Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil. (Isaiah 5:20)
The vile person shall no more be called: liberal. (Isaiah 32:5)
As someone once said, an undue mixture of ethics and statistics prevails in our day – and more often the statistics influence ethical standards rather than the other way around. What it means is that no objective standard exists with which to measure moral or ethical values. For ethical norms to be changed to call what was evil and wrong in the past acceptable and good today, all that is needed is for enough people to call evil good.
Thus statistics rule today’s ethics, to the detriment and ruin of all mankind. And so we see the absurd moral or ethical standards which today object to a tiny operation being performed on a baby for the purpose of religious observance (circumcision) – the rationale being that the child should be old enough to participate in the decision making process concerning whether or not he is willing to submit himself to this religious rite. But before that child – or any other child for that matter – is born he or she, even when already alive and breathing, can have his or her life cruelly terminated without being allowed any say in the matter. This is foolishly called a ‘pro-choice’ decision that gives the mother alone the choice of having her own child – carried in what was supposed to be the safest place in her body – killed and subsequently disposed of.
What a world we live in!
The people of Israel can rightly claim that they liberated territories – Judea and Samaria – which were part of their own historic land. And their case is made even stronger by the fact that Israel did not want this war and fought in self-defense. No Israeli should therefore ever refer to these areas as other than, at the most, ‘disputed territories.’
Abortion is not pro-choice, but is in fact the murder of the unborn child by the will of the mother.
Homosexuality is not gay, it is the perversion of sexual relationship, often resulting in AIDS, but never in the birth of any child.
Israel is not occupying ‘Palestinian land’ and in explaining her case should never yield to using that terminology. In a war of self-defense, the Jews liberated the land promised them by God Himself but which, at that moment, was illegally occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Israel is thus not occupying a land that belonged to another nation. “The territories” – concerning which practically the whole world is seeking to corner Israel as it did with South Africa years ago – are not ‘occupied territories’ but, at most, ‘disputed territories’ liberated by the IDF in the self-defensive Six Day War. Jordan, which did illegally occupy these same territories from 1948 to 1967, was never treated in such a way by the nations of the world who, by rejecting as illegal Jordan’s occupation, could have forced the Hashemite kingdom to hand over these territories to Ahmed Shukeiry, the then leader of the Palestinian Arabs who were already seeking independence from Jordan for themselves.
And today, as described by Raphel Ahren in an article published on December 25, 2013, “the EU maintains that Israel’s presence in the West Bank (SIC) and East Jerusalem is unique, legally speaking, but consistently refuses to explain exactly how it differs from, say, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus or that Moroccan presence in Western Sahara; while Rabat asserts ownership of the territory, not a single other country recognizes the claim.”
Ahren quotes from a letter written to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, by legal scholars who posit that “the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement, approved earlier this month by the European Parliament, appears ‘to directly contradict what the EU has called obligations of international law in its dealing with Israel.
‘In fact, the EU has been negotiating this agreement with Morocco even as it imposes on Israel unprecedented funding guidelines and rules of origin requirements that say the exact opposite,'” wrote the scholars, referring to guidelines that, from January 1 this year, ban any European funding from going to Israeli entities beyond the Green Line or those with any connections beyond the Green Line.
If all this does not prove the hypocritical and – call it what it is – anti-Semitic, double standard that Europe and most of the international community subject little Israel to then tell me, what else can it be called?!
This is anti-Semitism in its new and dangerous form – anti-Zionism!