A little of this and a little of that — and, of course, an Open Thread

Family life has been busy of late.  That means when I wasn’t roused to blogging about the Second Amendment, I didn’t blog much at all these past few days.  My lapses, though, haven’t stopped interesting things from appearing, some to do with Newtown, and some involving other stuff altogether.  In no particular order, I now present “a little of this and a little of that”:

If you think that “gun free zones” can also be called “human turkey shoots,” you are correct.

Mental health — or the lack thereof — combined with our Progressive refusal to deal with mental health issues (“Cause, hey, man!?  Like, what’s reality?) also contributes mightily to mass murders.  I would add to the list of mental health problems “murder while under the influence of Islam.”

I knew he was a great actor, but never realized that Gérard Depardieu has the heart of a poet: “Despite my excesses, my appetite and love for life, I am a free being, Sir, and will remain polite.” You made the right choice, Gerry, my boy. France doesn’t deserve you. (I wonder if Belgium does?)

Because grim times can be defeated with a little righteous humor, America’s Sergeant Major shares with us the wonders of his guys and gals.

And while we’re laughing, I miss living in the South (although Texas is pretty much in a class by itself).

Helloooo, all you sheeple out there!  Just wanted to remind you that wolves exist.  You can either de-sheepify yourself, or you can accept the guard dog’s willingness to put himself between you and danger.  And if you’re going to cede to him your self-defense responsibilities, you better be willing to allow him arms.

Are you upset that Jon Hammar, a former American Marine, is shackled to a bed in a Mexican jail cell for trying to register a weapon?  If you’re not, you should be.  By the way, think hard upon the fact that Mexico has amongst the strictest gun control laws and the highest violence rate in the world.  Of course, all the gun control laws in the world can’t stop a U.S. Attorney General determined to ship illegal arms into your country.

Israel must be the only country in the world that feeds and supports an enemy determined to destroy her and kill her citizens.  Sometimes you can carry goodness to the point of insanity, I think.  If you want to know how this exceptionally altruistic insanity works on the ground, the IDF gives you some facts.

The wages of gun control.  In that regard, I’ll note that a 60 Minutes interview with the nurse at the school in Newtown revealed that this woman took shelter under a desk, only to have the shooter stand right in front of the desk, where she saw his feet.  Had she been harmed, he would have been dead or seriously injured.  As it was, he turned around, walked away, and began some serious killing.

Yes, banning assault weapons is a dumb idea.  Frankly, banning any weapons is dumb, because the bad guys will always get them.  I’m struggling to think of an analogy.  How about this:  It’s 1942 America has entered the war.  Rather than becoming the arsenal of democracy, she closes her factories and ships the raw materials to Germany and Japan.

Michelle Malkin lists six simple things parents can do to protect their kids — and none of them involve legislation or government mandates/prohibitions.

Who needs written editorials?  Just look at Michael Ramirez’s editorial cartoons.  His ability to translate complex ideas into simple illustrations — without ever dumbing down the ideas — never ceases to amaze.

Armed civilians save lives

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    combined with our Progressive refusal to deal with mental health
    The Belgian newspaper I read said in the reporting on the massacre in Newtown that mental health is often of poor quality, difficult to access and often expensive in America, resulting in many who need it not being able to get any. To me it sounds like the usual nonsense and attempted smering, but is this true or not?
     
    By the way, I do wonder, as I’ve done before about guys like the Newtown murderer, was his supposed mental illness obvious to anyone else, or even to himself? Did anyone ever notice anything could be wrong with this guy? My memory tells me that with guys like this, that doesn’t usually happen. Is there really any way to unmask people like this?
     
     
    “Despite my excesses, my appetite and love for life, I am a free being, Sir, and will remain polite.” You made the right choice, Gerry, my boy. France doesn’t deserve you. (I wonder if Belgium does?)
    Well, Belgium has a socialist prime minister. French has a socialist president. For now, the southern French speaking part of Belgium may seem like a good solution for Mr. Depardieu, but for how long, since we have socialists pretty much dominating our federal goverment (and completely dominating the regional one in the Southern part of the country). Taxes are very high in Belgium also, and a similar tax on the wealthy as what made Mr. Depardieu want to leave France has been talked about in Belgium (although it has so far not been instated). I’m not sure Belgium deserves Mr. Depardieu either. At this point, he seems better off in Belgium, but whether that will continue to be so? I’m not so sure. Belgium certainly isn’t a great deal kinder on its citizens and its wealthy constituants than is France.
     
     
     By the way, think hard upon the fact that Mexico has amongst the strictest gun control laws and the highest violence rate in the world.
    The gun control laws certainly aren’t stopping the drug gang that are screwing that country up, and badly so. In certain Mexican cities, up to a dozen murders a day is entirely normal. These gangs are known to use machine guns and heavy weaponry. And if they don’t use guns, they’ll use pretty much anything. Knives and fire are also quite popular.
     

  2. JL says

    Israel must be the only country in the world that feeds and supports an enemy determined to destroy her and kill her citizens.  Sometimes you can carry goodness to the point of insanity, I think.  If you want to know how this exceptionally altruistic insanity works on the ground, the IDF gives you some facts.
     
    Yes, so altruistic of the IDF to send supplies into Gaza after occupying the territory for decades, crippling its economy, sealing the border off to prevent  Gazans from working their jobs in Israel proper, and controlling Gazan air-space, territorial waters, and the flow of people and goods into the strip, despite Gaza being a “sovereign” territory.

  3. lee says

    Kevin_B–
    Mental healthcare is problematic here. One of the problems (about which Bookworm and others have written here) is what is referred to as “deinstitutionalization.” In the 60’s and 70’s, we started emptying out state hospitals (where the mentally ill were housed for tteatment.) In the years since, it has become increasingly difficult to commit someone who is mentally ill against their will unless they are considered “a danger to themselves or others.” This has come to mean that they actually DO something, not just threaten. Even people with great insurance coverage and/or fantastic resources find themselves extremely frustrated by this. Schizophrenic people will freeze to death on the streets, homeless, but they are not considered a”a danger to themselves” because they haven’t actively haven’t tried to kill themselves. They are supposed to be treated as outpatients (hence, being “deinstitutionalized.) But they are trusted to do what they need to do–take medication, take it on time, visit their doctor, and like other illnesses, diet and excercise are important. Most won’t. Schizophrenics often (ironically enough) miss the comfort of the voices in their heads. Sometimes, they hate the side effects of the medication. Sometimes, they are just bad at taking medications. 
     
    Anyhow, what winds up happening is that the families of the mentally ill beg for help, but are told by the police, by doctors, by lawyers, they need to maintain a “paper trail” of the problems, but until their mentally ill person does something by which he becomes considered a “danger to himself and others” there is nothing they can do. Some short term (less than 30 days hospitalization) but other than that… Which is why we have so many mentally ill people in prison. 
     
    This is why you will read many of us here rail against the progressives about this–they were the big leaders in “deinstitutionalization.” Admittedly, there

  4. lee says

    Now admittedly, there were problems that led to deinstituionalization. There were people who were locked up without some sort of due process, and more or less left to rot. From the late forties, to the early sixties, thousands were lobotomized. “Unruly” women and teens were committed. Patients who might’ve done better at home, were thrown in hospitals. There defintiely were some problems that needed to be solved. But what happened with “deinstitutionalization” was the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. There WERE excellent aspects of mental healthcare in the forties, fifties and early sixties. People who needed mental health care were able to get it, (and generally in beautiful settings) and there were many dedicated healthcare professionals committed to helping the people who needed it. But like so mnay PROBLEMS that “someone ought to DO something about” no one examines what is SPECIFICALLY WRONG, and concentrate on the weaknesses and build up the strengths. Progressives do that a lot here: Obamacare is another prime example. 

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    I don’t think that you are going to find much sympathy for the Palestinians on this blog, JL. You would do best to troll elsewhere. We’ve covered this ground over and over already. Just trying to be helpful, of course.

  6. JL says

    I just find it ironic that the Harvard study bookworm cited to support her argument on gun ownership also reached the conclusion that the most effective ways to curb violence is to address socio-economic deficiencies. But the fact that there is no vibrant economy in the Strip, largely due to Israeli policy, isn’t worth talking about at all, is it? 

  7. says

    The fact that Hollywood makes more money than doctors and destroys the vibrant economy of the rest of the nation, all the while without being taxed as “rich people”, isn’t worth talking about at all to some.

  8. says

    “As it was, he turned around, walked away, and began some serious killing.”
     
    At that distance, it wouldn’t have been particularly hard for me to use lethal force H2H methods to reap that life. People become over confident with guns. Mainly because of Leftist propaganda saying it is a evil totem that gives you power.

  9. Charles Martel says

    I seem to remember that when Israel handed over control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, it left behind a rather elaborate set of greenhouses that the Palestinians could use to help feed themselves and create a sustainable produce industry.
     
    Within a couple of weeks, the state-of-the-art greenhouses had been stripped, vandalized, and reduced to near rubble. Incredibly, there wasn’t an Israeli army uniform or perfidious Jew in sight. Still, it’s pretty damned obvious that Israeli policy forced the Palestinians to dismantle those greenhouses!

  10. Spartacus says

    I dunno, JL.  The fact that the place is run by a certified, bona fide terrorist organization which openly advocates violence might have something to do with the level of violence there.  Just sayin’…

  11. says

    We all know violence is part of the Right, Islamic terrorists are religious fundamentalists, thus the Christians in the US are to blame, the ones packing heat and Bibles at least.
     
    The fact that the Left is in alliance with Muslim Brotherhood and supplies them with money and guns, well, that’s just something that people won’t be allowed to mention, like Stalin’s pact with Hitler.

  12. JL says

    I’m not ignorant nor deceitful enough to deny that elements within the PTs, particularly the Strip, will remain bent on the destruction of Israel no matter how vibrant the Palestinian economy is. I’m also not enough of a self-deluding ideologue to ignore the reality that improving the quality of life in the Gaza Strip is absolutely essential to any long-term sort of peace. Israel’s current policy of boxing the Palestinians in and “cutting down the weeds” from time to time, as it’s been expressed on this blog, is not only extremely short-sighted and stupid, but morally reprehensible. It is a pathetic attempt at band-aiding a gaping wound that will do nothing to actually solve the problem. Which I honestly don’t think the Israeli government wants to do.
    Economic development in Gaza, as I’ve said, is absolutely critical to any solution. History, and even the modern Middle East, is ripe with examples of the moderating effects a decent economy can have on people. Economic opportunities might not convince the extreme hardliners to temper their cause, but they certainly provide incentives for the majority of individuals to put down their guns, get a job, and make a decent living. Without economic opportunities, these people are easy targets for indoctrination by Hamas’ death squads. An easy parallel can be drawn to American ghettos. People don’t join gangs because they are natural born killers who enjoy defying the law and harming innocent people; they join because there are very few other realistic options. This isn’t to condone their acts, but culpability is certainly lessened when one understands the factors that make such outcomes statistical likelihoods.
    The story bookworm links is hilariously stupid propoganda. Israel doesn’t buy these goods and supplies. Humanitarian organizations do. Furthermore, Israel wouldn’t have to transport these things in if it wasn’t blockading Gaza’s ports and choking off all other points of entry. It’s like calling someone a hero because they’ve poked an air hole in the plastic bag they’ve been suffocating someone in.
    Bookworm’s mantra is “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.” This is just plain stupid, the kind of pathetic non-truths that people on either side like to convince themselves of to reinforce that they’re the “good guys” and the other side is not only wrong on the issues, but made up of “bad people.” What intellectually dishonest drivel. Watch Bill O’Reilly for 2 minutes to see your maxim blown out of the water. Or better yet, read your posts regarding Israel. You’ve already reached your conclusion, and no amount of factual argumentation could ever change it.

  13. Danny Lemieux says

    What is it about people on the Left that they think every human problem has to do with material things?

    What is it about people on the Left that they think that it is quite OK for other people to be expected to grin and bear it while living under constant rocket attack?

    Why is it that people on the Left can’t get it through their heads that Palestinians have been committed to killing and wiping out Jews since well before Israel was even a state?

    Why is it that people on the Left really don’t care much when it is Arabs or even other Palestinians that are slaughtering or ethnically cleansing Palestinians but, if it Israelis, whooo-boy? 

    That’s why we really can’t take people on the Left very seriously and we take even less seriously Palestinian claims to victimhood.

     

  14. JL says

    Your insinuation that I am on the Left is insulting. I’ve never voted for a Democrat and never will. I’ve decided my voice can best be used by criticizing the Right from within. I’ll take the fact that you immediately put me in your “Left box” as evidence that you live in a strange little world made up of false dichotomies and ironic hypocrisies, where being fiscally conservative and against abortion must automatically mean one’s an apologist for Whatever Israel Decides to Do. To wit, I’ve interned at Heritage and I am the son of a Reagnite member of Thommy Thompson’s administration.
    Your assertions, point by point: 
    I think most problems have do with material things, in the sense that people care about them way too much. But hey, consumerism’s just a natural by product of capitalism, so it can’t be bad, can it?
    With regards to this particular issue, I don’t think the statistical evidence can be ignored that supports the following thesis: money makes people content. Shouldn’t be the way it is, but a sad reality of human nature.
    I don;t think Israel should grin and bear it. I think Hamas is wrong to lob rockets into southern Israel. I just think that your narrow-minded solutions are simplistic and will fail to actually ever achieve anything.
    And you really expect those deceitful, dishonest Muslims (all of them, their religion teaches it!!!! [sarcasm]) to never break a promise? People throughout time have made claims or championed causes that ended up dissolving when circumstances changed. I make the case that people are, largely, people and want the same things you, I, or anyone else does. Food, a roof over their heads, and safety for their families. If most people have these, they drop or at least temper their ideological zeal. It’s why we’ll never see an armed “conservative revolution,” no matter how leftist our country gets.
    Again, I’m not on the left, but this is another silly conclusion you’ve jumped to. I care about the loss of innocent human life in all its forms, be it unborn children in America killed by an abortionist or blame-free Pashtuns in the Pakistan Tribal Area whiped out by US Hellfire missiles. I also know and condemn the treatment of Palestinians by their “leaders” and other Arabs during the events of 1948. Undoubtedly, they’ve contributed to this mess. Still doesn’t change the fact that Israeli policy is evil.
     
    In the words of Mark Shea, in Israel and Palestine, there are only sinners and victims. Neither side is the epitome of virtue and good, and neither is the devil incarnate. But creating simple little boxes for everything is so much easier, right?
     
    Again, your assumptions that I am an “agent of the left” simply reveals the insular world you live in. 

  15. Charles Martel says

    If current Israeli policy is evil, what would make it good? I’m always curious when somebody can point to what Israel is doing wrong but neglects to say what it could do right.
     
    What specific steps would you recommend?

  16. Danny Lemieux says

    You might want to reread what I wrote, JL. I never mentioned you by name.

    Fact is, though, your position exactly mirrors the propaganda of the Left. I have met some very anti-Israel people on the not-Left as well – they tended to be either rank ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, in that they swallowed anti-Israeli propaganda whole, or they were rank anti-semites. Either way, they use a double standard by which they judge Israelis versus those that oppose them.

    But, like Charles the Hammer says…give us your solutions…!

     

  17. Danny Lemieux says

    Whoops! I think that I just put two-and-two together: you didn’t learn your history of the Middle East at the U. of Wisconsin – Madison  (“Bezerkley of the Midwest”), did you?
     

  18. JL says

    Oh please, Mr. Lemiuex. We all know what you were implying. Stooping to the use of a technicality to get you off the hook is the height of dishonesty.
    Therefore, I suppose it’s unsurprising that your tactics in argumentation follow a similar suit. First of all, I am not “anti-Israel.” To make that case is to slander the English language and to, again, remove any doubt regarding your reliance upon a simplistic dichotomous view of the world. Additionally, bringing up “people you know” who are “anti-Israel” but not on the left does nothing to further this discussion, and you know it. You only bring it up to impinge upon my credibility and the credibility of my argument, by subtly hinting that I must either be an anti-Semite or an ignoramus. Man, you’ve just got false dichotomy built upon false dichotomy. 
    Regarding what you say about a double standard, I’ll repeat that I said earlier: my voice is much better used criticizing the Right from within, under the assumption (perhaps a false one) that such an endeavor would be more fruitful than going to HuffPost and arguing with people because at least members of Right and I share some basic premises. Or so the theory goes. As a result of this approach, much of my criticism will focus on Israel in my discussions with people on the Right, precisely because they are already in lockstep approval with anything Israel does. If I were having a conversation with a Hamas apologist, much of my ire would be aimed at the destructive and villainous actions of that particular group. 
     
    And no, I did not attend UW.
     
    Now on to my “solution.”
     
    First of all, I will point out that one does not need to have a “solution” to criticize an action as immoral. I don’t need to have the answer to every potential back-alley abortion or unwanted baby carried to term to make the observation that abortion is morally reprehensible. In fact, even if back-alley abortions were carried out or babies were abandoned shortly after birth, obvious flaws in any potential “solution,” the fact that “abortion is morally wrong” would not change.
     
    Similarly, I don’t need to have some fool-proof solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict to make the claim that “Israeli policy is evil”, and frankly, there isn’t one. But here’s the key: A poor solution put forward on my part is a reflection of just that; a poor solution. It is not a reflection of the moral dimension of what is currently going on there.
     
    The key to peace in Israel/the Palestinian territories involves two ingredients: undermining the legitimacy/attraction of Hamas and having the Israeli administration abandon its short-sighted, draconian policies.
     
     
    For the first, I’ve already made my case that economics play a large role. Hitler wouldn’t have had such appeal in post-WWI Germany if the German economy hadn’t been decimated, and Hamas wouldn’t have such pull in the Gaza Strip if the Palestinian economy wasn’t in such shambles, largely as a result of Israeli policy. Israel severely limits Gazan exports: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html (what's the rational for that?). Israel makes it unbearably difficult for Palestinians to travel/work between the two territories/in Israel. Israel controls Palestinian utilities and natural resources, although this is a bigger problem in the West Bank than in Gaza. There’s also the fact that Israel occupied these territories for decades, installing absurdly bureaucratic policies regarding licenses and permits that ought to make any free-market capitalist cringe. But no, the economy in the Strip must suck because the Gazans tore down some greenhouses. Ahh.
     
    The second ingredient I put forward requires a shift in the Israeli administrations mind-set. Currently, the Israeli policy with regards to the Gaza Strip and Hamas is one of maintaining the status-quo: keep the Palestinians impoverished and desperate, and “mow the grass” when needed. As I said before, I find this take deplorable. It is resolutely short-sighted and Machiavellian. It will never bring peace, and only continues an awful cycle of violence that will ensure armed resistance and “death to Israel” remain popular options in the Palestinian territories.
     
    The difficulty is that such a shift requires Israel to adapt, at least temporarily, a mindset that flies in the face of “realists” and zero-sum game theory fanatics. In other words, it might require Israel to make “concessions.” Consider this classic example. Two farms border each other, and along the border is a particularly nasty bog, a bog that is home to all sorts of nasty insects and pests. Clearly, both farmers would benefit from clearing the bog and ridding themselves of the associated nuisances, but here’s the catch. Clearing the bog costs money (or in our real world case, “power and leverage”). Because both farmer fears the double whammy associated with clearing the bog by themselves (they temporarily lose while the other side gains), neither does anything and the bog and its associated problems continue to fester. But both sides are worse off then they could be. Now, obviously cooperation might be the optimal outcome for all involved, but as the two farmers hate each other, that’s unlikely to happen. Furthermore, one of the farmers is completely impoverished (lacks power and leverage) and contributing to the project isn’t much of a possibility. In such a case, the more well-off farmer can choose to maintain the status quo, probably running the other farmer into financial ruin, or he can take a loss in the short term for the betterment of all involved in the long term. If IR is just a game and the goal is to win, then the first approach seems like the right one. But if life is not a game, and people’s well-being matters (YES! Even foreigners and Muslims!), it’s obvious which approach is the “right” one. But I guess it all depends what we mean by “right.” What’s morally correct or what’s in the “best interests” of one nation state at the expense of another. You guys can decide.
     
    For more on this idea, read this:
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvox-nova.com%2F2012%2F11%2F19%2Frisking-peace-a-thought-experiment%2F&ei=ruvUUJDLA83yqQHHpYH4DA&usg=AFQjCNFDVDqIIVOFsNTWdwm8-riKET3vfQ&sig2=RHpvoW207JOWtkKE5DMkMA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.aWM

  19. says

    Btw, the Left operates both as a death cult, a religious theocracy, and a criminal organization. So when people in the know talk about people being part of the Left, we’re really talking about it in terms of.. say, a shopkeeper being part of a criminal organization because he pays his protection dues or the local sharks will come in and knee cap him.
     
    So to speak. It’s not meant to imply you are part of them because you want to be, you voted for them, you call yourself a Democrat, or anything “political” in nature. The Left is not, and has never been about “politics”. Something people are just beginning to be aware of, given Leftist propaganda in the schools and against the masses.
     
    The way this is enforced is not by anyone here. It gets enforced because the Left themselves will punish you if you are part of them, but don’t behave according to their standards. There is no such thing as freedom when you are part of the Left. You do as you are told, or else. You may believe you are doing what you believe is right, but that’s only a side effect of the death cult brainwashing, so to speak. It’s not that people in the Left care about Israel or Palestine (formerly Judea). It’s that unless they speak the right words about Israel being killers, they will be punished by the Left. The latter is a lot more scary than the former.

  20. Charles Martel says

    JL, I went to the link you provided, hoping for the best. Alas, the writer fulfilled his own prophecy: He sits in a cozy office on the East Coast of the United States and offers a peace plan that has little to do with reality:
     
     
    Jewish settlements on the West Bank will be halted immediately. Those settlements will be disbanded over the next two years, their settlers repatriated, and the land turned over the Palestinian Authority.
     
     
    Possible to do, however the writer fails to mention what reasonable quid pro quo Israel would expect from the Palestinian dictators. Perhaps a cessation of rocket attacks, with the proviso that a resumption of said attacks would negate the halt on settlement dismantlement?
     
     
    Israel will sponsor a motion in the United Nations recognizing the sovereign and independent State of Palestine, with Ramallah as its capital.
     
     
    Good luck with the Ramallah suggestion. Radical Palestinians will never accede to it and will point to the Israeli proposal as yet another slight to Palestinian dignity. (At this point, which is pregnant with opportunity for the writer to offer suggestions as to how Hamas and the PA’s terrorists might be deposed, he is silent.)
     
     
    Israel will establish its permanent capital in Tel Aviv and turn over the City of Jerusalem to the United Nations to be administered as an international protectorate with full, unhindered access to citizens of both Palestine and Israel.
     
     
    Ah, the United Nations, not only mankind’s last and best hope, but also its most moral and efficient. Kid rape, graft, anti-Semitism and physical cowardice aside, the UN can certainly knows how to keep the peace between the two warring tribes (remember the spiffy job it did in Rwanda and the Balkans?). The writer’s unstated hope is that the feckless UN would be able to call on American military power to give its refereeing some real teeth. Very unlikely as long as the most anti-Israel/anti-Semitic U.S. president ever is in power.
     
     
    What the Palestinians call the “right of return” cannot be literally fulfilled, but will instead be negotiated economically. How that will happen will be subject to those negotiations, but it may include a lump sum payment to Palestinian families who can trace their roots to what is now Israel, or it could include a commitment by the government of Israel to shift some percentage of its foreign trade with other countries to the new Palestinian state.
     
     
    The air of unreality thickens. The right of return is the bedrock Palestinian negotiating point. The assumption that the Palestinians’ terrorist masters will agree to modify the demand would in reality end their reason for existing: the total elimination of Jews and their state. As Bush 1 was fond of saying, “Not gonna happen.”
     
     
    Since we’re talking about an economic settlement, a question comes to mind: What, conceivably, could the Palestinians produce that anybody would be interested in buying? Random body parts? Explosives? For-hire honor killings? Wait a minute. . . I seem to remember that the Israelis left some really spiffy greenhouses in Gaza to help jumpstart an agriculture industry. I’ll bet those lovingly tended greenhouses are really helping the oppressed can’t-get-an-economic-break Palies get a foot into the modern economy! I mean, no culture ruled by a manipulative, all-seeing dictatorship could be stupid enough to allow a gift horse like that to be totally wrecked. Am I right?

  21. Danny Lemieux says

    The Palestinians have been quite open about their desire to exterminate the Joos since the late-19th Century (when Jews were the largest population group in Jerusalem). They have never denied or withdrawn their commitment to genocide against Jews. They never disavowed their links to and collaboration with the German Nazi party in its efforts to exterminate Jews before and during WWII.

    It was Palestinians (PLO) that pioneered the concept of global terrorism specifically targeting civilians.

    The Jews have been making concessions to the Palestinians ever since the Oslo accords, which the Palestinians violated beginning Day-1. The Palestinians never stopped their terrorist attacks against Israel, nor (more recently) their rocket attacks, nor educating their young that the Jews should be exterminated.

    President Bill Clinton had a deal on the table whereby the Palestinians would have statehood and 95% of the territory they (publicly) claimed they wanted. The Palestinians turned it down. It is the Palestinians that insisted on the status quo as long as Israel continues to exist.

    Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full rights of citizenship and the highest per-capita standard of living in the Middle East (actually, they enjoy more-than equal rights, as they are not compelled to serve in the Israeli army). This is not the case for any minorities living in the Palestinian territories.

    Gaza also has a border with Egypt. Nobody mentions that. Why doesn’t anybody question why Egypt has economic and military border controls in place on the Gaza border and, more importantly, why?

    The UN is full of resolutions against Israel. However, there have never been UN resolutions against Arabs (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon) attacking Palestinians, nor of Arab countries ethnically cleansing their countries of Palestinians (Iraq, Kuwait).

    So, spare me! There are a lot of other people all around the world far more deserving of sympathy than the Palestinians. 

  22. Danny Lemieux says

    You beat me to it, Hammer. Ah…the right of return. And…do all the Jooos that were evicted from Arab countries between 1948 and 1957 get the right of return and economic compensation as well? I must have missed that UN resolution.

     

  23. Charles Martel says

    Danny, what’s also interesting here is how the concept of “evil” is applied. I suppose that you could make the case that, based on the ethics of Judaism (and Christianity), the Israelis are being naughty. Notice, though, that you have to appeal to the tenets of both religions for the accusation to have traction.
     
    Fortunately for the Palestinians, nobody can ever really accuse them of violating Islamic ethical principles. Everybody is hip to the fact that Islam can justify any atrocity—the Qu’ran and the hadiths are chock full of murderous admonitions. As they sang so lustily in Damn Yankees, “Whatever Allah wants, Allah gets.”
     
    What are we to make of this? Simple: The people with an actual ethic that forbids evil are always to be held in lower esteem than people who don’t.

Leave a Reply