June 30, 2007 -- To
my considerable shame, I just realized that it had been a long time since I had thought of Angola. In fact, it occurs to me
that I really don't have a feeling toward that country one way or another.
How utterly scandalous
this is. I obviously suffer from a severely parochial worldview, if not outright bigotry. All decent people are required to
take an interest in Angolan affairs, and to work on behalf of that nation's survival.
Whoops – I made
a mistake. It was Austria I had forgotten, not Angola – an easy mistake, I suppose, given that the names of those countries
are similar, if little else about them is. Austria is the nation that is supposed to hold captive all of my waking thoughts,
and dominate the dreams that come once my eyes surrender to weariness at day's end.
Oh. Sorry. My bag.
It turns out that
the small foreign country I'm morally obliged to care about is Guatemala, where I lived for a little more than a year in the
Now, this has become
simply obnoxious. Sierra Leone, that tragic land, scene of some of the most horrific atrocities in recent memory, is the country
that should always be uppermost in my thoughts, lest I be accused of indifference to genocide.
Admittedly, it's difficult
to keep track of which distant, unfamiliar country should be the focus of my concerns – to such an extent that I would
be willing to surrender the blood of my children in its defense.
We have a winner! The nation in question is, of course,
Like much of the evil done in this world, the idea of a
Maxim photo feature on Israeli women (starring former Miss Israel Gal Gadot) originated in New York, more specifically at
the Israeli consulate, “where research showed that Israel meant little to young American men” in the all-important
18–35 demographic, reports the AP.
“Males that age have no feeling toward Israel one
way or another, and we view that as a problem, so we came up with an idea that would be appealing to them,” explains
an Israeli government media adviser named David Dorfman. Thus Maxim was contacted by the Israeli consulate and asked
to take part in “reshaping Israel's public image.”
What neither the Dorfster nor any of his allies in this
effort would explain is this: Why is it obligatory for American males of any age – let alone those in an age
bracket targeted for military recruitment – to have feelings of any sort about a country to which they have no organic
connection or moral responsibility?
Israel can expect the allegiance of its citizens, and for
understandable reasons Jews in every nation take an interest in its survival. But I cannot think of a compelling reason why
the typical American should take a greater interest in Israel than he does in Angola, Austria, Guatemala, or Sierra Leone.
Ecclesio-Leninists of John Hagee's ilk would insist that Christians have a God-prescribed duty to support the Israeli government,
to the point of mass bloodshed, if necessary. Since Hagee considers it just to kill on Israel's behalf, I wonder if he would consider it appropriate to peddle quasi-porn, and consume the same,
in that cause. (I'm suddenly afflicted with a mental image of Hagee pouring over the pages of the July installment of Maxim,
his wattles quivering and his eyes distended as he succumbs to a combination of sanctimony and salacity).
Hagee is precisely the kind of "friend to Israel" whose
preferred policies would kill a lot of Israelis and other innocent people. He really should pause and ask himself if a government
that would exploit prurient interests in this fashion (not to mention sponsoring "Gay Pride" parades) is really the Zion longed for by prophets and saints of ages past. From where I sit,
that government appears no better or worse than any of a dozen others I could name, our own most definitely included.
While the Israeli consulate in New York prepares to fire
the Maxim gun in its propaganda arsenal, the War Party is pursuing a somewhat subtler approach in preparing
the public for a US/Israeli attack on Iran. On June 20th the House of Representatives passed a resolution demanding that the UN Security Council “charge Iranian President Maumoud Ahmadinejad
with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide,” and that the Council consider unspecified
“measures” to “prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons....”
The resolution regurgitates the claim, which has been canonized
through repetition although patently and demonstrably false, that Ahmadinejad “called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'.” While the
Iranian president is a certifiable maniac guilty of many crimes against decency, that phrase was not uttered by him: He was,
in fact, calling for what is now “regime change” by calling for an end to the Israeli government, not the annihilation
of the Israeli people. If calling for “regime change” is now to be considered an incitement to genocide, the entire
staff of the American Enterprise Institute should be seized and extradited to stand trial before the UN International Criminal Court
in The Hague.
While describing himself as “unequivocal in my support
for the security and survival of Israel” and possessed of “serious concerns with the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,”
Kucinich denounced the resolution, correctly describing it as an attempt to “lay the groundwork for an offensive, unprovoked
war” – one in which Israelis, as well as Americans and Iranians, would be killed, and that will probably ignite
a broader conflict lasting for years or even decades.
And that is an obscenity far greater than anything available
in the pages of Maxim.
comment or request reprint permission, please contact William N. Grigg via e-mail.To learn more about William Grigg, please visit Pro Liberate.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating
$1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT. Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!