Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Catholic Friends of Israel on Gaza Freedom Flotilla

Christopher Blosser, "Israel Confronts the Gaza Freedom Flotilla" (Catholic Friends of Israel, June 1, 2010) -- a continuously updated report and commentary offering an alternative to leftist anti-Israeli accounts.

Update:

Flotilla Choir presents: We Con the World

Related: Charles Krauthammer, "Those Troublesome Jews" (The Washington Post, June 4, 2010).


24 comments:








I am not Spartacus

said...

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

The Prof has a guide that the Pro-Israel folks appear to have memorised.





Anon

said...

Dr. Blosser...

I am glad to have a source of new that differs from the "leftist" mainstream media... but anti-Zionism is far from being a leftist ideology. As Catholics why are we to support a Jewish State? (I fully support Israels right to defend itself as I would support all nations to defend itself.)





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Oh Thou who are everyone but Spartacus, what is Thy point?

Anon, if you fully support Israel's right to defend itself as you would support all nations' rights to defend themselves, then are you not (in that way) supporting the Jewish State? What more did I ask for, implicitly, than fairness.

I don't think anyone acquainted with Catholic history since the early Middle Ages would be concerned that the Catholics have ever entertained a preferential option for Jews over their other neighbors. Jews have been blamed, often with claimed biblical support, and punished in pogroms, for being "Christ killers." They have been targeted by extremist conspiracy-theorist fringes of Catholic traditionalism as the elite master minds behind the emerging secular New World Order. I have a distant in-law relative who was the CEO of JP Morgan for a time, and blames Israeli Jews for being the source of the entire Middle Eastern conflict. Are these proper attitudes for Catholics?

What Catholics ought to concern themselves with is fully informing themselves and honestly seeking a fair and just assessment of the conflict in the Middle East. Sadly, the knee-jerk PC drive by media have fed the public a steady diet of distortions that have made sorting out fact from fiction a difficult task, the burden of which has been unfairly foisted upon the private individual. What can I say? Diversify your news portfolios!





Pertinacious Papist

said...

This flotilla was a blatant provocation from start to finish. I listened this morning to about 40 minutes of BBC, which gave nonstop coverage to the event -- you guessed it, with not a single interview of an Israeli and with the decided impression that this was incontrovertibly a one-sided imperialistic provocation by the Israelis of innocent, peaceful supporters of oppressed Palestinians in Gaza bringing humanitarian aid. Not quite the whole picture.

This isn't to say that we should not be equally concerned when and if Israel oversteps its bounds in human rights violations. But the shoe here is quite on the other foot. Any friends of truth and honesty out there?





Anon

said...

Sir,

I make a distinction between a state defending itself, and the state itself. Take China for example... IF they were in a situation to be attacked, I believe they have the right to defend themselves. I believe this applies regardless if they provoked the attack or not. (Hindsight ... my wording was awkward, and a bit of a truism.)

I am against antisemitism or any other form of uncharitable action or hatred.

I do believe that Zionism is not as much about the people of Judaism and their religion as it is about individuals gaining property under false pretenses. (This is what I am not supportive of.) I am thankful for the way the Israeli government has allowed Christianity to exist within its borders.

I have noted that what I do not support has already happened... and is thus futile to spend a lot of time on. I also highly respect your grasp of various subjects that you blog about, so I plan to "Diversify my news Portfolio."

I do hesitate with your son's blog because it seems to have a strong Zionist bias that I do not support. However, with my pledge to diversify I will continue to read with an open mind. (Besides... I have given up on the liberal news media long ago.. I have to get my news some place!)

Very Respectfully,
-Anon





Lutheran

said...

Isn't this yet another situation in which, here, the Israelis must be certain 100% of the time in keeping safe, while any direct terrorist threat amongst these sympathizers to Hamas and thus Iran need only be certain once?

In addition, how is Gaza so completely pure? They had their say. They voted. And for whom did they vote and accept the election results?

And Israel is supposed to remain the good, quiet little boys and girls sitting on their hands and being lectured to? Again by whom?





Pertinacious Papist

said...

All good, Mr. Anon. The only think about which I might cavil is the statement about my son's blog's "Zionist" bent. This is one of some dozen or so blogs he devotes to various causes; but you may wish to take this question up with him. God bless.

Lutheran, it's good to hear from you again, and, yes, I agree.





Christopher

said...

"I do hesitate with your son's blog because it seems to have a strong Zionist bias that I do not support."

Speaking as Dr. Blosser's son, you may want to read the founding principles of the group 'Catholic Friends of Israel' and an interview with Don Kenner, who founded it.

As far as 'Zionism' goes, while it's not a principle of my Catholic faith, I'm proud to say, along with Pope John Paul II: "It must be understood that Jews, who for 2,000 years were dispersed among the nations of the world, had decided to return to the land of their ancestors. This is their right."





I am not Spartacus

said...

Oh Thou who are everyone but Spartacus, what is Thy point?

LOL. I Love the re-working of my S/N

The point of providing the link was to illustrate that all defenses of Israel seem to based on one (but freq more) of those points.

I thought it was interesting.

I think Israel was wrong to do what it did but I will have to wait for the investigation, conducted by Israel, to see if they were wrong to shoot an American born man in the head four times.

I also think it interesting and savagely pathetic that an inane comment by Sir Paul McCartney was publicly responded to negatively by more than a few Senators and Congressmen yet I have not heard one Senator or Congressman object to Israel slaughtering an American born man in international waters.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

ASpartacus,

Good point about waiting until the reports are all in and the smoke cleared before making any conclusive judgment about these matters, including why the American was shot four times in the head. Circumstantially it would make some difference if he was (a) an innocent peaceful observer who was viciously assaulted and egregiously shot without provocation, four times in the head, or (b) someone who viciously attacked IDF agents using chains, pipes and knives to beat and stab them, and was shot by a burst of defensive automatic weapons fire.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Even while the propagandistic justifications for the action are being drafted, and even before Rush, Beck, Hannity, The Weekly Standard, Fox News, Daniel Schoor and Charles Krauthammer start trumpeting the conclusion of the "investigation" that Israel was a victim and fully justified in what it did, I want to go on record as saying I totally agree with Israel.

Always.

I mean, I was learnt not to trust my govt, but, when it comes to Israel, the only ones who don't trust them are holocaust deniers and antisemites.

I do think the action has the potential to upset Turkey and Israel's jointly cooperative influence peddling-spying operation in Washington that was cobbled-together by Feith, Perle, and our other rational neo-cons.

Circumstantially it would make some difference if he was..

Tomorrow is the 33rd Anniversary of Israel's attack on the USS Liberty.

Nine Americans know about it and seven of those agree with Israeli lies that the attack was an accident.

NOTHING that Israel does is ever wrong.

Thanks to the Chiliasm of our separated brethren, Israel is accorded an irrevocable political indulgence to be applied whenever necessary -even retroactively.

Thus, if an Israeli Commando fires four bullets into the head of an American born youth on a ship in international waters, we have to wait for ISRAEL to investigate to decide whether or not the Commando had cause to do so.

Gee, do you think Israel will conclude that its Commando had just cause?

There is a better chance the next Pope will be named Midori than is the chance Israel's, um, investigation, will conclude the Commando had no justification for his act.

No terrorist contraband on board. No militaristic cargo anywhere to be found on the ship. Israel confiscated all of cameras of the passengers and Israel would not let the media interview any of the the passengers.

When will Israel ever get a fair shake in the West?





Jordanes

said...

About that U.S. citizen who got himself shot four times in the head, this is from James Taranto today:

****

Israel-haters are making much of the fact that one of the Turkish "humanitarians" killed last week while attempting to break Israel's naval blockade of Hamas was a U.S. citizen. This, however, was by accident of birth: Furkan Dogan was born in Troy, N.Y., but his parents were Turkish and he grew up in Turkey.

'His brother, Mustafa, told the Turkish news media that he was 'clean-hearted with a happy face,' " the New York Times reported Friday. But a report from the Middle East Research Institute says he was far from the all-American boy the Israel-haters are making him out to be. Memri quotes Hussein Orish of IHH, the Turkish outfit that instigated the flotilla:

"One of the martyrs was 19 years old. We've just found his last diary in his suitcase. The last lines he wrote before the attack were: 'Only a short time left before martyrdom. This is the most important stage of my life. Nothing is more beautiful than martyrdom, except for one's love for one's mother. But I don't know what is sweeter--my mother or martyrdom.' This was the last thing that the martyr Furkan wrote, and the last thing said by our brothers. . . ."

"Clean-hearted" indeed!

*******

Several of these "humanitarians" were videotaped shouting, "Go back to Auschwitz!" to the Israeli sailors. Israel mishandled this operation, but let's not kid ourselves for a moment that the people on that convoy had any other goal but the assistance of anti-semitic terrorism.





Anonymous

said...

I think that Israel was deliberately set up by this flotilla. Now the news that Iran will be escorting the next such ship is even more disturbing.
I have a question though. My diocesan paper ran a report saying that the Pope deplored the Israeli action. But why would the Pope say that when it is obvious that Hamas, etc., was trying to smuggle in guns and other weapons? What's going on with Papal support of the Palestianians? I mean this in a respectful way. It just puzzles me.





I am not Spartacus

said...

The last lines he wrote before the attack were: 'Only a short time left before martyrdom. This is the most important stage of my life. Nothing is more beautiful than martyrdom, except for one's love for one's mother. But I don't know what is sweeter--my mother or martyrdom.


Yes. Objectively, quite noble sentiments.

From what I have been able to gather at Google, Furkan does indeed seem to have been a young man with a clean heart.

However, even if he did not have a clean heart, and even if he stayed in America for only two years after he was born here, in what way was Israel justified in shooting him in the head four times?

Even Israeli-Firsters are not claiming he was armed.

No, the "defense" of the indefensible is an attack on the person and character of an unarmed victim of Israeli violence.

He got..." himself shot four times in the head."

Far from being considered culpable, Israel ought be praised for helping him to achieve martyrdom; I guess.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

NonSparticus,

What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? If Zionists are guilty of prejudging cases, you seem no less intent on placing blame before its proper locus is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, you may know facts that I don't ... ?





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Dr. I think we both know the "investigation" will reveal there was cause for the Commandos to kill the kid.

Justin Raimondo's has a piece at Buchanan's Blog that has internal links to places that publish the 1st hand reports of other Americans on board the ship and those Americans state that Israel Commandos began shooting before boarding the ship in international waters.

http://buchanan.org/blog/our-enemies-the-israelis-4184

And, I think most folks now know that Israel confiscated the movie and still photo cameras of the passengers but few folks know that Israel took the passengers into custody and beat the crap out of some of them.

Now, many of us can predict what the "investigation" will conclude simply by remembering the past and how Israel has gotten away with murder.

Repeatedly.

How any of this benefits the Govt of these United States and American citizens is beyond me.

Israel is an anchor not an ally.

So, we can wait for the results of the "investigation" but we both know what that investigation will - eventually, many months from now - conclude.

There is not one sentient American who thinks the "investigation" will conclude the Commando killed the kid without justification.





Jordanes

said...

Yes. Objectively, quite noble sentiments.

There is nothing noble about intending to provoke someone you hate into killing you. Suicide is not a noble sentiment.

From what I have been able to gather at Google, Furkan does indeed seem to have been a young man with a clean heart.

Impossible. He was Muslim, not a Christian.

However, even if he did not have a clean heart, and even if he stayed in America for only two years after he was born here, in what way was Israel justified in shooting him in the head four times?

I don't know that they were justified in shooting him to death. He was, however, participating in an act of hostility, hoping to break Israel's and Egypt's blockade of Gaza so anti-semitic terrorists would better be able to murder Jews.

Rachel Corrie wasn't armed either, and the bulldozer driver wasn't justified in accidentally running over her -- but when you deliberately and stupidly stand in front of a moving bulldozer, you're likely to get yourself killed. In the same way, if you join a hostile effort that seeks to get in the face of armed Israelis, you're likely to get yourself shot. Shooting Furkan may not have been justified, but he knew it was something that could happen, and his fanaticism led him to regard suicide as a divine grace.

No, the "defense" of the indefensible is an attack on the person and character of an unarmed victim of Israeli violence.

The facts speak for themselves. He was far more a victim of his false religion and political prejudices than he was a victim of Israel's self-defense.

Far from being considered culpable, Israel ought be praised for helping him to achieve martyrdom; I guess.

Sure, in the twisted logic of Islam, I suppose one could say that people should be thanking Israel for fulfilling Furkan's desire to go to Paradise.





Sheldon

said...

I am not Spartacus (what a tedious moniker) writes:

"Israel has gotten away with murder.

"Repeatedly.

"Israel is an anchor not an ally."

Oh? Do tell. All of which goes to show that you have not yet answered the good Doctor's question yet: "What ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'"?





I am not Spartacus

said...

Sheldon asks:"What ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'"?


I'm with Bibi. Declare innocence before the phony investigation and beat the rush to false judgment.

Foregone Conclusion: Netanyahu Promises Probe Will Vindicate Aid Ship Attack

US to 'Stand Behind' Israeli Probe's Results

by Jason Ditz, June 14, 2010


The Israeli government’s newly approved inquiry commission may not have even begun investigating the attack on the Gaza-bound aid ship, but the results of the inquiry are already plain, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu promised that the probe would “make it clear to the world that Israel is acting legally, responsibly, and with complete transparency.”





Anon

said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwsMJmvS0AY

Thought that link was relative to the conversation. Honestly I do not think the video says who was at fault... but then that may not actually be the point.





Anon

said...

Mr. (Christopher) Blossesr,

Thank you for addressing me here. Before I posted on this particular blog thread I did read the founding principles. They were the primary reason why I commented. I have not read the interview yet, but I will.

Help me to understand why "This is their right." Thank you for the quote from JPII.

(As a side note, I should not have said "your son's blog." It is very abrasive even if it was not meant to be. While I have met you on occasion Dr. Blosser, it was improper for me to address the topic in that way.)

-Anon





Anon

said...

(Actually it seems I have already read the Don Kenner interview)





Anon

said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1GG0dyU9Y





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Yes, of course the Church is the "New Israel." I accept that. I also accept that fact that our Bible contains two "testaments," even if one is fulfilled in the other. My judgments about this flotilla, however, are based purely on secular (political and historical) considerations.