June 07, 2010

It's the A-Word, Stupid!

Below the header Actually, Israel wasn’t tough enough Peter Hitchens writes in his Mail on Sunday blog:
I view Israel’s assault on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara as a textbook example of incompetence. These people are not as brilliant as they like to claim.

The ship, despite its supercargo of PC, anti-Israel, Left-wing suckers, dupes and sandal-wearers, was also seething with militant and far-from-pacifist full-time Israel-haters.

If the Mossad secret service types had lived up to their legend, they would have known this.

So why lower troops, one by one, into the midst of a mob of foes? Why equip them with feeble paintball guns, shroud their hands in gloves so they can’t reach their sidearms, and order them not to open fire until things get out of hand?

They did this because the Israeli military let their civilised, law-governed instincts get the better of sensible cynicism.

The gullibility of the reporting on this issue defies belief. This wasn’t a humanitarian convoy. The Israelis were quite willing to send on the supplies, after searching them for contraband.
It's not as if I wouldn't have any issues with the rest of the entry as well, but the quoted bit is so awash with expressions of a commom misconception, that I'll concentrate on that. Hitchens says that, had "...the Mossad secret service types had lived up to their legend, they would have known this." I am not implying antisemitism on Hitchen's side, but oughtn't he to know that this legend is largely an antisemic wet dream? A up-to-date-version of the old omniscient, ubiquitous and omnipotent Jew?

He then raises an extremely interesting point, getting close to the core of antisemitism, apparently without noticing it, when he says that they were so ill-prepared for the terrorist attack "...because the Israeli military let their civilised, law-governed instincts get the better of sensible cynicism." Quite right, Mr. Hitchens. And that is because the Jews think they can win hearts by "good" behaviour when the opposite is the case. Jews (as a group) are not hated because of the evil they do, but because of the good they do. This is called -- dare I say it? -- antisemitism.

Lastly, he states that "(t)he gullibility of the reporting on this issue defies belief." Wrong, Mr. Hitchens. That is not gullibility. Far from it. And it does not a bit defy belief. For somebody who is at home in and part of the media this is a pretty obtuse statement. Anybody who WANTS to know the truth, specifically in the time of the Internet, can learn the truth -- if the truth were what he's after. But only very few are. And we're back to square one and the a-word again.

7 comments:

Alligator said...

MOSSAD probably knew there were problem people aboard but deliberately "pulled their punches" in an attempt to prevent the very thing that happened; international outrage. Your report on the silliness of landing at Gaza harbor is excellent. Jaffa and Haifa are major shipping ports, Gaza is listed as a "fishing port" with only 433 fishing boats registered there. A couple of Palestinian sites try to imply that Gaza port is much more than it really is.

bruce-church said...

Interview: The Case Against Atheism, by Peter Hitchens, author of the book “The Rage Against God”. See here:
http://issuesetc.org/archive/

or here:
http://www.issuesetc.org/podcast/506060710H2S2.mp3

bruce-church said...

Another objection to Hitchens column is he says that he's tired of all the anti-British sentiment coming out of the US? Huh?! That sounds as stupid as, say, Israel claiming that the US is anti-Israel.

It seems that the British identify with British Petroleum, so whenever they hear protests against BP, they think it's anti-British. That would be as silly as Americans taking a (hypothetical) protest against American Express as being a protest against Americans!

Also, P Hitchens says Americans have no gratitude for British troops in Afghanistan. Huh?! One has to go to great lengths to come to that interpretation of events and statements. Also, if the US demanded "gratitude" for continuing all the do-gooding (much of misguided) it does, the US could discontinue every initiative it does overseas overnight!
-----
BP oil spill: The British backlash has begun
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/7804135/BP-oil-spill-The-British-backlash-has-begun.html

Peter Hitchens wrote:
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/06/perhaps-derrick-birds-deadly-rampage-isnt-so-inexplicable-after-all.html

excerpt: So I tire of his aggressive anti-British attitude towards BP as it struggles with the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.

Twice now – once over the Falklands and now over BP – the White House has shown it has no gratitude for our presence in Afghanistan, and has even placed our troops under US command. We should leave as soon as a withdrawal can be organised.

The_Editrix said...

I fully agree, Bruce. It just wasn't the topic of this entry. Generally, I am not terribly impressed with Hitchen's writing.

"Twice now – once over the Falklands and now over BP – the White House has shown it has no gratitude for our presence in Afghanistan, and has even placed our troops under US command. We should leave as soon as a withdrawal can be organised."

Can you tell me how the Falklands come in here? 1982 were neither Brits nor Americans in Afghanistan. Is this again something I, as a foreigner and non-native speaker don't understand or is he just talking gibberish?

The_Editrix said...

"Your report on the silliness of landing at Gaza harbor is excellent."

Thank you 'gator! It's so easy to get through to the truth now with a little bit of lateral thinking and a search engine. What would we all do without the Internet?

bruce-church said...

Hi Editrix, You asked about the flap between the US and UK over Falklands. In 1982 the US supported UK against Argentina's claims against the Falklands. The Falkland Islanders also don't want to be Argentinians. Now fast forward to the present. Just recently the British struck oil off the Falklands, so Argentina REALLY wants the Falklands now. Obama, being the leftist that he is, was not keen on supporting the Brits and Falklanders against the Argentinians, who are socialist leftists, against people he deems to be more conservative--read "capitalist pigs". This is similar to how Obama supported the ousted leftist Nicaraguan president against the will of the very Nicaraguans who ousted him because they saw how he was trying to become a dictator using the same methods Hugo Chavez used.

Anyway, Peter Hitchens shouldn't be making judgments about America based on one fluke president who doesn't really represent that many Americans.
--------
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/BHP-begins-drilling-for-oil-off-Falklands-report-pd20100603-62MP7?opendocument&src=rss

The_Editrix said...

Thanks for enlightening me, Bruce!