Posted February 9, 2002

HaCohen/Horowitz

I would like to say thank you to Ran HaCohen for this most insightful and meaningful response to the writings of David Horowitz on the Arab/Israeli conflict.

I don't think it is worth the time and effort to try to refute all of Mr. Horowitz's phony statements. But it is worth looking at some details. First, . . . Ran HaCohen is labeled"a self-hating Jew". How predictable . . . everyone who dares criticize the Israeli government . . . is either a "self-hating Jew" or an "anti-Semite." Now, it won't be possible to label Ran HaCohen an anti-Semite, so we should say he probably hates himself.

Definitely, we should have also been informed . . . that the new Holocaust is approaching unless we do something about those Arabs. This must be considered the voice of Zionist helplessness before the indisputable fact that Jews can live normal lives almost everywhere in the world, but not in Israel. Probably this stated Holocaust menace is just the other way to show how much Zionists are "worried" by the fact that no one is killing Jews around the world now, which seems to deprive them (Zionists) of the grounds on which to manipulate people's minds on the importance of having, enlarging and supporting Israel whatever the means and whatever it actually does, whoever it attempts to kill, etc.

The truth is, most Jews would nowadays prefer to stay in their countries, where they have their lives, friends, families and lifetime connections, instead of going to Israel where something could fall on their heads any minute (a bomb or other) and destroy all that they hold near and dear.

...I also enjoyed reading Ran HaCohen's . . . piece, ["David Horowitz's Virtual Israel"]. It is only a pity, in my opinion, that he contributes to Antiwar.com so rarely . . . I am wishing Ran HaCohen more time and inspiration to share his insights with us.

~ E.N.

IRA

Regarding "Terrorists, at Home and Abroad":

When someone lays down principles in the name of nationalism, do not misconstrue their intent. Neither the author nor his readers intend for a moment to act as per the proud declaration. Prof. James D Miller is not proposing consistent American foreign policy; he is acting out a pre-war ritual . . . Mr. Montgomery is similarly engaged, and in his case the demons are the Catholic Irish. His points don't make sense. The part the English have played in that long bloody struggle, even if we only count the last thirty years, is condemned in this article not for its expense or persistence or cruelty, but for its "lethargic form". The process by which Sinn Fein members are elected is "inherently undemocratic" because it uses gerrymandering, a feature that is, to a greater or lesser extent, common to every riding-based system in the democratic world. That Sinn Fein should be thus rewarded "is pretty much the opposite of conventional practice in a parliamentary democracy, where if you lose an election you lose office." Good thing the adjective "parliamentary" was there, because the present President of America, leader of the free world, is the most famous example of a democratic leader attaining office while losing the election. Most people in England don't want to go to war with the IRA again. Mr. Montgomery is signaling, but, for now, his countrymen are not responding, for there are more exciting targets. Hence the wistful tone of Mr. Montgomery's article. We, however, the readers of Antiwar.com, being logically consistent and all, might ask why a pro-war article is on this site.

~ Doug Barrett, Edmonton, Canada

Christopher Montgomery replies:

My points, such as they are, may well not make sense, but it's a bit silly to accuse me of a nationalism of my own, by viewing my arguments solely through your own nationalist prism. You denounce the part "the English" have played in "that struggle." That struggle, as you so coyly put it, is the murderous, racist and undemocratic attempt by the provisional IRA to turn the British people of Northern Ireland into Irishmen and women.

You drag in the "English" because, of course, you need some sort of demon-king to justify your apparent tolerance of what the Provos have got up to. To repeat: this "struggle" (launched by one side, and pursued by that selfsame side with means of utmost barbarism – do you really think that if the British majority in Ulster practiced the methods of the IRA that there would still be an IRA?) has nothing to do with the English, in or out of England. It has to do with the unwillingness of a small number of fanatical Irishmen to accept that in Northern Ireland the large majority of the people who live there are British, and wish to remain so.

As for drivel about "England's conquest": places further afield than Ulster were planted by us several centuries ago, and if everyone with a British surname is about to give way to the aboriginal occupants of, say, Canada, and come "home" to the British Isles, well, then we're about to become a very crowded little archipelago indeed.

And, finally, on the whole point of whether or not this counts as an "antiwar" article – I'm anti the terrorism of the IRA, you're, evidently, not. One of us is opposed to political violence in a democracy, the other isn't. If that makes you more "antiwar" than me, you're welcome to it.

Rare Occurrence

Justin: I read all your columns ... yours and Joe Sobran's are the only ones on the Web that I attend to religiously (now that Camille Paglia seems to have stopped putting out anything). Your writings are infused with logic and intellect and yet have blood in them too, a rare occurrence.

~ Steve S.

Foreign Policy

I have enjoyed reading . . . [Justin Raimondo's] column for about 2 years, and will continue to do so. This despite the unsavory fact that I am a foreigner. I refer to your column in which you write "...a foreigner like Mr. Penny takes . . . an inordinate and unseemly interest in what is . . . an internal American debate over foreign policy."

...I think [this is] a weak argument. Why? Because:

1. There are certainly people who find themselves living within the legal borders of the States who hold the exact same position as that misguided pro-war Canadian, and you very well could not dismiss them with that same line of argument.
2. America is all over the world. America is not a country, but rather an empire. Wherever you live on this planet, the red, white, and blue is going to get your attention as they rig an election here and compassionately bomb a country there.
3. Your site, and that of your affiliates . . . frequently-enough refer to writers who were not Americans with admiration: ...Dickens, ...Lord Acton, ...Alexis de Tocqueville, ...Orwell.

I look forward to reading your next on-line article.

~ JSB

Overlooking the Obvious

All of the various and sundry scenarios of possible coalitions with and against the United States in its conquest of Middle Eastern . by the elite, seem to overlook or minimize the key element in any escalating conflict in this region: China. That nation with the greatest population on Earth is poised to become the "new" world superpower. Only one thing now stands in her way, the United States.

I strongly suggest that anyone contemplating possible scenarios and outcomes of future conflicts in the Middle East include China. That nation has developed industrially and technologically more rapidly than any other in history. Its people are intelligent and capable. It is also demonstrating great wisdom in not committing to battle until the optimal time for success.

~ Jacob S.