RUTHFULLY YOURS

Israeli lawyer Akiva Laxer might be the most star-crossed traveler since the invention of the airplane. In May 1972, he was at Israel’s international airport, roughly a dozen miles outside of Tel Aviv, when members of a leftist terror group allied with the Palestine Liberation Organization staged a mass shooting that killed 26 people. A few months later, he was in Munich for the Olympic Games when Palestinian terrorists kidnapped and murdered 11 Israeli athletes. And then, on June 27, 1976, he found himself a hostage on an Air France plane in the midst of perhaps the most storied terror attack and rescue in the 20th century: the hijacking in Entebbe, Uganda.

Dozens of books and movies have tried to capture the menace and the romance of the operation, most famously “Raid on Entebbe,” the 1977 TV movie starring Peter Finch and Charles Bronson. It’s no wonder. The event sports a colorful cast of heroes and villains. In “Operation Thunderbolt,” British historian Saul David relies on extensive interviews with the captors, kidnapped and rescuers to retell the story in a tick-tock trek from Tel Aviv bunkers to the airport in Entebbe. The effect is heart-racing.

The tale began when Air France announced that Flight 139, departing from Israel, would make an unscheduled layover in Athens. The news rattled 12-year-old passenger Olivier Cojot, who told his father, Michel: “If I were a terrorist I would get on at the stopover.” In 1976, there were roughly three plane hijackings each month. Even young Olivier knew that a flight carrying Israelis through Athens, an airport with lax security, presented a prime target.

http://jamieglazov.com/2015/12/28/10-things-america-must-do-to-defend-itself-from-jihad-on-the-glazov-gang/

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was guest-hosted by Michael Finch, the president and Chief Operating Officer of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Michael interviewed Robert Spencer, the Director of JihadWatch.org and the author of the new book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS.

The two discussed 10 Things America Must Do To Defend Itself From Jihad, with Robert crystallizing the crucial steps the U.S. must take to reverse the tide.

Don’t miss it!

Lifting the veil

Today, as Daesh/ISIS — a sub-sect of Sunni Islam — murders and encourages murdering Americans, our foreign policy establishment argues that doubling down on efforts to “gain the confidence” of Sunni states, potentates, and peoples will lead them to turn against the jihadis among themselves and to fight Daesh with “boots on the ground.”

For more than a quarter century, as Americans have suffered trouble from the Muslim world’s Sunni and Shia components and as the perennial quarrel between them has intensified, the US government has taken the side of the Sunni. This has not worked out well for us. It is past time for our government to sort out our own business, and to mind it aggressively.
President George W. Bush doing sword dance with then prince (now Saudi king) Salman bin Abdul Aziz in 2008.

President George W. Bush doing sword dance with then prince (now Saudi king) Salman bin Abdul Aziz in 2008.

To understand why hopes for help from the Sunni side are forlorn, we must be clear that jihadism in general and Daesh in particular are logical outgrowths of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia’s (and the Gulf monarchies’) official religion, about how they fit in the broader conflict between Sunni and Shia, as well as about how the US occupation of Iraq exposed America to the vagaries of intra-Muslim conflicts.

Alas….not available in English….rsk
Did Jews recognizably still exist as a people in the late 19th century? Many questioned it. In his packed and vibrant fiction, the great Peretz Smolenskin proved them wrong.

This essay is the third in a series of fresh looks by Hillel Halkin at seminal Hebrew writers and thinkers of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The first two essays, on the proto-Zionist novelists Joseph Perl and Abraham Mapu, are available here and here.

In Peretz Smolenskin’s first Hebrew novel, Simḥat Ḥanef, a title taken from the book of Job and translatable as “The Humbug’s Happiness,” there is an account, set in the 1850s or 60s, of a stagecoach journey from Berdichev, a heavily Jewish town in central Ukraine, to the Black Sea port of Odessa. (Like other East European writers of Hebrew fiction, Smolenskin gave his Russian or Polish towns and cities imaginary and sometimes comic Hebrew names, generally formed by inverting or rearranging their letters. Thus, the Berdichev of The Humbug’s Happiness is Toshavey-Ba’ar—roughly, “Inhabitants of Ignorance”—while Odessa is Ashadot, “Waterfalls.”) The passage starts with an introductory reflection of the kind that Smolenskin (ca. 1840-1885), a prolific essayist as well as a writer of fiction, was fond of: in this case, a brief discourse on the spread of Russian railroads, the consequent demise of stagecoach travel, and the author’s obligation to memorialize the old means of transportation “so that posterity may recall the cumbersome ways of its ancestors.” Once the technologically transformative 19th century will have succeeded in changing everything, the narrator of The Humbug’s Happiness asks, who will believe that stagecoaches ever existed? “It’s all a figment of your imagination,” future historians who unearth such relics from the darkness of the past will be told.

We are the Tenured Far Leftists on the faculties of Israeli universities. We obediently sign our names to sundry petitions initiated by our colleagues, but those petitions do not really explain fully and clearly what we want. We wish to clarify what that is once and for all.

First of all, while we obsessively recite the mantra about how the “occupation” is the quintessence of all evil in the world and the source of all Middle East violence, we actually understand that any ending of the “occupation” in the West Bank would have exactly the same consequences as the ending of “occupation” in Gaza. These would include tens of thousands of missiles fired into the rump-Israel, into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Haifa, from the “liberated Palestine,” in addition to thousands of incursions of armed terrorists. So if we actually understand this perfectly well, why do we advocate the ending of the “occupation”?

Such advocacy is a form of comfortable political recreation and moral posturing for us, a sort of lounge-chair high and hot-tub mirth, not really an alternative we want to see implemented. It is to allow us to posture righteousness. We know that we represent only the most extreme 2% (or less) of Israelis and so the rest of the public will never agree to any such implementation. We are counting on that.

While American eyes are rightly fixed on ISIS, Palestine’s so-called “Stabbing Intifada” continues. For those unfamiliar with the latest twist in Palestinian terror tactics, Israel is beset by a spate of apparently spontaneous stabbing attacks, where (mostly) young Palestinians grab kitchen knives or other sharp objects and do their best to stab or hack to death as many Jews as possible. The Washington Post has the chilling details:

Young Palestinians with kitchen knives are waging a ceaseless campaign of near-suicidal violence that Israeli leaders are calling “a new kind of terrorism.” There were three attacks on Christmas Eve — two stabbings and one car ramming.

There have been about 120 attacks and attempted assaults by Palestinians against Israelis since early October, an average of more than one a day. At least 20 Israelis have been killed; more than 80 Palestinians have been shot dead by security forces and armed civilians during the assaults.

There is a numbing repetition to the news: knife-wielding Palestinian at a military checkpoint or bus stop shot dead at the scene — or “neutralized,” as the Israeli media call it. Many of the assaults or their aftermaths have been captured on cellphone videos.

The belief that a vast accumulation of (mostly plastic) garbage is floating somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean as a non-biodegradable stain on humanity, turns out to be…well…garbage.
Many, perhaps most, Americans believe that a vast accumulation of (mostly plastic) garbage is floating somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean, a non-biodegradable stain on humanity, choking and deforming fish. But apparently, that is just a myth. Kip Hansen writing in Watts Up With That? cites NOAA’s Ocean Service — Office of Response and Restoration:

“The NOAA Marine Debris Program’s Carey Morishige takes down two myths floating around with the rest of the debris about the garbage patches in a recent post on the Marine Debris Blog:

1. There is no “garbage patch,” a name which conjures images of a floating landfill in the middle of the ocean, with miles of bobbing plastic bottles and rogue yogurt cups. Morishige explains this misnomer:

“While it’s true that these areas have a higher concentration of plastic than other parts of the ocean, much of the debris found in these areas are small bits of plastic (microplastics) that are suspended throughout the water column. A comparison I like to use is that the debris is more like flecks of pepper floating throughout a bowl of soup, rather than a skim of fat that accumulates (or sits) on the surface.”

…..

2. There are many “garbage patches,” and by that, we mean that trash congregates to various degrees in numerous parts of the Pacific and the rest of the ocean. These natural gathering points appear where rotating currents, winds, and other ocean features converge to accumulate marine debris, as well as plankton, seaweed, and other sea life.”

Hansen’s essay is long and complex, and worth a read. Here are his conclusions:

We each need to do all we can to keep every sort of trash and plastic contained and disposed of in a responsible manner – this keeps it out of the oceans (and the rest of the natural environment).

Volunteerism to clean up beaches and reefs is effective and worthwhile.

Bushfires must seem very different from atop the ivory tower. The layman easily grasps that more fuel means bigger fires, and bigger fires inflict greater damage on the biota. To grant-nurtured professors and researchers in step with the Green Establishment, there is no co-relation whatsoever
A unique feature of the bushfire scene in Australia (as compared with other countries I have examined) is the extent of the opposition within Australian universities to fuel reduction burning in Australian forests. This oppposition is a source of discontent among firefighters, foresters, bushfire scientists and land managers. They find themselves assailed by self-confident academics who publish their thoughts on internet sites like “The Conversation”, invariably promoting bushfire policies that are doomed to fail, and discounting policies that are known to succeed. It is not just that the hard-won practical experience of bushfire practitioners in the field is rejected. The real tragedy is that opposition to burning:

undermines the work of the men and women trying to minimise bushfire damage to Australian communities and forests;
confuses the public who can’t work out who to believe; and
leads directly to more and worse bushfire disasters.

It almost seems as if there are two parallel worlds.

The suffocating sense of guilt that afflicts university life has beenwhipped into a cocktail of self-congratulation, on the one hand, and menacing intolerance, on the other. Doubtless it portends many things, but support for liberal education or liberal society, properly understood, is not among them
Who says the guild system is dead? In New York, these days, you seem to need a licence for everything. The prominent Catholic journalist Ross Douthat discovered this mournful truth recently when he practised theology without a licence in his column for the New York Times. The offending column, “The Plot to Change Catholicism”, was published on October 18 and sparked an immediate rebuke from the Fraternal Order of Snot-Nosed Leftish Academic Theologians, Ltd. (I may not have the name exactly right.)

Here’s what the brotherhood had to say (as an aid to the reader, I italicise a few phrases):

Aside from the fact that Mr Douthat has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject, the problem with his article and other recent statements is his view of Catholicism as unapologetically subject to a politically partisan narrative that has very little to do with what Catholicism really is. Moreover, accusing other members of the Catholic church of heresy, sometimes subtly, sometimes openly, is serious business that can have serious consequences for those so accused. This is not what we expect of the New York Times.

This effusion was signed by more than fifty academics and many more have subsequently weighed in to denounce Douthat for practising theology without a licence. The “Twitter war” that erupted is partly comical, partly alarming, as such public displays of intemperateness often are. “Own your heresy,” Douthat recommended to one left-wing interlocutor, a piece of advice that sent the groupthink brigades over the edge.

The case of Douthat is actually more complicated than a bare recitation of the events might suggest. The reason the brotherhood refused to issue the old nihil obstat to Ross Douthat was not really because he violated the cardinal guild rule against freelance theology. The guild suffers many interlopers to wax theological, provided that they come to the right conclusions.

Ross Douthat’s real sin was not so much theo­logising as expressing the wrong opinion about certain sensitive subjects dear to the brotherhood’s collective heart (and other organs). Specifically, when writing about the recent Synod on the family in Rome, Douthat expressed the heretical view that the Catholic Church ought to abide by Catholic teachings. If that seems elliptical, let me explain that by “heretical” I mean “orthodox”. Douthat, as a traditionalist Catholic, had the temerity to point out that Pope Francis aimed to use the Synod to advance the Left-liberal view that marriage is a relationship of convenience that can be revised or abrogated at will without incurring ecclesiastical censure. Specifically, Douthat charged, the Pope “favors the proposal, put forward by the church’s liberal cardinals, that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion without having their first marriage declared null”. Douthat continued:

The entire situation abounds with ironies. Aging progressives are seizing a moment they thought had slipped away, trying to outmaneuver younger conservatives who recently thought they owned the Catholic future. The African bishops are defending the faith of the European past against Germans and Italians weary of their own patrimony. A Jesuit pope is effectively at war with his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the erstwhile Inquisition—a situation that would make 16th century heads spin.

The university generates more invective than paeans. In Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind,” the author’s etiology of the university’s malaise was a German invasion of Marx, Weber and Freud, smuggled in through works by French authors. But while we might remember Bloom deriding “the Nietzschean left,” in fact what he lambastes is the left’s misappropriation of Nietzsche. “Nietzsche’s call to revolt against liberal democracy,” Bloom commented, is a call “from the Right.” Few today would be comfortable with his answers to the nihilism he diagnosed.

The record might be set straight with the publication of this curious little volume, “Anti-Education.” It might have just as easily been titled, “The Closing of the German Mind.” Billed as lectures “On the Future of Our Educational Institutions,” this is instead a dramatic dialogue. A renegade group of students take flight from their “pleasure-loving” confrères” into the woods, where they happen to overhear a conversation between a great philosopher (who sounds a lot like Schopenhauer) and his assistant about what constitutes “true education.”
Anti-Education

By Friedrich Nietzsche
New York Review, 124 pages, $14.95

Already in 1872 Nietzsche is criticizing a twofold tendency: toward expansion and dissemination on the one hand and narrowing and weakening on the other. As education aims to reach everyone, it gives up its “highest, noblest, loftiest claims” and contents itself “with serving some other form of life, for instance, the state.”