G-HATE

Earlier today, my mother was commenting to me about by fraternal twin brother, who is living in Israel (as of today, or so, he has lived there for about two years, and will live there for yet one more before returning to the U.S.; if nothing else, living in that land has given him the pleasure of finding another group of people to hate).

She said that my brother had not called her or my father in the past several days. This pronunciation worried me. After all, my parents are in Orlando ((recall "the nexus" from Star Trek Generations? My father, one woulld like to think, should recall the episode "Tapestry," except that perhaps he should realize that it is only when one cares to do right about oneself that getting stabbed in an artificial heart (placed in the body because the original heart was destroyed in a battle with a deadly foe where principle dictated fight) gives one a second chance at life. He has been given a second chance by being given a new kidney. Let us hope that now, not all he can do is "complain" and further rape. Please, for the love of God. Refraining from these two activities alone will be as close as he gets, insofar as attending to his health is concerned, to learning the lessons of this episode)), and my brother has dutifully called them every several days or so to see how my father is doing. I hope all of them are doing well, because once again, the nation of Israel, surrounded by protean vermin who would wreak its detruction for hate's sake, has forced that nation to prepare once again to prepare for battle and "await the dawn."

And what have the flotsammy twin parasites of Hamas and Hizbullah (the Farsi translation of which literally comes out to be "Hitler supporters in headscarves") done this time so as to capapult themselves upon their preferred and permanent perch of victimhood?

Hamas kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and then Hizbullah crossed into Israeli terrirotry and seized several Israelis. The rationale, these democratically-elected groups say, was "retaliation" for the oppression of the Palestinians. Well, of course it was. I mean, I for one could barely contain my excitement when the two groups did NOT offer, as an explanation, the following old saw: "Israel deserves to be wiped off the map." (If that is true, then the kidnapping of a small group of soldiers is some pretty small chump change, isn't it?) (Also, please name me a group of "freedom figheters" that has EVER, in response to being occupied by a militarily superior power, demanded the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION of that power as a precondition to ceasing military hostilities against that power? Did Gandhi ever call for every Englishman to die as a condition England must recognize lest it face more passive resistance? Did the thirteen colonies demand the extirpation of the United Kingdom as a necessary prerequisite to achieving peace with Britain? No. Perchance why not? One cannot negotiate for peace with people whom one seeks the annihilation of, and of whose annihiliation one will have, in order to reach that "peace." Neville Chamberlain, after all, when he said, "peace in our times," made the comment while thousands of Britons and Germans were very much still alive. To demand the unconditional extermination of an entire civilization of a group of people as a precondition to peace is a logical fallacy, as there will be no one from that civilization with whom to negotate with once the extermination has been completed. In other words, people who claim peace can only be achieved through genocide aren't interested in peace. Israel, which has read "Genocidal Nonsense Spouted by Muslim Fanatics for Dummies" is aware of this, and, as a matter of logic - not cruelty or lack of compassion - has been forced to forego entertaining any option of considering peace, having recognized that to accept the terrorists' peace "feelers" peace conditions is to necessarily ensure that no Israeli will be alive to sit at the peace table. But I digress....)

To what latest act of oppression does Hamas refer? The fact that America has just sent millions of dollars worth of money and medical supplies to it, and has promised millions more, if Hamas simply recognizes that at least one of the millions of Jews in Israel has a right to exist? No - can't be. Terrorist groups - who oppress , by defiition, and spread terror, by definition - far beyond the intended targets - may have banal, crude and reductive methods and rhetoric, but the imagery they are able to conjure so as to express the extent of their victimhood has is ceaselessly imaginative. The Hamas terrorists, now having gained power in the Palestinian terrotories, first view this power grab itself as an act of oppression against itself. Strange, as most states or sovereigins who acquire power do so quite cheerfully. (After all, rarely today is the world leader who would actually declare, "Heavy is the heart that wears the crown.") Why? Because now THEY, they say, must be chiefly responsible for terrorizing the Israelis (as opposed to providing assistance to the states that formerly did so). I suppose that for Hamas, this is a tough burden. Governing through terrorizing - or terrorizing through governing - can't be easy, but as the Michael Douglas character said in "The American President," "democracy is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad."

As Hamas came to this realization, it simultaneously came to the "realization" that while it was elected, in large part, due to its ability to provide "social services" for Palestinians as a TERRORIST group (well, when your competition is Yasser Arafat, your ability to do this constitutes winning by default, I guess), it cannot do so
as a SOVEREIGN GOVERNMENT whose officiall foreign policy is to seek the complete destruction of another nation. And when Hamas came to power, naturally, the first thing it did was declare, "We will wipe Israel into the map," or whatever. When it said this, of course, it KNEW what Israel and the U.S' reaction would be. And it knew that as a result of the reaction, it would be able to play the victim card. So, the reaction was made, the pity card played.

Yet, in the initial months after the card was played - from the bottom of the deck, no less - Hamas did not gain a particular advantage from having played it. Granted, most countries (like that great occupier France, and that poster boy for religious tolerance, Russia) were delighted that a power dedicated to the destruction of Israel was in power, but since so many of these countries, in recent years, have pledged funds to fighting religious intolernace, riots, and any initiatives American within their own border these past six years, Hamas did not receive the outpouring of financial support it expected to.

Nor did Hezbollah, fresh off its election victories in Lebanon, now extricated from Syria's influence (somewhat). Hizbullah played the same pity card Hamas did once elected - "wipe Israel into the sea, blah blah blah, those poor Palestinians we're even happier to see about dying than we are about Israelis so that we won't have to feed, clothe and bathe them - well, two of the three, anyway"), and found that having rolled this hard six (as Commander Adama of Battlestar Galactica - or BSG - likes to say - I have cited another science fiction source than Star Trek!!) resulted in the return of a pair of snake eyes.

So, what did both countries then do? Iran, their hatron saint, a country which even the garden varitey anti-Jewish U.N. Nations were starting to view askew (note: the U.N. is not anti-Semitic; it loves Muslims, only hates Jews), exhorted these countries, not so subtly, to play the victim card militarily. So, in true Pavlovian response, Hamas responded, foaming at the mouth first, seizing several Israeli soldiers, knowing full well what Israel's response would be. It then cried, "Poor us! Israel has used its huge army - which, by the way, is only huge because we have terrorized the shit out of this country - to tell us not to do this again. How awful that we will now, once again, gain the sympathy of the entire world, except of course, for that of the U.S., who is bogged down in Iraq, and since we want as many U.S. soldiers to die there anyway, our attacking Israel here will inflame Muslim sentiment even more - if that's possile - against Americans in Iraq - and these Americans will die. Our victimhood is great! It allows us to remain victims. Sure, our enemies may die, but they're not victims - they're only "victims" of us.

Hezbollah decided to follow suit once it saw world "outrage" against Israel had quickly developed as a result of the Hamas incident. Hezbollah then crossed the Southern Lebanon border into Israel, kidnapped three Israelis, and as a result, Israel retaliated, and then Hezbollah struck back, etc. The details and numers don't matter. No matter how many Lebanese, Hzibullaters or Israelis die, Israel will be deemed to have used "disproportiate force," simply because it is the bigger country. This phrase "disproportionate force," of course, cleary implies who instigated the violence - and to any sane person implies why - and how maliciously - it was instigated - but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these two terrorist groups have succeeded in getting want they want: insta victinhood (just add water and stir Palestinian crocodile tears), world "outrage," deflection of starved Palestians' attention away from how these groups treat them like shit, and deflection away from Iran and its constant diabolical mutterances of starting World War III.

Some flack from the Arab League - an institution dedicated solely to Arab nations' stranglehold over the oil market, to Arabs' hegemony over hate, and to, of course, the eradiction of Israel, wagged his finger, barkily proclaiming, "The Mideast peace process is dead," in response to the events in Lebanon of the last few days. Excuse me, Sir, but in your mind, when did that process START, and who initiated it? Who proposed all of the initiatives of peace? Who objected to every single one of them? If by your remark, "the process is dead," you mean that an offer giving the Palestinians everything they purport to want, only to have such offer refused so that the cry of victimhood can be left alive, you're probably right. But you already knew no such offer would be forthcoming since 2000 (when it was last made) already, didn't you? Why, then, these attacks? To scuttle a non-existent peace process you don't care about? No - because of pity, victimhood, and hate.

These people were so enraged that, in response to their demagoguery, terrorism, lies, and inransigence, land was given to them unilaterally, that such an act could not be met unpunished. It interrupted the particulars of timing of the play that constitutes their story of victimhood. So, they decided to chuck Sharon's rewrite to that script - the disengagement - by doing everything they could to make sure that further genuine peace overtures toward the Palestinians will not be likely for quite some time. Hey, victimhood doesn't create itself!

What is most interesting about the current conflict in Lebanon - which I pray does not escalate (but if it does, the U.S. should stop talking and let Israel, in the words of, of all people, crazier-than-Ann-Coulter-right-wing basket case-Joseph Farah, "make hummus out of Hamas." Good god, if that happened, would the Palestinians be any more oppressed, by ayone, than they are now?), is the typical world reaction - especially, that of the other industrial superpowers.

America is undoubtedly only the most hypocritical nation on Earth, but that's only because we have a short learning curve. Italy, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia, in particular - all of whom, to some degree have condemned the Israeli counter-attacks in Lebanon - are once again displaying their shameful hypocrisy when it comes to the issue of how a sovereign nation out to defend itself against a terrorist disruptor, or as to how to act in military situations generally (and to think that out of these nations, Germany - of all of them - is taking the least hard line against Israel at least "officially" - the world really is coming to an end!) :

1. Germany: Of course, were I to see the advice of any one nation on the planet as to exercise "military restraint," as Germany now calls upon Israel to do, I would consult Germany. At a soccer match several years ago, Germany stunned Britain with a last-minute victory. One of the German players, gloatingly barked to one of the Brits, "we beat you at your favorite sport." "That's OK. After all, we beat you at yours. Twice." Germany, like many other European nations struggling to find its place, but apparently not struggling to retain its proud display of religious intolerance, has seen, in the last several years, the kind of religious and ethic strife that Paris recently witnessed in its nightly lootings and burnings of a few months ago. Hezbollah, whose name is derived from its fondness for Hitler, should at least be expressly denunciated by this country before it tells others that they don't, shall we say, need more liebensraum for real reasons.

2. Britain: Brtain would know all about colonization and occupation. After all, more countries around the world have incorporated the Union Jack into their flags than has any other symbol of one nation been incorporated to any other group of flags. The imperial attitudes of Britain help explain why Tony Blair so enthusiastically supported Bush's invasion of Iraq; after all, the sun many never set on the British Empire, but that statement only holds true as long as Britain can claim responsibility for importing its ideals of democracy - ideals which have included slavery, the ideas denounced by the thirteen colonies, Christianity which Britons do not practice - across the globe. Know why aboriginal children in Australia born of aboriginal women and white men were taken away from their mothers and forced into labor camps for the rest of their lives? Because whatever else Britain is capable or not capable of doing nowadays, it still is readily capable of making pronouncements about who must take up the White Man's Burden. Of course, since it created the Israel-Palestine mess, it feels obligated to tell Israel how to conduct its affairs now. Either that, or people or so sick of Tony Blair that unless he exercised Israeli restraint, he'd be booted out of office even before he got that rapidly appoaching opportunity to retire.

3: France: What can one say? This is the country from where the phrase "bete noir" (dark person hated by everyone - and the French weren't even referring to blacks, for whom they have harbored racial hatred for as many years as any nation on this planet) comes from. It is the country that is so militarily inpet (having never won a major conflict, on its own, in modern times, except against itself, and even then, it lost, if you know what I mean), that it cannot resist the urge to give marching orders to other nations. Especially to Israel, of course. The history of anti-Semitism (and anti-just about everything else) is well-documented in France, which makes it hard to believe that France actually intervened on Israel's behalf in the Suez Crisis in 1956. That incident, for the French, must have repesented a temporary lapse from whatever constitutes sanity over there - and since then, France has galmourized all "oppressed" people seeking to free themselves from the grip of occupation - except, that is, of course, the Algerians whom the French kept under brutal occupation for so long, and the Indochinese, whom the French, in typical fashion, spent ten years getting their asses kicked by, only to have to leave so that the U.S. could inherit the Vietnam quagmire. Naturally, France then insulted the U.S. for its participation in Vietnam. France's M.O. is simple: launch a "moral" attack against perceived "aggressors" and superpowers so that other countries can weaken them. After all, it's not like we can ever be a superpower again.

4. Russia, or "A porgrom a day makes the Jews flee away." This nation is still lamenting the loss of all of its former Republics, over whom it ruled with an iron fist, and can't imagine why these nations how want to ally with NATO instead of Putin's alternative vision, HATE-O. Russian diplomacy (contradictory as the term may sound) will be put to the test by the Lebanon conflict. After all, Russia wants to make sure that it can coddle North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions as much as possible, while reserving the right to speak out against "nuclear proliferation." It cannot, of course, coddle these states without denouncing Israel - so consistency's sake demands that it too, condemn Israel. That, and the fact that it lost all of those Jews who had to flee from it in terror in the '80's and '90's to literally escape certain death.

5. Italy: not much to say here. Italy will side with whomever it perceives as the winning team. After all, it went from Il Duce to Il Noose to Los Americanos in the span of several years, while being expected to be taken seriously at every turn. Now, it believes that the "winning" team is those countries telling Israel how it cannot defend itself; after all, strength in numbers is a valuable strength, as Italy found out in World War II.

Yes, the above summary was crude and not especially well-informed, but the thinking behind it was no more base than the thinking behind these anti-Jewish countries' decisions to condemn the possessor of a tiny piece of land trying to defend itself from enemies on all sides - a situation none of these powers have ever faced, as their godly Christianity and Kipling sense of superiority long let them conquer, rape, pillage, persecute, torture and colonize with impunity. Are these past facts irrelevant? I don't think so, but even if they were, these countries in particular have singularly gone out of their way to make it difficult to make people of different faiths and ehtnicities to live peacefully with each other. I wonder why that is? As Cole Porter once said, "The song may have ended, but the melody lingers on."

Indeed.