Blimp deflator: Letting out the gas

Crescent International, May 2010

Posted in uncategorized by Blimp deflator on May 23, 2010

Crescent International, May 2010Australia/Israel Review, May 2010
The May edition of Crescent International includes articles headlined “Obama’s nuclear hypocrisy exposed”, “Zionist Israel: the root cause of Middle East conflict”, “Zionist Israel: a colonial settler-squatter entity”, “What is Israel up to in the Caucasus?”, “Plight of the Roma Muslims in Bulgaria”, “Sarkozy wants complete ban on niqab in France”, and “Peak oil and the rise of political fascism”.

In “Zionist Israel: a colonial settler-squatter entity”, Zafar Bangash asks: “…how did political Zionism, a racist colonial enterprise, succeed in establishing intself in the heartland of Islam despite strong opposition from leading rabbis and the indigenous population of Palestine?”

Meanwhile, Australia/Israel Review asks, rhetorically: “What will happen when Iran gets the bomb?” Well, the first thing that will happen, assuming Iran does get the bomb, is that Israel will lose some of its untrammeled ability to threaten its neighbors.


Crescent International, April 2010

Posted in uncategorized by Blimp deflator on May 22, 2010

Crescent International, April 2010
Australia/Israel Review, April 2010
April’s edition of Crescent International contains articles headlined “The Afghans’ long agony and resistance”, “Zionist, Arabian rulers aligned against Islamic Iran”, “The Vatican’s child-molesting priests”, “Islamic movement needs to challenge the universal myth of democracy”, “Dilemma of democracy facing Muslims in Britain”, “Is Somalia’s ‘president’ a nationalist or agent of Western interventionists?” and “Dubai’s strange history and stranger investors”.

In the article on Muslims in Britain, which discusses the reactions of the police to the demonstrations against “the Israeli slaughter in Gaza last year”, Fahad Ansari notes:

“What is clear is that despite tens of thousands of people from all religions and backgrounds attending the demonstrations and being involved in aggressive behavior that followed, all but two of those arrested were Muslims. What is also clear is that the trouble at the Gaza riots was nowhere near the scale of violence witnessed at the G20 protests, where a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland was looted, yet only 20 people were charged for offences committed at that demonstration. The police response to Muslim protesters has been wholly disproportionate and seems intentionally designed to deter Muslims from protesting or demonstrating in future.”

In the April edition of Australia/Israel Review, there is an attempt by Bren Carlill, in an article headlined “A job well done” about the assassination of Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai, to justify Israel’s “apparent disregard” for what Carlill describes as “legal niceties” in its pursuit of security. (Note that the disregard is only “apparent” in Carlill’s view.) But of course, if you dispense with the rule of law and make security the highest good, you can resort to almost any expediency and come up with a rationale that speciously justifies it. You have to remember, though, that you can’t reasonably complain if the other side does likewise — unless you maintain that you and your rights are intrinsically superior to all others.

He goes on to claim that “any Israeli government that disregarded prohibitions against targeting civilians, and other laws of war, would … rightly be voted out” — as if Israeli governments didn’t get away with such violations all the time. Does he really think that all those Israelis who supported the attack on Gaza last year (nearly 90 percent of the population, according to Israeli public opinion polls) were worried by the deaths of 1,000+ Gazan civilians, or would have been concerned if another 1,000, or even 10,000, civilians had been killed? Besides, at the end of the day Israel would have claimed, regardless of the toll, that the civilians weren’t actually “targeted”. There would have been yet more of that trademark ballyhoo about the civilians having been warned to evacuate certain areas in advance of the attacks.

The reality is that Israel can kill as many civilians as it likes, whenever it likes, and then say the deaths were “inadvertent” or “accidental” — or come out with the usual nonsense about Palestinian “terrorists” being responsible for the deaths through their alleged use of civilians as “human shields”. (I haven’t seen any evidence of Palestinian fighters using civilians in this way. I have, however, seen evidence of Israeli soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields.) It is not for nothing that Israel’s critics often focus on its “culture of impunity”.

It is axiomatic, in the Zionist narrative, that the victims of Zionism are always responsible, directly or indirectly, for their own suffering. And anyway, non-Jewish suffering cannot be compared with Jewish suffering, which is indisputably more poignant.

Intrepid John Key arrives in Kabul

Posted in new zealand by Blimp deflator on May 4, 2010

Intrepid John Key arrives in Kabul
This is the main picture on the front page of today’s Dominion Post. The kicker to the caption reads, “In the firing line”. Whew! You can almost hear the bullets whistling overhead. Just as well our heroic PM had the foresight to don a flak jacket.

In the story under the picture, headlined “Key makes secret visit to war zone”, the intrepid John Key is quoted as saying, “This is a dangerous place and I am asking New Zealanders to come here and represent New Zealand but, ultimately in doing that, to put their own lives on the line and I am not prepared to send people to a destination I am not prepared to come myself”.

Not exactly an elegant sentence.