Count me in.
I don't normally venture far outside climate matters, but this, I'm afraid, needs comment… big time.
Just as the media spin the climate alarmism of the IPCC, so they spin any action by Israel as unprovoked aggression. The reality (if anybody had bothered to ask) was that a convoy laden with armed Islamic jihadis was intercepted, having been offered to dock within Israel for the offloading of humanitarian aid (which was refused), and on boarding the vessels the Israeli defence force had to defend themselves rather than be killed. But you won't hear any of that from the lefty media, either here in Australia or anywhere else. All we hear is "condemnation" of Israel's aggression, and bleeding heart liberals who wail for the "humanitarians" aboard the boats. Shame, shame, shame on Australia for being party to that condemnation.
As Pamela Geller of the excellent Atlas Shrugs blog writes at Big Journalism:
Today’s incident on the Gaza jihad flotilla was an act of war – but not by Israel. The tsunami of Jew-hating propaganda from the jihad-loving media has already begun. The international media, predictably, is spinning the story as if it were all Israel’s fault, saying that the IDF killed innocent civilian humanitarian workers on a flotilla headed to Gaza to bring aid to the starving people there.
In reality, none of that is true. This was an act of war against Israel. The people in Gaza aren’t starving, and the “humanitarian aid workers” on the flotilla were actually Islamic jihadists who attacked the IDF first. It was a planned attack — by Hamas and the hardline Muslim groups. Hamas supporters planned an armed assault, which included the murder of captured Israeli heroes. They almost succeeded.
Khaibar was an Arabian oasis populated by Jews. Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, stormed the oasis and massacred the Jews there and seized their land and possessions. Says Islamic scholar Robert Spencer:
Thus when modern-day jihadists invoke Khaybar, they are recalling an aggressive, surprise raid by Muhammad which resulted in the final eradication of the once considerable Jewish presence in Arabia. To the jihadists, Khaybar means the destruction of the Jews and the seizure of their property by the Muslims.
Today the jihadist forces want war again, and a chance to repeat the Khaibar massacre. Syrian President Bashar al Assad and Lebanese Premier Saad Hariri issued a joint statement condemning the “crime committed by Israel with this barbaric attack on defenceless civilians.” They “invite the international community to take measures as soon as possible to end Israel’s crimes, which could lead to war in the Middle East with repercussions far beyond the regional borders.”
It is no accident that reality is being rewritten, and this brazen, bloody attack by Islamic jihadists is being called a humanitarian mission. The media is the front line in the impending war. It is interesting how this new war is being waged on two fronts, very much in tandem with one another. The battle has long been in the information battlespace. Guns, bombs, and bloodshed are the results of what happens in the war of ideas. Now we enter phase II. The West has been sufficiently subdued by years of relentless anti-Semitic propaganda. Now the anti-Semitic forces of jihad are going in for the kill with the tacit approval and sanction of their copywriters in the media. They’re dressing up genocide in a flotilla bow and serving it up cold.
In the information battlespace, the jihadis can count on the complicity of the subdued, Islamophiliac press. They can physically attack Israeli troops and count on the corrupt media to package any act of Israeli self-defense as an aggression. Then this repackaging will lead to international condemnation, United Nations Security Council resolutions, and further delegitimisation of Israel.
This Jew-hating, jihad flotilla was the opening salvo in the war.
{ 5 comments }
The link is well-known. If you want to indirectly inquire whether someone is a Warmist, ask them this question: ‘Who are the bigger terrorists, Hezbollah/Fatah or the IDF?’
If they answer ‘IDF’, you have found a Warmist.
@Rick: Agreed. The environmental left and the anti-Israel left are two sides of the same coin…
There are two very different issues here. The debunking of the lies about “global warming” is a scientific issue, based on objective facts. But your support for Israel is political issue, based on personal preference. In fact, it is a right wing issue.
If you choose to support Israel, that’s entirely your own business. You’re also free to support any other gun-toting bully boy, if you find them attractive.
But by connecting this right-wing stance with climate realism, you’re playing into the hands of those who dismiss climate realists as right-wing fanatics. Many people who could never be categorised as members of the environmental left – for example, David Bellamy – were among the first to speak out against the climate hoax.
@David: I’m afraid I have to disagree 100% with your analysis. The two situations are closely analogous. Here (as in the AGW debate) we have a compliant media pushing a politically correct anti-Israel, pro-Hamas/Gaza agenda without reference to objective facts. Just as this agenda grants Hamas and Gaza the prized status of innocent victims (in everything they do) and Israel as the aggressor (in everything it does), likewise in regard to AGW, the MSM publishes only articles which confirm its pro-warming bias, suppresses anything that may challenge that bias and vilifies anyone who takes up such a position. Governments around the world have done exactly the same – the knee-jerk reaction to these events by the UN and Obama etc (and indeed our own government) are exactly what one sees in the hysterical reactions of governments to any questioning of the consensus science by sceptics. It’s not really a question of left or right really anyway. It’s a question of impartial interpretation of facts or events – just the same as for the climate debate. It just happens that those on the left are less likely (but not inevitably) to be climate sceptics and are far more likely to be anti-Israel.
I am not saying that all media and government responses should be pro-Israel either – just balanced – just like the climate debate.
And, by using the term “gun toting bully boy” to describe Israel, you have unfortunately fallen into the same trap as the warmists, who resort to ad hominem attacks on sceptics. You’ve really made my point for me …
And one final point. Before you condemn Israel for its actions, just consider for a minute what it would be like to be a country whose closest neighbours harboured extreme violence and hate towards you, don’t consider you have a right to even exist, and would like nothing more to see your total destruction. It’s just that they’ve worked out that it’s easier to get the media, the UN and politically correct governments to to the hard yakka for them and win the PR battle, than it is to win a real battle.
Best regards.
I’m with you on this one Simon. Very valid observations in both your post and reply to David Cooke.
Comments on this entry are closed.