Tag Archives: moral equivalence

Maybe

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe it’s a start. Regarding the terrorist attack on the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo in Paris that was carried out by Islamic terrorists, President Barack Obama issued this statement:

I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that has reportedly killed 12 people. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time. France is America’s oldest ally, and has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world. Time and again, the French people have stood up for the universal values that generations of our people have defended. France, and the great city of Paris where this outrageous attack took place, offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers. We are in touch with French officials and I have directed my Administration to provide any assistance needed to help bring these terrorists to justice.

Missing from this, though, is any reference to the terrorists as being Muslims or any oblique reference to that by noting that among the things those Islamic terrorists shouted during their rampage, was “We’ve avenged the honor of the prophet!” and the usual Islamic terrorist shout of “Allahu Akbar!”

Still, also missing from the statement is Obama’s usual moral equivalence temporizing by suggesting that Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t have provoked the Muslims in the first place.

Hey, it’s a new year. Maybe Obama is…changing. Condemn me for an optimist.

Separately,CharlieHebdo

Terrorists in the Courtroom

Posted on by
Reply

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said late Tuesday that the state of Palestine will join the International Criminal Court on April 1, a high-stakes move that will enable the Palestinians to pursue war-crimes charges against Israel.

That’s what the AP is reporting (I’ll elide the AP’s cynicism in referring to this organization as a “state”).

Keep in mind, which Ban seems to have chosen not to do, that the terrorist gang based in Gaza, Hamas, merged with the Palestinian Authority into a Unity Government to “govern” both Gaza and areas of the West Bank under the PA flag. Shortly after that merger, the PA last summer launched its 50-day terror war against Israel.

Now, courtesy of Ban and the UN, we’ll have terrorists in the ICC, not as the defendants they should be, but as parties whose opinions actually are taken seriously.

It’s one more reason not to take the International Court seriously.

The PRC’s Territorial Aggrandizement

Posted on by
Reply

This is an example of the People’s Republic of China’s practice of Rule by Law, rather than Rule of Law.

Among other moves and countermoves involving the PRC’s attempts to seize and annex the South China Sea, here at the expense of the Republic of the Philippines, the latter haled the former into arbitration under the UN’s Law of the Sea Convention. The proximate case was the PRC’s military aggression against the RP over Scarborough Shoal, a collection of islands and rich fishing waters well within the RP’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

After first denying the legitimacy of arbitration at all, now the PRC is arguing that the arbitration panel has no jurisdiction in the matter because the dispute involves the PRC’s “territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention.”

Sure. The PRC has claimed the Sea, therefore the Sea is the PRC’s. By law. Because the Law of the Sea Convention doesn’t interfere with sovereign territory.

Do We Want To Do Business with Racist Europe?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s a bit polemic, but this is an important matter.

Leicester City Council in England last month voted to boycott goods made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. All services run by the council will be free of any product or technology made in any of the settlements. The motion “condemns the Government of Israel for its continuing illegal occupation of Palestine’s East Jerusalem and the West Bank” and resolves “to boycott any produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements.”

And more “Zionistfrei:”

Pro-Palestinian campaigners lobbied the town’s [Kinvara, Ireland] retailers, restaurants and cafes to expunge from their premises anything produced in Israel. All the businesses agreed, meaning Kinvara is now, in the eyes of anti-Israel agitators, morally pure. It is held up as a model town by numerous European backers of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, movement.

And

[T]he French city of Lille in October ripped up its twinning accord with the Israeli city of Safed.

And on and on.

Never mind that the Palestinian Unity Government is sworn to the destruction of Israel, and Iran has as its paramount national goal the erasure of Israel from the map. Their “product or technology” are jake in Leicester City, Great Britain, and elsewhere in Europe.

Shades of Europe’s Judenfrei of the last century.

John Kerry’s Crocodile Tears

Posted on by
Reply

Motorboat skipper, accuser of the American military as war criminals, and Secretary of State John Kerry had this to say about the recent Palestinian terrorist attack on an Israeli synagogue in Jerusalem:

“Innocent people who had come to worship died in the sanctuary of a synagogue,” Kerry said, his voice quavering [quavering!]. “They were hatcheted, hacked and murdered in that holy place in an act of pure terror and senseless brutality and murder. I call on Palestinians at every single level of leadership to condemn this in the most powerful terms.

He had these things, though, just prior to, and during the Israelis’ defense against the Palestinians’ terror war last summer. First, his…suggestion…that Israel was flirting with apartheid:

…a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state.

Then his “peace” proposal for that war, presented as a fait accompli to Israel, had this:

The document recognized Hamas’ position in the Gaza Strip, promised the organization billions in donation funds and demanded no dismantling of rockets, tunnels or other heavy weaponry at Hamas’ disposal.

And his “negotiations” kept putting those Palestinian terrorists on the same moral plain as an Israel defending itself against those terrorists.

Kerry is Grubering us. And in a most shameful way, that makes Jonathan Gruber look like an altar boy.