Juan Cole: Recognizing Israel as Jewish State akin to saying U.S. is "white state," Kerry should "slap down" Netanyahu - Jihad WatchAmerican universities are infested with Israel-hating leftist professors who bleed for the poor, oppressed Palestinians like University of Michigan's Juan Cole (above) who believe that the Jewish State of Israel is a racist state of Jewish bigots who hold their Arab-Moslem population in Apartheid subjugation and refuse statehood to Palestinians for no other reason than to safeguard the Jewish Identity of the Jewish State. Cole was particularly ticked off at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, comparing him to American White supremacists, for demanding that Jew-hating Palestinians acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state as one of five key conditions for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Cole insanely wants John Kerry to slap down Netanyahu and publicly humiliate him for his racist demands when his boss, Barack Obama (like many of his predecessors going back to Truman), recognizes Israel as a Jewish state (see); does that make Obama no better than a White racist bigot? I don't think so.
Anyway, I tried posting the following letter on Juan Cole's web site. It's now been 24 hours and it still hasn't appeared. I doubt that it will.
DEAR MR. COLE,
do you, sir, even know what the term "racism" means? Apparently not. So let me help you out. Racism is the belief in the superiority of one's own race over all other races and peoples. Which means that Jewish racism is the belief in the superiority of Jews over all gentiles. And if Israel was founded on the idea of Jewish racial superiority-with Zionists believing that this is what justifies a sovereign state for the Jewish people-then Israel would indeed be a racist state and Zionists akin to White supremacists...who believe that whites and only whites should rule this country.
But that is not the case. The Jewish State of Israel was founded because of racism; because of centuries of murderous bigotry and hatred for Jews who were wrongly seen as the enemy and corrupters of other races, peoples and faiths. How is it racism to protect a race from enemies that seek to do it harm or to destroy it completely? How is it racism for Israeli leaders to demand that its Arab-Moslem enemies set aside their ancient hatred of Jews and accept them as religious and ethnic equals? Israel was established as a sovereign homeland for the Jewish people to ensure their survival in a hostile world, and for no greater reason. That is not racism!
On the other hand, if anyone needs a good slap down from John Kerry it's Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority whose governing ideology is pan-Arab Nationalism: belief in the superiority and supremacy of the Arab race-meaning that the racial superiority of Arabs qualifies them to rule over Jews, Blacks, Whites, Orientals and all non-Arab peoples. Abbas's vision of a Palestinian state is profoundly racist in ways that Israel is not.
And while you're at it urge Mr. Kerry to slap down Khahled Marhal and Hamas for their Islamic supremacism: belief in the supremacy of Islam and its destiny to rule over Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and all non-Moslem faiths. It's because of hate-driven racists and religious ideologues like Abbas and Marhal (who hate Jews and Judaism above all other races and religions) that there exists a Jewish state and the need for it to continue.
And we mean it!
Professor Cole thinks that Ariel Sharon has been an absolute disaster for Israel and the peoples of the Middle East, and has listed ten reasons to back his view. What I found particularly interesting was reason #7 about Sharon's 1982 invasion of Lebanon...which actually proves how much Sharon has benefited Israel. Cole writes the following, followed by my comment:
"Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon resulted in an 18-year-long Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. This brutal rule over this area gradually alienated the Shiite Muslim Lebanese. They had earlier been mainly peasants and farmers and had not been very political. They had some conflicts with the Palestinian refugees among them and were said even to harbor some warm feelings for Israel. But after years of Israeli military occupation, the Shiites of Lebanon became radicalized and the small party-militia, Hizbullah became more and more popular among them. Radicalizing the Lebanese Shiites, was among Sharon’s most lasting legacies. Once Lebanese Shiites began acquiescing in Hizbullah power, they gradually became clients of the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor. In turn, in order to have a land bridge so as to supply Hizbullah, the Iranian regime cultivated Syria as a client. Sharon failed to install an Israel-friendly government in Lebanon. He simply further destabilized that country. At the same time, his policies helped create the Shiite crescent of Iran, Syria and south Lebanon. In other words, it was Sharon who helped make Iran a major player in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Before he stirred up the Lebanese Shiites, Iran had no such role."
If what Mr. Cole says is true that Sharon's military exploits in Lebanon are greatly responsible for the rise of radical Iran as a regional power, the explosion of Shiite extremism and the growing regional tensions between Israel's Sunni and Shiite enemies why is that necessarily a bad thing for Israel? Why is it bad for Israel for Sunnis and Shiites to hate and fear each other more than they hate and fear Israel? Why is it bad for Israel for the region to collapse into a deadly sectarian war where millions of Jew-hating Moslems insanely fighting for the true Islam could horribly die? Why is that bad for Israel? Looks like Sharon's disaster in Lebanon is bearing fruit for Israel as her Sunni and Shia enemies are on the verge of a necessary catastrophe.
FORWARD EMAILS TO