The former Spanish prime minister reminds us that the past had different standards
Bookworm on Jun 17 2010 at 7:01 pm | Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Climate change, Israel
It tells you how quickly the world is moving that José María Aznar was prime minister in Spain as recently as 2004. It’s impossible today to imagine any current world leader, including our own President, writing this about Israel.
I’ve posted Aznar’s message on both of my facebook sites, emailed it to all my friends, and am publishing it here. I urge you to broadcast it to as many people as possible too. What he says is very important. Also, to the extent he’s proposing the creation of a Friends of Israel initiative, we should keep our eyes open.
Change happens quickly. As I go through my old posts (I’m trying to consolidate them in one place with an eye towards publication), I was surprised to learn that the whole man-made global warming hypothesis was still gathering steam in the popular consciousness as late as 2006. Somehow I thought that Al Gore’s drum beating had effectively robbed the world of common sense long before that.
Related posts:
- Michael Steele reminds us why I wanted him for the RNC
- It reminds me of the plot of a bad movie
- What happens to a scientific consensus when the underlying data is corrupt?
Email This Post To A Friend
5 Responses to “The former Spanish prime minister reminds us that the past had different standards”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think that as a political statement even this is too weak. It’s not Neville-Chamberlain weak, but it’s still weak. Former President Azner speaks of European “ambiguity” towards Israel. I don’t see any such ambiguity; the European governments are ready to sacrifice Israel.
No nation should be expected to commit suicide. The European governments, and the Obama Administration, offer paths for Israel that lead only to its destruction. There is no proposed path that leads to a stable future that offers peace.
Why are these governments prepared to do this, to sacrifice Israel? Is it for some strategic advantage in a conflict? No. It is only appeasement of Islamic terrorists and troublemakers within their own borders and within their spheres of influence. ”There! We’ve given you Israel! Now we expect you to settle down and become quiet.” Except they will not become quiet, for they will correctly see this appeasement as complete cultural and political surrender. They are already convinced that their terrorist jihad and Islamification will give them all of Europe within thirty years, and they may be right, for Europe appears more than ready for the surrender.
I’m mindful of the prominent government fellow in – i think – one of the Scandinavian countries who, when faced with radical/jihadist Islamic turbulence declared, “We must be nice to our Islamic countrymen, so that when they take over, they will be nice to us.” Except they will not be nice to you, Sir. Your appeasement and surrender makes you unworthy of being treated well, in their cultural eyes. The strong horse deserves respect, and you deserve the boot upon your neck for you have willingly become the weakest of horses, worthy only of disgust and spite. These jihadists don’t “play nice”; it’s not even a concept for them, culturally.
To surrender Israel for no other reason than appeasement is to surrender your own moral right to exist as a culture and as a nation.
((((bravo)))) Mike Devx ((((applauding here))))
worth repeating ……..
To surrender Israel for no other reason than appeasement is to surrender your own moral right to exist as a culture and as a nation.
If you want a really good book on Global Warming, BW…check out Roy Spencer’s newest: The Great Global Warming Blunder. Understandable, calm, and offers the benefit of the doubt even to people who (it seems to me) don’t deserve it.
It doesn’t prove anything – this is science after all – but he makes it abundantly plain that there are perfectly logical alternative explanations for the warming we’ve seen that do a better job of accounting for the actual data than does the AGW hypothesis….and that if science were what we were dealing with, there would be multiple hypotheses being tested, rather than all money flowing to a single one.
To surrender Israel for no other reason than appeasement is to surrender your own moral right to exist as a culture and as a nation.
Well said. They are lambs to the slaughter. Except these lambs think they can dictate what the sheepdogs get to do.
Ymar said,
> They are lambs to the slaughter. Except these lambs think they can dictate what the sheepdogs get to do.
I agree, lambs to the slaughter indeed. Are your sheepdogs the radical Islamists? I’d call *them* wolves, not sheepdogs, for they have not the lambs’ best interests at heart.
If your sheepdogs are the citizenry in those countries who still revere their traditions and love their countries… well, to this point, the lambs *are* dictating the terms to the sheepdogs, aren’t they?!?! But only because the sheepdogs remain passive and perhaps confused; maybe they are slowly waking up.