Can the Ambush Flotilla become a turning point

In the story of the emperor’s new clothes, when the boy says, “Daddy, why is the emperor naked?” his father responds, “hush child.” It’s only when someone else in the crowd says, “No, listen to the boy,” that the spell is broken.

Is it possible that the absurdity of the knee-jerk response to the Flotilla ambush has actually begun the process, that anti-Zionism has reached such a level of absurdity and self-parody that people have begun to wake up, to shake off the bonds of self-delusion, to question the “halo effect” of the allegedly liberal, human rights advocates and media stars who have systematically poisoned us with their own delusions?

Here’s a (paraphrase of a) letter written to Barry Rubin, one of (if not the most) astute and prolific analysts of the current scene:

The author loves reading Rubin’s articles, e.g., Media, Academia Destroying themselves over Israel. He’s British, not a member of the Jewish community, and has been aware of the slant / bias in the media against Israel for a very long time. Now, however, he feels it’s gotten to a stage where it is actually dangerous. Quite a few people he speaks with willing to admit that they are upset with it. He points to the plummeting readership of the Guardian, and the difficulty of NGOs like Amnesty and Oxfam (for whom Israel is a “malign obsession”) to keep up their donations. He suspects that these organizations are probably looking for a Zionist conspiracy in the increasing troubles when, actually, it’s just the case that “most (thinking) people recognise hysterical propaganda when they see it and don’t approve.”

I have been saying for years now, that in the coming five to ten years, there will be an awakening in Europe (and the rest of the West), that independent minds who are not in the opinion-making elite will begin to realize how badly their leaders have misinformed them, and that when that happens, there’s a window of opportunity whereby we can suggest to them that the anti-Zionism of their elites has operated as a form of cultural AIDS, preventing them from taking self-preserving action.

I welcome any contributions from readers that suggest either a similar response, or (alas) evidence to the contrary. Here’s hoping that the second decade of the 21st reverses the terrible damage of the first decade.

22 Responses to Can the Ambush Flotilla become a turning point

  1. incognito says:

    rl,

    There is so much evidence to the contrary that I supply daily here and to you via email. I don’t think an anecdotal letter to Rubin can balance all that, let alone overtake it.

    Some in Europe are realizing what’s going on, but they are not the kind that will do something about it. The native population in Europe is dying and the muslim component is gaining power. it is also the component that is most vociferous and violent and it scares the elite into appeasement. Even if there was a change tomorrow, it would be too late for Europe, which also happens to be bankrupt and collapsing.

    If, as Lee Smith so asutely puts it, Obama who heads a country without Europe’s problems (except bankruptcy and collapse) is throwing his lot with the islamists, what chance is there that Europe will not do it?

    Both the US and EU have chosen to appease the Teheran/Ankara/Damascus axis by dumping Israel. The world did initially do the same with the Berlin/Tokyo/Rome axis and for the same reasons. They paid an enormous price for realizing the consequences late but were lucky that the Nazis were overextended and led by a complete nut (though nobody gave a damn about the jews anyway), so they managed to recover.

    This time around the west is in no state from which it can recover — its era of dominance is over. It is the US which is, due to serious strategic errors, overextended and bankrupt, which is precisely why Obama is courting the axis. Israel is an ideal sacrifice in these circumstances — nobody really cares for the jews.

  2. incognito says:

    Here are the quotes from Lee Smith above that I posted in an earlier thread which may have been missed:



    This is news: Moderate Muslims, the darlings of the George W. Bush Administration’s foreign policy, don’t matter, or so Obama has concluded. Ever since he was on the campaign trail Obama has promised to reach out to Iran and Syria, state sponsors of terror and Hezbollah’s patrons, and now the reason why is clear: because he believes that it’s Middle East extremists who call the shots. Someday soon, the Obama Administration is going to reach out to Hezbollah, as well as other terrorist organizations, in Afghanistan, Gaza, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

    In any case, Obama sees, correctly, that the real choice isn’t between moderates and extremists, but between cutting a deal with the extremists or making war against them. The fact is that a war against all the extremists in the Muslim world—Sunni and Shia, from the Persian Gulf to Western North Africa—is effectively a war against Islam. And a decades-long war of civilizations is not a war that an economically damaged United States can afford to wage. We have neither the money, nor the manpower, nor the will. A total war of the kind that appears to be on offer would change U.S. society in ways that are unimaginable and would make the Bush years look like an idyllic holiday. Our few remaining allies—with the exception of Israel—would no longer wish to fight beside us and would make deals of their own, if they already haven’t.

    So, instead, we’re going to bargain with the actors who have the final say over war and peace: the extremists.

    Looking back to the origins of the United States’ blue-water navy is a reminder that the founding fathers judged that fighting, rather than paying tribute, was what best suited the character of the American people. And there’s little doubt that U.S. citizens will again rebel against policymakers who have chosen appeasement, especially since the extremists will negotiate by killing more of us, in the streets of U.S. cities as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is unclear whether the political damage that the incumbent will suffer because his countrymen are dying is sufficient to change his thinking, which is that it is more cost efficient for a weakened United States to buy off extremists than it is to run the rest of the world at the end of a gun.

    But negotiating with extremists will look like war, just that only one side will be fighting while the other side—the United States—tries to stop the bloodshed by petitioning the extremists to accept more ransom. The way Obama sees it, the upside is that it will not be a war without end, like the war on terror. All the extremists in the Muslim world want is money and the power that will flow their way as the consequence of the U.S. withdrawal from the Persian Gulf. The faster the United States leaves, the cheaper the cost. This is why the Jewish state is isolated today and why Washington stands with her only reluctantly: Distancing ourselves from Israel is part of the deal we are preparing to strike.

  3. Ray in Seattle says:

    The West fetishes peace. We fight, but reluctantly and to protect interests that are threatened, though we don’t always compute the threats accurately. We do not fight to conquer others because we prefer trade and progress to war. Israel exemplifies this attitude. And so, protected from serious harm by our military, we let the Islamists humiliate and taunt us, as our foolish academics and elites continue to make excuses for them.

    But the West has vast military and economic power – far more by at least an order of magnitude than the Islamic world. We will be slow to recognize an enemy that must be destroyed. And we might suffer some Pearl Harbors while we continue to pretend that “everybody is just like us” – because such pretensions feel so good and “multicultural”.

    But once we are forced to fight – the enemy will be destroyed – and the great majority in the West will support the effort. Obama has made many stupid moves but he has also moved large naval forces into the Med and the Straights of Hormuz.

    And 50 years from now some other civilizational threat will appear against the West – and just as we are forgetting Chamberlain and the lessons of WWII now – we will forget about our appeasement of the Islamists today – and we will pretend this new enemy is really “just like us” and they may have “good reason to hate us” for all our sins – which is what they said about Hitler back in the day.

    I think it’s a flaw (or maybe even a strength in some perverse ways) of Western democracies. But I think it will take a major military confrontation to sway the elites – who will be forced to accept public opinion or be marginalized. They won’t risk not getting invited onto Chris Matthews show.

    I think we are close to a turning point. I can’t imagine the Iranians or Hizb’allah backing down once their blockade busting ships are on the way – and it appears they are. I think they sense that they are not making headway beyond a small minority in the West (esp the US) with their “cog-war”. And so they realize they’ll not get a better chance than now and they will need to hit Israel with everything they’ve got. The blockade busters are the pretext for the next war and they are crazy enough to do it.

  4. Ray in Seattle says:

    Here’s a thought. What if one of the ships is packed with tons of high explosive that they intend to detonate if the Israelis attempt to board – blaming it on the IDF and using that as an excuse to attack Israel with their armies and missiles.

  5. Ray in Seattle says:

    Of course, if it’s true that Netanyahu has agreed to let the UN take over the inspection regime – that might forestall the crisis for a few more weeks. But, could he really be that stupid?

    When I say “stupid” of courser, that’s shorthand for asking if his strong belief – that any risk (even allowing both Hizb’allah and now Hamas to arm themselves with thousands missiles that can reach any part of Israel) is better than military confrontation until they attack – is potent enough to overcome his ability to be objective about it. But I use “stupid” as a shorthand. I’m sure he’s smart enough to understand this if his brain is working.

  6. Ray in Seattle says:

    Another factor that seems to point to war is that 85% of Turkey’s Muslims are Sunni. I suspect Iran’s Shia mullah’s are feeling a real threat from Turkey for the mullah’s plans to head new Islamic caliphate. They would be especially threatened by a Sunni move to elevate themselves in the eyes of the Arab street – as Erdogan has just done thanks to the IDF.

  7. Ray in Seattle says:

    Now I really have to get to work – but great post and intriguing questions, rl.

  8. incognito says:

    Wishful thinking: how the world should be, not how it is.

  9. incognito says:

    rl,

    Here’s your answer:

    Think tank says award is not endorsement of Turkish FM
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0610/Think_tank_says_award_is_not_endorsement_of_Turkish_FM.html

    They’re opening their eyes, huh?

  10. incognito says:

    More:

    What Kind of Washington Fools Would Honor Turkey’s Foreign Minister?
    http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/what-kind-of-washington-fools-would-honor-turkeys-foreign-minister/

    Ackerman Dismayed over Plan to Honor Turkish Foreign Minister
    http://ackerman.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=186&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,186&itemid=1029

  11. Eliyahu says:

    See the updatings at the bottom of post linked to:

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2010/06/erdogan-has-judeophobic-nazi-like.html

    In fact, Lee Hamilton himself contradicted his own spokeswoman as to the award not being an “endorsement.” LH praised Davutoglu shamelessly for embodying the ideals of the Wilson Center. LH is one of Obama’s mentors, by the way.

  12. Cynic says:

    LH is one of Obama’s mentors, by the way.

    Given what has transpired these past few months, that says it all.

  13. incognito says:

    The worst part is that the institution is funded in part by US taxpayers (and by some anti-jewish foreigners).
    But given the Obama administration, that’s probably intentional.

  14. incognito says:

    Here’s Martin Kramer on Wilson Center. Remember when he was attacked as racist because he suggested to stop foreign financial inducement of births in Gaza?

    Martin Kramer: At the Wilson Center, they debated how to prevent inundation by… well, unwanted Pakistanis. (185m today, 335m projected by 2050—and that’s “best case.” Worst case: 460m.) “Predictably” says this report of the event, “many observers depict Pakistan’s population situation as a ticking time bomb.” In fact, the panel was called “Defusing the Bomb.” Could the same panel be held on Gaza? It would cause an uproar.

    Defusing the Bomb: Overcoming Pakistan’s Population Challenge | Wilson Center

  15. incognito says:

    More on Wilson:

    The Wilson Center Honors Turkey, Part II
    [Michael Rubin]
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjI2ODkwZGY3YzRkZjU1Mzg5YTljOWIxZDI0ZTAxZjc=

  16. incognito says:

    MUST READ

    The lesson of a Jewish cemetery
    MARK STEYN
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/17/the-lesson-of-a-jewish-cemetery/

  17. incognito says:

    To quote:

    Still, the impatience of the new globalized Judenhass is now palpable. I used to think that, when Iran got the bomb, it wouldn’t use it. I wouldn’t take that bet now. The new anti-Semitism is a Euro-Islamic fusion so universal, so irrational and so fevered that it’s foolish to assume any limits.

  18. E.G. says:

    This Steyn piece is not a must-read, it’s the most accurate statement of what is going on.

  19. incognito says:

    Aren’t the most accurate statements must-reads given that there are so few of them?

  20. incognito says:

    Looks like the various Israeli concessions under the delusion of land for peace are also strategic errors which slowly but surely make it impossible for it to defend itself. Just what could and was predicted at the time they were made.

    Egypt has folded under the pressure and rejected Israel’s request to close the Suez Canal to Iranian ships heading for Gaza by invoking the Istanbul Treaty which authorizes Cairo to deny access only to ships of nations at war with Egypt. At the same time, Cairo could if it wished stop ships for inspection and keep them hanging about for a long period.
    Not only is Egypt avoiding this, but its government and Tehran are in talks for Iranian flights bearing equipment for Gaza to land at Cairo and El Arish airports. One will carry a large Iranian parliamentary delegation lead by Speaker Ali Larijani, who is determined to pose on the Gaza-Israeli border and make a speech opposite Israeli border positions.

    This incident highlights Israel’s error in abandoning the key southern Gaza Philadelphia route in 2005 after disengaging from the Gaza Strip. Iranian ships can accordingly touch land by sailing along the seam line between the waters of Egypt and the Gaza Strip, exactly opposite the Mediterranean end of the Philadelphia route. They can unload their cargo and send it into the Gaza Strip through the Philadelphi corridor without hindrance, unless Israel is prepared to venture into Egyptian territory to stop them.

  21. E.G. says:

    Excuse me. I should have written it’s not only a must-read.

  22. harris says:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/30/activists-arms-factory-acquitted


    Jury clears activists who broke into Brighton arms factory

    Five found not guilty after arguing they were seeking to prevent Israeli war crimes in Gaza

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>