This past weekend saw yet another display of anti-Semitism by the allegedly peaceful anti-war crowd. In true form, the S.F. Chronicle features an article that states in part:
"As they neared the Embarcadero, the protesters ran into about 500 pro- Israel demonstrators, waving Israeli and American flags, and protesting what they see as an anti-Israel message from the anti-war protests."
Note the phrase "protesting what they see as an anti-Israel message". This is a nice turn of phrase that suggests that somehow there is room for debating the fact that a crowd, carrying signs such as this one, is promoting anything other than an anti-Israeli message.
I have, to date, resisted the urge to travel to San Francisco and take part in any counterprotests, opting instead to use the written word as my means of communicating a pro-Israel point of view. No matter how much history, logic, common sense and facts you throw at these people, they continue to misrepresent Israel and the United States as the cause of Muslim terrorism. I thus far have failed to see how a counter-protest might do any good. Never was this point more clearly demonstrated to me than with a personal incident that occurred this weekend. I finally and emphatically severed ties with a "friend" of mine who has repeatedly shown a complete lack of respect for my pro-Israeli stance by repeatedly and virulently attacking my core belief system and, as he put it, "my consistent anti-Americanism and dual allegiance". No matter what facts I have presented to this individual over the years, his response has been to attack me as "bigoted", narrow-minded" and, incredibly, an "Israeli Jihadist". I have, however, decided that perhaps some good purpose might be served in joining pro-Israeli protesters as Israel needs all the PR she can get right now. And a little help for the United States wouldn't hurt either.
Posted by Mark D. Firestone at June 8, 2004 05:18 AM | TrackBackCounterprotests won't convert any barking moonbats, but they might bring about media attention that will help more people understand just how vile these characters are.
What really needs to happen is to get this information out to newspapers in mid-sized cities and small towns. The NYT and WashPost aren't the only papers that matter.
Posted by: David Foster at June 8, 2004 08:22 AM (Permalink)I recently attended the ANSWER anti-war protest in San Francisco on Saturday, but I was there as a Protestwarrior (counter-protest). I've posted my experience on my website (http://www.belowstreetlevel.com/archives/00000474.htm), and the story has been picked up by Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11313_Stop_War_End_Racism_Kill_Americans) amongst others.
What has been most compelling to readers is a photograph I took of an ANSWER protestor holding up a flyer which read, "Support armed resistance in Iraq." That message refutes the ostentatious claims of these protestors that they both support the troops and oppose the war.
In fact, much of what ANSWER hopes to do is project the image that the anti-war stance is more popular than it is. When we go to these protests and challenge the protestors and when we document the messages they embrace, we move cut through the political posturing to the core of just exactly what these people believe.
I'm very sensitive to censorship, even if I think the attitude reflected in this woman's sign is atrocious, but if we Americans reject her message without the government, we don't need to resort to censorship and her and others like her can be effectively alienated from the American Polity, just as other unpopular movements have fallen to the side throughout American history.
Until one of them actually moves to organize insurrection or material support for our enemy, I don't want to see the government involved, but as I've indicated that puts a lot of responsibility on Americans to oppose those views and make clear not only to our media, government and system that we oppose these views but to the world as well. Then we will negate any comforting effect it has on our enemies.
That, in my view, is democracy at work: in the power of the people.
My purpose in posting my experience and the photos I took at the event were to hold these protestors accountable for their demands beyond what the protest organizers intend to achieve in publicity. I encourage you to broadcast this image if you agree, but you should know that simply in challenging these protests in counter-protests we have managed to garner some media attention ourselves and disrupt the goals of ANSWER. I've received replies from both liberals and conservatives about how ANSWER has adulterated and stripped the integrity of any legitimate criticism for the war in Iraq, and as I wrote, getting our message out at the rallies and elsewhere is having effects.
I recently attended the ANSWER anti-war protest in San Francisco on Saturday, but I was there as a Protestwarrior (counter-protest). I've posted my experience on my website (http://www.belowstreetlevel.com/archives/00000474.htm), and the story has been picked up by Little Green Footballs (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11313_Stop_War_End_Racism_Kill_Americans) amongst others.
What has been most compelling to readers is a photograph I took of an ANSWER protestor holding up a flyer which read, "Support armed resistance in Iraq." That message refutes the ostentatious claims of these protestors that they both support the troops and oppose the war.
In fact, much of what ANSWER hopes to do is project the image that the anti-war stance is more popular than it is. When we go to these protests and challenge the protestors and when we document the messages they embrace, we move cut through the political posturing to the core of just exactly what these people believe.
I'm very sensitive to censorship, even if I think the attitude reflected in this woman's sign is atrocious, but if we Americans reject her message without the government, we don't need to resort to censorship and her and others like her can be effectively alienated from the American Polity, just as other unpopular movements have fallen to the side throughout American history.
Until one of them actually moves to organize insurrection or material support for our enemy, I don't want to see the government involved, but as I've indicated that puts a lot of responsibility on Americans to oppose those views and make clear not only to our media, government and system that we oppose these views but to the world as well. Then we will negate any comforting effect it has on our enemies.
That, in my view, is democracy at work: in the power of the people.
My purpose in posting my experience and the photos I took at the event were to hold these protestors accountable for their demands beyond what the protest organizers intend to achieve in publicity. I encourage you to broadcast this image if you agree, but you should know that simply in challenging these protests in counter-protests we have managed to garner some media attention ourselves and disrupt the goals of ANSWER. I've received replies from both liberals and conservatives about how ANSWER has adulterated and stripped the integrity of any legitimate criticism for the war in Iraq, and as I wrote, getting our message out at the rallies and elsewhere is having effects.
Darn, I'm sorry *blushes*, I must have been too excited and clicked twice....
Posted by: Zachariah at June 8, 2004 02:59 PM (Permalink)Man, I hate the way these people rewrite history to suit their vile purposes. Israel bashing is nothing new.
Of course these "peaceful people" don't help matters by clearly holding the viewpoint that Israel must be pushed into the sea. Not exactly the stuff good neighbors are made up.
The guy in the picture, truely scary. But no one will remember he showed up before in Munich in the thirties.
Posted by: rs at June 9, 2004 09:01 AM (Permalink)He's Really NOT Ringo Starr with a Towel on His Head
Thanks to Mike Evans for this history reminder:
Below is an important reminder. Why? Because it's true, and if enough people read
it, it's possible that the American government could try Yasser Arafat for murder.
There is no statute of limitations on murder.
June 5, 1968 - The Anniversary of the Day a Terrorist Killed a Presidential Candidate
In 1968, Robert Kennedy ran for President on the Democratic ticket. In June 1968,
he took his campaign to California. In fact, he won the Californian primary on June
5, 1968, the anniversary of the outbreak of the Six-Day War. Kennedy's staff
requested a photo opportunity with Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff in Israel
during that war and was then Israel's.
Ambassador to the U.S., to commemorate the day. However, that photo opportunity
never took place. On that evening, Kennedy was shot to death by a young
Jerusalem-born Muslim named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. As Rabin wrote in his memoirs:
"The American people were so dazed by what they perceived as the senseless act of a
madman that they could not begin to fathom its political significance."
What was its political significance? According to a report made by a special counsel
to the L.A. County District Attorney's office, Sirhan shot Kennedy for his support
of Israel, and had been planning the assassination for months. In an outburst during
his trial, he confessed, "I killed Robert Kennedy willfully, premeditatedly, and
with twenty years of malice aforethought." [Twenty years, of course, date back to
Israel's declaration of nationhood in 1948.] In a notebook found in Sirhan's
apartment, investigators found a passage written on May 18, 1968 at 9:45 AM: "Robert
F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68."- the first anniversary of the
beginning of the Six-Day War.
It is well known that Robert Kennedy, John's Attorney General and younger brother,
was also one of the President's most trusted advisors. What isn't so well known is
that it was a younger Robert Kennedy, fresh out of Harvard and reporting for the
Boston Post, who was in Israel when she declared herself a nation, and through the
early days of her War for Independence. The Kennedy brothers also went to Israel in
1951 on a seven-week congressional tour of the Middle East. They left with a further
respect for the young country's willingness to "bear any burden" in pursuit of their
dreams. It seems likely that President Kennedy saw in the young country the friend
in the Middle East he had really been looking for-a friend worthy of the dreams of
Camelot.
When Robert first met with Shimon Peres during the negotiations over the Hawk
Missile purchase, the memory of Robert's 1948 visit was the first thing they talked
about. The second was Israel's desire to break America's "elegant arms embargo." [3]
It seems unlikely that Robert didn't exert at least some influence on Peres' behalf
to allow Israel to acquire the Hawk. Others saw Robert's influence in this decision
as something that Arabs of the world could do without-especially after the U.S. arms
purchased by Israel helped it win the Six-Day War of 1967. If the young Kennedy was
to be despised for helping to end the arms embargo as the Attorney General, how much
more would he be a problem as the President?
When Yasser Arafat's Black September terrorist stormed the Saudi Embassy in Khartoum
in March of 1973 and took US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Charge d'Affaires George Curtis
Moore, and others hostage, Sirhan's release was one of their main demands. On March
2, 1973, after Nixon rejected that demand, Arafat was overheard and recorded by
Israeli intelligence and the U.S. National Security Agency giving the code words for
the execution of Noel, Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, who were shot to death.
James Welsh, a Palestinian analyst for the N.S.A., went public with charges of a
cover-up of Arafat's key role in the planning and execution of these kidnappings and
murders. (There is no statute of limitations on murder.) If Sirhan had acted
independently of the P.L.O., why were they willing to kill Americans to try to gain
his freedom?