Words Are Weaponized by Israelophobia and the Oxford Union

Islamophobia is a word

that liberals coined to show they do not fear

Islam, which in the West seems quite absurd.

Islamists want these libs to disappear,

which should make liberals Islamophobic,

but doesn’t, by the very word persuaded

that this implies that they are xenophobic.

That’s why they love those by whom they are hated.

In fact Israelophobia is

their antisemitism’s antidote, invented

by those who hate not only Jews but Is-

rael, a hate by demons made demented,

mistaken diagnosis which mislabels

antisemites’ hate, a Trojan horse

created in order to enable

the fall of Israel which they now endorse.

Hamas, like Greeks in the Homeric fable:

Israelophobia; a perverse

attempt to justify Islamic hate,

word-weaponized in order to reverse

existence of the world’s one Jewish state.

Hate makes — subhumanly — Hamas

behave as Paris did fallaciously, a felon,

its every hostage like the looted lass

whom Homer’s Paris captured — Israel’s Helen.

Jews won’t allow the treachery of a Trojan

horse, Islamophobia, to destroy

the state in which some millions now sojourn

and since the age of Abraham enjoy,

and will continue to do so despite

Israelophobia that’s more left than right.

A racist anti-Israel resolution

in the Oxford Union proposed by oxymorons

increases occidentally confusion

about Arabia like its champion, Arabian Lawrence.

In my poem “Lawrence of Judea” I point out that Lawrence of Arabia supported the colonization of Arabia by Zionist Jews:

They call him Lawrence of Arabia, yet

he told Abdullah he agreed the Jews

should be allowed their homeland tents to set

west of the Jordan, territory he’d lose.

Abdullah told him what the British lion

proposed he would accept, quite clearly willing

to give the whole West Bank to Jews of Zion,

not zealously addicted to their killing.

By Lawrence, Rudyard Kipling was appalled,

describing him as being too pro-Yid,

which Lawrence hardly minded being called,

not only pro-Arabia, God forbid.

On 11/25/24 Robert Philpot, in “Top UK university to debate if Israel is ‘an apartheid state responsible for genocide,’” The Times of Israel, writes:

From Mother Theresa and Albert Einstein to Muammar Gaddafi and O.J. Simpson, the Oxford Union — an esteemed student debating society at arguably the UK’s top university — has hosted the good, the bad and the ugly.

The Union’s commitment to free speech and its willingness to court controversy will be in evidence again on November 28 when it stages a debate entitled “This House Believes Israel is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.”……

The Union has a track record when it comes to contentious debates on Israel. In 1962, for instance, it debated whether “The Creation of the State of Israel is One of the Mistakes of the Century.” Decades later, the students were still debating whether, as a 2008 motion put it, “This house believes that the State of Israel has a right to exist.”

The US conservative writer and talk show host Dennis Prager, who spoke at the Union in 2014 in defense of Israel, has written of his initial confusion at reading the title of the motion he had been asked to debate: “Hamas is a greater obstacle to peace than Israel.”

“Outside of the Muslim world and the far left,” he wrote after the debate, “who would even think to argue that Hamas is not the greater obstacle to peace?” Prager’s confusion wasn’t eased by the outcome of the debate — students voted by a comfortable margin against the motion, deciding that Israel, not Hamas, was the true stumbling block to peace.