An illogical relationship - Political opposites sustaining each other

It was an odd experience I had while looking into our current government’s relationships with Middle Eastern political parties. President Bush is trying to develop a Middle East where religious fundamentalism and narrow-mindedness are absent. This is a noble objective, but there is something irregular about his vision for these Arab states and his plan for our own country. The ambition of President Bush and his Evangelical followers is to remove the separation of church and state in this country. Between opposing same sex marriage in an effort to impose biblical ethics on the American people, to initiating a process which is trying to lead us to prayer in publicly funded schools, his vision is very clear, and in no way is it hidden. Yet, the individuals in the Arab world supported by our country today, ideologically; are diametrical opposites of what the ‘religious right-wing’ wants for our own country.

Interestingly, the moderates which President Bush and our government support and wish to be in control of the Middle East would be considered very liberal in our country. They aspire to remove religion from public life, they dream of a day when the Arab world will contribute greatly to scientific discovery and development instead of the current status quo: Quran memorization. The moderates we sustain have the goal for the Middle East that secular progressive minded liberals have for our very own country. Why does our government support the movements trying to Christianize our nation, yet support the secular groups with the intent of reversing the current religious dominance over politics in the Arab world? Islamic moral principles are not so different from Christian ethical values. After all, Muslims in the United States agree with the Christian right-wing movement on about all social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prayer; the only difference being their view of American foreign policy relating to Muslims.

On the other hand liberals can be accused of the same thing. In general, liberal progressives in the Western world are very keen on disagreeing with United States intervention in the Arab world. There hastiness to disagree on imposing secular progressive ethics on the Arab world and interfering with their affairs is an odd difference of opinion to have since they are generally very supportive of separating religion from politics. Why if you hold such a stance would you oppose the removal of religious extremism in the Middle East and the replacement of more moderate voices in the Arab world? This is partially, because the removal of religious extremism is not the main influence on our foreign policy decisions. The factors which contribute to our assessment process, in fact, have to do with capitalism and our economic interests overseas. In reality, ‘freedom’ and the democratic process have nothing to do with religious extremism and the moderation of Islam. As seen in the Palestinian territories, religious extremists like Hamas, who are set on our destruction, can easily win fair elections through the electoral route. It is a matter of who will benefit our economy the most. It is irrelevant if he is a tyrant, a man of the people, a fanatic, or a freethinker. It is about money. The reason the United States are empowering political figures in the Middle East with the same ideas as political figures in America who they oppose is simply because one side will benefit us more. As the saying goes, “Cash is king”.

Jews and Muslims both besieged by the extreme right in Holland

Haaretz.com reported:

Extreme right-wing violence in the Netherlands soared by 75 percent last year, according the annual Anne Frank Foundation report on extremism, which was released yesterday…The report's co-author told Haaretz that anti-Semitic hate crimes -- which constituted 13 percent of all cases -- are often falsely represented as anti-Zionist. According to Willem Wagenaar, 2006 saw 35 anti-Semitic instances out of a total of 265 hate crimes. The overall number of racial offenses dropped by 10 percent from the previous year, which saw 41 anti-Semitic attacks… For example, one group of extreme-right youths, who were found guilty of torching both a synagogue and an Muslim school, claimed they had set the synagogue on fire to protest Israel's policy."… About a quarter (23 percent) of all hate crimes in 2006 were directed at Muslim immigrants.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896587.html

It seems that extremely right wing people in all nations will target ethnic minorities, as well as religious minorities. From either blowing up an abortion clinic, to torching a synagogue the adherents of radicalized right-wing politics seem to constantly turn to violent behavior.

I would like to ask people in the comment section to tell me what they believe a major difference between the radicalized left wing and the radicalized right wing is. I’m curious to read the opinions of others, on the major underlying differences between these two forms of political extremism.

Hypocrisy at its premium

The State of Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust. The phrase “never again” was born in this era, as a statement that we would never allow such genocide to occur on this earth on our watch. Nevertheless, genocide is occurring once again, and not only is the world watching silently as the minuscule details of peacekeeping forces have finally ceased being debated by the United Nations. The Israeli news agency Haaretz, reported that:

“Almost all of the asylum seekers who Israel deported on Sunday to Egypt had escaped the genocide in Darfur, according to figures given to Haaretz by Israel Defense Forces officials.”

What has Israel come to as a nation? Not only is this a gross act of international law, but Israel is in effect possibly sending these people back to imminent death in Sudan. More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur already, and if the genocide is not halted, many more will perish. The State of Israel has a moral obligation to give asylum to refugees seeking to escape genocide. Imagine what the Jews in the S.S. St. Louis, who were so joyful that they would have a chance to come to America, thought when their boat was not allowed into any country (including America). Feeling alone and rejected by the entire world, the passengers returned to Europe in June 1939. To send refugees back to a country in which they may be killed, is an act of not only hypocrisy, but an act of disregard towards the founding principles in which the State of Israel was created.

Keeping the peace while the sides re-arm?

The UNIFIL "fact sheet" states the following:

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, is one of the UN’s oldest peacekeeping operations. Its nearly 2,000 troops and 50 unarmed military observers are tasked with seeking to maintain a ceasefire along the 70-mile (121 km) United Nations “Blue Line” between Israel and Lebanon, by patrolling, observing, reporting violations and liaising with the parties.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/factsheet.pdf

What exactly can they do then if Hezbollah fires rockets at Israeli's? Patrol? Observe? I believe that if peace really is going to be restored, then the UN should not sit idly, while Hezbollah re-arms itself for another conflict.

A philosophy of abhorrence revived

According to the Jerusalem Post, "the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which has almost five million members in the US, took a step toward a partial boycott of Israeli goods at its 2007 Churchwide Assembly in Chicago last week." This is hardly suprising, when one looks at the overall roots of Lutheranism.

In 1543, the Martin Luther, the churches overall founder wrote: “On The Jews and Their Lies”. This ludicrous work of Luther’s is a testament to his bigotry. Examples of the statements found in this work are:

A.) “What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?”

B.) “First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians”

C.) “Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and
destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their
synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable,
like gypsies.”

D.) “Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds
in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.”

E.) “Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more...”

Translated by Martin H. Bertram, On The Jews and Their
Lies, Luther's Works, Volume 47; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. (From HERE)

The above is just an example of the detestation filled ‘philosophy’ he brought to this earth. Can we truly anticipate much better from the followers of his message?

The regularity of devastation

In Iraq today, a truck bombing has killed "at least 500 people" according to CNN. Let's think about this for a second. At least 500 people are dead because of the continuing violence in Iraq. Nevertheless, with people I have spoken to, it seems to them so; normal. The entire nation was in tears and disbelief over the Virginia Tech massacre, yet, in Virginia that fateful morning, not even close to the amount of people died as do in Iraq almost every day. With the hope that people do not think I am attempting to desensitize what occurred at Virginia Tech, let’s look at the present circumstances rationally. We have been so desensitized by the continued death in Iraq that this has become normal! Thousands of Iraqi lives continue to be ruined based on a colossal error, and it is a fact of everyday life. I can think of few things that can be considered more demoralizing than the realization, that death on such an immense magnitude has been relegated to normality.

Giuliani's uncompromising ignorance

Rudy Giuliani has declared that he “opposes a Palestinian state” (LINK). In all probability this is an attempt by Rudy to win over Jewish voters, and many Orthodox Jewish voters will possibly support him now because of such a strong statement which is aligned with a stance of unconditional support for Israel. However, does such a ‘hawkish’ political position really equate to absolute support for the Jewish state?

How will there ever be peace in the Middle East with such an uncompromising view of a political reality? No matter what you think about the Palestinians as a collective people, a two state solution must occur if peace will ever be accomplished in the region. The reason groups like Hamas are popular in the Gaza strip and West Bank is simply because our policy. When conservatives give an uncompromising position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and then condemn and group like Hamas for keeping an uncompromising outlook, they are being nothing but hypocritical. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, and they will never alter their vile outlook, but if the United States government continues to act not in the name of peaceful solutions, but instead in the name of inflexibility, then the Palestinians who crave peace and harmony along with the Palestinians who were outraged by Arafat’s refusal to accept a remarkable deal offered to him, to form Palestinian statehood, will lose credibility. Think about it. Every time a United States leader or representative says something like what Rudy said, the progressives within Palestinian culture are not empowered, but instead Hamas and groups who are equally rigid and uncompromising win numerous more recruits to their cause of hate.

In other words, will Rudy Giuliani’s adamant position on Palestinian statehood benefit Israel at all? The answer is no. In the name of saving lives and creating peace in the Middle East, Jewish law is on the side of giving away land to prevent the spilling of more Jewish blood. (i.e. pikuach nefesh). Yes, a peace partner is needed to accomplish this idyllic ambition of peace, however, statements that do not recognize an important part of the peace process (two state solution) as valid, will do nothing but help Hamas find more suicide bombers.