"….Act now to contact your representatives and let them know you do not support this disgraceful targeting of Palestinians(S. Amd. 629 and S. Amd. 631)…"

> To Send a Pre-Written E-Mail to Your Representatives – link to capwiz.com

However Lebanon's position on Palestinians is indeed disgraceful, and in contrast to that of Jordan which gives them citizenship, or Syria which does not bar them from a range of employments. The reason is of course identical to Israel's reason for denying them the right to return – namely that to do so would contradict the desired communal basis of the political system – an demographically unassailable Jewish majority in the case of Israel, and a delicately engineered communal balance in the case of Lebanon.

Consistent defenders of human rights have no problem opposing both examples of communalist discrimination. Zionists however seem quite happy to uphold communalism in one case, and deplore it with crocodile tears in the other.

That reminds me, you recall, we talked in previous threads about Kevin MacDonald and the pluses and minuses of 'socio-biology'. I claimed that it was based on an axiom that was in itself implausible, namely, a gene which, as I put it, 'strategises.' In other words, mere 'natural selection' in my view cannot perform the selections necessary for the relatively short-term political effects to which MacDonald wishes to draw our attention.

However, from the relativistic point of view, one does not have to decide the plausibility of the axiom. For instance, whether or not one personally approves of the social normalisation of homosexuality, it is obvious that, if two cultures compete over any time period longer than about two or three generations, and one of them normalises homosexuality while the other does not, then the one that normalises it will perish, and the one that does not will survive, simply because of the differential effect on their respective conditions of reproduction.

I was pointing out the irony of "solidarity".

It is in fact possible to discuss this double standard with anti-assimilationist Jews, and they respond invariably by shifting the definitions, and saying that 'Palestinian' is not a distinct national identity in the first place, but just a subset of 'the Arab nation,' an argument which is clever in the sense that there are after all such people as 'pan-Arab nationalists,' who at first glance should agree with them. But, in the end, it's a shell game. One has to look at which populations, however defined, are really in danger of extinction and which are only claiming rhetorically to be in such danger, without genuinely being so.

At this point, the anti-assimilationist Jews will narrow their definition of 'Jewish identity', by making it exclusively religious, thus strengthening their claim that 'Jewish national identity' is indeed in perpetual danger of extinction and needs special protection not accorded to others.

All this is like chess: you can predict the 'discursive strategies' which will be used, and none of them constututes a complete discursive game plan by itself, so the decisive factor is who controls the media of communication within which the discussion takes place, because normally, those who control it can terminate it at whichever point appears to them to be advantageous in terms of the effect it leaves on the audience, which is unlikely to think the whole thing through for itself independently.

Wilders is indicted for "hate speech/incitement" in the Netherlands, whatever you think about it:

Islam film Dutch MP to be charged, Wednesday, 21 January 2009

A Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put a right-wing politician on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.

Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders made a controversial film last year equating Islam with violence and has likened the Koran to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

"In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to… draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said.

Kyl loves Steven Emerson. See Subjugating American Muslims to Israel.

As far as I can tell, the RJC planned and paid for Wilders visit to the USA. (For more info see Collection: Wilders Visit to Boston.) Adelson and friends appear to be the main donors to his party in the Netherlands.

More info:

RJC and CUFI Incite Islamophobia

Almost an anti-Semitic Parody

Wendy Mann mentions that the Center for Islamic Pluralism (a Jewish Zionist Neocon front) has a good working relationship with Sen. Kyl.