Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
7 Reasons the Republicans Lost and Deserved It
No one person or party represents all of my political views. I agree with Democrats on some issues, Republicans on others, and Libertarians on still others. On yet other issues, no one represents my views.
Nevertheless, my hatred for the political system doesn't blind me to the problems of the Republican party. Here are seven reasons why they lost this election.
1. They made religion center stage.
Official debates and stump speeches were mostly about the economy and jobs, but Republican talking points that made headlines were about God, God, and God. Many Republicans apparently believe that America is defined by its bible-thumping conservatives. It isn't.
America left Europe because they wanted to be free and independent from religion-based government. Over and over some Republicans want to shove Christianity down our throats, from public prayer, to restricted abortion, to who can marry, to the ten commandments, etc etc. Americans do not want religion mixed with government. They want religion to be personal choice.
2. They threatened abortion and contraception
A direct result of the first point, too many Republicans talked about abortion. The idea that 40 years after Roe v Wade American women could lose basic health and human rights was enough to scare millions of women into the Democrats' pocket.
I get that you honestly believe that a fetus is a human; but that's your belief, and it's a religious belief, it's not everyone's belief. If you restrict abortion because of your narrow view of the bible, you become like the fundamentalist Islamic nations that you so rail against.
3. They are out of touch regarding gay rights.
Also a direct result of the first point, the right for all people to consensual love or sex with whomever they want is inevitable and it's sacred. The argument that someone else's private life diminishes some so-called institution of marriage is simply insane. When all of your arguments are based on the bible, you should stay out of American politics.
The arguments against gay rights echo the arguments against civil rights for blacks, and they will not endure.
4. They cling to the trickle down economic model with no government oversight.
The notion that its good to have rich people because they give money to poor people has been proven wrong again and again, but that's still the core Republican economic philosophy. The wealth gap gets bigger and bigger every year.
Too many large companies drive out competition from struggling small companies using monopolistic practices rather than by out-competing. Too many companies practice short term gain without considering human consequences. Republicans push for an economy that acts like a "business", which perforce leaves some people cut adrift; that might work for a business, but it's not a moral position for a country.
5. They clung to made-up pictures of the economy and foreign policy.
Too many Republican talking points about the dire straights of the economy just weren't true. No single number defines the economy. Unemployment is up, but so are jobs. The debt is up but so is manufacturing. Poverty is up but so is consumer confidence.
The same argument applies to foreign relations. America was hated by some and the target of attacks under Bush; it was hated by some and targeted by less attacks under Obama. The Japanese and French now view the US more favorably, the Egyptians and Pakistanis less favorably. Obama is bad for Israel because he has unfriendly relations with Netanyahu and doesn't take the Islamic threat seriously enough; he's good for Israel because he provided record military support and technology like the Iron Dome. So it goes.
Republicans don't seem to be able to handle nuance. They drag out one number, sometimes a made up number, over and over, regardless of the complex reality.
6. They are more defined by what they're against than what they're for.
The Republicans congress is defined by the word "no". They are not seen as a party that unites America. They are seen as politicians who stubbornly cling to every policy, small or large, and never negotiate. They block progress, rather than govern.
We have a country where half the people feel one way and half feel the other way on many issues. It is wrong to insist that every policy go your way. Obama has shown flexibility by conceding some issues and negotiating others. Democrats appear as open to listening. Republicans appear to be intransigent.
Obamacare is perfect example: yeah, it's not great, but the point is not that it's not great, but that Americans want better health care. Republicans are known more for wanting to repeal Obamacare than for introducing something better to take its place; they missed the main point.
Romney was an exception, in that he flip flopped around, making it difficult to know just what to expect from him.
7. They violated Godwin's law.
Godwin's law says that, in any argument, the probability of one party comparing the other party to Hitler or a Nazi becomes more probable the longer the argument continues, and that the party that does so automatically loses the argument. When you come to that point, it means you've run out of the ability to work together to actually solve problems. And you've forgotten what Nazism and Hitler really were.
Sadly, both parties did this during the election campaigning. But the Republicans started all the way back when Obama first took office.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Why I Hate the Olympics
Once upon a time I enjoyed watching some Olympics events like gymnastics. Now I don't care.
1. The IOC has turned what was once grassroots and heartfelt into a moneymaking sponsor-driven ad fest.
They security firms were unable to find enough security personnel needed to secure the games, but they managed to find almost 300 brand enforcers to walk around taping over faucets at local establishments bearing company names that haven't sponsored the event.
Their corporate money-driven greed prevents anyone except NBC, who signed an exclusive contract for over $1 billion, from broadcasting the event so many people didn't get to see it and it wasn't live streamed on the Internet (what was, was plagued with delays and problems). Live events should not HAVE exclusivity contracts; they should be unenforceable. NBC wouldn't have covered the games otherwise?
The IOC has tried to geoblock social media reporting about the event. My ONLY choice for seeing the Olympics is via illegal download (simple, but not interested). Update: Turns out I can see the Olympics on IBA (thanks Bassie).
You can't even mention the word Olympics, the date 2012 and the word games, or any symbology associated with the games without being hit with a lawsuit. A 30 year old Greek restaurant named Olympic Gyro was forced to change its name to "protect the rights" of the corporate sponsors. An 81 year old grandmother making little teddy bears to sell for $1 was shut down.
The IOC went so far as to try to prevent anyone from linking to their site if the link was in a context that wasn't positive (to universal scorn and derision).
Ticket prices range from a mere 15 GBP for cheap seats at events that last 30 minutes to over 700 GBP for good seats in some events. Most seats are 50 GBP or up. (To be fair, there were some 20 GBP seats at the opening ceremony, with other seats ranging as high as 2000 GBP.)
So much for the games of the people.
2. The competition brings out the worst.
Winning is far more important than competing. The World Doping Agency is now an integral part of the IOC, and several athletes have already failed doping tests. Bizarrely, even the players in the mind sports games are subject to doping tests, as if someone playing Chess is ever going to take steroids to win a game!
Never heard of the World Mind Sports Games? They're part of the Olympics, but they don't televise well so no one seems to care.
As for the former humans who now complete, don't even think about it unless you have a ton of money for the computers and science that can analyze your every twitch to sculpt your body and movement into robotic perfection.
Does the competition break down stereotypes and increase world peace? Apparently not, if you consider the recent spate of athletes tossed out of the game for racist tweets. The Lebanese team refused to train near the Israelis and the Iranian team won't compete against them.
Does the competition at least bring pride to their nations? I don't know, but it sure doesn't do anything of importance for them. Did you know that Syria has an Olympic team? Has that registered yet? Who in Syria is going to benefit right now if their team wins or loses?
Does the competition even inspire anyone to exercise? Or do we just live vicariously through those who do?
Countries don't benefit internally from having their players win or lose, and countries don't make peace as a result of the competition.
3. It costs too many resources.
The UK taxpayer has spent more than $14 billion (Sky News reportedly thinks it may end up at over 24 billion GBP) to host the games, and the only one benefiting from that is the IOC and its sponsors. They spent $500,000 just on 17 sandstone toadstools. The people of England could have used that money at this particular time (when they are cutting pensions, sick pay, or simply firing public sector workers). The people lost a vast amount of public space, either destroyed or permanently turned over to corporate ownership. Other countries have spent millions to billions of dollars to send their athletes.
The UK assigned more armed forces to protect the Olympics than they deployed to Afghanistan. Don't these people have anything better to do?
4. It takes up too much media time.
7 rockets aimed at civilians have hit Israel since the start of the Olympics. These were not in response to any activity on Israel's part, just the daily fun time of Islamic militants. Did your news cover that?
The only English language radio I receive here is the BBC, whose reporters appear to be in a continuous state of climax over the games and believe that all their listeners are too.
Around the world, real things are happening; other than a great monetary, privacy, and human rights loss to UK taxpayers and the imaginary importance of winning some games, nothing is happening in London.
Yehuda
P.S. And I didn't even mention the minute of silence controversy. The IOC said that the minute of silence for the Israeli victims of massacre 40 years ago at the Olympics was not appropriate for an Olympic opening ceremony, but the 4 hour ceremony managed to include a minute of silence for people killed in WW1 and WWII. Past Olympics ceremonies have included minutes of silence for those killed on 9/11 and in London on 7/7.
Read: we don't want Arab countries to boycott the Olympics. How about this: tell any country that threatens to boycott the games that they are violating the spirit of the games and then throw them out? Oh right: money.
1. The IOC has turned what was once grassroots and heartfelt into a moneymaking sponsor-driven ad fest.
They security firms were unable to find enough security personnel needed to secure the games, but they managed to find almost 300 brand enforcers to walk around taping over faucets at local establishments bearing company names that haven't sponsored the event.
Their corporate money-driven greed prevents anyone except NBC, who signed an exclusive contract for over $1 billion, from broadcasting the event so many people didn't get to see it and it wasn't live streamed on the Internet (what was, was plagued with delays and problems). Live events should not HAVE exclusivity contracts; they should be unenforceable. NBC wouldn't have covered the games otherwise?
The IOC has tried to geoblock social media reporting about the event. My ONLY choice for seeing the Olympics is via illegal download (simple, but not interested). Update: Turns out I can see the Olympics on IBA (thanks Bassie).
You can't even mention the word Olympics, the date 2012 and the word games, or any symbology associated with the games without being hit with a lawsuit. A 30 year old Greek restaurant named Olympic Gyro was forced to change its name to "protect the rights" of the corporate sponsors. An 81 year old grandmother making little teddy bears to sell for $1 was shut down.
The IOC went so far as to try to prevent anyone from linking to their site if the link was in a context that wasn't positive (to universal scorn and derision).
Ticket prices range from a mere 15 GBP for cheap seats at events that last 30 minutes to over 700 GBP for good seats in some events. Most seats are 50 GBP or up. (To be fair, there were some 20 GBP seats at the opening ceremony, with other seats ranging as high as 2000 GBP.)
So much for the games of the people.
2. The competition brings out the worst.
Winning is far more important than competing. The World Doping Agency is now an integral part of the IOC, and several athletes have already failed doping tests. Bizarrely, even the players in the mind sports games are subject to doping tests, as if someone playing Chess is ever going to take steroids to win a game!
Never heard of the World Mind Sports Games? They're part of the Olympics, but they don't televise well so no one seems to care.
As for the former humans who now complete, don't even think about it unless you have a ton of money for the computers and science that can analyze your every twitch to sculpt your body and movement into robotic perfection.
Does the competition break down stereotypes and increase world peace? Apparently not, if you consider the recent spate of athletes tossed out of the game for racist tweets. The Lebanese team refused to train near the Israelis and the Iranian team won't compete against them.
Does the competition at least bring pride to their nations? I don't know, but it sure doesn't do anything of importance for them. Did you know that Syria has an Olympic team? Has that registered yet? Who in Syria is going to benefit right now if their team wins or loses?
Does the competition even inspire anyone to exercise? Or do we just live vicariously through those who do?
Countries don't benefit internally from having their players win or lose, and countries don't make peace as a result of the competition.
3. It costs too many resources.
The UK taxpayer has spent more than $14 billion (Sky News reportedly thinks it may end up at over 24 billion GBP) to host the games, and the only one benefiting from that is the IOC and its sponsors. They spent $500,000 just on 17 sandstone toadstools. The people of England could have used that money at this particular time (when they are cutting pensions, sick pay, or simply firing public sector workers). The people lost a vast amount of public space, either destroyed or permanently turned over to corporate ownership. Other countries have spent millions to billions of dollars to send their athletes.
The UK assigned more armed forces to protect the Olympics than they deployed to Afghanistan. Don't these people have anything better to do?
4. It takes up too much media time.
7 rockets aimed at civilians have hit Israel since the start of the Olympics. These were not in response to any activity on Israel's part, just the daily fun time of Islamic militants. Did your news cover that?
The only English language radio I receive here is the BBC, whose reporters appear to be in a continuous state of climax over the games and believe that all their listeners are too.
Around the world, real things are happening; other than a great monetary, privacy, and human rights loss to UK taxpayers and the imaginary importance of winning some games, nothing is happening in London.
Yehuda
P.S. And I didn't even mention the minute of silence controversy. The IOC said that the minute of silence for the Israeli victims of massacre 40 years ago at the Olympics was not appropriate for an Olympic opening ceremony, but the 4 hour ceremony managed to include a minute of silence for people killed in WW1 and WWII. Past Olympics ceremonies have included minutes of silence for those killed on 9/11 and in London on 7/7.
Read: we don't want Arab countries to boycott the Olympics. How about this: tell any country that threatens to boycott the games that they are violating the spirit of the games and then throw them out? Oh right: money.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Last Night's World Have Your Say
A partial transcript, starting about 43:20 :
BBC Moderator: Some of your comments coming in. Actually this is one for, if we can get back through to the the guys in Homs, but maybe Zakar you can respond to this. Yehuda in Israel is listening on line. He says he's moved by the suffering in Syria, wishes he could help, but wondered if Syrians would accept it.
Zakar [some analyst or somthing]: (surprised) From Israel? Uh from the Israeli government? No. Of course not. After you know what they've done to the Palestinians for sixty years and the occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, so no. I don't think any help from Israel is wanted or required.
Moderator: Abu Amar you're back. Were you trying to come in now I think?
Abu Amar [hiding in a basement in Homs, currently under bombardment; trapped with many wounded people and no medicine]: Uh No I'm here right here.
Moderator: Maybe you just missed that uh those comments. A listener from Israel was just asking whether if Syrians would accept the Israeli government's help in this situation.
Abu Amar: N-Never at all. No no not even a single one in the whole Syrian people would agree to to the Israel to intervent in the Syrian uh problem. We we don't agree at all.
... [less than five minutes later, when asked if he would like intervention from the outside in Syria] ...
Abu Amar: [Desperately] The Syrian people is asking for intervention from outside, for example Turkey or Jordan. Anyone can help us now is useful.
BBC Moderator: Some of your comments coming in. Actually this is one for, if we can get back through to the the guys in Homs, but maybe Zakar you can respond to this. Yehuda in Israel is listening on line. He says he's moved by the suffering in Syria, wishes he could help, but wondered if Syrians would accept it.
Zakar [some analyst or somthing]: (surprised) From Israel? Uh from the Israeli government? No. Of course not. After you know what they've done to the Palestinians for sixty years and the occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights, so no. I don't think any help from Israel is wanted or required.
Moderator: Abu Amar you're back. Were you trying to come in now I think?
Abu Amar [hiding in a basement in Homs, currently under bombardment; trapped with many wounded people and no medicine]: Uh No I'm here right here.
Moderator: Maybe you just missed that uh those comments. A listener from Israel was just asking whether if Syrians would accept the Israeli government's help in this situation.
Abu Amar: N-Never at all. No no not even a single one in the whole Syrian people would agree to to the Israel to intervent in the Syrian uh problem. We we don't agree at all.
... [less than five minutes later, when asked if he would like intervention from the outside in Syria] ...
Abu Amar: [Desperately] The Syrian people is asking for intervention from outside, for example Turkey or Jordan. Anyone can help us now is useful.
Monday, August 30, 2010
My Little Vacation in the Galil
Rachel organized a small vacation for us in the Galil this weekend. We stayed at the tzimmer (B&B) Ohr Hashachar in Moshav Goren, which is in the Western Galil very close to the Lebanon border. This place costs a bit more than your typical SPNI field school, but it comes with wine and cookies, a jacuzzi for two, free cable TV, privacy, and quiet.
What it did not come with is breakfast or any other meal. We brought our own food for the weekend.
Salient events:
Stopped at Caesarea beach on the way up. I already knew, but let me tell you so that you know: the beach at 12:30 pm on a hot August day in Israel is no fun for sane people. While Rachel frolicked, I found an umbrella at a nearby wedding hall and sat there until security kicked me out.
I needed a minyan to say kaddish, and there is one at Goren. It is Sepharadic, however, which means a siddur with the prayers ordered very differently than how I am used to, as well as continuous chanting in an accented slur, so that I couldn't figure out what prayer they were saying, anyway. Somehow I managed to say kaddish at about the right times, but my kaddish is missing a number of words and phrases that their kaddish has, so I had to keep readjusting my timing to match the other kaddish-sayers. I was tenth man for the minyan on Sunday morning.
Saturday we walked around the forested Park Goren, with a view of Montfort Castle. The experience was occasionally interrupted by people riding dune buggies (they make the engines loud on those things on purpose), but otherwise pleasant. And all while managing to stay within 2000 amot of Goren.
Sunday we visited Kibbutz Hanita, which was Rachel's first home in Israel 24 years ago. She learned Hebrew there for six months and then moved to Jerusalem, and she hadn't been back since she left it. Hanita is right on the border with Lebanon. Hanita, like many other kibbutzim is on the verge of losing its identity as a kibbutz: members now own their own homes and cars, and pretty soon they'll simply be stockholders in the kibbutz industries (contact lenses and plastic coatings, as well as some agriculture).
Hanita's main interest to outsiders is its tower and stockade museum. It holds stories and artifacts about the founding of Hanita and other kibbutzim like it, as well as movies with astoundingly well-preserved video from the time (pre-state). Most impressive is a) how egalitarian we Israelis are and were, with women and men pitching in to do the hard labor, b) how much work so many people put in to the founding of this country, while today we (well, at least me) are a bunch of whiners, and c) how violent and unaccepting the Arabs were then and still are today about this new country that formed in their midst - all the land upon which Hanita was founded was legally purchased, but that didn't seem to matter.
Oops. Forgot to warn you about politics.
What it did not come with is breakfast or any other meal. We brought our own food for the weekend.
Salient events:
Stopped at Caesarea beach on the way up. I already knew, but let me tell you so that you know: the beach at 12:30 pm on a hot August day in Israel is no fun for sane people. While Rachel frolicked, I found an umbrella at a nearby wedding hall and sat there until security kicked me out.
I needed a minyan to say kaddish, and there is one at Goren. It is Sepharadic, however, which means a siddur with the prayers ordered very differently than how I am used to, as well as continuous chanting in an accented slur, so that I couldn't figure out what prayer they were saying, anyway. Somehow I managed to say kaddish at about the right times, but my kaddish is missing a number of words and phrases that their kaddish has, so I had to keep readjusting my timing to match the other kaddish-sayers. I was tenth man for the minyan on Sunday morning.
Saturday we walked around the forested Park Goren, with a view of Montfort Castle. The experience was occasionally interrupted by people riding dune buggies (they make the engines loud on those things on purpose), but otherwise pleasant. And all while managing to stay within 2000 amot of Goren.
Sunday we visited Kibbutz Hanita, which was Rachel's first home in Israel 24 years ago. She learned Hebrew there for six months and then moved to Jerusalem, and she hadn't been back since she left it. Hanita is right on the border with Lebanon. Hanita, like many other kibbutzim is on the verge of losing its identity as a kibbutz: members now own their own homes and cars, and pretty soon they'll simply be stockholders in the kibbutz industries (contact lenses and plastic coatings, as well as some agriculture).
Hanita's main interest to outsiders is its tower and stockade museum. It holds stories and artifacts about the founding of Hanita and other kibbutzim like it, as well as movies with astoundingly well-preserved video from the time (pre-state). Most impressive is a) how egalitarian we Israelis are and were, with women and men pitching in to do the hard labor, b) how much work so many people put in to the founding of this country, while today we (well, at least me) are a bunch of whiners, and c) how violent and unaccepting the Arabs were then and still are today about this new country that formed in their midst - all the land upon which Hanita was founded was legally purchased, but that didn't seem to matter.
Oops. Forgot to warn you about politics.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Why I Hate Politics, News, and the People Who Generally Talk About Them
Thousands of TV segments, news articles, and blog posts have been written about the Gaza flotilla disaster, and I've yet to see a single one - from the mainstream news to the personal blog - that is anything close to fair and balanced. And I'm not at all surprised.
OK, I'm a little surprised that Boing Boing's coverage is entirely one-sided. But Jon Stewart at the Daily Show is at his usual form, as were hundreds of similarly left-leaning talking heads. Fox news, Michelle Malkin, and hundreds of right-leaning talking heads were also at their usual form.
I'm fairly certain that very few people have seen or read opinions from both sides, except when those opinions are briefly quoted out of context in order to mock and ridicule them. But, even those who write the one-sided pieces, and therefore have read or seen in entirety the articles that they quote out of context in order to mock and ridicule, can not find a single thing with which they can agree on the other side. Isn't that odd?
How is it that a few million people see only cowering civilians, wooden clubs raised in self-defense, and a suffering ruins of a civilization that desperately needs relief, while an entirely different few million people see only trained terrorists using lethal weapons, and a well-fed population whose lack of certain amenities is purely political showmanship?
Isn't it odd that so many millions of people can dismiss EVERY statement, picture, video, argument, and piece of evidence as obviously wrong, completely unjustified, and so absurd that it is worthy of mocking and ridicule? Isn't it odd that these same millions believe every single piece of evidence that supports their own position, entirely support every argument on their side, and find not so much as a strain of credibility in their own positions?
Isn't there one thing you can see that your side did/does wrong, that should be acknowledged and corrected?
OK, I'm a little surprised that Boing Boing's coverage is entirely one-sided. But Jon Stewart at the Daily Show is at his usual form, as were hundreds of similarly left-leaning talking heads. Fox news, Michelle Malkin, and hundreds of right-leaning talking heads were also at their usual form.
I'm fairly certain that very few people have seen or read opinions from both sides, except when those opinions are briefly quoted out of context in order to mock and ridicule them. But, even those who write the one-sided pieces, and therefore have read or seen in entirety the articles that they quote out of context in order to mock and ridicule, can not find a single thing with which they can agree on the other side. Isn't that odd?
How is it that a few million people see only cowering civilians, wooden clubs raised in self-defense, and a suffering ruins of a civilization that desperately needs relief, while an entirely different few million people see only trained terrorists using lethal weapons, and a well-fed population whose lack of certain amenities is purely political showmanship?
Isn't it odd that so many millions of people can dismiss EVERY statement, picture, video, argument, and piece of evidence as obviously wrong, completely unjustified, and so absurd that it is worthy of mocking and ridicule? Isn't it odd that these same millions believe every single piece of evidence that supports their own position, entirely support every argument on their side, and find not so much as a strain of credibility in their own positions?
Isn't there one thing you can see that your side did/does wrong, that should be acknowledged and corrected?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Scrabble with Rachel / The Gaza Flotilla
Rachel and I had our first Scrabble game since her return. I won by a few points. No bingoes.
Rachel played out her last four tiles to end the game, only to discover that there was a tile left in the bag. She wasn't going to win, anyway, so we just ended.
The Gaza Flotilla
I would write something about the Gaza flotilla, but what's the point? No one knows anything, except a few edited snippets of grainy videos and what the propagandists claim happened, and nobody wants to shut up about it long enough to hear.
Look at the thousands upon thousands of comments on Youtube videos, news articles, and blog posts. Every comment is some idiocy claiming to know exactly what the truth is ("it was international waters", "it was illegal", "it was unjustified", "it was terrorists", "it was a lynch", "it was a massacre", "it was humanitarian supplies", "it was a provocation") and all of them getting their information from one or another side of the propaganda machine, supplemented by their own personal bias.
International law is complicated. Terrorism is complicated. Combating terrorism is complicated. No one knows for sure who hit whom first, what was in the boats, or whether the actions or reactions were justified. Every staged conflict in this region has a history of deliberate media manipulation, photo and video distortion, and outright lies.
The only things we know for certain is that: some of, if not most of, the so-called humanitarian supplies could have been delivered without a floating flotilla, so this was about the blockade, not about the supplies; and that deadly, or potentially deadly, violence appears to have been committed by both parties.
And my saying so isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to anyone, because the anti-Israel machine is already running, and the narrative has already taken over. Soon it will be as much a part of myth as the shooting of Mohammed al-Dura (staged), the massacre in Jenin (didn't happen), or the starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza (they aren't).
Rachel played out her last four tiles to end the game, only to discover that there was a tile left in the bag. She wasn't going to win, anyway, so we just ended.
The Gaza Flotilla
I would write something about the Gaza flotilla, but what's the point? No one knows anything, except a few edited snippets of grainy videos and what the propagandists claim happened, and nobody wants to shut up about it long enough to hear.
Look at the thousands upon thousands of comments on Youtube videos, news articles, and blog posts. Every comment is some idiocy claiming to know exactly what the truth is ("it was international waters", "it was illegal", "it was unjustified", "it was terrorists", "it was a lynch", "it was a massacre", "it was humanitarian supplies", "it was a provocation") and all of them getting their information from one or another side of the propaganda machine, supplemented by their own personal bias.
International law is complicated. Terrorism is complicated. Combating terrorism is complicated. No one knows for sure who hit whom first, what was in the boats, or whether the actions or reactions were justified. Every staged conflict in this region has a history of deliberate media manipulation, photo and video distortion, and outright lies.
The only things we know for certain is that: some of, if not most of, the so-called humanitarian supplies could have been delivered without a floating flotilla, so this was about the blockade, not about the supplies; and that deadly, or potentially deadly, violence appears to have been committed by both parties.
And my saying so isn't going to make a damn bit of difference to anyone, because the anti-Israel machine is already running, and the narrative has already taken over. Soon it will be as much a part of myth as the shooting of Mohammed al-Dura (staged), the massacre in Jenin (didn't happen), or the starvation of the Palestinians in Gaza (they aren't).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)