End is Near - Part II
In August 2001, the UN held a conference on racism at Durban, South Africa. The conference degraded into an antisemitic hatefest, led by nongovenment organizations (NGOs), otherwise known as special interest groups and terrorist organizations. Mary Robinson, no particular friend of the Jewish people, was so shocked that she said "today we are all Jews", in standing against the drumbeat. Of course, she continued in the conference, even though the mood of antisemitism increased as the conference continued. Of all the nations in the world, only 4 withdrew their delegates. 2 small island states (such savages), Israel and the US. However, the US withdrawal effectively nullified the conference, due to the power that it wields in the world. Had the US stayed, it would have legitimized the resolutions that would undoubtedly have passed at that conference. Most US presidents probably would have stayed, even Reagan. However, President Bush stood up against the world, briefly paused to spit at the UN racism, and withdrew US participation.
One month later, many of the snubbed NGOs attacked or celebrated the attack on New York and Washington, the worst since World War II on American soil.
Question:
Would the same people who are saying that Hurricane Katrina was Divine Retribution against the President for Gaza like to say that somehow 9/11 was Divine Retribution for his bravery a Durban? Was G-d siding with bin Laden at that time?
One month later, many of the snubbed NGOs attacked or celebrated the attack on New York and Washington, the worst since World War II on American soil.
Question:
Would the same people who are saying that Hurricane Katrina was Divine Retribution against the President for Gaza like to say that somehow 9/11 was Divine Retribution for his bravery a Durban? Was G-d siding with bin Laden at that time?
posted by Rebeljew at
9:43 AM
15 Comments:
Rebel, I'm getting the impression that you are more out to "rebel" than to promote seriousness. That is the only way I see to explain your jumping at stupidities that no-one else, even from their own community, bothers paying attention to.
Anyone that comes and says that any given event, the more so a natural one, happened for this or that reason, is, to quote Issac Asimov, going out on a limb at the peril of getting a limb or two sawed off. That said, the disappointment in Bush's attitude toward the disengagement is palpable.
President Bush has done many good things. He is certainly a better President for the Jews than Clinton. But then again, JP 2 was a better pope for the Jews than the Clements למיניהם, Pius XII, and plenty others; that does not mean he was a good one. Whatever demands attention out of what he does must be denounced vociferously; today's politicians are rather far from altruistic leanings, and awareness of how any approach will affect PR is a factor. This is why we must remain vocal in protest.
In this particular case though, I take exception; what exactly can we expect from the US, to be more commited to Israel's cause than Israel itself? To go tell Sharon that what he is doing is national suicide? This is the bitter reality of Chilul Hashem...
By
Nathan, at 2:20 PM
This was not necessarily intended as a defense of the US president as much as making the point that you quote in the name of Asimov. See part I as several blogs have begun quoting just that connection between the hurricane and the disengagement. I was simply carrying that ad absurdum, and it is indeed absurd.
By
Rebeljew, at 7:23 PM
well, the point has been made--this particular horse is flogged
By
Anonymous, at 10:58 AM
I understood that much. I do not honestly think that even those who say such things do not mean them seriously. The deeply-felt, more-than-justified disappointment in Bush is what is at play here, finding its expression in ways less as well as more appropriate. Making a point of it seems to me to be picking on someone who on an intellectual level is not your own size.
By
Nathan, at 11:09 AM
I do agree somewhat that no one who says that the disengagement caused the hurricane or whatever similar nonsense doesn't really expect to be taken seriously. They simply think it sounds nice.
A final point however:
Al Qaeda issued statements today attributing the hurricane to G-d's revenge for the US war on terror, for alliance with the Jews, and for the glory of 12th century fundamentalist Islam. Doesn't sound so nice anymore, does it?
By
Rebeljew, at 11:59 AM
rebel. the more OBL goes over the top, the harder it is for anti-Zionist apologists to rationalize terror as an undestandable reaction of the Islamic world to oppression of the Palestinians etc. etc. -- disengagement went forward in any event, housing, btw, has been frozen between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumiim, and, i don't see that gematria or Neturi Karta neo-mystical exorcisms or going to be decisive in how the Kneseet, the Likud, and Israel sort out the next step.
pf
By
Anonymous, at 2:03 PM
but the sharp primacy national religous ascribe to the value of Shlemut Eretz Yisroael-Gaza has been a wake-up call
pf
By
Anonymous, at 2:10 PM
pf
Remember the first incursion into Gaza, 100 feet and then withdrawn under world protest. I am fairly certain the building between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem is a similar tactic.
By
Rebeljew, at 2:33 PM
Rebeljew, which Gaza incursion? in the 2nd intifadah there were deep incursions--but then the disengagement. Are you suggesting that initial plans to connect Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem were a feint? or only temporarily shelved?
pf
By
Anonymous, at 9:18 AM
pf
When Sharon took office, Barak and company had already removed much of the military presence from Gaza. When terror emanated from their, Sharon staged a brief tank incursion, which caused a world uproar and threats in the UN. Sharon withdrew. However, working slowly with the Bush administration, he made deeper incursions. After 9/11, the Bush administration relaxed quite a bit on Israel, and Sharon was able to occupy and clean out Jenin, Belata, Tulkarem, Nablus and other places in "Palestinian territory". The world tried to invent a massacre out of 50 dead terrorists in Jenin, but the difference this time was that the US was not buying it. That began a mantra that had never been heard from a Us administration, "Israel has the right to defend itself."
This is not ancient history.
By
Rebeljew, at 3:40 PM
you make excellent points.
By
Anonymous, at 5:10 PM
There was nothing convinient around that timeframe to blame for 9/11.
Also, 9/11 was so absolutely shocking, nobody would have dared say anything of the sort. Remember, initially, people thought that tens of thousands had been killed.
By
Frummer?????, at 5:10 AM
"There was nothing convinient around that timeframe to blame for 9/11."
If you are of this mindset that you know why G-d did such and such, then there is always something convenient to blame divine retribution on. It does not need to be earth-shaking. And people have phenomenally poor memories. But if you are worked up about something, it seems that the whole world revolves around it. Witness some of the "proofs" and "evidence" for astrology, psychics, Nostradamus, or even goral (like the latter day Chabad custom of "igros"). All operate on the priniciple of egocentrism.
By
Rebeljew, at 7:01 AM
I would add that today in New Orleans, the local government is now going to remove residents BY FORCE, IF NECESSARY. The prophets will always have some similarity to hang their hats on. For Gaza hawks, it is G-d's retribution for that. For Islamists, it is retribution for the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan and the anarchy is retribution for removing Sadam and the Taliban. For Panther fans, it is retribution for the last Saints victory. For environmentalists, it is retribution for government destruction of some type of algae.
By
Rebeljew, at 7:08 AM
i like your blogs colour scheme
By
Ittay, at 9:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home