Let's suppose you were a leader of the Palestinian movement and you wanted the United States to support your people in their drive for an independent state. If you knew what you were doing, the main thrust of your diplomacy would be to portray the Palestinian people and leadership as steadfast friends of the United States and the Bush administration. So THIS will help explain why there won't be an independent Palestinian state for many years to come.
The AP reports that "American peace activist shot in face in West Bank". But he isn't any kind of "peace activist", he is a member of the terrorism cheerleader group "International Solidary Movement". And he was shot not because of his opinions, but because he chose to jump in the way of Israeli soldiers who were engaged in a firefight. Not unlike the way that ISM fellow-traveler Rachel Corrie chose to martyr herself on a bulldozer last month. Shame on the AP for elevating these terrorism groupies to the status of "peace activists".
And speaking of the International Solidarity Movement, Judith Weiss found an interesting article about the ISM. Long, but worthwhile. It turns out that the ISM is a bunch of self-described idealistic pacifist anarchists, working in support of a violent movement to create a fascist state. But that's today's "peace movement" for you.
The latest L.A. Times poll shows that domestic support for military action in Iraq is growing. Furthermore, 42% of Americans would support action against Syria if necessary, and half would support action to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. Interestingly, a larger percentage of women than men support the latter. Ruth Rosen, call your office.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 05, 2003 05:23 PMConcerning the 'peace activist' shot in the face, I have just been reading George Orwell's 1945 essay on Nationalism and he comments on Pacists in a way that still stands today. You must, of course, know a little history in order to understand his allusions. If you do, the parallels to today are clear.
"PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered. "
Posted by: Ed on April 5, 2003 06:46 PMMaybe John "Aryan-Lover" Sutherland will pick this one up. HOW DARE YOU point out that peace activists, may, in fact, have alterior motives than what they state to the public (You ZIONAZI FASCISTS tried this one on Arafat too!)
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Zachary Cohen on April 5, 2003 09:29 PMMaybe John "Aryan-Lover" Sutherland will pick this one up. HOW DARE YOU point out that peace activists, may, in fact, have alterior motives than what they state to the public (You ZIONAZI FASCISTS tried this one on Arafat too!)
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Zachary Cohen on April 5, 2003 09:29 PMRegarding the Palestinians, wasn't it Abba Eban who said "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity"? Seems like they are doing it again.
Posted by: Larry Levin on April 5, 2003 11:16 PMYou can also check the sites about http://www.fidelityfunding.net/ http://www.fidelityfunding.net/ loans ...
Posted by: loans on January 1, 2005 08:10 PM