The past week has seen Jewish neocons and Christian Zionists defending actions that would have had them clamoring for war had they been performed by Iran. The fact that Israel would attack a flotilla in international waters that was planning to run the blockade (not "break" it as the media often states) shouldn't be very surprising. Israel has shown time and time again that it has no respect for human rights (yes, I realize that none of its neighbors are any better with regard to human rights, but that is irrelevant to Israel's human rights record), which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that Israel was, like Palestine eventually will be, founded by terrorists.
There have been a couple of propagated by Jewish neocons and their Christian lapdogs regarding the resistance by the flotilla's crew and passengers that shows that when it comes to Israel, "conservatives" leave their conservatism behind:
1. The people on the flotilla attacked the Israeli soldiers, beating them and in one case pushing one into the ocean, so the Israelis were justified in responding with force.
This is perhaps the stupidest argument they are using to justify the massacre (Larry Auster, a man who normally is highly intelligent was spouting this earlier in the week). The Israeli military attacked civilian ships in international waters. The people on the flotilla had the right to fight back in self-defense, the Israelis certainly did not. If a burglar breaks in, you shoot him, and he shoots you, he will be the one charged, not you (unless your DA is a liberal). If anything, the Israeli soldiers got off easy be merely being beaten. Pirates used to be summarily executed.
2. Several of the "peace activists" were carrying firearms.
Everyone is entitled to self-defense, including Muslims and leftists. The idea that peace activists can't carry weapons shows that Christian conservatives and neocons are not immune to cognitive dissonance, considering that most of them probably believe things like "more guns, less crime" and "an armed society is a polite society," meaning the threat of force can deter violence and preserve peace.
The fact that Christian "conservatives" aren't very conservative when it comes to Israel shouldn't be surprising. Considering that most American conservatives belong to a religion where they worship a Jew in the spiritual world, it makes sense that they would worship Jews also in the material world, in the same way that white liberals worship blacks.
I don't know much about the facts behind the incident, so I am loathe to comment. Except to say that I can see the points that both sides present.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I'd just as soon extricate ourselves from the entire laughably-termed 'mid-east peace process' and let the countries there slug it out. Winner takes Palestine.
I don't give a damn about Israel as a political entity, and for those Christians that do, they commit the same mistake as the 1st-century Jews did.
If I found out that someone was going to rob my house and I had solid evidence when he was coming, it would be a good idea if I waited for him and caught him in the act. If I shot him while he was coming into my house, I'd even have a solid case for self defense. But if I decided instead to ambush him on his way to my house by breaking into his car while he was driving and he started clubbing my face and I shot him then, there is no way I could claim self defense.
ReplyDeleteHow can some people not see this distinction?
I also notice Auster's irrationality on this issue. It really gives substance to people like Hunter Wallace who question LA's bona fides as a legit and consistent pro-White intellectual. Tanstaafl over at Age of Treason has it correct: it is just tribal self interest at work, seemingly beyond their ability to reason neutrally about.
ReplyDelete