What Carlebach Wrote, And Ma’ariv Published— Â by Hugh Fitzgerald
Back in the 1950s, before the victory in the Six-Day War and thus before the confusion induced in Israelis by all that talk about an “occupation” — of land to which Israel had the just claim, the superior legal, historic, and moral claim but which the world was conned, by dint of repetition, into believing belonged to a just-invented “Palestinian people” — there were those who were clear-eyed about Islam, and about the nature of the war — a classic Jihad — against Israel.
In 1979, the propagandist for the PLO Edward Said published “The Question of Palestine” in which he happened to quote, as an example, he thought, of Zionist absurdity, an Israeli wrter identified as Dr. Carlebach who was, I take it, Azriel Carlebach, the founder of the newspoaper Ma’ariv which is now said to be close to closing.
Had I not read Said’s atrocious book, I would never have known about Carlebach’s statement. But having read it, and realized how acute and how immutably accurate Carlebach’s statement was and is and will be, I try to find occasions to bring it to the attention of others whenever I can.
And how pleasing to think that it was Edward Said, (here with Hussein & Mooch Obama) illegitimate Edward who prated so much about “legitimate rights,”Â who brought it first to my, and now to your, attention.
Here it is:
“These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam. Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression. The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword. The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world…their reactions — to anything — have nothing to do with good sense. They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. You can talk ‘business’ with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah…This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them — even the Crusaders — left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the tries have died.
We pile sin upon crime when we distort the picture and reduce the discussion to a conflict of border between Israel and her neighbors. First of all, it is not the truth. The heart of the conflict is not the question of the borders; it is the question of Muslim psychology…..Moreover, to present the problem as a conflict between two similar parts is to provide the Arabs with the weapon of a claim that is not theirs. If the discussion with them is truly a political one, then it can be seen from both sides. Then we appear as those who came to a country that was entirely Arab, and we conquered and implanted ourselves as an alien body among them, and we loaded them with refugees and constitute a military danger for them, etc. etc. …one can justify this or that side–and such a presentation, sophisticated and political, of the problem is understandable for European minds–at our expense. The Arabs raise claims that make sense to the Western understanding of simple legal dispute But in reality, who knows better than us that such is not the source of their hostile stand? All those political and social concepts are never theirs. Occupation by force of arms, in their own eyes, in the eyes of Islam, is not all associated with injustice. To the contrary, it constitutes a certificate and demonstration of authentic ownership. The sorrow for the refugees, for the expropriated borders, has no room in their thinking Allah expelled, Allah will care. Never has a Muslim politician been moved by such things (unless, indeed, the catastrophe endangered his personal status). If there were no refugees and no conquest, they would oppose us just the same.”
Quaere:Â Is there a single word, jot or tittle, in these two paragraphs, that has not stood the test of time? Isn’t it true that had you read this before knowning what you know now about Islam and its adherents, you might possibly have doubted some of it — but now you doubt none of it?
And don’t you wish that twenty and thirty and forty years ago, all over the countries of Western Europe, people had grasped the nature of islam and could have stopped, in time, the quite unnecessary disaster that they, and especially those in the governments of Western Europe who presume to protect and instruct them, could have avoided had they not allowed in large numbers, or even small numbers, of Muslims to countries where their presence spells trouble, expense, danger — from now on, at the very time when we have so many other things to worry about? Of course you do.
Edward Said: The ‘Founding Father’ Who May Explain Obama’s Benghazi Errors
“Since the time of Homer every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric.”–ReadÂ MoreÂ Â»