Peace across the earth?

The left, a lofty single-minded folk, always thinking about how to bring peace across the earth. So it is with these kinds of posts at DailyKos by the 'nutroots': "Imagine a world without Israel,"

...obviously, liberal logic is at work here.

Yes, it is the Chomsky/Kos wing of the left I am talking about here and they may not represent you if you are merely a democrat. Not every democrat is a leftist after all. (But as we all know democrats who aren't leftists these days are less and less welcome in the party.)

The reality is that this post at DailyKos could also have been titled, "Imagine a world without America," because all the same liberal logic applies.

Imagine a world without Israel
by qrswave Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:41:50 PM PDT

Or is that not allowed?

Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.

There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.

We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.

We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.

There would be no more settlements or armed settlers because the people would be united.

We could replant trees and olive groves and rebuild battered cities.

No more suicide bombers or sniper fire, and no more dead civilians.

No more targeted killings and hell-fire missiles, or systematic demolitions.

Palestinians and Jews could live together and the world could address other issues.

What a simpler place this world would be

if there was no need for a Jewish majority - where there would otherwise be none.

Is it so hard to imagine?  ~dailykos.com

There is little justification for 'imagining a world' without Israel. Instead, let's imagine a world without liberals. A world where no one makes excuses for terrorists, a world where the UN immediately condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for acts of terrorism, kidnapping, murder, etc, and commends Israel for their patience and restraint in the face of murderous aggression, instead of demanding that Israel negotiate with terrorists and surrender their throats to the Islamo-fascist knife.

Over and over again those who should know better demand that the good give up in the face of evil and stop fighting for the sake of a progressive concept of 'peace'. I'd blame it on moral relativism but it's not really relative at all. Relativism would at least tend to be neutral. This is in fact moral reversal, where good is called evil and evil is lauded as good.

It was Edmund Burke who said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." In this case the Noam Chomsky's, qrswave's, and the Markos Moulitsas's of the world actively denigrate the good and promote evil as if it were good. It's not surprising then that so much of the Kos/Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky/Air America progressives seem to align their thoughts with our enemies.

In this case imagining a world without Israel is something a nuclear Iran is actively planning.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that the Zionist regime is the root cause of problems of the Muslim nations.  ~Ahmadinejad's Blog

The liberal logic used to arrive at this very same conclusion is puzzling but no longer unexpected. Has there EVER been a UN resolution denouncing Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO? I'm not sure because I haven't found one yet. But I can instantaneously find numerous UN resolutions condemning Israeli 'aggression'. Progressive policy, elucidated in the following Chomsky quote, seems to follow this line.

Chomsky: "So, though the policies of Hamas are, again in my view, unacceptable, they happen to be closer to the international consensus on a political peaceful settlement than those of their antagonists, and it's a reflection of the power of the imperial states - the United States and Europe - that they are able to shift the framework, so that the problem appears to be Hamas' policies, and not the more extreme policies of the United States and Israel.  ~memri

In contrast to Chomsky's statement, Ahmadinejad's statement is the cold hard truth. For Muslim nations like Iran there can be no peace as long as there is an Israel. And since the policies of Hamas and Hezbollah are synonymous with Iran's it is incredible that anyone could even imagine that these policies are somehow acceptable or preferable in any way.

The only way I can explain it is by assuming that, on the progressive left, peace is a term whose definition has been warped by the cold war. This quote attributed to Stalin explains it best, "[After Communism succeeds] ...then, there will come a peace across the earth." Hopefully I don't have to explain who needed to be eliminated in Stalin's mind for Communism to succeed.

[H]egemonic Word count: 810

Powered By: BackLinkr

 

---