Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
June 3, 2010
Singling Out Israel is Nothing New
By David Warren
In our topsy-turvy contemporary world, where fashionable opinion can be counted upon to turn any moral issue upside down, Israel has again been singled out for expressions of indignation and loathing. This is because she stooped to defending herself again, against a scheme designed to break the embargo that prevents the Hamas terrorist organization from fully arming itself.
The organizers of the "Gaza flotilla," which was stopped at the cost of bloodshed that Israel had every reason to avoid, got exactly what they wanted from it: a huge, international media splash, in which Israel has been demonized.
Receive news alerts
Sign Up
David Warren RealClearPolitics
United Nations foreign policy
Israel
[+] More
They could not have been in doubt that the Israeli authorities would intercept them, and prevent them from landing in Gaza. They knew exactly what would happen if they attacked the Israeli soldiers boarding their ships.
Ergo, they got exactly the result they were seeking: fresh "martyrs" for the Palestinian campaign. Video from the event shows exactly what the Israelis were facing as they boarded those ships, and belies the organizers' pose of a humanitarian mission.
From start to finish this was a violent political stunt, designed to inflict as much harm as possible on Israel's existential interests. To defend it requires obtuse hypocrisy.
Consider: the embargo on Gaza is not Israel's alone. Egypt also enforces strict controls on what enters and leaves Gaza, and for the same obvious reason. The territory is controlled by Hamas, and they are trying to import lethal weaponry, from Iran and other rogue sources. But Egypt is conveniently left out of the propaganda picture.
The people of Gaza already have access to food, medicine, and even building materials. The bureaucracies that slow the importation of such things, through Israel or Egypt, are indeed unpleasant and constraining -- as they must be, for a very large portion of Gaza's imports are "dual use," and could therefore strengthen the hand of Hamas one way or another.
In the case of concrete, for instance, end use must be documented. But this is because Hamas is the principal customer for concrete in Gaza, which it uses in everything from tunnelling to the fortification of its rocket-launching facilities.
The organizers of the flotilla were not "pacifists" in any honest sense, but parties to the conflict: radical Islamist groups, unambiguously committed to Israel's annihilation. The chief organizer was a Turkish "charity," Insani Yardim Vakfi, with documented links to Hamas and even al-Qaeda; the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt was also directly involved. The "humanitarian" pretense is for the consumption of two groups: the extremely gullible, and the extremely cynical.
The flotilla was stocked with the usual assemblage of the wilfully naive: a few hundred European and other "do-gooders," including even one Jewish Holocaust survivor. They were invited along as a cosmetic imperative; as "human shields." The violence was, and was intended to be, between the Islamists and the Israeli soldiers they were certain to confront. Those who physically attacked the soldiers were working from the same impulse as suicide bombers; the rest were only there to howl.
It is amazing to me that there are still "liberals" like this, even within Israel. I have actually met people who live a few hundred metres from the front line with an enemy sworn to exterminate them; who think the "road to peace" can be paved with unilateral Israeli concessions. They embody my worst fears for the West at large: that even in the face of extinction, our own "progressive" types will continue to demand the appeasement of our mortal enemies.
Yet this was the very lesson of the Holocaust: Do not agree to go quietly, into the ovens, or into the sea. So long as there is breath in you, and the possibility of resistance, fight.
Israel was herself founded on this "Zionist" premise: that Jews would defend themselves; that they would not "go quietly" again. That they would not depend on the goodwill of false friends. Why should Israelis take advice from people who openly encourage an enemy vowed to exterminate them?
Consider the level of hypocrisy here. There were no international "peace" demonstrations when a North Korean submarine torpedoed a South Korean vessel that was offering no threat. There is total indignation when Israel acts against a direct threat to her vital interests.
Yes, the Palestinians suffer. But there is a remedy for that: to fully accept that Israel exists, and be willing to live in peace with her, as with any other country. That option has been on the table continuously since 1948, and has been consistently rejected by Palestinian leaders.
Israel remains the "Little Satan" of Islamist and Leftist demonology. We -- America and the West at large -- are the "Big Satan." This is, likewise, an old configuration, that will not change in the foreseeable future. Let us therefore be robust in our support of "Little Satan."
otiosus@sympatico.ca
© The Ottawa Citizen
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
June 4, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Israel, Disarmed
If even a blockade, the most passive and benign of defenses, is impermissible, what defenses does Israel have left?
The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiél, and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted weapons-laden ships from Iran destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically delegitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself — forward and active defense.
1. Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense — fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai peninsula and Golan Heights) rather than its own.
Where possible (Sinai, for example), Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks.
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies — and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land — evacuating southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks, and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.
2. Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense — military action to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat (to borrow President Obama’s description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza operation of 2008–09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N.’s Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli — the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war — effectively delegitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.
3. Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses — a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international delegitimization.
But, if none of these are permissible, what’s left?
Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense.
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, six million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized, and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
You really buy that BS don't you bookwrong?
Krauthammer is the biggest piece of dung ever allowed column inches. Nothing that comes from his pie hole should be given even passing attention.
I guess the whole world must be wrong if Israel is right.
International Peace Activists were naive and just there as "human shields".... Come on get real.
What were they unwilling hostages of Hamas?....
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Don't be an ass Fats. Bill Clinton doesn't think I am wrong. Bill Clinton doesn't even know I exist.
Quit using stoopid hackneyed misdirection to avoid the hard issues.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
June 4, 2010 12:00 A.M.
The Convenient Enemy
To say that Israel’s problem is one of PR is to assume that the rest of the world is interested in hearing both sides of the story.
On May 29, two days before Israel’s botched raid of six “humanitarian” ships bound for Gaza, Robert Naiman, the policy director of something called “Just Foreign Policy,” had an item in the Huffington Post headlined “Gaza Freedom Flotilla Shows Awesome Power of Nonviolent Resistance.”
Naiman waxed lyrical about how the moral authority of nonviolence had compelled Turkish-controlled Cyprus to help the flotilla while Greek-controlled Cyprus had allegedly caved to Israeli pressure and refused to help the heirs of Gandhi (it couldn’t have been because the Turks were up to no good).
“All this,” Naiman gushed, “and the main confrontation between the Israeli occupation authorities and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla has not yet begun.”
Roughly 48 hours later, the “main confrontation” unfolded. In fairness, the majority of the “peace activists” on the ships were nonviolent, offering passive resistance. But on the last boat Israelis boarded, the supposed disciples of peace attacked the Israeli commandos. These new Gandhians beat the Israelis with metal bars and even threw one Israeli overboard.
Funny, I’m no expert, but that’s not how Gandhi behaved in the movie. Maybe there was a sequel with Chuck Norris as the Mahatma? “Gandhi’s back, and this time it’s personal!”
The commandos had been equipped with paintball guns, out of deference to the professed pacifism of the activists. But when the goons attacked, out came the real sidearms. Nine “humanitarians” were killed.
Now, one wouldn’t expect Naiman to take Israel’s side. He’d lose his social-justice decoder ring for that. But one might expect him to at least lament the failure of his comrades to stick to their principled nonviolence.
One might also expect kosher pigs to fly.
After the incident, Naiman returned to the Huffington Post not to lament the outbreak of violence but to salute the resolve of the “humanitarians.”
He opened with a question: “How do you know when someone is serious about pursuing a strategy of nonviolent resistance until victory for justice is achieved?” And then he answered it: “When they refuse to turn back in the face of state violence. Damn the commandos. Full speed ahead.” He then went on to celebrate another propaganda ship heading toward Gaza.
How do you know when a proselytizer of nonviolence is full of it? When he doesn’t object to the use of violence.
Among Israel’s friends, there’s a deep and wide consensus that the “flotilla fiasco” was a public-relations disaster, proof that Israel doesn’t know how to work with the global media to shape world opinion.
The first part is almost indisputable at this point. The raid was a disaster. As for the second part — that Israel’s problems are about public relations — I’m not so sure.
The assumption is that world opinion is open to hearing Israel’s side of the story. But that hasn’t been the case for years. From the “Jenin massacre” that was no massacre to the idiotic charges of “genocide” that erupt across the Arab world the moment Israel defends itself from missiles or “martyrs,” the presumption is always that Israel is the villain. When it turns out the facts support Israel, it’s at best a footnote or proof the Israelis have manipulated the media.
Question: If Israel is always hell-bent on murder, massacres, and genocide, why is it so bad at it? If its battle plan called for a slaughter, why kill “only” nine people? Why not sink all of the boats?
Meanwhile, is it really the case that Hamas is objectively “good” at public relations? Or Hezbollah? Or Iran? Really? I just don’t see it. To me, these PR operations are less Wag the Dog and more Baghdad Bob (the Monty Python–esque spokesman for Saddam Hussein’s regime). But instead of everyone laughing at the lies and idiocy, millions of people nod their heads in agreement.
North Korea recently sank a South Korean ship. The international reaction has been muted and sober. Turkey — the Palestinians’ new champion — has been treating Kurdish nationalists harshly for generations; no one cares. The Russians crush Chechens, the Chinese trample Uighurs. Real genocides unfold regularly in Africa. Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Hamas is openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel. So is Iran.
And yet the only villain as far as much of the world is concerned is Israel. Always Israel.
But none of these facts matter. Indeed, it’s tiring even to recount them in an environment where big lies matters more than obvious truths, where self-defense is “aggression,” where restraint is “genocide,” and where the heirs of Gandhi wield steel pipes.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
On the other hand, the US recently released a quite repulsive movie, called "Sex and the City 2". It's about the wanton, shallow behaviour of some vapid, vacuous American women in an Arab country, illustrating for the world the (sometime) superficiality of U.S. "culture". Pretty convincing proof that the US is uncivilized - as if rap "music" and U.S. football weren't enough. Maybe the Arabs have a point.
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
AEI is a zionist "think" tank who's sole purpose is to help hijack us foriegn policy. goldberg is a a chief protaganist of that effort. they quite succesfully influenced the US invasion of iraq. i suspect the day of backlash will be upon us in the not too distant future when the average joe finally understands that their sons/ daughters/ economy is going down the tubes in support of a sociopathic theocracy. it has happened before.
|
|
Alexey
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
This boy standing alone against roaring crowd in LA can be climbing Buterballs on nuts!
I think when he show up there with his Israeli flag on Memorial day , he did not expect be protected by police.
Fortunately it was many officers near Israeli consulate in LA this day..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABjE_7uwA0I&feature=player_embedded
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
From Alexey's link, whenever you see a scraming, hatful, intolerant group marching around, look for the professionally printed Int'l A.N.S.W.E.R signs (look at the bottom of the signs).
brave kid though.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
June 5, 2010 6:00 A.M.
Israel, Turkey, and the End of Stability
Contempt for Israel is contempt for Washington.
Foreign policy “realists,” back in the saddle since the Texan cowboy left town, are extremely fond of the concept of “stability”: America needs a stable Middle East, so we should learn to live with Mubarak and the mullahs and the House of Saud, etc. You can see the appeal of “stability” to your big-time geopolitical analyst: You don’t have to update your Rolodex too often, never mind rethink your assumptions. “Stability” is a fancy term to upgrade inertia and complacency into strategy. No wonder the fetishization of stability is one of the most stable features of foreign-policy analysis.
Unfortunately, back in what passes for the real world, there is no stability. History is always on the march, and, if it’s not moving in your direction, it’s generally moving in the other fellow’s. Take this “humanitarian” “aid” flotilla. Much of what went on — the dissembling of the Palestinian propagandists, the hysteria of the U.N. and the Euro-ninnies — was just business as usual. But what was most striking was the behavior of the Turks. In the wake of the Israeli raid, Ankara promised to provide Turkish naval protection for the next “aid” convoy to Gaza. This would be, in effect, an act of war — more to the point, an act of war by a NATO member against the State of Israel.
Ten years ago, Turkey’s behavior would have been unthinkable. Ankara was Israel’s best friend in a region where every other neighbor wishes, to one degree or another, the Jewish state’s destruction. Even when Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s AKP was elected to power eight years ago, the experts assured us there was no need to worry. I remember sitting in a plush bar late one night with a former Turkish foreign minister, who told me, in between passing round the cigars and chugging back the Scotch, that, yes, the new crowd weren’t quite so convivial in the wee small hours but, other than that, they knew where their interests lay. Like many Turkish movers and shakers of his generation, my drinking companion loved the Israelis. “They’re tough hombres,” he said admiringly. “You have to be in this part of the world.” If you had suggested to him that in six years’ time the Turkish prime minister would be telling the Israeli president to his face that “I know well how you kill children on beaches,” he would have dismissed it as a fantasy concoction for some alternative universe.
Yet it happened. Erdogan said those words to Shimon Peres at Davos last year and then flounced off stage. Day by day what was formerly the Zionist entity’s staunchest pal talks more and more like just another cookie-cutter death-to-the-Great-Satan stan-of-the-month.
As the think-tankers like to say: “Who lost Turkey?” In a nutshell: Kemal Ataturk. Since he founded post-Ottoman Turkey in his own image nearly nine decades ago, the population has increased from 14 million to over 70 million. But that five-fold increase is not evenly distributed. The short version of Turkish demographics in the 20th century is that Rumelian Turkey — i.e., western, European, secular, Kemalist Turkey — has been outbred by Anatolian Turkey — i.e., eastern, rural, traditionalist, Islamic Turkey. Ataturk and most of his supporters were from Rumelia, and they imposed the modern Turkish republic on a reluctant Anatolia, where Ataturk’s distinction between the state and Islam was never accepted. Now they don’t have to accept it. The swelling population has spilled out of its rural hinterland and into the once solidly Kemalist cities.
Do you ever use the expression “young Turks”? I heard it applied to the starry-eyed ideologues around Obama the other day. The phrase comes from the original young Turks, the youthful activists agitating for reform in the last decades of the Ottoman Empire. The very words acknowledge the link between political and demographic energy. Today, the “young Turks” are old Turks: The heirs to the Kemalist reformers who gave women the vote before Britain did are a population in demographic decline. There will be fewer of them in every election. Today’s young Turks are men who think as Erdogan does. That doesn’t mean Turkey is Iran or Waziristan or Saudi Arabia, but it does mean that the country’s leadership is in favor of more or less conventional Islamic imperialism. As Erdogan’s most famous sound bite puts it: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.”
Some Western “experts” like to see this as merely a confident, economically buoyant Turkey’s “re-Ottomanization.” But the virulent anti-Semitism emanating from Erdogan’s fief is nothing to do with the old-time caliphate (where, unlike rebellious Arabs, the Jews were loyal or at least quiescent subjects), and all but undistinguishable from the globalized hyper-Islam successfully seeded around the world by Wahhabist money and so enthusiastically embraced by third-generation Euro-Muslims. Since 9/11, many of us have speculated about Muslim reform, in the Arab world and beyond. It’s hard to recall now but just a few years ago there was talk about whether General Musharraf would be Pakistan’s Ataturk. Instead, what we’re witnessing is the most prominent example of Muslim reform being de-reformed, before our very eyes, in nothing flat.
Demography is destiny, for the most part. For example, European Muslim populations are young, fast-growing, and profoundly hostile to Jews. European Jewish populations are old, fading, and irrelevant to domestic electoral calculations. Think of your stereotypically squishy pol, and then figure the reserves of courage it would require for the European establishment not to be anti-Israeli, and, indeed, ever more anti-Israeli as the years go by.
But demography alone isn’t always destiny. A confident culture can dominate far larger numbers of people, as England did for much of modern history. Bismarck’s famous remark that, if the British army invaded Germany, he’d send the local police force to arrest them is generally taken as a sneer at the minimal size of Her Britannic Majesty’s armed forces. But, in another sense, it’s a testament to how much the British accomplished with so little. Erdogan would not be palling up to Ahmadinejad and Boy Assad in Syria and even Sudan’s genocidal President Bashir, the Butcher of Darfur, if he were mindful of Turkey’s relationship with the United States. But he isn’t. He looks at the American hyperpower and sees, to all intents, a late Ottoman sultan — pampered, decadent, lounging on its cushions puffing a hookah but unable to rouse itself to impose its will in the world. In that sense, Turkey’s contempt for Israel is also an expression of near total contempt for Washington.
Is Erdogan wrong in his calculation? Or is he, in his own fashion, only reaching his own conclusions about what Israel, India, the Czech Republic, and others are coming to see as “the post-American world”? Well, look at it as if you’re sitting in the presidential palace of some or other Third World basket case. Iran is going nuclear in full view of the world, and with huge implications for everything, not least the price of oil. Meanwhile, NATO’s only Muslim member has decided it would rather be friends with Iran, Sudan, and Syria. And all this in the first decade of the 21st century. So much for stability.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2010 Mark Steyn.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Strange that FatTrad shoud adopt terms supposedly used by pirates, given that under international law, what Israel did last week, and may do again, is considered piracy.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Strange that FatTrad shoud adopt terms supposedly used by pirates, given that under international law, what Israel did last week, and may do again, is considered piracy.
Check you facts under Int'l Maritime law, Anders...
Especially parts regarding a willful intention to run a military blockade.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
You can't blockade another country without authority under international law, e.g. a United Nations resolution. Israel has no such legal authority for blockading Palestine, including Gaza. Given a lack of any legal authority for what its doing, and it taking place in international waters, it's piracy.
As with so many of their actions, the Israelis seem to be shooting themselves in the foot on this one. They're simply being bullies. If they were to limit their demand to a right to inspect (once vessels are in territorial waters), only refused transit to materials that are clearly or reasonably could be taken to be military (instead of virtually everything but food and medical supplies), and weren't so clumsy and aggressive about their activities, they'd have more support.
Of course, Hamas has won a brilliant PR coup with this, but it seems doubtful they have the realpolitik to make the necessary compromises. A Gordian knot, but not one that will be solved through by blind violence by either party.
Egypt's opening its border with Gaza, at least temporarily, may make the discussion moot in any case.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
From a FOXnews report.
A maritime blockade remains in effect off the coast of Gaza, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with Hamas, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea, according to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Robert Margolis, an expert in international maritime law based out of Vancouver, Canada, said no boats, including civilian and enemy vessels, can enter a blockaded area when a maritime blockade is in effect.
"Israel is acting under the customary maritime law of blockade," Margolis told FoxNews.com. "You're allowed to do that; they declared a blockade over a port."
Margolis said Israel is acting "completely" within guidelines of blockades under international maritime law. Any vessel that violates a blockade, including the Rachel Corrie, may be captured, boarded or even attacked under international law.
"If [the Rachel Corrie] insisted on going all the way to Gaza, then the Israelis have the right to board it, not to sink it," said Margolis, citing guidelines regarding appropriate use of force. "Rather than sink it, Israeli commandos would board the vessel."
Once a blockade is established, Margolis said it must be enforced.
"You can't have a blockade where you don't try and stop every vessel," he said. "Blockades fail from non-enforcement. The law of blockades require enforcement; there's no such thing as a paper blockade."
link here;
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/03/second-aid-ship-reportedly-headed-gaza/
EDIT: Egypt's opening its border with Gaza, at least temporarily, may make the discussion moot in any case.
And why does Egypt (the other border with Gaza) never get dissed about sealing their border or killing border jumpers??? They're not Joooooos!
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
Blue,
excellent point. the egyption gov't (not egyptian people) gets paid a ton of US cash courtesy of your taxes to do as we/ israel wishes. something around $500 million a year. just another cost associated with our love for Israel.
glad we have money to burn....
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
The whirring sound of the apologists for Israel spinning PR is deafening.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Alexey, I think the kid with the flag was an arrogant prig.
You don't go to an NAACP funeral in a Clan cone hat. And a black man doesn't go to a clan rally to fight for his civil rights. What was he thinking? He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he would be protected by the Police State. How kosher of him to incite from behind a pig fence. He clearly wanted to provoke a physical altercation so the right wing press could have a field day with the angry Arab mob descending on the poor innocent defenseless jewboy. Flotilla, what flotilla?
He is just a spoiled American brat kid who's only context is the mindless victim mentality that he has been sauteed in since birth. He probably has no real connection to the Middle East other than the endlessly regurgitated Jewish narrative. While several people among the protestors clearly had had family members killed by (un)settlers and IDF goons. What is this kid demonstrating? Israel's "God given" right to murder with impunity?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!