I've been in a bit of Blogger's malaise - but seeing the fortuitous use of the great tragedy in Mumbai for the sniveling purpose of Political asides and agendas has more than been enough to awaken me.
What is more heinous then murder is the exploitation of those innocents whose blood has been spilled for one's own selfish cause.
Exploiting Mumbai's Tragedy indeed.
Chew on this, my little Secular Jihadi (there is your link you so crave by the way) . . . Comment may be free, but sadly common sense is not.
In his article dated December 4th, Silverstein criticizes the use of the murder of Rabbi Holtzberg הי"ד for political asides and agendas by dubbing the atrocities as antisemitic as opposed to Anti-Israeli in nature.
Yet those who gird their loins with the white clothes of peace and piety, seem unashamed of the sophistry in using the murders to further their own Political agendas of Chamberlainian "Peace for our Time - at any cost".
Where the attacks a Pakistani pogrom? No. As Silverstein points out in his article, the terrorism of these men was politically motivated . . .They sought to bring international attention to their cause - unfortunately choosing the most cowardly and perverse methods, those that not only fail to bring about political change, but will almost assuredly elicit a negative response to their actions. The targets, however, were not indiscriminate victims of violence - but those perceived as abetting the Indian cause. The Chabad House was chosen with purpose of mind and deed to destroy Jewish life . . . and this iswhere Silverstein errs.
Did the Terrorists target Israelis and Israeli causes -yes, but by the very fact that they indiscriminately killed Jews, regardless of National affiliation or belief, makes it much larger then Anti-Israeli sentiment. It is Judeophobia and antisemitism most foul.
There may be those that can argue that Jewish identity is one entirely separate then that of the Holy Land. Perhaps in the past there was room for philosophical debate, and in the isolated realm of Academia (which by no chance of fate is host to the most vicious and virulent antisemitic tirades spoken in the free world since the fall of the Third Reich) there may be continued room for debate. - I would venture that since Antisemitism went out of style with ashes of our brethren in Auschwitz, Belzec and Chelmno, and has today hidden itself in Anti-Zionism and the pages of the Guardian. Mr. Silverstein may choose differ.
When we deal with Islamic Extremists, however, there is no room for differentiation between Judaism and Zionism -to them they are one and the same. When Daniel Pearl was killed, by Pakistani terrorists might I add, there was no difference between Zionism and Judaism. So to by the victims of Beis Chabad Mumbai.
Mr. Silverstein, may I perhaps suggest (though I by no means recommend) strolling alone down the streets of Gaza city, Damascus or Karachi and see if your separation from "Jewish Nationalism" will be of much use to you . . . If your knowledge of Geo-Political conflict will allow you to point out that you are there to help the Islamic cause . . . Need I any further proof to my words then Silversteins own, and I quote:
"Even the Chabad movement should taken to task for not providing greater security for its facility. In a city already beset by past terror attacks, any target perceived as Jewish or Israeli (not just Israeli government buildings) should have had serious surveillance (i.e. security cameras) and the ability to lock itself down quickly"If we are to believe that there is some tangible difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, then why ought those places perceived as Jewish have need to fear? Had the gunmen known that Chabad is not a Zionist organization, and that Rabbi Teitelbaum was of Hungarian, anti-Zionist stock, would their lives have been spared?
Silverstein's words are mere political semantics made to somehow disavow a certain degree of guilt from the bloodied hands of Terrorists.
"What should really be understood is that, as with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, here we have essentially a political/territorial conflict between Pakistan and India over Kashmir that has been turned by Hindu and Muslim extremists on both sides into a religious crusade."To compare the actions of these men with the Palestinians is to somehow pardon them both.
"Tisk Tisk, you know your popular Islamist cause in face of oppression from Zionists and Hindus is wrong, but just don't get so worked up about it. When you play your geopolitical games, play nice."
Silversteins next line, however, is so morally reprehensible that it boggles the mind [the bold is my addition]
"The Mumbai attackers, like political terrorists everywhere, desperately seek to destabilise the enemy while paralysing the will to compromise and negotiate an end to conflict. This is as true of Israel as it is of Pakistan."
- to somehow purport that there is any correlation between the Pakistani militance that would take the lives of at least 173 people and Israel is moral relativism at its worst.
Let us, you -Mr Silverstein and I, go further.
Did he condemn the acts? Of course - but that is not to his compliment - it is a necessary prerequisite for his entry into the Human race . . . it is to be expected.
I am, however, disturbed by the statement that "Every fibre of my being wishes that this story [of torture] is false. If it isn't, it will set back Jewish-Muslim relations years, if not decades." I smell a rat in the logic of this statement. Shouldn't one hope that the hostages were not tortured out of Humanitarian reasons? Out of the violation of their fundamental rights endowed to them by the very fact that they were designed in the image of their Creator? I would honestly hope that torture isn't a mere inconvenience to ones political cause.
If they were tortured by Islamic extremists, wouldn't you see the tacit, and very often open, support (and here I speak of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the PLO et al ad nauseam) of their actions to be a true impediment in peace? If there is no partner, then how can there be peace?
If the claims are indeed false, would the fact that Israelis were 'merely' targeted suffice to make those who don't disavow themselves from murder, pure?
And what of Silverstein's use of "struggle" to describe Hamas's actions? Mr. Silverstein, Martin Luther King struggled for a cause. Mahatma Gandhi struggled for a cause. Hamas does not struggle -they Kampf perhaps. They launch rockets then hide behind civilians in cowardice. They kill, they maim, but they do not "struggle".
Perhaps, however, based on the opinions of those opposing the Nationalistic and Zionistic cries of the Right, we can posit that in truth there is no such thing as antisemitism.
The Inquisitions were not antisemitic. No, they were merely the Spanish backlash against arrogant Jewish religiosity. Perhaps had all Iberian Jews been wiser they would have pleasantly assimilated into Spanish Catholicism, and saved Torquemada an unpleasant job.
The Soviet oppression was not antisemitic. It was a justified backlash against the Jewish perfidy to the Soviet Motherland. If they we Jews were to have dropped their antiquated beliefs, their Nationalistic desires to leave for Israel, then they wouldn't force the hands of NKVD and KGB send them to the Gulags.
The Hebron massacre of 1929 was not antisemitic, it was merely a great misunderstanding on the part of the Arabs, who in any event were justifiably enraged by Jewish aggression (there unfortunately no Israelis around at the time for which to confuse these Jews with).
The Nazis weren't antisemitic either. The Jewish people were unfortunately caught in a political/territorial conflict. The Germans had been gracious enough to let the Jews live amongst them for the past thousand years or so, but now the German nation needed its Lebensraum, and unfortunately the Jews, along with Roma, Slavs and other untermentschen were just in the way.
As I said, Comment is free, brains, however, appear to be harder to come by.
Technorati Tags: Exploiting Mumbai's Tragedy, Richard Silverstein, Terrorism, Antisemitism, Chabad, Essays, News