When the Far Left Wing Moral Compass Fails

Go down

When the Far Left Wing Moral Compass Fails

Post by Guest on Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:49 am

You really know when something is morally wrong, when people argue that its acceptable to deliberately murder civilians and they do this off the French resistance. Its morally reprehensible for many reasons. As not only were the French under Nazi occupation. Not able to have a say within this occupation, but they never created it. Let alone how many murders committed against civilians by the French Resistance can ever be justified. (Let alone how many British special forces and SOE were betrayed by the Communist French Resistance to the Germans. is ignored by the Far Left, as i guess they call this Resistance also.) That if they had no option but to fight for their freedom against armed forces, when there is no other option. Then it is a fight for freedom. Yet when a people from the very start rejects freedom and instead chooses war over freedom and continues to this today to chose war over freedom. Then you know that argument is reprehensible. This is what the Far left wish to compare the Israel occupation to. Even though it was Israel that created through the Oslo accord the very first aspects of Palestinian statehood.

Its odd really for there is one comparability and yet its looking at this the wrong way round. The aggression of Palestinians an Arab nations is comparable to the aggression of Nazi Germany. The Palestinians rejected the self determination of the Jews and chose instead to deny them this self determination with violence and war. With the Germans they denied the self determination of the Polish, choosing instead to start a war. Vowing to wipe Poland as a nation from existence. Nearly 3 million Polish civilians were killed by the Nazis. With the Palestinians and other Arab nations they denied the Jews of Self determination. They vowed to wipe out Israel and wipe outs its people. Both lost their wars of aggression that they started due to this rejection of self determination. The Germans had 16 million of its people become displaced and refugees and not one of them is refugees today. In fact in a short time they were incorporated into a New Germany under occupation. Germany accepted their defeat and loss of land for their crimes. The Palestinians never have and yet have the cheek to class themselves as victims. 

To this, they appalling use the very small in comparison number of refugees as pawns to continue a war with Israel, by denying these refugees citizenship in the west bank and Gaza. Yes that is right, you heard me correctly. That Palestinian refugees are classed refugees in the future Palestinian state. Even those who live in the West Bank and Gaza. Even worse they have less rights in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan and have been denied citizenship. You see the Far left look wrongly at who was the aggressors here and even worse fail to show what resistance there was against the Jordanians when they occupied the West Bank. Or when Egypt occupied Gaza. With these occupations there was no terrorism or resistance , funny that. Both Germany and the West Bank and Gaza were allowed self autonomy under occupation and where Germany looked back and admitted to their wrongs. The Palestinians still fail to recognize their wars of aggression, since 1947. Where instead the Palestinians have continued to carry out acts of brutal and savage murder. Continually denying themselves and the Palestinians a future of peace, prosperity and statehood.

When people make incomparable comparisons, you know they have a failed argument as they post things like this.




What they are in fact invoking is the worst form of antisemitism. That the occupation of the West bank, is comparable to Nazi occupation. That any murder of Jews is seen as a Resistance and that there is no other way. The fact that 5 times the Palestinians could have had a nation and instead rejected peace. Shows and proves why the Far left back terrorism and not peace.



Haaretz 

details two American initiatives to forge a peace plan under the Obama administration.

Once again, it shows that the conventional wisdom is wrong: the Likud government that is routinely described as "the most right wing government in Israeli history" was willing (for whatever reason) to accept a far-ranging and potentially self-damaging "peace" plan with the Palestinians - and the "moderate" Palestinian Authority said no.

Here is Haaretz' summary of its very detailed reporting.



If Haaretz cannot find anything bad to say about Netanyahu's position and cannot find anything flexible about Abbas' position, that is all the proof you need to know who wants peace and who prefers the status quo.

When Kerry met Abbas in Paris on February 19, 2014 and presented him with this version of the framework accord, the Palestinian president responded with anger and disappointment. Former U.S. officials say his biggest concern was with how the document addressed Jerusalem. The weak wording on this paramount issue was a nonstarter for him.

As a result of Abbas’ reaction, the U.S. team realized that in order to get a “yes” from the Palestinian president, they would have to change some parts of the framework document. The challenge was how to do it without losing Netanyahu, who had verbally expressed his openness toward the February version of the document (although he never accepted it in writing).

Abbas was scheduled to meet President Barack Obama in the White House on March 16, 2014 – less than a month after his dinner with Kerry in Paris. Ahead of that meeting, the U.S. peace team crafted an updated version of the framework, which, unlike the February document, was not pre-negotiated with the Israelis. The result was a different document, one that on a number of issues was tilted more toward the Palestinians.

After failing to first negotiate a document with Netanyahu and then get a “yes” from Abbas, the Americans now wanted to test the opposite option: Getting the Palestinian leader to agree to a document on the core issues, and then take it back to Netanyahu. But Abbas didn’t accept Obama’s framework document. He didn’t reject it, though – he simply didn’t respond.The Obama administration was disappointed and frustrated by his reaction. Obama asked Abbas to “see the big picture” instead of squabbling with “this or that detail” – to no avail. A month later, Kerry’s peace talks collapsed.

Haaretz tries to spin this as best it can to fits its narrative, saying that Netanyahu has lied to the public about the extent of what he was willing to give up for peace and trying to justify Abbas' rejection of the plans.

But the facts that they uncovered cannot be spun: the "moderate" Palestinians have twice again rejected formulas for peace while Israel has shown amazing flexibility to end the conflict.

There are scores of articles this week in major media  decrying "50 years of occupation" - but the fact is that Israeli leaders, both left and right, have proposed and accepted peace deals throughout the entire five decades which would end Israeli rule over disputed territories, and Palestinians have rejected every single one either directly or indirectly.

1967, 2000, 2001, 2008, and now 2014. How many times does this need to occur before the world sees the truth?

John Kerry knew this more than anyone - and yet in December gave a speech that blamed Israel alone for failure of peace in the Middle East.

The anti-Israel narrative will not be scratched by the supposed "peaceniks" who will attack Israel as intransigent and praise the Palestinians as victims regardless of the facts. There will be no breast-beating NYT op-eds about how Palestinians missed another opportunity for peace, about how they continue to support violence, about how they have been intransigent and consistently rejected any progress towards an end to the conflict.

The facts don't matter.


http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/06/add-two-more-to-ever-growing-list-of.html



Plus 1937 and 1947 where the Palestinians rejected peace and the chance of a nation.

The Far left ignore that the Palestinians could have peace and a nation tomorrow, if they only reached out and wanted it with both hands, yet by the above we see that they do not want to. They have only one objective. The destruction of Israel. This is seen by the fact that they have continued to reject peace and have a nation.

What is worse is in Israel, is that only in Israel, do Arabs and Muslims have better rights than anywhere in the entire middles east. Yet the Far left chose to ignore this as they do on every thing in this conflict. There is no doubt Israel has done wrong, of which I condemn them for, but you know when people hate Jews. Its when they make and invoke incomparable comparisons to justify and normalize the murder of Jews. That is the hate of the Far left. What is worse here is that they are claiming that the Palestinians have no other options and that they lie to themselves to justify and normalize the murder of Jews.

I mean if Israel were truly Nazis, why on earth do they treat 180,000 Palestinians from the West bank and Gaza every year in their hospitals? Why would the Israeli government save the lives of countless Palestinians? Because they do care for peace and their lives. What Israel wants is to be allowed to live in peace and as seen, the Palestinian authority does not want that. It continues a conflict. One where no Jews are allowed to live within Palestinian areas. What is worse is the Far left ignore the segregation of women, the oppression of women, child brides, domestic violence, honour killings, the murder of homosexuals etc in Gaza and the West Bank. Let alone the majority of the Middle East where this happens. You see a massive silence on this or the many stateless people within the middle East let alone the 6,000 stateless groups of people world wide.

Peace is a two way street and yet it seems its only Israel that offers peace.
The Palestinian authority constantly rejects it  and worse the Far left justify the murder of Jews claiming its not terrorism, but resistance. That they think its okay to murder Jews, because they create a falsehood to normalize their hate. Imagine if the Israelis used this philosophy of the Far left? There would be no Arabs or Muslims in Israel. Yet 20% of the Israeli population is Arab and Muslim. Yet as seen its the Palestinians authority, who live by a former Nazi policy, a policy of having Palestinian state that is Judenrein.

Those Palestinians who deliberately murder Jews and Israeli's are not Freedom fighters. They are murderers and terrorists.

They choose violence over peace.

They choose murder over coexistence.

They choose hate over love.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: When the Far Left Wing Moral Compass Fails

Post by Guest on Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:34 pm




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VV7fUDJF8A

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: When the Far Left Wing Moral Compass Fails

Post by Guest on Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:35 pm

Conrad Black: Palestinian terror and Israel boycotts aren't a form of 'dissent.' They're just evil and stupid.

A boycott of Israel is a stupid enterprise, and those who promote it, such as the United Church of Canada and William Kaplan, should be ashamed, and eventually will be.

William Kaplan’s book “Why Dissent Matters” is an interesting pastiche of his opinions of a number of modern and current forms of dissent that are presented in a uniformly positive light, but are of greatly differing merit. The areas he examines are the failure of the Israeli military leadership to foresee the Yom Kippur attack by Egypt in 1973, through the failure to dissent from the agreed complacent wisdom of the general staff; the decision-making process in the U.S. National Security Council during the Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962, when everyone was encouraged to speak up, and a number of individual and demonstrative group dissenters, concluding with reflections on the Harper government in this country and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The fiasco of Israel’s unprepared vulnerability to the 1973 attack by Egypt was redressed by Richard Nixon, when he sent Israel a new air force and heavy further reinforcements (in the midst of the greatest crisis of his career after he fired the attorney-general and the special prosecutor in the Watergate affair). There is no great argument about John F. Kennedy’s crisis management over Cuba in 1962, except that he should not have removed NATO missiles from Turkey and Italy, contrary to the wishes of the governments of those countries, which made it a strategic win for the U.S.S.R., though it appeared to be a humiliating setback because Khrushchev was outmanoeuvred in the public relations arena by Kennedy. Kaplan goes farther in comments on the Vietnam War, implicitly claiming it was immoral. It was not; most South Vietnamese wanted to resist the Communists, but the high command made grave strategic errors. Kaplan dishonours dissent in accepting under that honourable umbrella those who agitated for the victory of North Vietnam, an act perilously close to treason, and in any case, shameful, as the subsequent massacres, flight of the boat people, and horrors of the Killing Fields demonstrated.

Frances Oldham Kelsey, originally and ultimately a Canadian, was a magnificent and prescient opponent of thalidomide for use by pregnant women in the U.S. Federal Drug Administration, and was recognized with the Order of Canada at the age of 101, the day before she died. Rachel Carson, the great oceanic and agricultural ecologist, was another heroine, who weathered great obloquy, but was largely vindicated in her warnings about water pollution and the menace of insecticides. As she was a writer and self-employed researcher, she resorted to excess, dramatic license, and some outright muckraking, as the author admits, but she was admirable and largely correct, and an elegant writer to boot. Both these women make Kaplan’s category of idealized dissenters.

The section on dissent on juries and benches is unexceptionable, but can only be a slight glimpse of this vast subject. Most judges, in Canada and elsewhere, are a pretty job lot; many are slaves to media opinion, or their own prejudices, or to ludicrous minutiae of jurisprudence. And most jurors are people whose income rises with jury duty and who otherwise do little but watch soap operas all day. They can rarely be relied upon to grasp the proceedings, and the idealization of them is an indulgence of our everyman democratic preening self-image, but sometimes, individual judges and jurors do strike a blow for justice against the conventional wisdom.

The chapter on the unjust conviction of Stephen Truscott for a murder he did not commit, in 1959, and his gradual acquittal from that charge, with the indispensable help of heroic journalist Isabel LeBourdais, is an inspiring and uplifting statement of what determined citizens can accomplish in a society where justice is possible to those who persevere. Here, Kaplan is taking up, and discharging with eloquence and conviction, the task of other writers and filmmakers who have espoused the rights and virtues of those who persevere against unjust but officially convenient verdicts: Truscott, without the wider political implications, was Canada’s Dreyfus, and LeBourdais Canada’s Emile Zola. These are noble roles, even reduced to historic scale, and Kaplan documents them with distinction.

The narrative then becomes erratic. Occupy Wall Street, a movement of justly aggrieved but wildly irrelevant and unserious objectors to the crass absurdity of Clintonian economics: stupefying accretions of wealth for the traders and dealers who accelerate the velocity of the transactional economy and trickle down crumbs for everyone else while the welfare rolls are bulked up for reliable, dependent voters. They had no idea of how to combat these problems, saw only the symptoms and not the causes, and in their socioeconomically illiterate frustration, thought they could effectively occupy strategic and symbolic places in the New York financial district and elsewhere. I communicated publicly with some of the group leaders at the time. They were ingenuous and had legitimate complaints, and convinced Kaplan that they saw a chance of revolution, but they were innocents in Babylon, completely ineffectual complainants at the inexorable devolution of events. Kaplan should not have given them a chapter, and these dissenters did not matter a jot.

Kaplan rebounded admirably with his severe but justified attack on the draconian dumb-on-crime, jail ‘em all judicial severity, and hair-shirted know-nothingism of the Harper government. Its expansion of prisons, extensions of sentences, and discouragement of any assistance to reintegrate non-violent convicts was an abomination. It rolled back all federal government assistance to culture, environmental research and science. Apart from being retrograde in itself in terms of the national interest, it was unutterably stupid politically. A lesson that has been demonstrated many times, most convincingly by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and by Charles de Gaulle through his nomination of Andre Malraux as minister of culture, is that cultural and entertainment and scientific figures respond very positively and eagerly to patronage from a friendly regime. (Of course it helps if the cast of public policy and the personality of the leader induce spontaneous adherence.) These are groups that are unusually susceptible to the attention of the people in power, are very useful to the country, are voters who can easily be bought, and are very politically influential. Harper, with the same obtuseness that deprived him of any loyalty to (or from) anyone, any human regard for his cabinet or caucus, any light touch with parliament, did not heed this lesson. Whatever may be said of the Trudeaus, Brian Mulroney or Jean Chrétien, they remembered their friends, had a sense of humour, and in each case, have been a delight at dinner or in an informal conversation. Even Mackenzie King, prime minister for 22 years, though no barrel of conviviality, at least ladled out the official patronage, verbally and tangibly, to the cultural and academic elites.

Up to this point, this is a pretty good book, but here William Kaplan grafts onto his narrative a wildly Israelophobic and unrigorously bowdlerized version of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The terrorists and Jew-hating leaders of the ostensible Palestinians are incongruously dusted off as dissenters in the same pristine virtuosity as the enemies of thalidomide and ecological pollution and unjust conviction of the innocent and hair-trigger war-making. It is a set-up; the narrative has built up a solid bank of appreciation of the positive role of those who dissent by nature (apart from the light-hearted apologia for the Occupy Wall Street foolishness). But suddenly the tenor and tempo change, and the horribly complicated problem of Jews and Arabs in Israel is rendered as apartheid, oppression, and the whitewashing of Palestinian terrorism and of their claim to a right to swamp the Jews demographically and reduce them, once again, to a minority, sure to be oppressed yet again, and this time in the country the world gave them as a Jewish homeland. It need hardly be emphasized that it is a complicated issue. The British sold the same real estate to both sides in 1917; the United Nations made Israel a Jewish state, and the Israelis have successfully defended and expanded it after Arab-initiated wars in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

The answer is not to give knee-jerk adherence to a campaign of boycott and disinvestment against Israel in favour of an Arab population that will not leave because it is better treated and more prosperous than in Arab countries, and that shelters suicide bombers, knife-assailants of the innocent, and other terrorists. The Palestinians could have their state next week if they acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. The one good result of the escalated Islamist terror attacks against the West and the less fervent Islamists is that they have disabused almost everyone except Kaplan from extending any more moral or tangible support to the blood-stained charlatans of Palestinian terrorism. An economic boycott of Israel is an evil and stupid enterprise, and those otherwise respectable people who promote it, such as the United Church of Canada and Kaplan, should be ashamed of themselves, and eventually will be.

http://nationalpost.com/g00/opinion/conrad-black-dissenters-are-of-greatly-differing-merit-its-nonsensical-to-laud-them-all/wcm/5bbf8027-30f0-42e0-af15-ccdeab9ff830?i10c.referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fg00%2F%3Fi10c.referrer%3D

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: When the Far Left Wing Moral Compass Fails

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum