The Real Jewish Voice for Peace: Israel

The deceptively named "Jewish Voice for Peace" is an organization of extremists who are not for peace but are against Israel. Funded by a foundation that also supports the aptly named Electronic Intifada, JVP are what you might call a "self-hate group." They exploit the "J" in JVP to express what in fact are malevolent impulses aimed at the Jewish state, while reveling in the unearned moral credit they like to imagine accrues to those who distance themselves from the racist caricatures of Zionism in circulation these days.

The real Jewish voice that's actually for peace are those in Israel who have offered it repeatedly--only to have sound proposals rejected again and again. Including as recently as 2000, 2001, and 2008. Not to mention the brave Israeli soldiers who defend the Middle East's only vibrant liberal democracy, an island of peace and stability in a violent region.

No, supporting JVP is not supporting peace. Clicking "like" on their page might make know-nothing far-leftists feel good, but that's silly. Indulging your philosemitic antisemitism (or is it antisemitic philosemitism?) helps no one but your narcissistic self. JVP may have given you "permission" to oppose Israel's very existence by inviting you to join them in supporting BDS, etc., with a guilt-free conscience. Such is their mandate. Such is their hypocritical role in the current propaganda war against the Jews. They are there to koshers and give a hechture to bigotry. But that doesn't make it right and no amount of "Jew washing" today's genocidal anti-Zionism excuses those who objectively support terror and death, while loudly proclaiming they are for nothing but peace and love.* 

Where is the Palestinian Voice for Peace (PVP)? What does the voice of Hamas say about peace with "the sons of apes and pigs" (as the Hamas Charter refers to Jews)? Where is the willingness to negotiate on the part of the Palestinian Authority (PA), so focused instead on taking Israel to court internationally? What does Iran say about living at peace with the little Satan, explicit target of its hideously bullying nuclear program? What do the voices of the mullahs say about wiping out the Jews? And how does the voice of Iran's proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, sound? 

By contrast with the enemies surrounding it--who have never accepted a sovereign Jewish presence in the Middle East--the modern Hebrew republic--both its citizens and successive governments--has long been the loudest, clearest voice for peace around. And this is the Jewish voice that liberals, progressives, and conservatives alike should be listening to and supporting--in the name of a lasting peace that can only come with the defeat of terrorism and antisemitic anti-Zionism.


*As an antidote, see a couple of great books on the subject of Jewish antisemitism (which JVP personifies), one old and one new. The classic text on the subject, by the great Sander L. Gilman, is Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews (Johns Hopkins, 1986), and the best thing on it lately is the amazing Eddie Alexander's must-read, Jews Against Themselves (Transaction, 2015).

Me [Sic], Robot

In an aptly titled essay in Inside Higher Education"Robots, Jobs, and the Liberal Arts," Joshua Kim argues that, "Our society needs less [sic] truck drivers and more care givers [sic]. Our economy needs less [sic] retail clerks and more artists, writers, and musicians." Thanks to automation, menial work is being obsoleted. As robots do more and more of the physical labor, educated human beings will be called upon to do steadily more intellectual work. So, therefore, "Anyone worried about the rise of the robots should be doing whatever it takes to extend a liberal arts education to anyone who wants one."

Indeed. Kim's argument misses something, however. 

Aside from a couple of nettlesome little grammatical issues--it's "caregiver" not "care giver," and it should be "fewer" not "less" in the above-cited passage (but in the future automated grammar checkers will catch these kinds of things)--the author's argument overlooks the real point about education in the so-called liberal arts today, simply by assuming there's still something worth calling a "liberal arts education" available to be had in our politically correct universities. For, thanks to pervasive political correctness, this sadly isn't true. And as long as Stalinoid pseudo-sensitivity training in the avoidance of imaginary "microaggressions" and so forth predominates in the the humanities classroom--as in one form and another it unfortunately does nowadays--our mental gulags will not be producing creative thinkers capable of doing things with words. Rather, it is the grossly illiberal "liberal arts" programs that are cranking out the real robots.

Kim thinks he's making an interesting argument for enrolling more, not fewer (note that I do not say "less"), liberal arts majors, when he concludes that, "The liberal arts graduates will create the good jobs of the future. The liberal arts graduates will create the companies of the future." Moreover, he emphasizes that, "The liberal arts graduates will create the wealth of the future" (italics in the original). But this will never be other than trivially true--insofar as businesses in an information economy need data workers who above all, politely, robotically, appreciate the value of "diversity" in all of its many-splendored and equally meaningless forms--so long as politically correct "multiculturalism" (viz. cultural relativism) is the mediocre baseline of an otherwise incoherent "liberal arts" education.

Robots of the world...!