Posted on 08/08/2005 5:06:50 AM PDT by SJackson
On December, 7. 1993, an African American gentleman named Colin Ferguson stepped into a car of the Long Island Railroad during rush hour, took out a pistol and sprayed enough bullets to kill six passengers. Eventually, he was tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
But before that, his lawyer, the famed William M. Kunstler, tried to get him off by use of an old liberal tactic, "Root Cause", with a new name, "Black Rage". This killer, Ferguson, was entitled to go bonkers, according to Kunstler, because as a Black man in America, he had been disenfranchised and oppressed.
Liberals love the disenfranchised and the oppressed, and they especially love Root Cause. For everything, in other words, there is a season and a reason.
So, why are they not rushing to the defense of Eden Natan-Zada, the Israeli deserter who indeed committed an absolutely despicable act when he went berserk the other week and killed four Palestinian Arabs? First, the man is dead, so there is no one to defend in court, and second, Jews are not entitled to express themselves through rage. (Though there is a limit, as when the Jewish hornet's nest gets stirred up once too often, and, with vigor that makes the world gasp, the IDF takes on five armies at a time.)
This killer (I hate using his name for all the damage he has done) was ripped apart by an Arab mob, and that is to be expected. We expect that all right, but we do not expect a Jewish guy doing what he did. Still, what about Root Cause? Supposedly, he was ticked off about Ariel Sharon's plan to uproot Jews from Gush Katif in Gaza.
Personally, I don't buy that, because that's the trick the jihadists use; first they kill, then they conveniently find the cause. But suppose this killer really was being oppressed and disenfranchised because of the uprooting? Shouldn't he be defended and remembered as a victim? Where are the liberals when you need them?
They are in hiding. Jews, after all, are held to a higher standard. Just ask the leadership - not the membership, thank goodness - of certain church groups and they will tell you that Jews must be perfect. (Just as perfect as these church leaders themselves.) Anything less than perfection from Israel is unacceptable.
Therefore, as Pharaoh said, "Come, let us deal craftily with them." Hence, the slavery process of yesteryear, to the disengagement process of this year.
"Come, let us punish the Jews, and keep on punishing them, for we know not what we do."
Sharon himself demands perfection above democracy, and thus, three teenage Israeli girls were just released after serving 39 days in prison for protesting peacefully against Sharon's expulsion plan. They were locked up for exercising their democratic rights, which is unlawful in a democracy, according to Sharon's police and judges. Kafka, Ionesco and Orwell saw this coming, though never in a Jewish state.
Condoleezza Rice insists on perfection, and thus demands that Israel immediately hand over thousands of rifles to the same people who vow to annihilate Israel.
The world has thrown a party and Israel will surely comply and behave, because it does not want to be the only guest who uses the wrong fork.
This terrible crime committed by an Israeli against Arabs was, however, a splendid moment for the world, for now we were into moral relativism territory.
Gotcha!
For CNN, the BBC and so many others - what a relief to finally come upon an official, bankable Crazed Settler. Now we can define them all.
This guy, to the pleasure of so many newsrooms, came along just in time, in time to gloat and shout, "Aha! Told ya'! They are not perfect, these Israelis."
So how does Jewish terrorism measure against Arab terrorism?
Well, terrorism fans, it's a draw. Over the past generation, 40 years and more, there's been the killer of just this past week, then Baruch Goldstein, and then Ami Popper, and that's it, the extent of Israeli terrorism. Against this: over the past four-plus years, Arab terrorists have targeted Jewish Israeli civilians more than 25,000 times. They have "succeeded" in murdering more than a thousand Israelis and wounding or maiming more than 10,000.
But the world counts all that as an even score. Actually, no. Wrong. The Israelis have the edge on the terrorism scorecard. Murdered Israelis seldom make the news, even when entire families get wiped out and even after infants in their cribs are shot at point-blank range. They certainly do not merit front page, and when they do, it is in the passive voice - "Four Israelis Shot Dead". (By whom? See page 19, paragraph 16.)
The active voice is reserved for "Jewish Terrorist Kills Four Arabs In Shooting Spree!"
That is to keep reminding us that only Israel is guilty, in a world so blameless.
Whine, whine, whine
But isn't it funny that we didn't expect a mob of white, American commuters to rip Colin Ferguson apart ...
Whine? What world do you live in? he was making the point that when certain folks commit atrocities, the maggots rush to defend them. When an Israeli (or a WASP of American heritage) does something wrong, they get denounced by the same maggots.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
"This killer (I hate using his name for all the damage he has done) was ripped apart by an Arab mob, and that is to be expected."
perhaps if Jews did that to arab terrorists, the Israeli government would not be periodically releasing terrorists in exchange for hostages.
That makes this zionist chick smile.
Interesting point :-).
Ahh - I'm not Jewish either. But I am a very pro-Israel...
"Whine, whine, whine"
Care to elaborate on that?
Care to elaborate on that?
Being a victim and whining about being a victim are not congruent.
Jews have been victims for millenia, but it is only in the last few years that they have bought into 'victimology' and begun to whine instead of either being defiant or stoic.
It is as unattractive on them as it is on everyone else.
SO9
" Being a victim and whining about being a victim are not congruent. Jews have been victims for millenia, but it is only in the last few years that they have bought into 'victimology' and begun to whine instead of either being defiant or stoic.
It is as unattractive on them as it is on everyone else."
I don't see any victimology in this article - just a pointed description and observation about how dissimilarly the MSM treats events.
Stoicism is a philosophy whsays that men should be free from passion and unmoved by life's happenings. Why do you advise that in the face of the slaughter of your countrymen, and the expectation of the world - and yourself - that they should just stoically accept it and not be moved?
Can you quote a few lines of whine, and explain what is being "whined" about?
What is your point, please? Do, elaborate.
Never mind--I saw your post further down the thread. I don't see any victimization in this article and am forced to question your motives.
"I don't see any victimization in this article and am forced to question your motives."
I don't see anything to question in his/her motives.
They're plain as day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.