Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Insanity takes all forms

Yesterday I commented on the refusal by Israel and the West to act on Iran's nuclear aspirations. I called it a wilful act of self-destruction.

Part of the same mindset to treat psychopaths the way you would like to be treated is also to be found in Stephen Spielberg's new movie about the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. Ben Shapiro
comments in Townhall:
Spielberg told Time that "Tony Kushner and I and the actors did not demonize anyone in the film. We don't demonize our targets. They're individuals. They have families." This is the problem: Today's left, and the Hollywood left in particular, sees everyone as human. Hitler was an individual; Hitler had a family. Presumably, Hitler's mother was fond of him as a child. Hitler had a woman who loved him. He liked animals. Does this make Hitler less of a demon?

Does it make him more worthy of sympathy? It does not. Certain people deserve to be demonized, because demonization is simply an accurate portrayal of their evil. The terrorists who slaughtered 11 Israeli Olympic athletes deserve no sympathy -- they deserve the hatred of moral people the world over.
This is so to the point. We can understand and empathize with a homicidal child molester as much as we like, but we need to do anything and everything it takes to make sure we and our children are safe.

We need to make sure Iran does not obtain nukes.

We need to stop psychopath from attacking us at every opportunity.

Spielberg seems to be one of those many Jews who thinks the Holocaust was a one-of. We're safe now. The world has changed. We have Israel now. At worst, it is a war of words now.
Five wars started by the Arab nations seem to mean nothing to him. The war of attrition AKA Intifada means nothing to him. So he hires as scripter for "Munich" a man who stated:
"...the establishment of the State of Israel "for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity … I wish the modern Israel hadn't been born."
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily also commented on "Munich". When Spielberg names intransigence as the biggest problem in the (ME)region, Farah states:
To accuse the Israelis of "intransigence" is about as big a lie as one can tell.

The problem in the Middle East, ultimately, is that one side seeks to destroy the other.

Can anyone deny that the Arabs still seek to destroy Israel and eradicate every Jew from the Middle East?

On the other hand, Israelis do not seek to destroy their enemies in the Middle East. If they sought to do so, they have the capability of doing it. They have possessed that capability for a long time. They have never used it. In fact, they have been a model of restraint even when faced with the possibility of defeat and destruction themselves.

The real danger in the Middle East, to which Spielberg appears oblivious, is that we are nearing a time when the Arabs will have for the first time the ability to destroy Israel.

That is the real thriller on our horizon.

Instead, Spielberg has chosen to make a movie about the past, about the balance of terror that has kept the quest for peace and freedom in the Middle East at an intractable impasse.

Coming very soon, the Muslim powers that have both persecuted the Jews and oppressed the Arabs will have within their arsenal weapons of mass destruction that could destroy Israel.

Will they sit on them the way the Israelis have for more than 40 years?

I don't think so. I doubt Steven Spielberg believes that. I don't know anyone in their right mind who would want to take that chance.
On Spielberg's remark about intransigence, Shapiro comments:
In a sense, this is true -- but only in the same sense in which Polish intransigence in failing to immediately surrender to Hitler was the cause of World War II. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not all that complicated, despite the "nuanced" gloss leftists like Spielberg wish to place upon it. One population, the Jews, wish to live in peace and security in their homeland -- and they have repeatedly demonstrated, to the point of insanity, their desire to be left alone (see Oslo Accords). Another population, the Arab population, wishes to throw the Jews out of their homeland and into the sea, and will brook no compromise in pursuit of that goal.

Are there human beings on both sides? Of course there are. But every human conflict involves human beings. Only human beings are capable of moral evil, because only human beings are capable of moral choice. Evil doesn't make someone subhuman -- it makes them all too human in their decision to exercise free will in pursuit of wickedness. Just because we are all human does not mean all of our behavior deserves the same moral treatment.
This is the core of the problem for the humanists among the Jews: The Arabs, and their fellow muslims look so human. Well, they ARE. They have also declared themselves the implacable, genocidal enemy of the Jews. Only a human could do this. Hitler did it. As Shapiro says, HIS mother surely loved him. Hitler had a sense of humor, liked good music and food, and had a woman who loved him. In 1940, to shoot him in the head at point blank with a shotgun - in front of all his friends if need be - would seem like a barbaric thing to do. But in fact it would have been the ONLY rational thing to do, had we've had the opportunity.

Spielberg made Schindler's List. No sympathy for Amon Goetz there. The Jews HE murdered were really innocent. But the Jews that Ali Hassan Salameh slaughtered, well, they were Israeli's. Apparently, by defintion not innocent, even to another Jew like Spielberg. And so their executioners are worthy of understanding, sympathy, respect even?

Spielberg is the type of Jew who, as the gas is pouring from the ceiling, is wondering what he's done to deserve this. Nice, sympathetic, but clueless. And his screenwriter Kushner, well, he would have been chairman of the Judenrat.


Post a Comment

<< Home