Tuesday, August 16, 2005

From Soul Surfers to Terrorists

I read in the Washington Times yesterday that there are a group of Israeli surfers living in an abandoned hotel on the Gaza strip, planning to stay there until evicted by the Israeli army as part of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. The hotel was abandoned in 2000 after some type of uprising. Later that morning, Fox News is showing Palestinians celebrating getting Gaza back, with the celebration being led by members of Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization. If those 2 little snippets juxtaposed in your mind don't spell out the differences between Israel and its Arab neighbors, I don't know what will.

A common refrain, most recently heard from the nut job mother of the slain Army guy outside of Crawford, is that the Jews need to get out of Palestine; that little anti-semitic canard is also a very popular refrain, from what I understand, in much of Europe, where, 60 years ago, as WWII was winding down, the refrain was get the Jews out of Europe and back to Palestine. Of course they can always come here, but all of the investment banking jobs are filled, and they, unlike the millions of illegal aliens walking the streets, are not "willing to do the jobs Americans aren't willing to do."

That is the refrain heard by those in favor of immigration of all stripes - legal and illegal - even the President himself. No doubt illegal aliens form a cheap source of labor, but of course there are costs that come with that. First, a porous border makes for easy entry for those willing to do one particular job Americans aren't willing to do - like hijacking planes and flying them into sky-scrapers. But even short of that, you get quite a bit of your good old-fashioned murders.

Some will point out two obvious facts - most illegal immigrants are hard-working and law abiding citizens; and not all of those willing to blow up trains are illegal aliens - many of the UK bombers, for example, were born and bred in England. Both points are true, and neither are surprising. It is the second generation of migrants who have a more difficult time assimilating, difficult to the point where they start blowing things up or burning things down. The first generation, as poor as it often is in the states, knows the alternative, and considers itself comparatively very rich. The second generation, not knowing the poverty that their parents escaped, see the inequality of income and guys like Al Sharpton ranting and raving that the deck is stacked against anyone who isn't white, and figure - what the hell, let's blow something up.


Anonymous Jim O said...

It's amazing that the West continues to give concessions to terroristic organizations, in hopes of placating them.

I only hope that Israel electrifies that giant fence.

7:32 AM  
Blogger Incredible Dirigible said...

Yeah, I wonder to what extent this really will resolve any of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't like when the two sides are treated with equal moral clout. I don't like when Israel's self-defense against terrorism is viewed as a form of terrorism itself.

7:50 AM  
Blogger Clupbert said...

Only idiots aren't pro-Israel in my opinion.
And very good point about the first and second generation. I just posted on immigration, funny I read this.

I thought you died by the way.

9:11 AM  
Blogger Professor Vic said...

Hold on there. Unless I am mistaken, isn't it Ariel Sharon, the most hawkish of the hawks, and not the West who is giving these concessions to the Palastinians? He does this at great personal and political risk might I add. Remember what both Israeli voters and Israeli assassins have done to previous PMs who have dared such concessions.

If a guy like Sharon, certainly neither a dove nor a chicken-hawk, is convinced that it is better for Israeli security to stop engaging in the political equivalent of poking the Palastinians in the eye, what is it going to take to convince you all?

One final aside, the wisdom of our adventure in Iraq is completely beside the point when considering the case of the women outside of Bush's ranch. Hatch is showing all of the great people skills exhibited by President Bush by calling a grieving mother a "nut job." It's just plain poor taste on both Bush's and Hatch's part, and it's what has Bush's approval ratings about Iraq in the 30s.

Bush needs to pull a Clinton, invite her in for tea, and tell her he "feels her pain." My own opinions aside, I'm not saying that Bush should change his policies on Iraq based on one angry parent, but neither Bush nor Hatch are doing anything to help the cause in Iraq by ignoring or slandering the victims of the war.

9:16 AM  
Blogger Incredible Dirigible said...

I feel bad for Connie Sheehan's loss, but I believe that what she is doing is beyond what is reasonable for a grieving mother. I also believe it is not really her goal to have another chat with the President. She Already met with him after the death of her son, & spoke Favorably of him. Now she's changed her tune completely, and claims she wants Another meeting with him.

What the mainstream media is not saying is that she is as leftwing as those she has aligned herself with. She posts on Michael Moore's website. She shrieks, "Bush killed my son! He should go to jail!" And the media is downplaying the fact that she Already met with Bush!

I believe her Real goal is to embarrass the President. If Bush does take the time to meet with her again, there is no question that she will come out of the meeting and diss him some more. No question about it.

10:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

john, must have been a rough mass last sunday, or maybe you didn't go and thats why you sound so much like a fascist today. at some point in time you need to sit down and look at the two idealogies that you hold near and dear, christianity and being a conservative because they don't mix. Stop pretending on both and come right out and admit what you are.

6:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

powered by