June 30, 2006

The Guardians of Palestine

When the Israeli-Palestinian conflict heats up (as it is so often wont), what does a reasonable person hoping to learn about recent events in the Middle East do? Why, he rushes to The Guardian, of course. To what else would one turn other than to this beacon of anti-Israeli cant? Sundry anti-Zionist propaganda “websites,” maybe. They’ll offer about as fair a perspective as al-Guardian.

Accordingly, as the current situation in Israel escalated, we rushed on over to the beloved Guardian “website,” wondering what the apologists for terrorism and anti-Westernism would have to say. This drew us to the leader “Storm over Gaza,” a rather lifeless version of the typical anti-Israel palaver with which The Guardian is typically replete.

Ah, yes: All the telltale signs of militant anti-Zionism were present—a failure to put the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza in a reasonable historical context, the obligatory references to Gaza as an Israeli “prison,” &c. We know what you’re thinking, dear reader: Ho hum.

In fact, the predictable pap from the eminences at The Guardian pales in comparison with the delightful reader comments found underneath this staff editorial. This is where things really heat up. Typical Guardian readers opine that Israel is worse than Nazi Germany, that there’s no such thing as anti-Semitism, and other spine-tingling “arguments.” If you’re anything like us, you find this unadulterated lunacy far more entertaining than the semi-lunacy of Britain’s left-wing press.

Take, for example, this charming example of argument, penned by a fellow whose nom de guerre is “AntiCensorship” (all of the numerous errors are his):

…You are very right, Americas umbilical relationship with Israel will be Americas undoing. Condi Rice often seems no more than a spokeesperson for Israel. The amount of money and tiem Americans spend worrying about Israel is immense. What benefit does Israel bring America. None whatsoever. Yet a majority of Americans symathise with Israel and condemn palestinais as sand niggers towelheads etc.

The US media reports everything froma Jewish perspective and allows the terminology suitable to Tel Aviv. When 911 happened no country benefited more than Israel. I can well imagine the delight at the Knesset as this would mean a synthesis of foreign policy. Finally the US and Israel and preferabley all western countries would unite to destroy Israels enemies. Saddam , Iran , syria, Hamas, Lebanese militias etc.

They were dancing on the tables at davids Bar and Grill and giving High Fives no doubt ( or perhaps trying to keep a straight face while considering the benefits) I think the Arabs have just cause to blame America because America allowed the Israel lobby to dominate the US foreign policy agenda. Anybody who disagrees will be demonized. Pat Buchanan, Michael Moore, Senator Byrd etc The Zionist attack dogs like Mr viagra Limbaugh and Blonde strumpet Coulter can be let loose. US media is cowardly and corrupt. An oath to Israel is de rigeur at Fox News and often it seems at Guardian towers

Now that, dear reader, is the product of a real nutter! And, we suppose we should mention, it is also the product of a man who has some real difficulties with the English language. Perhaps he would have been better served to write it in Arabic? Or maybe German, circa 1942?

With such a ridiculous, illiterate rant, it seems unfair—and unnecessary—to pick it apart. Thus we’ll only mention its more revealing bits.

“AntiCensorship’s” statement “US media reports [sic] everyting froma [sic] Jewish perspective and allows the terminology suitable to Tel Aviv” perfectly gives the lie to the notion that the anti-Israel cause is anti-Israel alone. Rather, this benighted fellow believes that all Jews have the same view on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there is one monolithic—and evil—“Jewish perspective.” The enemy, you see, isn’t Israel; it’s those nefarious Jews. Nothing like some blatant anti-Semitism, eh?

We also savored the notion that the Israelis were “dancing on the tables” when 9/11 occurred. Oh, boy: That’s about as ineffective an argument as anti-Israeli apologists can proffer.

After all, if we recall correctly, large numbers of Palestinians rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks. This caused sufficient consternation for Yasir “She’s My Baby” Arafat that he futilely attempted to cover this up. As it is, “AntiCensorship’s” point is about as effective as a suicide bombing that only manages to kill the bomber. Which, we suppose, is effective, but not as it was originally intended.

But, hey, who would be foolish enough to expect wisdom from a pro-Palestinian devotee calling himself “AntiCensorship”? The PA isn’t exactly known for its great regard for intellectual tolerance and civil liberties, now is it?

Posted at June 30, 2006 12:01 AM | TrackBack