So, a bunch of Jews who don’t like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians [who does?] decide to run the Israeli blockade of Gaza to take aid to the Palestinians. They get a boat, it’s the Jewish boat to Gaza.
Now, if you or I want to run a blockade the first thing we DON’T do is tell them we’re going to do it. If we actually want to get through and deliver that aid to the Palestinians we’re gonna want to sneak through when the bastards aren’t looking, or failing that take some mates who’ve got a fuck off tooled up battle cruiser with us. Well that’s what I’d do. But that’s not what they did, is it? They issued a fucking Press Release in advance. They told the Israelis they were coming.
So, WTF were they playing at?
Well, what they were doing is playing at gesture politics and propaganda. The aid was "symbolic". They were trying to provoke the Israelis into over reacting [again], and when they don’t they don’t get any publicity. Oh dear!
You see, it doesn’t matter whether the blockade is illegal or not, It is a fact of life. It’s there and the blockaders will do what blockaders do, blockade. You know that, I know that, they know that. What on earth did they expect?
So, the Israeli press report that the boat was boarded peacefully. The pricks report they were treated violently. So what do we, who weren’t there, and that includes most of you JFJFP and JBIG types, make of it. Well if you’re a JFJFP or JBIG type you’ll believe the pricks and attempt to perpetuate the propaganda war.
But Jo Soap doesn’t give a damn and the Media understand their audience. We all know that in those situations FORCE is always misinterpreted as violence by those on the receiving end.
Meanwhile, those with some brains, and who know a thing or two about conflict resolution, are making steady but slow progress. The ONLY way to deal with this is to encourage co-operation from the bottom up and build trust. It takes time, patience and resolve. It is not an easy road, but nothing worth doing is ever easy. You can posture and preen all you like, play indignant or the martyr. That's easy and it doesn’t work.
Without the basics no amount of posturing will get results. TINA
–THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
Note: The word "twat" in the above text has been replaced with the word "prick". For an explanation as to why see here.
This is an ad hominem attack. You may disagree with their strategies but this does not make them "twats".
ReplyDelete"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy. The ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue."
ReplyDeleteTwat - a fool, synonymous with the word twit.
Discuss!
A stupid stunt - it goes against the grain but I have to agree with Weggis- they are twats.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'm getting deja vu here. Haven't they already tried this in the last year, with predictable effect?
ReplyDelete"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Einstein said it already!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWeggis
ReplyDeleteYou very kind to give a link.
Maybe they did a press release because when the Israelis saw an unexpected ship heading for Gaza, they might torpedo first, ask questions after.
Cheers
R
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDocRichard
ReplyDeleteYou very silly to say what you say.
Bangerboo
ReplyDeleteThank you for that exquisitely elegant argument. It must have taken you a long time to research and compose it.
Richard
Twat doesn't usually mean twit...
ReplyDeleteIt does when I use it!
ReplyDeleteI do like your beautiful blue makeover mr W. Much easier on the eye. Does this hint that you really are not a 'left-wing blog' as some claim?
ReplyDeleteThank you GE. It matches my eyes.
ReplyDeleteAs for left wing, well, that is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?
Btw, did you see this Grauniad article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/10/english-defence-league-tea-party
detailing some links being made with the EDL by prominent tea-partiers, including Pamela Geller and "senior US rabbi and Tea Party activist" Rabbi Nachum Shifren.
Funny old world eh?
What is it about the Middle East that it seems to have this potential for sucking everybody down to hell with it?
No. Thanks. But I have just seen this.
ReplyDeletehttp://greensengage.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/on-the-english-defence-league/
The use of the word Twat is an offensive word for the female genitalia, why not go the whole hog and call a holocaust survivor a cunt? Fair enough to question tactics, but insults aren't usually the best way.
ReplyDeleteTwat yourself
Not in Modern day UK usage it isn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd what has being a holocaust survivor got to do with it?
Hi there, two things.
ReplyDeleteFirst on twat. Depending on where you come from in the UK twat means different things. Where I'm from "you twat" is a pretty mild insult roughly similar to twit and not anything like as offensive as the c word. When I first started meeting people from other areas I came to realise that in other regions twat was far harder and also meant female genitalia... which it doesn't to me.
It's worth remembering that there are no objective meanings to words which applies just as much to people like me who need to remember that twat is more offensive to some than me as it does to anon there who seem to think Weggis meant to use the word in a grossly offensive way.
Second, I think you're too hard on the flotilla people Weggis. You condemn the boat as 'gesture' politics - but actually it's just politics. Yes, they knew that they risked injury or death in what could end up being a symbolic protest - but that symbol which increases awareness of the disgraceful blockade helping to pressure Israel to bring it down is important.
I'm sure David Cameron doesn't associate himself with these boats, but it's been in the news often enough for him to have stated publicly his opposition to the blockade - that's significant in a way that smuggling stuff through unseen in a tunnel would not have been.
I think these people are doing something worthwhile and quite brave. I don't think that makes them beyond criticism or not the subject of debate - so thanks for the post - but I think you're wrong on this one.
ps Gideon Mack confuses the legally required expiry date on medicines with whether they still work or not. Those medicines are not useless just because they're no longer legally able to be sold in Europe.
Isn't it sad how you can't knock anything pertaining to Israel without some TWAT bringing up the holocaust - TWAT.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jim for your, as ever, reasoned contribution.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the flotilla (not the Irene), a very thoughtfull article via Peace Now,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_brief_history_of_the_gaza_folly
Isn't it sad how you can't knock anything pertaining to standing corrected without some TWAT bringing up the orthopaedic shoes - TWAT.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly offended by the continued mention of a Holocaust survivor. Do the Holocaust survivors get special mentions when they're not in favour of cunning stunts like these, or do they not count because they're overpowered by their irrational judaism?
ReplyDeleteWeggis - your selective censorship lets you down - shame on you. If anonymous arseholes like the above are free to shout spite then why can't I.
ReplyDeleteBecause Anon's comment had a point, whereas yours just told him/her to "fuck off".
ReplyDeleteWeggis
ReplyDeleteYour selective perception lets you down - I quote anonymous from a previous post....
"Anonymous said...
I always thought the greens were home to a fe closet population Nazis.
You don't have a clue about that woman's situation.
two words
Fuck you
12 September, 2010 23:03"
The most conceited thing any blogger can do is to selectively censor comments.
ReplyDeleteThe anon comment you quote had a point and contributed to the discussion - yours didn't.
ReplyDelete