Alan K. Henderson's Weblog

HOME   |   BLOGGER PROFILE   |   BLOGROLL  MAP   |   HENDERSON  PRIZE   |   EMAIL

COMMENTS TEMPORARILY CLOSED - MIGRATING FROM HALOSCAN/ECHO TO DISQUS
Old comments migrated to Disqus, currently working outtechnical issues

Thursday, August 18, 2005

 
FrontPage Magazine Double-Header

David Horowitz has some things to say in the wake of the Gaza pullout:

Palestinian Arabs and indeed all the Arab states of the Middle East hate Jews. They hate Jews so ferociously that they can't live alongside them. Not even if there are 8,000 Jews living among 2 million Arabs. There is not an Arab state or an Arab controlled piece of territory in the Middle East that will allow one Jew to live in or on it...

The ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the Middle East began in 1921 when Churchill created the state of Jordan out of 80% of the Palestine mandate. The order creating the state of Jordan said no Jew is allowed to live on this land. That was what the Arabs wanted. No Jew should dirty this land. Seventy-percent of the population of Jordan is Palestinian Arabs. But they don't want Jordan as their Palestinian state because there are no Jews there to drive into the sea. Palestinians have shown twice -- in 1948 and again in 2000 that they want to kill Jews more than they want a Palestinian state. Jew-hatred is the cause of the Middle East conflict and it is the only reason the Jews in Gaza are an issue at all.

LGF notes how the Palestinians are celebrating:

The United Nations bankrolled the production of thousands of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the slogan "Today Gaza and Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem," which have been widely distributed to Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip, according to a U.N. official.

Back to FPM. Cindy Sheehan (who is probably celebrating the pullout as well) has received a lot of harsh criticism during her fifteen minutes of fame. Ann Coulter is nice by comparison. She begins with a summary of the goals of the war:

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9-11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9-11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Ann proceeds to rip apart an anti-intellectual argument from one of our favorites of the lapdog press:

As Maureen Dowd said, it's "inhumane" for Bush not "to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."...

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she's pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there's a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

This statement encapsulates the vacuousness of Sheehan's supporters:

But now liberals demand that we listen to the same old arguments all over again, not because Sheehan has any new insights, but because she has the ability to repel dissent by citing her grief.

Read 'em both.

Update: What was it that Maureen said about children killed in Iraq?




Site Meter


Blogger