Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

The New Champions of Theocracy


from the Sultan Knish, The Left’s Worst Crime in the Middle East

The left embraced Pan-Arabism, a race based nationalism, in line with the Soviet Union’s expansionist foreign policy. Pan-Arabism’s socialism made it easy for the left to ignore its overt racism along with the admiration of many of its leading lights for Nazi Germany. The same left which refused to see the Gulags and the ethnic cleansing under the red flag, turned an equally blind eye to the contradiction of condemning Zionism for its ethnic basis, while supporting Pan-Arabism, which was ethnically based.

Under Zionism, Israel retained a sizable Arab minority. The Pan-Arabists however drove their Jews out with mob violence, political repression, prisons and public executions. The left’s criticisms of Zionism are rendered moot by their own support for Pan-Arabism, and their own longstanding hostility to Jewish national identity, insisting that socialism demands that Jews assimilate into the dominant race, whether in Russia or Western Europe. In the Middle East and North Africa, Arabization has led to repression of non-Arab minorities and the destruction of other cultures through the insistence on unity through race.

As the sun of Pan-Arabism sets, the left has turned its attention to Pan-Islamism with equal enthusiasm. While Pan-Arabism allowed Christian Arabs some representation, Pan-Islamism excludes based on religion. Having endorsed a racial tyranny, the left has fallen so low that it now champions majority theocracies.

It is no coincidence that the one country in the region that the left hates above all else, is neither Arab nor Muslim. Just as it is no coincidence that the Arab Spring replaces regimes tolerant of minorities with Islamists and Arabists. The left’s true regional agenda is the racist agenda of its Arab members. The Arab Socialists and the Islamists who have defined its regional positions have turned the left into a vehicle for their racial and theocratic agendas.

For the left to shout racism when Americans empowered the Kurds in Iraq, or when Israeli soldiers stand watch over tiny strips of land where the region’s oldest and most frequently oppressed minority finds shelter is the height of hypocrisy. It is the left which is racist. It is the left which backs theocracies and always supports the majority’s oppression of the minority.

Print This Post Print This Post

Welcome to Civilization


From Rick Perry Speaks in London in The Washington Post by Jennifer Rubin


The hatreds of unassimilated radicals only draw further attention to anti-Semitism in general.  It’s a familiar problem in a new time. In Europe it ranges as in times past from thuggish abuse to desecration to commentaries on Israel that cover crude dislike in the veneer of respectable opinion. There is a way to deal with anti-Semitism, and it’s not by smiling politely and hoping that it goes away. The full force of law, when people and property are harmed, is only the most obvious response. Just as important is what Chancellor Merkel did a few weeks ago, to her great credit, when she called this sin by its name. She has stated in confident, unmistakable terms that tolerance ends where anti-Semitism begins. It shaped Europe’s past, in ways that everyone regrets and no nation can afford to let it shape Europe’s future.

But to every extremist, it has to be made clear: We will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent ideas. If you expect to live among us and yet plan against us to receive the protections and comforts of a free society while showing none of its virtues or graces then you can have our answer now:  No, not on our watch! You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news then welcome to civilization.

tips to Instapundit

Print This Post Print This Post

Ideological Pathology


From Daniel Greenfield in Sultan Knish, The Headchopper Next Door:

It’s easy to dismiss a small enough religion as a cult because its leader sleeps with young girls and its members are willing to kill for him. But when the cult grows big enough, we say it’s a religion of peace and hope that its followers believe the peaceful version of Islam that the infidels preach to them.

Germany was not a nation of monsters. It was a nation that behaved monstrously. The average German would not stick his neighbor in an oven in his basement or chain him up as a slave. He would however do these things in Poland because he was contextually contaminated by a monstrous ideology.

As an individual he was a nice man who loved his children, petted his dog and enjoyed street fairs. As a loyal member of a system run by the Nazi Party, he would do monstrous things. And then when the Nazi machine was switched off, he would go home to his wife and children without ever killing anyone else.

He was not a good man. Good men don’t do the things he did. But he wasn’t a budding serial killer. He was just doing what a death cult told him to do.

Americans were brutally honest about the evils of Nazism, but failed to equally condemn Communism. Germany hasn’t had another Fuhrer, but Russia is back to acting a lot like the Soviet Union. And while Nazism is confined to trailer parks, sympathy for the red devil is prevalent among Western elites. ISIS is exposing its own evil to the West in a way that neither the brownshirts nor the flyers of the red flag did. If we destroy ISIS without exposing the ideology behind it, then we will have won a Pyrrhic victory because we will still be fighting the nice Jihadist next door for the next thousand years.


I am less than comfortable with branding all Muslims with the pathology of ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood and so on.  Practicing religious tolerance while condemning violent offshoots is difficult and necessary.  It seems than the center of this cleansing needs to come from their own pulpits.  What you tolerate you teach. If you live by the sword……

Print This Post Print This Post

A More Dangerous Foe


A common question from my conservative friends is why Jews vote so overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. Jews voted for Obama with nearly 80% of the vote and his less than warm reception to Israel baffles many observers.

One reason has less to do with being Jewish than being concentrated in largely blue state urban areas that are predominately Democratic anyway.  In those areas they may vote Democratic but it may not be because they are Jewish. Yet even in red states Jews tend to be more likely to vote Democratic, just by much narrower margins.

Liberal Jews explain the Jewish values of Tikkun Olam, to fix the world, is more in sync with the positions of Democrats and liberals.  But this is a simplistic notion.  Do the Christians who often align themselves with missions to help to the poor and sick feel any different.  Is it not a bit arrogant to believe that only Jews or Democrats want to help others?  Why is it then that conservatives give more of their own money to charities than liberals?

Conservative Jews such as Dennis Prager have explained that the American Jews are more largely secular and have replaced a faith in Torah with a similar faith in liberal ideology.  Perhaps there is some truth here but it still leaves open the question as to why this occurs.

from the Volokh Conspiracy, Do Jews really “vote Democratic” because they are Jews?:

Sure, American Jews are more likely to be Democrats than are non-Jews.  But Jews also share a lot of demographic characteristics with Americans in general who vote Democratic: they overwhelmingly live in cities and suburbs, not rural areas, and also overwhemingly live in blue states in the Northeast and in California and Illinois; they are more likely to be religious skeptics and less likely to attend religious services than the average American; and Jewish women, in particular, are heavily concentrated in very Democratic-oriented professions like teacher and social worker.  So let’s say you removed the Jewish variable, and tried to predict how Jews would vote based on their other Demographic criteria–where they live, how much they earn, education levels, religiosity levels, and so on–how much difference would there be? My guess is that there would be some difference, but not as much as most people would think.

responses along the lines of, “well Jews are smart, and they therefore see that the Republicans are the party of ignorance, really are not helpful at all and suggest that you are living in a blue state bubble.  Surveys show that more educated people tend to become more conservative on economics, and more liberal and on social issues, making education something of a wash for party affiliation.

also linked to the Volokh piece, Evan Sayet writes Another Take On Why Jews Vote Democrat

American Jews overwhelmingly tend to vote Democrat for one simple reason: they see the choice as being between 1) the Democrats and their belief in nothing versus 2) the Republicans and their beliefs based on their Christian faith and heritage.

Given that choice, then, rather than side with people of faith – which they see as a different and potentially antagonistic belief system – they feel safer in the party that is devoid of any values or convictions.

The “thinking” behind this is that, if people believe in things then they might fight for those things.  They might even commit atrocities in their name.  Only those who believe in nothing have nothing to kill or fight for.  If everyone just believed in nothing, the “thinking” goes: then the Jews would be safe, for if one doesn’t believe in anything then they can’t believe the Jews are bad.

These people believe that it is beliefs and not what was believed that led to the Holocaust and to all of the other world’s atrocities.  It’s why the Modern Liberal’s Blueprint for Utopia as rendered by John Lennon sought a world without countries, religions or any other values or convictions (just all the people living for “today.”)

This fear was perhaps best articulated by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman who declared that “Emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burn mosques [or by extension engage in pogroms, crusades and holocausts], bash gays [or, by extension, bash Jews] or indiscriminately banish immigrants [including the Jews].”

How deep – and insane – is this fear?  Consider that what led Rabbi Hammerman to feel such terror was not a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan or a gathering of Neo-Nazis.  It was his horror a few years back, over the possibility that the proud Christian Tim Tebow might lead his team to the Super Bowl which would then “embolden” his “faithful,” leading to the possibility of rampages and atrocities.

The Modern Liberal is, of course, wrong.  In fact, he is as wrong as wrong can be.  First, he is wrong to believe that a nation without values will keep the Jews safe. In fact, a nation without values is exactly the one that would be willing to commit atrocities because there’s nothing morally to stop them.  Further, as anyone who knows my work knows: Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. Instead it leads invariably and inevitably to siding with evil over good and wrong over right.

This is why the Jews are not only typically the first target of the Liberal but the people he has the most hatred for. Witness the singling out of Israel for divestment and boycott and the blood libels offered by the likes of Jimmy Carter and John Kerry.

Secondly, he is wrong about Christians being antagonistic to Judaism. Yes, in the past – in the Old World – Christians saw Jews as an a different religion, one that, if adopted by their children would see them denied eternal life.  But American Christianity is different.

From the start – in starting this nation and from the moment the settlers arrived – American Christians saw the Jews differently. They saw Judaism not as another religion but as the antecedent and a necessary and true part of their own heritage and beliefs. After all, not only was their savior a Jew, but he made it clear that he’d come not to change His father’s laws – the laws that the Jews brought to the world. American Christians – unlike any other Christians in the past (and elsewhere today) – see Judaism as part of their own religion and whole-heartedly embrace the Jews, the Jewish people and Israel.


I think Sayet is on to something here.  There has been vast shift in the view of Jews in the evangelical movement from the “unperfected Christian”  (Ann Coulter’s incredibly offensive phrase), a soul to be converted to a soul that should be respected. I strongly remember John Hagee’s impassioned speech  at AIPAC some years ago.  At the same conference Michael Oren spoke of his book Power, Faith and Fantasy how the American Christian tradition has long been a supporter of Zionism, a Jewish  homeland in Israel.

The American Christian experience has been very different from the experience in Europe.  Jews, however, who in no small part derive much of their secular modern identity from the holocaust remain suspect.  After their experience in Europe only a generation ago they are justifiably reluctant to have anyone else attempt to speak for their best interests.

The American Christians remain largely ignorant of the strongly Christian roots of antisemitism in Europe. Many are stunned to learn that the Passion Play in Europe centuries ago used to incite pogroms against the Jews, or the rabid anti Semitism of Martin Luther was a prelude of what would follow centuries later.  Forcing Jews to wear a yellow star or other identifying marks and clothing was not an invention of the Nazis, but a tradition of European Christians for centuries. For more on the relationship between European Christian history and anti Semitism read Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll.

The Jews’ embrace of the Democrats may be partially a rejection of the fundamentalist element of the Republicans, but the new antisemitism is far more embraced by the left. Their fear of the European Christian tradition may be less applicable to American Christians, and their paranoia may have caused them to embrace a far more dangerous foe.

Print This Post Print This Post

Acceptable Genocide

from The Real #GenocideinGaza in Slate by Ron Rosenbaum


For a quarter century now this genocidal Hamas pledge has been there for the world to see. Genocide, not some metaphor, not some Godwin’s Law–breaking comparison, but genocide—a mission statement. I find the unwillingness of the world to take this into account, to take it seriously, to understand the Israeli response to it, the Israeli rage generated by genocidal threat that dictates what to some—including myself at times—may seem a disproportionate response, is probably the most telling disconnect between the reality and the reporting on the Gaza conflict. Because believe me, the Israeli people are not ignorant of the Hamas Covenant, they are not unaware of its seriousness and the consequences thereof.

Apparently the world is content to ignore the fact that the Hamas Covenant is, in and of itself, a war crime. (A war crime, not yet a genocide.) Apparently the various moral equivalence explainers are unaware that advocating genocide is a punishable war crime, different only in degree from genocide itself. Indeed the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted the perpetrators of a Rwandan radio station of crimes against humanity just for its broadcasts inciting the murder of the Tutsis as that genocide (yes, genocide) got underway. Though neither party is a signatory to the Rome Statute on Genocide, I wouldn’t be opposed to that idiot Jewish advocate of genocide being hauled before the International Criminal Court. As long as the entire leadership of Hamas was there in the dock, too, for advocating genocide in their covenant.

Because of course the entire governing entity of Hamas is prima facie guilty of advocating genocide. But the ignoramuses comparing Israelis to Nazis and Gaza to genocide while ignoring actual ongoing genocide in Syria and Iraq must be seen as an excrescence of the enduring double standard to which Israelis—and Jews—are subjected.

Everyone debates the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I think the #GenocideinGaza analogists have shown us one place it can be found. Those who use it give themselves away.