There are some arguments that civilized people should never countenance. Whether slavery is a viable economic option is one example. Others include Holocaust denial and an abortionist's assertion that an unborn child should be treated no differently than a tomato or a tumor. These assertions are so vile, so contemptuous of human dignity, that to debate them creates a (false) moral equivalence between pro and con that only serves to elevate their advocates. Unfortunately, on a global stage filled with murderous rogues, amoral bureaucratic ciphers, and the pompous diplomatic buffoons who believe they can negotiate with the devil, nothing is ever beyond debate. Which is how we ended up with statesmen in the 1930s who responded, "Why, yes, Mr. Hitler, I see your point."

Fueling these arguments is a bloody hatred that is obvious and repulsive. Yet, the advocates of hatred have become sufficiently sophisticated to recognize that the most outrageous, self-serving notions, if cast in finely tuned, politically correct language, can be fashioned into propositions that, to a naïve ear, sound reasonable and even charitable. This is particularly true in the international sphere, where the sublime and the beastly intermingle; which is how we ended up with heads of state treating terrorist leader Yasser Arafat — a thug and a thief if ever one there was — as though he was the Arab offspring of Mother Teresa and George Washington.

Arafat's unfulfilled dreams about destroying Israel did not die along with him, because this model terrorist and other Arab and Muslim leaders had already successfully spread their cancer of hate throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. What's particularly demoralizing, however, is that the United Nations and its subordinate agencies, such as UNESCO, facing the starkest of contrasts between good and evil, have taken up Arafat's anti-Israel banner.

Ironically, it was a U.N. resolution in 1947 that led to the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948. Now, however, the United Nations strives mightily to undo what it did 60 years ago and pursues a political agenda that, in effect, denies Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state in the Middle East. Which generates additional arguments that no civilized person should ever countenance:

1. Israel is a racist nation. This deceit has been an official U.N. talking point for decades (and was, in fact, a U.N. resolution from 1975 to 1991), and more recently was the primary driver behind the 2001 World Conference Against [sic] Racism held in Durban, South Africa. To its credit, the United States joined with Israel and pulled its delegation from this sham. Canada, however, decided to address the obvious hypocrisy of the conference: "Canada is still here today only because we wanted to have our voice decry the attempts at this conference to de-legitimize the State of Israel and to dishonor the history and suffering of the Jewish people."

U.N. delegates can engage in name-calling till their expense accounts burst, but the facts intrude: Citizens of this tiny democracy include, among others, black African Jews, Indian (Asian) Jews, Moroccan Jews, Persian Jews, Christian Arabs, White Europeans and Arab Muslims. No Jews can serve in Arab governments, but there are Arab members of Knesset, the Israeli legislature. Arab citizens in Israel have more political rights in Israel than their brethren in the surrounding Arab autocracies. Native Bedouin serve honorably in the Israel Defense Forces. It is true that the Jewish State does not want to become another Arab state, and so objects to unlimited Arab immigration. But the Arabs insist upon such immigration precisely because they wish the end of Israel. Why should Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jews and their only official haven in the world, be required to define itself out of existence?

The racists, of course, are Israel's enemies, who, when they're not killing each other, employ a considerable array of military, financial and public relations resources to advance their agenda of annihilating every non-Muslim.

2. Israel must negotiate with those who wish to destroy it. The charter of Hamas, the ruling party in the Palestinian territories, calls for the obliteration of Israel. To negotiate with Hamas is to bargain with one's executioner. Negotiation necessarily assumes a certain level of trust, a conviction that a party will live up to its proffers. Thus, behind the scenes, Israel may "negotiate" with Hamas in order to achieve short-term objectives, which by their very nature are immediately confirmable. But experience shows that Hamas leaders, whose hatred of Jews defines their bleak existence, can be trusted in the long term only to engage in violence to achieve their bloody goals.

3. Jewish settlement in Samaria (aka the West Bank) or Gaza is the root cause of conflict in the Middle East. Talk about turning an argument on its head. The root cause of conflict in the Middle East is the hatred of Arab Muslims for anyone who isn't an Arab Muslim. Anyway, Jews live in Buenos Aires, Berlin, Moscow and even Hong Kong. Why should the West Bank or Gaza be judenfrei (the Nazi-coined term for "free of Jews")? Why can't Jews live anywhere they choose, so long as they obey the law (excepting those laws which target Jews)? Why can an Arab or a Muslim live in these areas but not a Jew — or a Christian or a Hindu?

4. Land-for-peace is a viable strategy. When Israel unilaterally withdrew its people from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005, it left behind functional greenhouses and other economic infrastructure — all of which the Palestinians destroyed. Gaza is now an economic wasteland. One of the few viable industries is the production/importation of explosive rockets which the Palestinians fire across the border to try to kill Israelis. Rockets also rain down on Northern Israel from Southern Lebanon, even though Israel removed all of its troops from the PLO-ravaged area in May 2000. A year after the exodus from Gaza, Hezbollah, the terrorist gangsters who control Southern Lebanon, started another war by crossing the Lebanese border, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and firing deadly Katyusha rockets into Israeli towns. Those who push "land-for-peace" foolishly or intentionally ignore that Israel's enemies seek only the "peace" of Israel's (Jewish) non-existence.

5. Palestinian inconvenience is morally equivalent to the murder and maiming of Israelis. One testament to the effectiveness of the security fence built by Israel to deter terrorism is that it infuriates the terrorists. How dare Israel impose an obstruction to Palestinian efforts to blow Israel citizens to bloody smithereens! There are still terror attacks against Israel, but the terrorists do not come through the fence. Yes, Palestinians are inconvenienced, but Israeli lives are saved. Those who argue that the life of, say, an Israeli teenager shouldn't be protected if it causes a Palestinian teenager to walk an extra 15 minutes to work or shop manifest a barbarity that one would hope would have been extinguished with the flames of the Auschwitz ovens. Unfortunately, apologists for terrorists dominate the United Nations' International Court of Justice [sic], which ruled that the construction of the fence is contrary to international law. Of course, Israel is ignoring the ICJ ruling, as the Jewish State is far more concerned with protecting the lives of its people than succumbing to the nefarious agenda of its enemies. This is a black and white moral question: Do you join with the Palestinians who refuse to rein in their murderers, or do you agree with President George W. Bush that "Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defending the homeland"?

Speak softly and carry a big stick, said Teddy Roosevelt. When confronting the arguments of hate-mongers, carry a huge stick, and be prepared to use it.

— — —

Samuel R. Lewis writes on current events and is a columnist for UPI's ReligionAndSpirituality.com. His email is {email srlewis65@yahoo.com}srlewis65@yahoo.com{/email}. © copyright 2007 by Samuel R. Lewis.