to combat an economic crisis. But mostly he uses the same excuse that his white predecessors used. Race.

Racism is no longer about race. Not when Bill Clinton was the first black president and Allen West is a racist for bringing fried chicken to a Congressional Black Caucus meeting. Liberalism is the new race, and it is a category that transcends and encompasses race. Liberalism defines race, allowing white liberals to be defined as black and black conservatives to be defined as white.

[………]

Most people, black and white, don’t understand the switch that has been pulled on them or that the racism being talked about is not the kind that involves a white man hitting a black man, but a debate over unlimited political power between two political parties, both of whom have at one time eroded the “States” part and emphasized the “United” part with a variety of justifications, among them that of treating black people as wards of the Federal government.

Racism accusations are delivered by white people speaking on behalf of black people and black people speaking on behalf of white people for an agenda that is not about race, but about power and wealth. These accusations have become increasingly ludicrous as they have become disconnected from actual racism and even from race.

On MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell insisted that “golfer” is a racial stereotype and Chris Matthews dubbed “Chicago” a racial codeword. Besides the obvious display of hackery, the search for codewords is a sign of how abstract racism has become. Racism is no longer a slur or a stereotype of a black man, but a criticism directed at a Democrat who happens to be black.

[……….]

Say any word often enough and it begins to lose its meaning, look at it long enough and it begins to look misspelled. In a world where “Chicago golfer” is a racial slur and a racial slur is in one of the country’s bestselling songs, racial slurs no longer mean what they used to. The national grammar of race has shifted and while liberals talk incessantly about race, they have nothing to actually say about it.

Racism, for the most part, was never really about race, it was about power. It was about power when slave votes and slave labor were being used to shift the balance of power. And it is about power when black votes and accusations of racism are used to shift the balance of power. And in one of history’s great ironies that renders PBS pieties so absurd, the same Party was responsible for both sets of actions. The ideology, whether that of the permanent racial inferiority of black people of yesterday’s Democratic Party or the permanent social inferiority of black people in today’s Democratic Party, was and is just the clothing that the naked emperor wears on his power trips.

Racism still endures in the nooks and crannies of the country, but it isn’t the kind of racism that’s talked about in the news. It’s the unextraordinary and unexceptional bigotry of small petty men, of any color and creed, who practice their small mean-spirited acts outside the law. This is not the political racism that we talk about as a national phenomenon. That political racism is not about a man being beaten outside a bar, it’s about the power of the bar’s lawyers to wield unlimited authority in the name of a problem that can never go away, no matter how abstract it becomes, because they have turned it into the source of their power.

Real racism is slowly dying out, but political racism can never go away. Instead it is rediscovered in ordinary words, in “Golfer” and in “Chicago.” The more it declines, the more it emerges everywhere in dogwhistles and hidden codes that become more and more abstract until no one can find it anymore

Read the rest – The Great Lie of Racism

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish
Posted in Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Hate Speech, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Racism, Republican Party | 85 Comments »

In the kingdom of the weird, the non weird are the weird ones

by Mojambo ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Marxism, Media, Political Correctness, Progressives at August 23rd, 2012 - 11:30 am

The Knish points out the delicious irony that he Trotskyite rag “The Village Voice” which is closing (thankfully ) became redundant when the main stream media became “the alternative media” themselves. As Mr. Greenfield points out, when every one one is “weird” then nobody is weird and that applies to the media as well – Newsweek, Time, The New York Times – all are viciously left-wing so there is no need for The V.V. The same phenomena was seen with the epic failure of “Air America”. Why does a leftie need liberal talk radio when just about every media outlet is left-wing? Talk Radio became popular because it was the only place where conservatives could be heard, but liberals have thousands of media outlets to satisfy their socialist cravings (NPR, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, L.A. Times, yadda yadda yadda). I do recall in December 2004 right after George W. Bush narrowly won re-election against John Kerry, Time Out New York had a cover “How to survive the next four years”, can you imagine the rage if Romney wins in November (yes I think you can)? Ironically Fox News and the Internet are the real ‘alternative” media.

by Daniel Greenfield

The death of the Village Voice has drawn out a coterie of mourners bowing their heads over the venerable radical rag, but their orations at its funeral are completely wasted. The death of the Voice is not due to mismanagement, the right wing or its complicity in human trafficking. After all, its former competitor, the New York Press, which forced it to go free instead of charging a buck fifty, died fairly recently. The end of the Village Voice has to be seen in the context of the death of alternative media.

The passing of the Village Voice, its thick greasy pages smudged with desperate cries for attention in between glossy cigarette ads and phone sex ads, also coincides with the passing of the bohemian nature of the East Village, now little more than tall glowering condos and coffee shops. To those residents who showed up there in the ‘70s and ‘80s bearing art school portfolios and a burning desire to be part of the “Scene”, it’s one more triumph of the capitalist running dogs over the “People”.

But the real reason that the Village Voice is dead is because the alternative media is dead and the alternative media is dead because there is nothing for it to be an alternative to. New Yorkers can just as easily read shrill rants about the NYPD in the Daily News, pretentious movie reviews for artsy films at The Onion and leftist denunciations of the War on Terror in the New York Times.

The way that the Village Voice used to cover Republicans is now the way that every media outlet, but the handful that aren’t part of the liberal collective, covers Republicans. Every mainstream media outlet is opposed to fighting terrorism, opposed to the police and opposed to any notion of balance in reporting. And every outlet is churning out the same tired 24/7 coverage of something provocative a Republican allegedly said because every outlet wants to be the Village Voice, the ink-stained pamphleteer on the corner screaming about capitalist pigs before heading off to a concert at CBGB’s, also as dead as the Village Voice and the rest of the East Village.

Newsweek, once the paragon of middlebrow inoffensiveness, now does the kind of covers that the Village Voice used to do. It still hasn’t run a picture of Bush drinking the blood out of the green neck of the Statue of Liberty, but, if Romney wins, you can expect that as the March cover. And by then even that might be considered tame.

Under Bush the entire media became alternative and the alternative media became supplementary to requirements

If anyone deserves credit for killing the Village Voice, it’s George W. Bush, who was its unwitting cover boy more often than Obama has appeared on the cover of Essence. Under Bush the entire media became alternative and the alternative media became supplementary to requirements. When mainstream newspapers give positive reviews to books and movies that envision Bush’s assassination, cheerlead anti-war rallies run by militant Trotskyites and demand unilateral surrender in the War on Terror; what possible territory is left for the alternative media to explore?

[…]

The very effort to preserve edifices of radical history like the Village Voice runs counter to the alternative instinct to escape the past, denounce it in a Tumblr post that will be reblogged by all the right people, and then move on to doing something that hasn’t been ruined yet by the unspeakable appetites of the bourgeoisie. The death of the Village Voice serves only as an occasion for denouncing the soulless mercenary capitalists who bought up the alternative media, even if the soulless mercenary capitalists are actually their own more successful comrades who wanted to make the Village Voice into a viable concern.

The death of the Village Voice only matters to those for whom exclusive radicalism was an identity and for those who are concerned by the sight of the entire press turning into the Village Voice and the entire country turning into the East Village, concerned only with staying weird. A decade ago, Lady Gaga would have been a warm-up act in the Village before a transvestite beauty pageant to raise money for a documentary about Nestle’s depredations in the rainforest. Now that forced preening weirdness-for-the-sake-of-weirdness is being marketed to everyone.

Alternativism used to be for the people who felt ill at ease, who weren’t comfortable anywhere and made a fetish of their discomfort, transforming that awkward disconnection from the larger world into art and poetry. And now everyone feels disconnected or wants to feel disconnected. Weirdness is fashion in a time when no one fits anymore because there is nothing to fit into anymore.

[…]

Today, we are the alternative media because we are the alternative to the alternative that has become the new norm. Their norm is the alternative, while our alternative is the norm. There is no longer any place for a leftist alternative media because it is no longer an alternative to anything. Only we are the alternative.

We are the ones standing aside while the herd rushes over the cliff. We are the ones who see what they cannot see, because we are outside their culture and their world. We lack their fears, their anxieties, their guilts and their insecurities. We are not afraid that the world is about to end, the poles about to melt, we are not terrified that we are secretly racist, that we lack racial consciousness, that we are not afraid enough, that we have still not learned the meaning of life in the back of the self-help section or gotten real enough. We are not worried about being cliches or losing our souls to corporate America, and we do not wake up in the middle of the night wondering who we are.

We are the alternative that they have left behind but cannot escape. We are the alternative to the endless alternative, the alternative to national guilt, national suicide and national armageddon. We are the rebels who rebel against the rebels, the counterrevolution to the revolution, the people, who, when the noise has grown loud enough and there are fires in the streets, step out and show a better way.

Read the rest: The End of the Alternative Media

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish
Posted in Censorship, Marxism, Media, Political Correctness, Progressives | 130 Comments »

The moderate anomaly, or the left plays chess while the right plays checkers

by Mojambo ( 70 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Islamists, Liberal Fascism, Muslim Brotherhood, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tea Parties, The Political Right at August 16th, 2012 - 8:00 am

Another brilliant essay by the Knish concerning the futile search for “moderation” from Republicans which in essence means slowly taking one step to the left for every six steps to the left that the Democrats do. Daniel thinks it is futile to do so as long as the cultural trajectory is constantly moving Left.

by Daniel Greenfield

The moderate solution is deeply seductive for Republicans, who see their opposition sliding to the extreme left and believe that they can sweep up the middle by just moving a little to the left. All they have to do is moderate their position on X, Y or Z, and they will win over all the unaffiliated voters who are a natural fit for their common-sense policies.

This seems like such a no-brainer that high-profile Republicans keep earnestly and then angrily pushing for a surrender on one point or another as the key to becoming the moderate mainstream party. But no matter how many times the Republican Party plays this game, it never stops being the “extremist” party that is out of touch with whatever the new normal is.

Like Lucy’s football, the moderate identity is a paradox. The more you pursue it, the less likely you are to reach it. Our current political grammar, which leans heavily on ideas such as moderation and extremism, was crafted by the left. Like Orwell’s Newspeak, the meaning of such words is relative and varies unpredictably. That relativism has given us the moderate Taliban and the moderate Muslim Brotherhood. Before long, it might give us the moderate Al-Qaeda member.

“Moderate” and “Extremist” are words that are used with an absolute air, as if what they refer to is clear and fixed. Actually, the value of each is relative to the other. If the range of views among Muslims is such that the Taliban are actually somewhere in the middle, then they are indeed moderate. This does not mean that they are decent people or that we can reason with them. It just means that the spectrum of Muslim views is bad enough that, within that spectrum, the Taliban fall in the middle, rather than on the extreme end.

[…….]

The moderate positions of ten years ago are the conservative positions of today. Not in principle but in practice. When the culture is moving fast enough leftward, then anyone attempting to adopt a moderate position is already trying to conserve something, which makes him a reactionary in the eyes of the left.

To repeatedly attempt to be a moderate is to adopt the positions of the left at a slower rate than the culture as a whole. This is only useful as a cynical political position adopted by someone who believes in nothing at all. It is not good for anything else. That type of moderate is always standing in the middle of the ship as a showy pose, while pretending that the ship isn’t moving at all.

[…….]

The moderate Republican calculates the position of the left, factors in the position of his party and stakes out a middle position. The Democratic Party moves six steps to the left making it extremist. And our moderate Republican decides that he has found his chance. If he just moves one step to the left, he will seize the moderate position and lay claim to the terra incognita of the middle ground. But when the Democratic Party moved six steps to the left, the new moderate position is actually three steps to the left. All that the moderate Republican has done is watered down his message and made himself slightly more palatable to the middle, but that will change next week when the Democratic Party moves another six steps to the left and the middle will move with it.

Moderation is an unreachable goal as long as the culture is constantly in motion. And it’s off limits to Republicans as long as its trajectory is always moving to the left. The moderate position is not defined by the right so long as the right remains in place or moves to the left. The left is moving and so its movement defines what the new moderate position is.

The moderate is not a better man or post-partisan; he is chasing the left’s bandwagon and temporarily occupying the open space that the left has created for him to occupy. The moderate is the left’s camp-follower. The jackal who feeds off the scraps that the left has left behind for him before he has to move on to follow its new campground.
By constantly moving to the left, the left is exerting control of the political space, defining the Overton Window in terms of its own political leanings. Moderates become slow leftists and conservatives become slower leftists. The entire spectrum comes to be defined by the positions of the left. Everyone in the spectrum becomes a leftist of radical, moderate or conservative temperament.

[……]
We’ve spent plenty of time calling Obama a Socialist, but the reality is that, for the last 50 years, we’ve been debating just how much Socialism we should have. We have repeatedly concluded that the new proposal is too much Socialism, and that the amount of Socialism we have now could be reduced by 10 percent or so to leave over the perfect amount of Socialism. Is it any wonder that the left is winning?

The difference between the left and the right is that the left plays chess while the right plays checkers. The right sacrifices long-term principles to short-term advantages, while the left sacrifices short-term advantages to long term-victories. The left will accept being embarrassed. It embraces the extremism tag. It doesn’t care that liberalism has a negative perception or that people consider its views to be too radical. Those same views that people consider too radical will be mainstream in a decade or two.

The left does not occupy the moderate space. Instead, its positions do, because it focuses on moving the dialogue further to the left. The right, which prides itself on being more sensible and avoiding extremist labels is instead tarred with the extremist label, not because it has moved to the right, as the leftist media often insists, but because it hasn’t moved to the left quickly enough.

The same phenomenon has occurred with Islam. Every time Islamists pull in their direction, the dialogue space is expanded to define new versions of moderation and extremism. Many Muslim terrorist groups are now moderate, not because they are moderate in our terms, but because they are moderate in Islamist terms.

The most common reason why a Muslim terrorist group is labeled as moderate is because is it less open to killing other Muslims than some of its more extreme variants. Violence no longer defines extremism, only the full scope of that violence does. All Muslim terrorist groups, including the moderate ones, favor suicide bombings directed at infidel civilians. Not all favor suicide bombings directed at other Muslims. Those who do are often labeled extremist.

[………]

A Muslim terrorist group which is open to killing 72 percent of the planet is considered more moderate than one that is open to killing 83 percent of the planet, which is still moderate compared to the truly extremist terrorist groups who want to kill 94 percent of the planet. Since there are always new and more extreme Islamist terrorist groups springing up, the logical outcome of this madness will leave us with a moderate Muslim terrorist group that only wants to kill 99 percent of the planet, as opposed to the truly dangerous extremists who want to kill 99.9 percent of the planet.

The moderate paradox is that, while moderate positions are praised as superior to extremist positions, they are actually defined by extremist positions. The moderate is an echo of an extremist’s voice, and is it the extremist who defines society, politics and culture. A moderate is a man who allows himself to be defined by extremists and there is nothing praiseworthy about that.

That is why the left is so obsessed with “right-wing extremism” and so eager to call for moderation on the Republican side. It knows that extremists shift the dialogue space to the right while moderates allow it to shift further to the left.

Moderates will not change America. Rather, they have already accepted that they will be changed. Change does not come from moderates, it comes from extremists whose eagerness to push the bubble is what brings change.

Read the rest – The Moderate Paradox

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish
Posted in Barack Obama, Conservatism, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Islamists, Liberal Fascism, Muslim Brotherhood, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tea Parties, The Political Right | 70 Comments »

Tears don’t protect against murder, bullets do

by Mojambo ( 43 Comments › )
Filed under Fatah, Hamas, History, Islamic Terrorism, Israel, Palestinians, Terrorism at August 14th, 2012 - 8:00 am

The Knish reminds us that gnashing our teeth, pulling our hair, and appealing to an immoral worlds sense of morality will never stop murder. Only ventilating the terrorists with lead (starting with their leaders) gives you a chance to live a life free of fear. Arafat (and his successors) should have been killed decades ago and very few Palestinian prisoners (only enough to interrogate) should be taken.

by Daniel Greenfield

After serving a few years in prison for his role in the Munich Massacre, Willi Pohl moved to Beirut. The brief sentence was a slap in the wrist, but Pohl had still served more time in prison than the Muslim gunmen who had murdered eleven Israeli athletes and coaches during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. Mohammed Safady and the Al-Gashey cousins were released after a few months by the German authorities. They went back to Lebanon and so did he.

A decade after the attack, Willi Pohl had begun making a name for himself as a crime novelist. His first novel, written as Willi Woss, was Tränen Schützen Nicht vor Mord or Tears Do Not Protect Against Murder.

While Pohl was penning crime novels, Israeli operatives had already absorbed the lessons of his first title. Tears, whether in 1939 or 1972, had not done anything to prevent the murder of Jews. Bullets were another matter.

The head of Black September in Rome was the first to die, followed by a string of PLO leaders across Europe. Those attacks were followed by raids on the mansions and apartments of top Fatah officials in the same city where Pohl had found temporary refuge. By the time his first book was published, hundreds of PLO terrorists and many of its top officials were dead.

Western law enforcement had failed to hold responsible even the actual perpetrators of the Munich Massacre, never mind the representatives of the PLO who openly mingled with red radicals in Europe’s capitals. Israeli operatives did what the German judicial system had failed to do, putting down Safady and one of the Al-Gasheys, while the other one hid out as a frightened guest of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

The Israeli raid on the PLO terrorists in Beirut’s Muslim Quarter missed one important target. Arafat. And so, on another September day, some 19 years later, September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin shook hands with Arafat and proclaimed, “Enough of blood and tears! Enough!” But the blood and tears had only begun, as a PLO on its last legs was revived by that handshake and built its terrorist infrastructure inside Israel’s borders.

By 1993, the year of the infamous Rose Garden handshake, 45 Israelis had been killed and 34 injured in Muslim terrorist attacks. A year after the handshake, the toll stood at 109 Israelis dead and 456 wounded. By 2002, the year that Israel’s patience finally broke and Sharon sent forces storming into Arafat’s compound, the numbers for that year were a horrifying 451 dead and 2,348 wounded.

Today, some 40 years after that September in Munich and 19 years after the even worse tragedy of that September in Washington D.C., with over 1,500 dead since that fatal handshake, there have been rivers of blood and tears. And a shortage of bullets.

PLO officials these days are more likely to die of morbid obesity or, like Arafat, of AIDS, than of Israeli raids. They are nearly as likely to kill each other, like Arafat’s cousin, Moussa Arafat, the former head of the Palestinian Authority’s terrorist forces, who was dragged out of his home and shot by his own people. The murder of Mohammed Abu Shaaban, killed a week after the handshake, by his own people, was the first of a long string of Fatah on Fatah violence that is a far more likely cause of death for top terrorists than the jet planes and tanks of the hated Zionist regime.

[……..]

Terrorists are a renewable resource. Arrest them, plant them in jail, let them study for advanced degrees and post status updates to Facebook while collecting salaries from the Palestinian Authority, funded by the United States and Europe, then trade them for a soldier. Then when they’ve gone back to their old habits, arrest them and trade them again. But doing that with territory is much harder. Let Israel try offering Ramallah a second time in exchange for peace and see what kind of howls rise out of the State Department in Washington D.C. and the Foreign Office in London.

The terrorists can offer Israel peace in exchange for Jerusalem, even though they already offered it in exchange for Ramallah, but Israel isn’t allowed to meet farce with farce by seizing Ramallah and then offering it back in exchange for peace.

Instead, Israel keeps putting new lands on the table, which Washington and London proclaim to be insufficient because something is too low a price to pay for nothing. Peace is a priceless commodity. while half of Israel’s capital is a negotiable commodity. But after two decades of negotiations, Israel is running out of things to negotiate with.

[……..]

The rivers of tears keep flowing and, while Israeli spokesmen can list in detail every single casualty, tears don’t protect against murder. Neither do peace treaties. No amount of tears stopped the murder of Six Million Jews, convinced the British Foreign Ministry to allow Jews fleeing the Nazis into Israel or the State Department to allow them into the United States. The St. Louis and the Struma are both reminders of the futility of tears.

No amount of tears has convinced the International Olympic Committee to respond decently to the Munich Massacre. And no amount of tears from the tens of thousands mutilated, tortured, crippled, wounded, orphaned and widowed by the PLO in all its front groups, splinter groups and incarnations, including its current incarnation as a phony government, has been enough to stop American and European governments from supporting, arming and funding the terrorists.

Tears don’t protect against murder. They don’t stop killers from killing. They don’t prevent the authorities from looking the other way when the killings happen because there is something in it for them. They don’t bring the terrorists to justice. They don’t even ensure that the truth will be told, rather than the lie that rationalizes the crimes.

Tears did not stop the operation of a single gas chamber. They did not save the life of a single Jewish refugee. They did not stop a single dollar from going to the PLO or Fatah or Black September or the Palestinian Authority or any of the other masks that the gang of Soviet-trained killers wore. They will not stop Iran from developing and detonating a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv. They will not stop Israel from being carved up by terrorists whose demands are backed up by the diplomatic capital of every nation that bows its head in the direction of Mecca, Medina and Riyadh, and the old men who control the oil wells and the mosques.

In 1988, Willi Pohl published another book, Das Gesetz des Dschungels or The Law of the Jungle. That same year, PLO terrorists carried out the “Mother’s Bus Attack” taking the passengers of a bus, filled with women on board, hostage and demanding the release of all imprisoned terrorists. The terrorists killed two hostages and Israeli Special Forces moved in, killing the terrorists and saving the lives of all but one hostage.

In response, Israeli commandos stormed Tunis, killing Abu Jihad, a former Muslim Brotherhood member and the number two Fatah leader after Arafat . The United Nations Security Council met and passed Resolution 611, noting with concern the “loss of human life”, particularly that of Abu Jihad, and vigorously condemned the “act of aggression”, Not a single member of the Security Council voted against it. The United States abstained.

[……..]

In 1972, the year of the Munich Massacre, there were three Security Council resolutions condemning Israel

In 1972, the year of the Munich Massacre, there were three Security Council resolutions condemning Israel. Not a single one condemning the massacre of Olympic athletes at an international event. Not a single one condemning the countries which armed, trained, harbored and controlled the terrorists. The countries that had refused that their flags be lowered in response to the massacre.

This was the law of the jungle disguised as international law. Against the law of the jungle, tears are futile. Jungle law cannot be debated away, it cannot be disproven, it cannot be defeated with Hasbara, it cannot be subdued with the speechifying of an Abba Eban or a Benjamin Netanyahu. It cannot be moralized into decency or signed away with peace treaties. It can only be met with resistance.

Tears don’t protect against murder. Bullets do.