Maof

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/index.html

On April 19, HaAretz startled its readers with the following bit of news:
The European Union will not consider removing Hamas from its list of terrorist organizations so long as it refrains from demonstrating “respect for human rights”.
Here is a simple sanity test: Is it good or bad? The answer is, this is very good for everybody.
This is why it's good for the Jews. First, it shows Eurabia's opposition to a terrorist organization created specifically for the purpose of killing Jews. Second, it indirectly acknowledges that Jews are also human. Can we possibly ask for more without becoming obnoxious in that unique, unmistakably Jewish way?
But it is also good for Hamas. First, it implies that Eurabia's authorities are not planning to prosecute Hamas for the hundreds of murders committed by its members, and, therefore, it's OK to murder Jews as long as their human rights are not violated in the process. Second, it promises that as soon as Hamas leaders find an opportune moment to issue an insincere statement asserting their profound respect for human rights, their organization will no longer be blacklisted, which will allow Eurabian governments to finance and arm Hamas without having to use as intermediaries those charitable organizations with minarets that grow all over the Old Continent like maggots on a dead body.
And, last but not least, it is good for Eurabia, because it maintains an illusion that what was formerly known as Europe still has something left of its old dignity.
Trying to preserve what's left of American dignity, President Bush publicly announced that Hezbollah must disarm. Although he said it in a very strict tone of voice and in the presence of the press, Hezbollah not only failed to disarm immediately or at least promise to do so in the near future, it carelessly ignored our president's stern words altogether. I have a bad feeling that Sheikh Nasrallah does not respect the president. That's not good for anyone on this side of the War on Terror. But is it really unexpected, considering that our noble war is becoming as permanent and as meaningless as the war on drugs, the war on poverty, and a few other noble but totally meaningless wars that still go on, although nobody any longer cares to remember what they are about, mostly because they have miserably failed to render any real victories for this country?
But let us suppose that Hezbollah decided to heed President Bush's admontion and lay down its arms. What would happen next? It would become a perfectly legitimate political party, which, due to its huge popularity and the unstoppable democratization of the Middle East, would soon become a major political force in Lebanon. But wait! Hezbollah already is a major political force in Lebanon. So, what would change? Only one thing: its militia would merge with the Lebanese army. Would that be good for anyone on our side of the War on Terror? I don't think so. Of course, things would have been very different had President Bush, instead of making meaningless sounds, undertaken practical steps towards physical eradication of Hezbollan and its members. But such steps would require courage and wisdom that don't seem to be able to survive in the Washington, DC, climate.
As if to prove my point, Mahmud Abbas announced in a strict tone of voice that Hamas will have to disarm after the elections planned by the PLO for July 17. He was careful enough not to use the word immediately. Therefore, if Hamas disarms any time between now and never, it will still be in compliance with Abu Mazen's edict. But why would Hamas wait so long? It could disarm today, take part in the upcoming elections and, due to its huge popularity and the unstoppable democratization of the PLO, become a major political force on Israeli-occupied Israeli territory. But wait! It is already a major political force there. So, what would change? Nothing. Of course, things would have been very different had Prime Minister Sharon, instead of bleating humbly in the direction of Israel's enemies, led Israel to undertake practical steps towards physical eradication of Hamas and its members. But such measure would require courage and wisdom that don't seem to be able to survive in the Jerusalem climate. That's very bad.
On April 22, the newly elected Pope, Benedict XVI, wrote in his message to the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni:
As I announce to you my election and the solemn inauguration of my pontificate on Sunday, April 24, I trust in the help of the Most High to continue the dialogue and strengthen the cooperation with the sons and daughters of the Hebrew people.
This friendly note made me feel glad that I was not a Catholic. It's not because I think that Jews are any better than Catholics — that would be utterly preposterous, of course. It's because, as I was reading the Pope's words, I couldn't help thinking that I, even under the best of circumstances, would have never made a good Pope. Celibacy or being a woman has nothing to do with it: when a person reaches the age of Benedict XVI, the former is no longer a problem and, therefore, the latter makes no practical difference. Besides, at least one Pope, John VIII, was a woman. The problem is, I can't express myself the way a half-decent Pope should. If I were elected Pope, and the Chief Rabbi of Rome was my friend, and I felt like bragging to him in a nice, friendly way, this is what I would've written to him:
Hey, Ricci, in case you haven't heard, I'm the Pope now! Is it terrific or is it terrific? But, seriously, cross my heart, I hope to God that under my leadership Catholics will finally learn to get along with you people.
I can understand the Pope's reluctance to use the word Jews; like many Gentiles, he may believe that it constitutes an insult, and Jews themselves use it in a self-deprecating way, like American Blacks who sometimes address each other with the N word. But “sons and daughters of the Hebrew people”? Give me a break! I wouldn't be able to concoct something like that if my life depended on it.
But let's get back to the Pope's letter. Is this good or bad? Let's see. It's good for the Catholics, because it gives them hope that the new Pope may succeed in converting Jews to the true faith and thus finally get rid of us all in that uniquely Catholic, totally bloodless way. It's also good for the Jews, because it gives them hope that the new Pope will fight anti-Semitism. Well, fight may be too strong a word. Let's say, not actively encourage. What? You think this is not enough? That's so typically Jewish! No matter how much you give them, they will ask for more, and the more you give them, the louder they become.
Listen to me, Jews; this is nothing to sneeze at. You probably know that the newly elected Pope traditionally chooses his new name after a former Pope whom he admires the most and hopes to emulate the closest. We didn't have to guess who was Papa Wojtyla's role model: there was only one Pope John Paul before him. With this Pope, however, it's a bit trickier; 15 Benedicts have sat on St. Peter's throne before him. Go figure which one he likes the best. Hopefully, he is not going to follow in the footsteps of number 14 who wrote on June 14, 1751 in one of the most important encyclicals of his papacy, A Quo Primum — On Jews and Christians Living in the Same Place, adressed to Polish Catholics:
Our credible experts in Polish affairs and the citizens of Poland itself who communicated with Us have informed Us that the number of Jews in that country has greatly increased... The Jews have so replaced the Christians that some parishes are about to lose their ministers because their revenue has dwindled so drastically. Because the Jews control businesses selling liquor and even wine, they are therefore allowed to supervise the collection of public revenues. They have also gained control of inns, bankrupt estates, villages and public land by means of which they have subjugated poor Christian farmers... The most serious is that some households of the great have employed a Jew as “Superintendent-of-the-Household”; in this capacity, they not only administer domestic and economic matters, but they also ceaselessly exhibit and flaunt authority over the Christians they are living with. It is now even commonplace for Christians and Jews to intermingle anywhere. But what is even less comprehensible is that Jews fearlessly keep Christians of both sexes in their houses as their domestics, bound to their service. Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the wealth and inheritance of Christians.
Sounds familiar? He keeps going for a few more pages about how Jews have practically turned Poland into the West Bank and Gaza with their settlements and how bad it is for all the good people. So if you want to figure out why Poles hate us so much, you may want to read the encyclical. Besides, it may help you appreciate the come-on line that came from Pope Benedict XVI.
Benedict XIV may rest in peace. World War II helped the Poles to get rid of the Jewish yoke. Immediately before the war, a thousand-year-old community of Polish Jews was 3.3 million strong. Combined efforts of Nazi invaders and Polish patriots have led to its disappearance. In 1970's, less than 10,000 Jews still lived in Poland, but the Polish hatred of Jews continues burning undiminished.
As long as we are in the Pope-quoting mood, let me show you something you've heard a lot about, but were too lazy to read. On March 12, 2000, the late Pope John Paul II delivered a Prayer for Forgiveness. The prayer had an introduction, a conclusion, and 7 parts listing various sins. Each part was read by a cardinal and the Pope. Here is part IV:
IV. Confession of Sins against the People of Israel
Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:
Let us pray that, in recalling the sufferings endured by the people of Israel throughout history, Christians will acknowledge the sins committed by not a few of their number against the people of the Covenant and the blessings, and in this way will purify their hearts.
The Holy Father:
God of our fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant. We ask this through Christ our Lord.
Amen.
That sounds fine to me, but is it really good for the Jews? To answer this question, let's see how Catholic attitude towards Jews has changed in the five years that have passed since the prayer was delivered. Let us, for example, take a look at the predominantly Catholic France. It used to be ashamed of its anti-Semitism; today it carries it proudly, as a banner.
It would be unfair, however, to single out the Catholics. The explicitly anti-Semitic campaign for divestment from Israel was initiated by the Presbyterians. The explicitly anti-Semitic boycott of Israeli universities in Great Britain is being promoted by a perfectly secular organization, the Association of University Teachers. The list can be easily continued. To put it in simple, straightforward words, the truth is terrible. Anti-Semitism among Christians of every creed in Eurabian provinces has reached the levels that can only be compared with the time when they were provinces of the Third Reich. Apparently, the Christians spontaneously came to the conclusion that the Pope's apology miraculously absolved them from all responsibility for the persecution of my people in the past, present, and future and let their ancient hatred fly with abandon. The resurgence of anti-Semitism is not limited to the EU. It's happening in the former Soviet republics. It's happening in Canada. It's happening in the UK and the United States as well, although so far more on college campuses than in the streets.
The problem is, this will not go away. Just like 70 years ago, the wave of anti-Semitism is not the only fundamental societal change unfolding before our eyes. Just like 70 years ago, it is a sure symptom of an impending catastrophe that will affect not just Jews but everyone, without exception. Just like 70 years ago, not a single world leader is attempting to honestly face the problem. Unlike 70 years ago, Jews can still save themselves by making aliya.
And this brings me to the topic I have been carefully avoiding in all my articles. You see, I do not live in Israel. It makes it very tempting for me to suggest that Israelis follow my views: after all, if something goes wrong, I will not pay for it, but they will — with their and their children's blood. That's why, although I am opposed to disengagement, just like I would be opposed to an amputation of my own leg, no matter how many world-famous doctors assured me that without it I will finally be able to become a ballerina, I do not urge Israelis to resist it. If they do, Sharon will lock up them, not me.
 
However, there is something that I, as a Diaspora Jew, have a right to ask the Israeli government. What kind of an idiot will go to live in a country that evicts its own law-abiding citizens from their land and surrenders its territory to its sworn enemies, in an absurd attempt to placate them?
The disengagement will not bring peace. The goal of the Arabs' is not the occupation of Gaza, but the complete destruction of Israel, and Gaza is only one of many steps leading to that cherished goal. But it will stop many Jews around the world from returning to Israel. Many of those Jews will perish in the next Holocaust, which they might have survived had the Israeli government had courage and wisdom to defend its people and their land. But why would we expect the Israeli government to be any wiser or more courageous than our own?
This is very bad for the Jews. As always, it is bound to be at least as bad for the rest of the species.
April 26, 2005

© 2002—2005 Yashiko Sagamori. All rights reserved.

Russian version