Israel's Final Solution for Gaza and Lebanon

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture
Submitted by Kyrel Zantonavitch on Sun, 2010-06-06 20:22

In every serious and important sense, Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon have declared war on Israel. These two jihadi states are overwhelmingly committed to conquering and enslaving the local Jews -- if not exterminating them. And these Muslim monsters are very open and confident about achieving this new holocaust. Pretty much nothing could be more heartlessly evil. So why doesn't Israel effectively counter these massive threats, and defeat these two obvious Islamo-fascist enemies?


The nations of Gaza and Lebanon profoundly need to be decisively and resoundingly defeated. Their two dictatorships need to be crushed into oblivion for all time. The political, intellectual, religious, and military leaders there should be captured and killed -- or at least publicly humiliated -- and their false and evil philosophy of Islam, jihad, and sharia should be simultaneously refuted, condemned, and ridiculed into non-existence.


And some of the war-mongering, enemy territory of the Gazans and Lebanese needs to be taken away from the Islamic attackers so that they know that they've been defeated, and thus have to pay a real price for their loss (a kind of legitimate "land for peace" deal). These Muslim ignoramuses and lowlives need to be clearly and emphatically informed that their defeat is a direct product of their ideology, and that they desperately need a new one if they wish to acquire liberty, prosperity, and the good life, while avoiding terrible military defeats in future.


The victorious party (Israel), in turn, should impose this new ideology by force. They should use coercion and propaganda (no debates), for as long as necessary, to convert the Muslim barbarians into Western liberals. This means, among other things, no more Islamic t'v', radio, web sites, lectures, sermons, mosques, madrassas, monuments, etc. Only strictly Western liberal ones are allowed.


Israel should follow the practice of occupied Germany and Japan from 1945 to 1955. She should help give her Islamic enemies a new culture by completely rewriting their constitution and laws. And Israel should only end the occupation when the Islamic former-savages are truly civilized. Meanwhile, Israel should fully tax them thruout the occupation so that this re-education process costs the Jews nothing. Better yet, Israel should somewhat overtax these Islamic aggressors and monsters so that the occupation yields a small profit.


This process worked beautifully in Germany and Japan. And even tho' Muslims now are basically low animals (owing to their false and evil Islamic beliefs), they're still human beings. So it will work beautifully in Gaza and Lebanon too.


( categories: )

Alas, poor Harry ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is famous for being a hopeless rationalist.

The irony here is that Harry rationalistically condemns all libertarians and requires anyone signing up to his List to declare as part of a Loyalty Oath (!!) that he or she is not a libertarian, even as he upholds the standard, dumb libertarian position on immigration.

Or does he? It's a while since I read the article of his on this that caused quite a stir.

Not only libertarians

Doug Bandler's picture

The position of unconditionally open borders advocated by some libertarians is rationalistic, cut off from reality. Not to mention suicidal and stupid.

Some Objectivists hold this position too. Binswanger, for example, is way too open-bordersish IMO. We definitely need to distinguish between open borders and rational (non-rationalistic) open immigration. This is imperative as many Conservatives dismiss Objectivism out of hand as it is being represented as an "open borders" philosophy.

My thoughts

Lindsay Perigo's picture

There should be a generic requirement on any aspiring immigrant to renounce the use of initiatory force. At any time.

Second, in a time of war, which war has been declared in words and waged in practice by representatives of a specific ideology, anyone subscribing to that ideology should be automatically prohibited from entry even as a tourist, let alone an immigrant. There should be provisions for waiving this, but the government's default position should be presumption of guilt.

The position of unconditionally open borders advocated by some libertarians is rationalistic, cut off from reality. Not to mention suicidal and stupid.

Watching that video someone posted today of the lone Jew defending Israel against a mob of shrieking Islamogoblinites at some American university, I thought, who let these creatures in??!! You stupid bastards!!

More on Muslim Immigration

Doug Bandler's picture

I do. Not only are we at war with their militaristic wing, it would be a huge factor in forcing the hand of moderate and traditionalist Muslims to take seriously the notion of reforming their own governments and state-religion.

I am sympathetic with this. But what holds me up is how to ground it in rights theory. Several options:

1) We totally ban Islamic immigration based on what I call the Problem of Aggregates, meaning that we know that individual Muslims can be good people. But when we have large groups of Muslims we know that there is always agitation for Sharia. But the Problem of Aggregates opens up other problems with immigration beyond Muslims. What about mass Hispanic immigration? What the aggregates problem does is make the "open immigration" part of laissez-faire far more complicated to translate from theory to practice. I have no answer for this.

2) We allow only Middle Easterners / immigrants that totally swear off Islam. With this option we are banning the practice of Islam. On what grounds can we do that? Do we say that Islam is more than a personal belief system and a blueprint for war and conquest? As Leonid has written recently, the government must not be in the business of regulating ideas. This option seems to be just that.

Related to this, what should be done about the Ground Zero Mosque? If it is fully private which I think it is, should it be banned? On what theory? Objectivists have to be careful here that we don't go along with Conservative emotionalism.

3) We only ban the Sharia & Jihad aspects of Islam. I like this option although it seems like it would be a difficult task to translate into practice. There would have to be a list of what is considered to be peaceful practices of Islam (fasting, prayer, etc) and there would have to be a list of what constitutes political Islam and is therefore prohibited. That last would need to be specific as all good law should be. What would constitute Jihad? What organizations could Muslims have? What scrutiny is to be placed on Mosques and Islamic communities. Do we allow Muslims to serve in the military? To be police officers? All difficult questions.

Immigration is one of the areas of politics that I have the most conceptual struggles with. Islamic immigration creates another layer of complexity. I'm interested in any other opinions.

Before the Reformation took

Olivia's picture

Before the Reformation took place Christianity was 100% political.
The essential thrust of Luther and Calvin's rebellion against Catholicism could be boiled down to a new religious concept for the masses of Christendom - Liberty of Conscience. Whatever went on in a man's soul was nobody's business but his and god's. In their thinking there was not even room left for the priesthood, a hugely threatening notion to Catholics. No wonder it became so bloody.

The oft heard expression is "there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam".

From my understanding of Islam there are moderate Muslims but they are more underground, in no organized capacity whatsoever, and out of the 1.5 billion Muslims occupying this planet, they are a very tiny minority. There are of course the traditionalist Muslims, pragmatic, conservative and fundamentalist in nature, condemning of Western freedoms, though obsessed by them at the same time. These are the group who make up the most numbers of those immigrating to the States and Europe.

The first step of de-Islamization therefore should be the separation of the state and religion. [Leonid]

This is the most crucial factor in the whole issue and it has to be done by the underground "moderates" and pragmatic traditionalists.

Do you think we have reached a point where we should ban Islamic immigration?

I do. Not only are we at war with their militaristic wing, it would be a huge factor in forcing the hand of moderate and traditionalist Muslims to take seriously the notion of reforming their own governments and state-religion. Course, if Iran goes fully nuclear, none of this is going to be of any consequence.

Leonid

Doug Bandler's picture

Islam is a broad eclectic and chaotic system of religious believes in which everyone can find justification to everything he wants.

From reading the anti-Jihad literature, which is exclusively from Judeo-Christian Conservatives, I get the impression that they would disagree with this. They would argue that Islam is political by its very nature and that at its deepest roots it is a blueprint for military and cultural conquest (with immigration being a major Muslim weapon, i.e. "we will defeat the infidel in the womb of Muslim women"). The oft heard expression is "there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam". Conservatives argue that this makes Islam a different type of religion than Judaism or Christianity and therefore it is not entitled to free speech protections.

What do you think of that argument? These are Conservatives and that makes them suspect. But I don't know enough about the history of Islam to have a definitive answer.

Islam and Islamism

Leonid's picture

If one wants to conduct the program which is similar to de-Nazification of Germany and to avoid epistemological fallacy, one should clearly distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a broad eclectic and chaotic system of religious believes in which everyone can find justification to everything he wants. Islamism, however, is political system based on certain parts of Islam. "Islamism is a political ideology derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism. It holds Islam is not only a religion, but a political system that also governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state."
http://www.wordiq.com/definiti...
see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
In other words Islamism is a religion supported by coercive power of state, like Iran or quasi-state, like Hamas or Hezbollah. Such a combination of statism and religion inevitably leads to bloody carnage as the history of Judaism and Christianity proves. The first step of de-Islamization therefore should be the separation of the state and religion. State as a tool of protection of people's inalienable rights has legal obligation to do just that and to enforce such a separation by all means, coercion included. However it would be inappropriate to use state's coercion in the fields of ideas. The change of dominant philosophy belongs to the realm of mind, not power. This is a task for a philosopher and educator, and this is much more difficult than just a change of regime.

How to deal with Islam?

Doug Bandler's picture

though I would say your punitiveness, while correct in spirit goes too far in the letter

My thoughts too. Islam needs to be dealt with but it must be done within the framework of individual liberty. This is not at all easy. I think there are legitimate questions to be answered regarding Muslim immigration, the degree of scrutiny placed on the practice of Islam, Muslims in the military, etc.. Objectivism has not really dealt with this as of yet although Peikoff did come out in a recent podcast in favor of profiling Muslims.

Neologism of the Day

Richard Goode's picture

Kyreliphate - the secular version of a Caliphate.

'I'm not adverse to a few

PhilipD's picture

'I'm not adverse to a few book burnings and mosque detonations. Put these events on t'v' and force the filthy muzzies to watch.'

Really? Care to spell out the circumstances where that would be acceptable. And what it would achieve.

'The victorious party (Israel), in turn, should impose this new ideology by force. They should use coercion and propaganda (no debates), for as long as necessary, to convert the Muslim barbarians into Western liberals. This means, among other things, no more Islamic t'v', radio, web sites, lectures, sermons, mosques, madrassas, monuments, etc. Only strictly Western liberal ones are allowed.'

Yeah, and there is nothing like restricting freedom to turn people on to freedom, is there? You're unhinged.

Mr Z

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I too admire your KASSness (though I would say your punitiveness, while correct in spirit goes too far in the letter) on this matter but can't help wonder how you reconcile it with your irrational hostility to the ARI, of whom John Lewis is part, and your wimpy devotion to weasel-wording appeasers of Islamofascist Goblinism like Sciabarra.

Are there two of you?

And the word is "averse," not "adverse."

Muslim Immigration?

Doug Bandler's picture

Kyrel,

I admire your KASSness. Let me ask you a question I have not been able to answer for myself. What do you think the policy of Western nations should be toward Muslim immigration? I am reading repeated reports of US Muslims being arrested at US airports for trips to terrorist training centers in the Middle East. Do you think we have reached a point where we should ban Islamic immigration? Some Objectivists answer this question yes, others answer no. I am undecided as of yet.

Nothing Less Than Victory

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- I'm hugely influenced by Professor John Lewis. This includes his lectures, articles, and most recent book. He seems like the strongest war thinker on the planet.

I basically agree with everything you say. Banning Islam completely in conquered states is neither desirable nor possible -- at least not initially. People who aren't pure enemies or villains, based on recent behavior, have the right to privately believe whatever they wish. (Altho' they can't torture and brainwash their kids with it.)

But Islam should be heavily attacked and punished at first. I'm not adverse to a few book burnings and mosque detonations. Put these events on t'v' and force the filthy muzzies to watch. The Muslims and their ideology need to be humiliated and disgraced. Their slimy, idiotic ideas need to be loudly, emphatically, philosophically refuted and morally condemned. This is all so that their kids, and future residents, and non-Muslims feel contempt and disgust towards them. This will cause would-be Muslims to have a bit of pride and intelligence -- and thus reject such horrific ideas in the future. The West needs to inform them of a far superior intellectual alternative.

I certainly favor high-level blasphemy against Allah's religion for the first few years: repeated disgraceful, shameful shows and displays about Islam, Mohammad, the Koran, the Hadith, etc. Let the would-be Muslims know how much we hate their guts, and disrespect their ideas, and wish them ill. Tell them the truth about their cultural backwardness and personal depravity ruthlessly. Intellectually and psychologically, make well-sure that all those who hold onto their Muslim beliefs suffer and suffer and suffer without mercy or relief. This is how one properly and morally deals with communism and communists, and Nazism and Nazis. So too, in my view, with Islam and Muslims.

The main technique for conversion to proper liberalism is truth and true education. Acquaint them with all the evil Islam has done and been over 14 centuries, and educate them about Western liberalism too. Make them watch t'v' shows, take classes, attend lectures, and pass tests. Force-feed them relentless propaganda until they abjectly surrender and submit. Anyone who fails goes back to class, or into jail, or up against the wall. And give them only a small amount of time to mend their ways and change their beliefs -- before openly identifying them as unrepentant and hopeless jihadis (who are thus effectively guilty of tyranny and murder), and then publicly executing them.

John Lewis's ideas about war are good. But I think we can do much better.

DeNazification Strategy

Doug Bandler's picture

This is the same plan that America used during the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII. This is what Dr. John Lewis has been arguing our strategy should have been with Iran. I think that there is much merit to this plan. Sadly, it could never be accomplished in today's egalitarian Left climate.

They should use coercion and propaganda (no debates), for as long as necessary, to convert the Muslim barbarians into Western liberals.

No easy task this is. I think it would take generations, but if Israel were philosophically strong, as in something approaching Objectivism or at the least a strong Classical Liberalism, it could be accomplished.

This means, among other things, no more Islamic t'v', radio, web sites, lectures, sermons, mosques, madrassas, monuments, etc. Only strictly Western liberal ones are allowed.

In the beginning, yes. But ultimately this raises freedom of speech issues*. What should always be banned is political / Sharia Islam. So any tv ads or web sites or lectures, etc that advocate for Sharia or Jihad or anything remotely similar should be banned. There are going to be Muslims. There is no changing that. What the West, in this case Israel, needs to do is forbid Sharia/political/literal Islam. It needs to send a clear message to any Muslim living in Western lands that the only type of Islam that will be allowed is a non-violent, non-political personal belief sytsem. You can pray and fast all you want, but don't you dare say one word about Jihad or demographic conquest or Sharia transformation, etc. This will not be allowed. What the West needs to do with Muslims in Western nations is to force them into practicing Islam only as a private, non-threatening belief system. That is the challenge we have. But in order to do that we would have to be morally confident in ourselves. In our era of moral relativism this is just not possible.

* Unless you want to define Islam as a military doctrine of war and conquest and not as a religion. Then it could be banned outright. That is what some Conservatives want. While I am sympathetic to that, it is very tricky epistemologically. Objectivists have debated this on occasion and the usual consensus is against it. Plus, it does seem that it would let the Christians and Jews think that their religion is "a religion of peace", which is not something we want to encourage.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.