Comment Trail: Justice by injustice, the new universal law of human rights
The picture on the right shows five members of the Fogel family. To the casual eye, they may appear human enough, a mom, a dad, three little kids, each looks like a human being. But you would be wrong, for these are not really members of the human race. These are Jews. Worse. They are Israeli Jews. Even worse, they are "settlers".
According to this Israeli author, Irit Linur, in a private conversation with a radical Leftist journalist writing for Haaretz, the latter told her that he wouldn't drive 100 yards to rescue the life of such a species, a "settler" * (שיחה פרטית איתו, אמר לי פעם שהוא לא היה נוסע מאה מטר כדי להציל את חייו של מתנחל, ). I get the impression that his reluctance to save such babies is not unique to him, due to some particularly evil inclination; it is actually a moral duty shared by many of the anti-Zionist crowds that populate our planets and universities. It is a position to flaunt with pride. And all that flows from such a position is, as per definition, virtuous.
Hannah Arendt reminds us that those who seek absolute justice, according to their own selective pity, like Robespierre, would say: “Par pitié, par amour pour l’humanité, soyez inhumains! ” . It is an instruction, a moral duty, for those who seek justice, to employ any means possible, including the means of lying, slandering of innocents, manufacturing of false facts, and justifying murder. From the injunction to be inhuman in the pursuit of justice, it was but a step to the implementation of mass terrorism. But nothing could stir real, human, pity in the hearts of the great Terror architects of the French revolution because, as with every radical seeking "justice" since, they were convinced they had God on their side. They didn't call that absolute omniscient moral authority under which they acted "God" but it was and remains, just as powerful as any God you might stumble across: not to be questioned or thwarted.
Thus we have all sorts of moral paradoxes done in the name of universal justice, including the delusion of promoting "anti-racism" with openly declared racism of a different stroke.
And here are two other examples I came across, today's yield of the poisons trapped in the mud:
@ Eye on a crazy planet: At the University of Toronto, students are indulged when they count Jews and their professors make excuses for antisemitism:
My comment, awaiting moderation approval:
"After rewarding Janet Peto's anti-Semitic thesis, U of T continues to prove that anti-Semitism is wrong unless it's taught at the graduate level by 'educated' professors."
I checked out this thesis and stopped reading after a minute, having encountered this first hard fact provided by her:
".. mentioned Baruch Goldstein – the Jewish settler who, in February 1994, had massacred over 50 Palestinians while they were praying at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron."
According to wikipedia:
"Goldstein was an American-born Jewish Israeli physician who perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, killing 29 Muslims at prayer there and wounding another 150."
The very first piece of easily accessible and verifiable information she mentions in her thesis is an exaggeration and a lie.
Why claim Goldstein killed more than 50 when he killed 29? Isn't 29 a large enough quantity of dead bodies to be outraged about? Why the need to lie, then?
What kind of a cause for justice is it that it requires lies to maintain its pathos?
And this fast and loose playing with facts seems to be an acceptable academic form in this university:
"Bhuyan then said the donor plaques at the university were all from rich Jews, which she felt proved her point. Aside from being factually wrong, "
Why "Aside from being factually wrong", as if this were some negligible aspect of academic education? Where will academic institutions be when facts are no longer facts but guesses, rumours, lies and intuitions in the service of the favoured agenda of individual faculty members?
@ Engage: The mover and shaker behind West Dunbartonshire Council’s boycott of Israel contextualizes the beheading of a 3 month old baby:
Banning Israeli (Jewish) books. Justifying the horror of beheading a three months old Israeli (Jewish) baby. What next ?
“Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings.” Heinrich Heine
Councillor Jim Bollan seems to be on his way to that lowest point of no return. And what do you know, all done in the name of universal justice and human rights.
* Wikipedia, footnote # 39:
- Irit Linur's letter (quotation) News First Class (Hebrew)
[a]Translation: it is a person's right to be a radical leftist, and publish a newspaper in accordance with this world view... However Haaretz reached a stage where its anti-Zionism turns too frequently to silly and mean journalism. Original:זכותו של אדם להיות שמאלני-רדיקלי, ולהוציא עיתון בהתאם להשקפת עולמו... אבל "הארץ" הגיע לשלב בו האנטי-ציונות שלו הופכת לעתים קרובות מדי לעיתונות מטופשת ומרושעת.[b]Translation: When Gideon Levy accuses Israel of turning Marwan Barghouti from a peace seeker to an impresario of suicide bombings, it is as logical an interpretation, just as the claim that the wave of attacks on the 11 September were a plot by the Mossad. In a private conversation with him, he told me one time that he would not travel a hundred meters to save the life of a settler, and it seems to me that his loves and hates have been long tainting his heart-rending reports from the occupied Palestinian territories. Original:כשגדעון לוי מאשים את ישראל בהפיכתו של מרואן ברגותי משוחר שלום לאמרגן פיגועי התאבדות, זו פרשנות הגיונית, ממש כמו הטענה שגל הפיגועים ב-11 בספטמבר הוא מזימה של המוסד. בשיחה פרטית איתו, אמר לי פעם שהוא לא היה נוסע מאה מטר כדי להציל את חייו של מתנחל, ונראה לי שאהבותיו
ושנאותיו מכתימות כבר מזמן את דיווחיו הנוגעים ללב מהשטחים הפלשתינים הכבושים.