Monday, August 27, 2012

A Tribute to Rachel Corrie (Updated)


Mike L.

(Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.)

As you guys are probably aware hard-line, right-wing conservative Republican Rachel Corrie is back in the news.

Corrie family hopeful ahead of court ruling

Rachel Corrie's parents and sister say they hope the court will find the IDF responsible for her 2003 death in Gaza.

This being the case, I thought it was a good moment to reprint this response written by Ruhama Shattan one year after the accident that took Corrie's life:

A Tribute to Rachel Corrie

Today is the first anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death. I want to thank Corrie for the explosives that flow freely from Egypt to Gaza, via the smuggling tunnels under the Gaza homes that she died defending.

Perhaps it was these explosives that in the year since her martyrdom--oops, death--have been strapped around suicide bombers to blow up city buses and restaurants in Israeli cities, particularly in Jerusalem, killing men, women and schoolchildren (two of them classmates of my daughter and her friend in the February 22, 2004 bombing) and leaving hundreds more widows, orphans and bereaved parents.

On the first anniversary of her death, I want to thank Rachel Corrie for showing Palestinian children how to despise America as she snarled, burned an American flag, and led them in chanting slogans, and as she gave "evidence" at a Young Palestinian Parliament mock trial finding President Bush guilty of crimes against humanity.

Perhaps her help in fanning the flames of violent anti-American sentiment led to the October 2003 bombing of the Fulbright delegation to Gaza to interview scholarship candidates, killing three. There will be no new crop of Palestinian Fulbright scholars this fall.

On the first anniversary of her death, I wanted to thank Rachel Corrie for providing her organization, the Palestinian-sponsored International Solidarity Movement, with the opportunity to release a manipulated photo sequence "showing" an Israeli military bulldozer deliberately crushing her. (I would also like to thank the Associated Press and the Christian Science Monitor for taking up the baton and immortalizing this cynical ISM stunt.)

On the first anniversary of her death, I want to thank Rachel Corrie for showing the way to all those who seek peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, Corrie's peace, as anyone familiar with the Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, Hamas and Hezbollah organizations that she defended with her life knows--or as anyone familiar with the weekly rants of the Friday preachers in the Palestinian mosques is aware--means not peaceful coexistence but the elimination of the state of Israel, and death to those they call "the usurping Jews, the sons of apes and pigs."

Thank you, Rachel Corrie, of Evergreen State University, where the profs wear khakis and kaffiyehs at graduation ceremonies, for showing us what peace really means.

Ms. Shattan is a translator, editor and writer who has lived in Israel since 1976. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

Update:

I changed the line, "As you guys are probably aware Rachel Corrie is back in the news."

To:

"As you guys are probably aware hard-line, right-wing conservative Republican Rachel Corrie is back in the news."

Apparently there are still any number of Jewish progressives who refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that BDS / anti-Zionism in the west, today, is predominately a left-wing movement.

2 + 2 = 7,325.0954... clearly.

{I guess it takes a physicist to figure that one out... Dr. Sheldon Cooper, perhaps... Bazinga!}

53 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Considering the daily life of Israelis of all ages within rocket range of Gaza these days, and whatnot.

      I never lived in Olympia, but I was close enough, in Portland, Oregon for years, to know that the constant firing of deadly projectiles into our city, and other assaults, from an immediate neighbor which calls for nothing less than our extermination was fortunately not a part of life in that region.

      I evolved into quite the radical leftist in my early adulthood (probably a result of rebelling against conservative parents), but even back then I would have known where to draw that line. Traveling abroad to confront another country's military, by aligning directly with its enemies, carries certain... risks. One would think that at least her parents would have understood this, no?

      Perhaps this letter should be a 'tribute' to Craig and Cindy, too.

      Delete
  2. It's a shame she was killed this way. I for one would never have allowed a child of mine to do something so damn dangerous. But then, no child of mine would have ever considered doing such a thing. They were brought up differently. They would have no truck with terrorists or their apologists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What if the IDF is found guilty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They might be Israel being what it is and what the world expects of it. Common sense says however that one should not play chicken with a bulldozer in a military zone. Those who think that should be ok to do are lunatics.

      Delete
    2. This is a no-win situation.

      If the IDF is found to be responsible then Israel's enemies will use it as proof that Israel is a monster.

      If the IDF is found not to be responsible then Israel's enemies will use it as proof that Israel is corrupt and the court system dishonest.

      Either way they will beat Israel like a dog with this.

      Thankfully Israel is a rather strong dog and can take this ongoing abuse, but it pisses me off.

      I am tired of this never-ending injustice against the Jewish people and I am sick to death of Jews believing it and affirming those who hold us in contempt.

      Delete
  4. What Doodad said. Even at my lowest radical point, of which I would love to be able to erase from my memory, in the late 90's (I'm the same age as Rachel, born in 1979), I never would have allowed myself to be pictured in a stunt like this.

    Doing that. In front of such a crowd.

    While the parents are busy indicting the country their daughter sought and fought to destroy, perhaps they should also consider their own culpability here, in failing to maybe persuade their child to not insert herself into the front lines of a foreign battlefield, and also to not aid in the antisemitic incitement loved and perpetuated by multiple terrorist organizations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay and Doodad,

      the thing is, of course, if the courts find the IDF guilty they are going to crow from the rooftops at the Republican National Convention... or the Huffington Post... one or the other.

      We're not supposed to really know which because, obviously, anti-Zionism is entirely bi-partisan. Either that or we are to believe that such people hold to no particular ideology whatsoever and never even heard of Noam Chomsky or Edward Said or Mearsheimer and Walt or Ian Pappe or or or... other such right-wingers.

      ;O)

      If the courts find the IDF guilty the usual suspects will just dance on the hillsides.

      What it might actually mean to Israel is anyone's guess, but my guess is not too much.

      Delete
    2. Oh, well I'm pretty sure the Corries won't be celebrating at the RNC. Because Ron and Rand Paul don't have much sway over the invitee list there.

      They won't be at the DNC either, but they'll definitely be crowing about it at HuffPo and all over the rest of the Left internet, though. Certain quarters of Daily Kos will be having orgies, and will be demanding Obama adopt a platform similar to the charter of Hamas. He won't, fortunately.But that won't change where BDS comes from on the internet (aside from the Pauls, it's an obviously Left phenomenon).

      Delete
    3. I guess I am a little flabbergasted that anyone who pays attention to this movement doubts its political orientation.

      I just find it odd.

      I suppose it represents evidence that for many people what is considered true is only that which confirms their politics.

      I mean, I am not insisting upon this out some partisan desire to beat Democrats, for Chrissake. I was one up until a quarter past last Tuesday. I just think that unless we can bring ourselves to acknowledge the obvious then we cannot even begin to address the problem.

      It's kind of like my little dispute with Stuart, who I continue to hold in considerable respect. He told me that when I say that Obama praised the rise of radical Islam as something akin to the Spirit of '76 that I was lying.

      But I wasn't lying.

      He told the American people that it was about democracy, but anyone who is honest with him or herself clearly knows that it was about something else entirely, about the rise of the Brotherhood, about the coming forward of political Islam.

      I sometimes just feel like on this issue, an issue that is so important to Jewish people, that we so often tend to have our heads just screwed around like corkscrews.

      We consider our friends to be our enemies and our enemies to be our friends.

      We continue to blame "wrong-thinking" Jews for the intransigence and hatred of others.

      We fail to speak up when others try to rob us of our history.

      I think that Kenneth Levin needs to be mandatory reading for any Jewish person who wishes to weigh in on this subject.

      It truly is sad.

      Delete
    4. I agree with this...

      "I mean, I am not insisting upon this out some partisan desire to beat Democrats, for Chrissake. I was one up until a quarter past last Tuesday. I just think that unless we can bring ourselves to acknowledge the obvious then we cannot even begin to address the problem."

      I am still, in fact, a Democrat (even at a quarter past now!), but that is mainly because I'm a working class, inner city resident of the poorest large city in America, who just doesn't agree with anything the Republicans propose.

      Then again, the Democrats don't quite fight for us either. Especially not the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee. People like our volleyball-loving friend may hate my saying this, but those of us who actually live in our inner cities have a reason for not doing the "automatic D" thing, and for being skeptical of the party these days.

      Which is not to say that Republicans are the answer, either (oh, if only we had more choices!), but is to explain why not everybody views the Democrats as heroic saviors of civilization, since they're the ones who have been running our great cities, like Philadelphia, into the ground with their corruption and greed for six decades now.

      My g-d, man! I mean, for example, our Democratic machine has decided to build their new headquarters directly adjacent to their favorite bar, because they're a bunch of useless drunks!

      I should vote for these people... why, again? Because they're sure as shit not fighting for for my little row house block in Kensington, 19125 (Yo, Adrian!) and they're not even trying to clean up the drug-rotted corner of Cumberland and Cedar, or the Somerset El, which is the premier 'street pharmacy' in the entire US east of Chicago, etc etc etc...

      This is just another example, I guess. It's not all black & white, these days. I think it may require stepping out of our comfort zones, perhaps, to realize this. Not many ever do, and so what we find is comfortable, suburban Americans passing judgment on others, when they'll never even have a chance of experiencing, say rockets hitting their Danbury, Connecticut home from Brewster, NY terrorist organizations, or their corner becoming a drug dealing hotspot because their kids all drive into the city and come to my corner to buy their poison, and whatnot.

      Etc etc...

      And in this same way some write off neighborhoods like mine (for being 'useless,' of course, since the rejects in my neighborhood sell drugs to their reject children), some also write off people like you for being irredeemably "right-wing," and therefore embarrassing.

      My advice is to not worry about these types, since they're clearly more concerned about keeping up their own reputations in the eyes of their friends and neighbors, than they are in addressing truths.

      They can't handle truth, as Jack Nicholson would say.

      Delete
    5. Seems like every situation is no win for Israel anymore according to the so called "international community," each of which would cry foul if subjected to one grain of what Israel gets daily.

      Delete
    6. This.

      "each of which would cry foul if subjected to one grain of what Israel gets daily."

      I'd like to know of one other country in the world which is expected to put up with even 1/100th of what Israel does. Each and every day.

      Delete
    7. None! But then Israel is the ONLY country whose continued right to exist is still debated daily. This is, of course, despicable.

      Delete
    8. And yet, "anti-Zionists" don't seem to understand the problem with this -

      "But then Israel is the ONLY country whose continued right to exist is still debated daily."

      Why do you suppose that is, Doodad?

      I have an idea...

      Delete
  5. And damnit! Two years early, my dream home is for sale. At $69,900, a bit pricier than others I've been looking at, but the location is just perfect.

    Argh! One day... :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is sad that Corrie died under any circumstance. It seems that she was militant, but she may have come to a realization that social justice was not the aim of her compatriots.

    Whatever happens, it will not make a difference or change even one mind. Corrie is part of the board game between activists and partisans, filling the need for something to obsess about. This is the latest fix. Obama and Romney supporters are the most easily manipulated people in politics because of the addiction to matters of distraction.

    The general argument that anti-Zionism has a significant presence on the Progressive-Left is a correct one to me, even if a segment does not want to acknowledge the reality. It is not necessary to obtain a concession from Progressive Zionists on the matter. It would be nice, however, to develop better means by which to engage them, and other Democrats, on the issue without being slurred as Islamophobic, which is itself a false notion created by our worst enemies, those who with impunity incite to genocide. It would be nice to find better ways to educate Democrats that this matter is more serious than they know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And therein lies the problem -

      "It would be nice, however, to develop better means by which to engage them, and other Democrats, on the issue without being slurred as Islamophobic, which is itself a false notion created by our worst enemies, those who with impunity incite to genocide."

      "We're not like those guys over there," they say...

      I'm getting used to liking this outcast thing myself, however, and I'm getting ready to run for Philadelphia City Council here in the first against Mark Squilla in 2015.

      Underestimate me at your own risk (I can, and will, knock on 40,000 doors and walk every street in our district!), fellas... ;)

      Anyway. Yeah.

      The "board game" thing sounds about right, 'school...

      Delete
    2. School,

      this comment is hitting the front page tomorrow.

      Write, damn you!

      Write!

      Delete
    3. I concur with your sentiment, Mike.

      Get back on the keyboard, school!

      Delete
  7. Her death has been ruled an accident and the state of Israel cannot be held responsible.

    It's time for you and your supporters to have your Happy Dance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A proper ruling.

      I don't have to dance.

      Believe me, nobody wants to see that anyway... ;)

      You have never answered this question - why are you so angry at, and offended by, the very concept of a thriving Israel, Nagaura?

      Seriously. Why are you so pissed off that we're making a damned good go of it in our historic homeland?

      Delete
    2. Why do successful Jews make you so angry, Nagaura?

      Delete
  8. Happy Dance? What a fool you are Nagaura.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really want to know why Jews make Nagaura so angry, Doodad.

      You think he or she will answer me honestly?

      Eh, well I have to go to bed. Finally. And then disappear for another couple days, mostly. But still. I want to know why we make Nagaura so mad.

      It's just dumbfounding!

      I still can't understand why people like Nagaura are so angry at Jews all the time, and how they carry it around with them all the time.

      Tsk tsk.

      Delete
  9. You. That being the collective you of this blog are so obtuse it's just amazing. My disagreements have nothing to do with Israel it's existence, citizens, or religion.

    They have everything to do with this blog and its supporters who see anyone who aren't in complete compliance your beliefs as enemies of Israel. While I or others may not always agree with Israeli government policy it does not make us enemies of Israel or its people. We are simply on the other side of a particular issue.

    Yet, because you are so myopic the ability to see simple disagreement have escaped you.

    Finally you will only see what you want to concerning what I've written that is on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We all look alike, too, and have that certain same particular whiff. Right? ;)

      Pardon me, but I must have actually missed any arguments of substance you've ever made, aside from you just popping in from time to time to call everyone here racists and bloodthirsty murderers. Is that what we're supposed to discuss? Where is this 'simple disagreement' of which you speak?

      Have you been having a conversation with us in your head that you haven't told us about? Perhaps that's what this is about, and that's how you found out that we are all exactly the same?

      Because in the real world, I'm not quite sure when there has ever been a 'discussion' here involving you, that didn't consist solely of you tossing insults.

      Delete
    2. Look in the mirror when it comes to being obtuse and hostile.

      Your dancing comment is the give away to where you are coming from, not to mention the blanket character assassination.

      If this had gone the other way, would YOU be dancing?

      From reading your words, one may conclude that you ARE not a friend of Israel, on this particular issue or any other.

      Delete
  10. "In The secular beatification of Rachel Corrie sums up everything that is wrong with modern solidarity with Palestine O'Neill observes that "Palestinian solidarity has become creepily anthropological."

    Decked out in Arafat-style keffiyehs (a PC form of blacking up), and possessed of a conviction that it falls to white-skinned, iPhone-armed westerners to expose Israel’s “genocidal” crimes to the world media, solidarity activists who travel to Palestinian territories are becoming more and more like secular versions of the crusaders of old. They are effectively going to Palestine to find themselves, to try to give meaning to their potentially shallow lives through imagining that they can “save” an entire people and halt a “genocide” by standing in front of a tank or writing some blog posts about how tragic are the lives of cute Palestinian children. It is a peculiar form of solidarity that reduces an entire foreign people to the level of child-like victims who need the likes of St Rachel to save them."

    http://blog.camera.org/archives/2012/08/post_99.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See also:

      http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3312/the-pro-palestinians

      And my blog post on it.

      Jarallah says:

      These activists are on the side of the radicals in the Palestinian camp. They are closer to Hamas and Islamic Jihad than to moderate Arabs and Muslims. The Palestinians do not want support from Westerners who pretend to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians.

      The Palestinians need support from people who promote democracy, moderation, accountability and coexistence with Israel. It is time that the "pro-Palestinian" activists leave the Palestinians alone and search for another cause to advance their messages of hate and violence.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the PSC has been running this item on its website soliciting female recruits
      http://www.palestinecampaign.org/index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=4&l2_id=24&Content_ID=2705

      Delete
  11. I think I have some respect for Jarallah.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I watched the "Amanpour" programme on CNN this evening. A male anchor (I don't know his name, as I seldom watch CNN) stood in for Ms Amanpour. He interviewed Craig Corrie in Haifa by video link, and then Mark Regev by video link. Regev stressed that, contrary to claims, Ms Corrie was not obstructing a house demolition, but rather the clearing of shrubbery - "sniper positions". Later I watched the BBC, which reported that she had been trying to prevent the demolition of a house - it said nothing about "sniper positions". And Jeremy Bowen, with his customary world-weary air, gave his usual biased reportage. The BBC online gives scant attention to the hardline nature of the International Solidarity Movement, but that was another point made by Regev on CNN.

    ReplyDelete
  13. btw, just saw this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnzRM9chOjU

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.ca/2012/08/summary-of-verdict-in-corrie-case.html

    English language summary of the case verdict...good resource.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "an expert who testified on behalf of the Corrie family also noted that the driver could not and did not see Ms.Corrie due to the nature of the vehicle he was operating."

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Law/Legal+Issues+and+Rulings/Civil_suit_Rachel_Corrie_28-Aug-2012.htm

    Assholes at dKos and elsewhere are calling it murder however.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't embarrass easily, to say the very least (heh), but I definitely look back with shame on having affiliated myself with that site, Daily Kos, for so long. It's been a great few months since I last clicked at that place.

      I suppose there's still potential for that site to sink lower than the time a frontpager there declared solidarity with Mahathir Mohamad's antisemitic troofer panel after it 'convicted' Bush and Blair of war cimes, but they'll really have to try hard! ;)

      Delete
  16. Of course, they call it "murder," because they are essentially engaging in the blood-libel.

    They are trying to spread the notion that the Jews of the Middle East are vicious, blood-thirsty Nazis.

    I mean, if the Israeli government is guilty, just how do they think this happened? Did the soldier behind the wheel contact his superior by radio saying, "Hey, lieutenent, there's some crazy blond American standing in front of the tractor. What should I do?"

    "Kill Her! Run her down!"

    Absurd.

    And there is no way that the soldier would just take it upon himself to run down a civilian because he would know he would spend years going through hell and probably land in jail.

    This whole thing is up there with the al Durah affair and the USS Liberty. It's just another way to denigrate the Jewish state in order to justify the violence against our brothers and sisters there.

    For all intents and purposes, these people on these progressive-left blogs and venues are taking the role of Nazis.

    They are spreading hatred toward the most abused minority in world history.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Who really killed Corrie? Try the ISM

    I"n a 2002 article, the movement's co-founders, Adam Shapiro, a New York Jew, and Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian Christian, urged: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent."

    Mr Shapiro and Miss Arraf predicted that "yes, people will get killed and injured" and suggested that the casualties "would be considered shaheed", using the Arabic term for martyrs applied to suicide bombers."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1451730/The-peace-group-that-embraces-violence.html

    "Yes, people will get killed..."

    ReplyDelete
  18. An odious article by Ami Kaufman in today's odious Guardian, but a sensible editorial in The (London) Times:

    "There can be no worse fate for a parent than to suffer the premature and entirely unforeseeable death of a child. For it to be the result of an accident only compounds the tragedy. Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old American, was killed in 2003 during the second intifada, while protesting in Gaza against the Israeli Defence Force’s demolition of Palestinian homes. In its verdict in a civil case brought by Corrie’s family, Haifa District Court ruled yesterday that the Israeli State did not bear responsibility for the death.

    That will be a hard decision for Corrie’s parents to bear. But the judgment accords with sense and compassion. Corrie lay in the path of a bulldozer whose cab was several feet off the ground. Though she was wearing a bright orange jacket, Corrie would still have been hard for the driver to spot. The probability of an horrific accident in those circumstances was high.

    It is to Israel’s credit that it has undertaken a military investigation and heard a civil case. Corrie’s family say they will appeal to Israel’s Supreme Court. If the Court confirms the verdict, it will not be for want of scrupulousness on the part of Israel’s legal system. It is possible to oppose the tactics of collective punishment of the relatives of terrorist suspects while still considering that the Corrie family have received justice.

    Israel has an obligation to protect civilian lives in a combat zone, but also to defend its own citizens. The International Solidarity Movement, which organised the protest in which Corrie died, does not declare solidarity with Israeli civilians at risk from suicide terrorism. Its main activity is to endanger its own volunteers. Tragically, Corrie was a victim of that insouciance."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The UK Guardian?

      Daphne, do you mean that hard-line, right-wing, conservative publication?

      ;o)

      You may be surprised to learn that there are actually intelligent Jewish people here in the states, mainly of a left persuasion, who refuse to accept the obvious fact that in today's world contempt and hatred toward Israel is mainly spit from the left.

      And I say that as someone who came out of the progressive-left.

      Am I wrong or is pretty much everyone who follows this issue aware of that obvious fact?

      To be perfectly honest with you, as far as I am concerned, the Corries, both younger and elder, represent the very worst inclinations of progressive-left politics. In the name of "social justice" and "universal human rights" they seek to make it easier for Jihadis to murder Jews and then they have the chutzpah to use Israel's judicial system against that country.

      They are worthy of no consideration from us.

      Delete
    2. Mike,

      Apropos to what you wrote about the contemporary political Left:

      The following is a (typo-mistake-corrected-and-other-mistake-corrected version of a) comment that I just recently posted on Jihad Watch about the contemporary political Right in the U.S.

      (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/robert-spencer-in-the-los-angeles-times-islams-critics-wont-be-silenced.html#comment-900228)

      ---- beginning of my comment that I posted on Jihad Watch about the contemporary political Right in the U.S. ---

      There are several "tiers"/"factions" among what is called the political Right in the U.S.

      The following is what is my understanding of what is the case.

      There is/are:

      O The oldschool Republican establishment (The Bush family, etc.)
      O Oldschool ideological "Conservatives" (Paleo-Conservatives (Pat Buchannan, etc.))
      O Neo-Conservatives
      O Intellectual modern "Conservatives" (Classical Liberals (Thomas Sowell, etc.))
      O Grass-roots modern "Conservatives" (grass-roots Classical Liberals (Classical Liberal "non-affiliated" ordinary Americans, The (libeled) Tea Party, etc.))

      (And some of these groups, in some cases, "overlap"/"blend-together"/"cross-pollinate".)

      The following is my understanding of what is the case.

      The oldschool Republican establishment ideologically and financially supported the Nazis during the 1930's; and, since the 1930's, until the present time, have been engaged in collusion with the petroleum-producing Muslim states in the Middle East; and, since before the official re-founding of Israel until the present time, have been, involved with that, engaged in covert anti-Israeli policy

      Oldschool ideological Conservatives are ideologically anti-Jewish racists, and White supremacist, and, in general, Christian supremacist.

      Neo-Conservatives are ideologues who, in foreign policy, are gung-ho "Hawkish" advocates for "forceful" toppling of undemocratic regimes in the Middle East, and who, economically, are, I think, a combination of pseudo-Social-Liberal and Classical Liberal.

      Intellectual modern "Conservatives" are authentic Classical Liberals.

      Grass-roots modern "Conservatives" are ordinary Americans who hold to the principals of Classical Liberalism.

      (continued)

      Delete
    3. (from continued)

      I used to take for granted that I was what I now call "contemporary so-called 'Liberal'". However, after witnessing the behavior of the political Left as a whole, including the contemporary so-called "Liberal" movement/social-group/political-group as a whole, for the past ten or so years, and after subsequently learning certain facts about the history (origins and past actions) and nature of the political Left, I no longer consider myself to be what I now call "contemporary so-called 'Liberal'". However, neither do I consider myself to be "Conservative". The political views that I now hold are, I think, a balance between Classical Liberalism (freedom of the individual) and Social Liberalism (help to those who need help).

      ----

      Barack Obama personally ideologically supports the contemporary Islamic supremacist political movement. He does so for various reasons (he was brought up with a Third World ideologically "Anti-Colonialist" background and he is, in fact, ideologically an "Anti-Colonialist" ("Anti-Colonialism" is an actual ideology, and the fact that Barack Obama is actually ideologically "Anti-Colonialist" is very important)); and he was brought up largely by actual self-professed Marxists, and, as a young man, he affiliated himself with actual avowed Marxist Socialist subversive political organizations, and, as a young man, he was politically groomed by actual self-professed Marxist Radicals to become a political leader in the U.S.; and he was brought up as a "cultural Muslim" (he had an Islamic upbringing for several years as a child)).

      The Obama administration has actively supported the Islamic supremacist political movement. The Obama administration officially supported and endorsed, and now officially supports and endorses, the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East. The Obama administration refused to support the millions of anti-Islamist Iranian protesters in Iran after the fraudulent election win of the Islamic supremacist regime in the 2009 elections in Iran. The Obama administration is supporting the agenda of, and is colluding with, the OIC (the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly named the Organization of the Islamic Conference) -- a coalition of fifty seven Muslim governments (fifty six Muslim states plus Fatah-PLO-PalestinianAuthority) -- the largest, and controlling, voting bloc in, and the controlling body of, the United Nations). The Obama administration has been completely infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. and now actually includes members of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S.

      You wrote that you oppose Islam. However you wrote that you support Barack Obama. The expressing of that which you expressed contradicts itself.

      ---- End of my comment that I posted on Jihad Watch about the contemporary political Right in the U.S. ----

      Delete
    4. Mike, I have always inclined to the right, but I see my brand of conservatism as more classical liberalism, the classical liberalism that used to be exemplified by the pre-war "Manchester Guardian" (long since morphed into the heinous rag, sited not in Manchester but in London, that we know today).
      I deplore the tendency of elements within the Reform/Liberal/Progressive Jewish movement to jump on the bandwagon of Israel-bashing; I hate the assumption that being left of centre religiously must mean a person is automatically left of centre politically. The abhorrent stance of some of the Liberal rabbis in the UK is, I fear, beginning to be echoed Down Under, at least by one individual (no name, no packdrill!)

      Delete
    5. I'm telling ya, Daphne, political sands are shifting.

      If I am right then it will not be too long before the left can no longer take Jewish support for granted.

      And thank G-d for that.

      Delete
    6. Dan, there is much of interest in your comment, but I must disagree with this:

      You wrote that you oppose Islam. However you wrote that you support Barack Obama. The expressing of that which you expressed contradicts itself.

      I have never written that I "oppose Islam" because I do no such thing. Did you simply misspeak? I oppose "radical Islam" or what is sometimes called "Islamism," i.e., the desire of many millions throughout the Muslim world to reinstate the Caliphate and have a world ruled by Sharia law... which would automatically turn Jews and Christians and all non-Muslims into second and third class citizens, which would treat women like chattel, and which would summarily execute gays. This is also what is sometimes called "political Islam."

      And, needless to say, I have not written in favor of Barack Obama since 2008.

      I will go on the assumption that you just misspoke. No worries.

      Delete
    7. Mike, that which I wrote was not addressed to you. That which I wrote was part of the comment that I posted on Jihad Watch. That which I wrote was addressed to a commenter on Jihad Watch to whom my comment was a response.

      Delete
    8. Dan,

      my mistake!

      I should have known better.

      My apologies to you, my friend.

      Delete
    9. Thank you, Mike.

      I think that, in that text which I posted here, I should have left in the name of the commenter to whom my comment on Jihad Watch was a response and whose name, which I wrote, in addressing him, in my comment on Jihad Watch, I omitted from the text that I posted here.

      Or I should have otherwise specified, in my comment here, that, in that text which I posted in my comment here, I was addressing that person who commented on Jihad Watch.

      I apologize.

      Delete
  19. Corrie was a nasty, badly socialised and poorly educated bigot whose life is a testament to the poverty of standards in Western universities but who at least had the excuses of youth and extreme ignorance.


    Her death was unremarkable except for its bottomless stupidity and for the sheer cowardice of her colleagues and family it showed. One of those guys standing around egging her on would have been her boyfriend for crying out loud.

    Sympathy factor for the parents and friends?

    Zero.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. Zero sympathy.

      It is very difficult to have much sympathy for people who believe that the Jews have a moral obligation to allow themselves to be slaughtered and who even sacrificed their daughter upon that grotesque altar.

      And that's what it amount to, however much they may yammer about "apartheid" or whatever the blood-libel du jour might be.

      Delete
  20. "Why would the “internationals” risk their lives in such a way? And was Corrie a partner to this treacherous game? Reporter Joshua Hammer explained that on that fateful day the ISM members decided to take their confrontation with the IDF up a notch. They needed to prove themselves to the local population:

    An anonymous letter was circulating which referred to Corrie and the other expatriate women in Rafah as “nasty foreign bitches” whom “our Palestinian young men are following around.”

    That morning [of Corrie’s death], the ISM team tried to devise a strategy to counteract the letter’s effects. “We all had a feeling that our role was too passive,” said one ISM member. “We talked about how to engage the Israeli military.” That morning, team members made a number of proposals that seemed designed only to aggravate the problem. …“The idea was to more directly challenge the Israeli military dominance using our international status,” said the ISMer.

    One of the ISM founders, Thom Saffold, admitted to The Washington Post the day after Corrie’s death that “it’s possible they [the protesters] were not as disciplined as we would have liked.”

    Saffold continued with astounding callousness: “But we’re like a peace army. Generals send young men and women off to operations, and some die.”

    That wasn’t the only statement indicating that Corrie was cannon fodder for the ISM. Another of ISM’s founders, George Rishmawi, told The San Francisco Chronicle in 2004:

    When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore. But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice.

    Another ISMer in Gaza committed to writing similar sentiments in a letter home in February 2003:

    You just can’t imagine it unless you see it, and even then you are always well aware that your experience is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli Army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen.” (emphasis added)

    The author was Rachel Corrie, one month before she died. Did she believe that she should be that unarmed US citizen? Did the Gaza ISM cadre believe that they had to prove to the Palestinian locals that they were as committed to the cause as the Palestinian shihads blowing themselves up on Israeli buses?"

    http://israelmatzav.blogspot.ca/

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-killed-rachel-corrie/

    ReplyDelete
  21. The only newspaper I read religiously is the Australian.

    It devoted precisely one sentence on the bottom of page 7 to this news. Israeli court finds no civil liability for Corrie's death.

    Of course.

    What a terrible and hateful thing the ISM is. How very sad to see it flourish on an American university campus.

    I honestly don't get that. Doesn't this college get public funding?
    Hello? Doesn't the US have a budget crisis?

    ReplyDelete