Friday, January 2, 2009
Freedom And Power, Part 1
As is the case with most politically oriented blogs, the majority of the posts to Eternity Road are...wait for it...politically oriented. That tends to channel our commentary along the path of current events, for political discourse in the United States (and in most other Western nations) is largely determined by...wait for it...current events.
In consequence, when there isn't much going on, the habitual current-events commentator will feel a touch of "dry mouth." He'll cast about for something to talk about, and will reel in his line to find nothing on the hook. To those of us who are addicted to that sort of blather, this presents a problem. In extreme cases, it can even affect the sufferer's health. (NOTE: The application of alcohol -- the potable kind -- will ameliorate the condition. If the malady persists, increase the dosage.)
Of course, we do have the current Gaza Strip War to maunder over. But this event is a culmination, a foreseeable consequence of events four years deep. There isn't much doubt, given the configuration of the engaged forces and the pressures being exerted by uninvolved states, about how it will end. So what is one to say?
You might be surprised.
The major organs of the Old Media persist in denying HAMAS its proper characterization. It's a terrorist organization, peopled by murderous fanatics and supplied with guidance, money, and weapons by states implacably hostile to Israel. It uses all the traditional means of a terrorist group: suicide bombings, the targeting of civilians, innocent human shields to protect its assets and emplacements, and regular recourse to amenable media outlets with utterly false accounts of its agenda, its deeds, and the deeds of those it would destroy.
Probably the most potent weapon in HAMAS's arsenal is the willing collaboration of Western organs in the Old Media. By refusing to label HAMAS as a terrorist group, the Old Media allow themselves moral equivalence between HAMAS and Israel. They treat the deaths of HAMAS fighters and Israeli children as equally to be deplored. Despite the Israel Defense Forces' near-to-unbelievable restraint in pursuing HAMAS killers, the Old Media persist in describing the IDF's campaign as "indiscriminate" and "disproportionate."
HAMAS, and the states whose bidding it does, have made full use of these Western fifth columnists. They've learned the lessons of Vietnam as well as anyone.
Of course, the Westerners who collaborate thus with HAMAS aren't all fully aware of that group's aims and methods. Those who are must have some sort of internal moral shield against the conscience pangs we'd expect from supporting such evil. In the usual case, it's something about Israel being an "occupier" or "an apartheid state," rather than a more-or-less democratic political entity that deserves to be allowed to exist in peace. But such a shield can only remain effective if it's not exposed to a piercing round:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the soldiers, or leave it for its owners, or what? After consultations and discussions between the Caliph of the Moslems, Omar bin-el-Khatab and companions of the Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, it was decided that the land should be left with its owners who could benefit by its fruit. As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit. This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.
"Verily, this is a certain truth. Wherefore praise the name of thy Lord, the great Allah." (The Inevitable - verse 95).
That, Gentle Reader, is Article Eleven of the HAMAS Charter, which has not been edited nor abridged since it was published on August 18, 1988. HAMAS, in case you weren't aware of it, is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawamat al-Islamiyyah, the Arabic for "Islamic Resistance Movement."
This is the force that regularly sends suicide bombers and fires Qassam rockets into the "apartheid state" of Israel.
A HAMAS allegiant or supporter will vigorously deny that it's a terrorist organization, No, no! You've been duped by Zionist propaganda! They're freedom fighters! All they desire is to be free of the oppression of the Zionist occupiers! Notably, when such a person advances the "freedom fighter" characterization during an interview with some Old Media reporter, the reporter almost never dares to challenge it -- either then or later.
But as we can see from Article Eleven above, HAMAS asserts something just a bit beyond merely throwing off the "Zionist oppressor:" it demands that "Palestine," by which it means to include all of Israel, be made subject to Islamic Shari'a law.
Whether he holds a weapon or not, he who demands that his notions of law be imposed on a subject people is not a seeker of freedom, but of power.
Freedom is inseparable from anarchy.
If you think the above a questionable statement, please bear in mind that anarchy means without a ruler. Connotations of violence and chaos are accretions to the dictionary meaning of the word, largely deriving from its misuse in times of strife. Once a subject matter has been chosen, the question "Are we free to address this as we please?" is identical to the question, "Is there a ruler -- an agency conceded the privilege of using force and intimidation to get its way -- who has asserted authority in this matter?"
- "Freedom of religion" == "Religious anarchy"
- "Freedom of speech" == "Expressive anarchy"
- "Freedom of assembly" == "Associative anarchy"
...and so forth.
In point of fact, the United States of America was designed to be, de facto, an anarchy. The proof is here: Under the Constitution of these United States, no government is allowed to punish on its own authority. In case the relevant passage has slipped past you:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. [Amendment VI]
A jury is always composed of private citizens. Moreover, jurors are immune from punishment, or other repercussions, regardless of the verdict they render. Thus, it is not government that holds the power to punish, but one's fellow citizens; government merely supplies the enforcement power, should the defendant's "personal legislature" decree that a penalty be imposed upon him.
Granted, this conception has been severely undermined by the emergence of bureaucracies conceded the power to impose penalties without the nuisance of a trial in which the accused might somehow be acquitted. But the original design was as stated here: an anarchic system, wherein his fellow private citizens were the arbiters of an accused man's fate. Governments can make laws, and provide enforcement when authorized by a jury, but should that jury refuse its consent, government is required to stay its hand.
An organization that demands the unchecked power to decree and impose punishments aspires to a status no one and no group should ever be allowed. It is anathema to the fundamentally anarchic American spirit that such a group should be tolerated...and still more so that any American, in any walk of life, should lend it support by speech or action.
In the Gaza Strip War, we have a faceoff between two competing power merchants: Israel, through its IDF; and HAMAS, through its fighters. HAMAS is dedicated to the imposition of totalitarian shari'a law upon Israel. Therefore, a decent man must nominate Israel as the ethically preferable entity, even though Israel is a much less free state than America. Given that Israel cannot persist unless HAMAS is destroyed, and that what freedom Israel's citizens enjoy depends on that outcome, HAMAS and its "freedom fighters" must be eliminated by any means expedient. Representations to the contrary, regardless of the arguments beneath them, must be opposed wherever they're offered, with all the skill at our disposal.
Decent men cannot prefer power over freedom.
