Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Loser vs talent = Minto vs Peer

According to the NZ Herald, John Minto, a mediocrity, locally known Marxist, has decided to pick on Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer. Why? Because Minto opposes Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (never uttering a word of criticism of the Palestinian authorities or Hamas of course). A pathetic little man who tries to paint a private citizen as representing the politics of Israel. What a welcome!

Does Minto protest Iranians because the Iranian regime murders political opponents, homosexuals, rigs elections and is seeking nuclear weapons? No, because it's "anti-American".

Does Minto protest Zimbabweans because of the Mugabe regime? No. He has little time for Mugabe today, but once was a cheerleader for this proven murderous thug - when it was de riguer to say he was a "hero".

Does Minto get fired up about North Korea, which imprisons and enslaves young children for the political "crimes" of their elders? No.

Did Minto damn the use of violence for political means in a liberal democracy? No, and no less than fellow socialist Chris Trotter damned him for it.

He's a very selective moralist. He protests regimes that have ties to the West, protests regimes that open up to trade and capitalism. He keeps his mouth shut and stays away from protesting those that seek destruction of Western civilisation and capitalism. He didn't even note the passing of Helen Suzman, one of South Africa's foremost opponents of apartheid, because she was also an opponent of the Marxism of the ANC.

Global Peace and Justice is a Marxist organisation that is avowedly against the values of the United States, opposed to capitalism, open trade, free movement of people, goods and services and happily ignores the tyranny, murder and oppression of freedom of regimes and groups. It is only interested in peace at the price of freedom of religion (for it does not fight Iran or Hamas), and justice meaning taking property through state violence.

As such Minto should be dismissed as the fringe tired old commie that he is, after all what place is there for a man who believes that the reason a few brutally abuse children is because they don't get enough welfare money?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Commie, I don't think I've heard that word since the early 70's. I agree that protesting over the presence of an Israeli competitor at a tennis tournament is a bit off but we are all selective in our criticism. I have yet to hear you criticise China despite the rampant and continuing human rights abuses there. So come on Liberty, steer a straight course on this sort of issue or simply acknowledge that we like some causes more than others and damn the morals of it all. Ian

Gooner said...

Well said Scott. But Minto can choose his fights. It's just that his fights are always juxtaposed with marxism.

libertyscott said...

Anonymous (Ian), maybe if you search my name and Tiananmen Square you'll see something. I note that every year, I've talked about Tibet. Don't damn the morals of it all. I've damned the thug Suharto when he died as well. When am I selective in state abuse of individual liberty please let me know.

Brewerstroupe said...

Libertyscott. I have posted this more comprehensive reply to your post on tumeke.

You say:

"Hamas - which tells children that being a martyr is glorious (Israel doesn't even come within a light year of this), and which promotes a brutalising ideology of religious oppression."

Where did you get this information?

This is from the BBC:
"The pupils at the Holy Family School, Gaza City, all call Manawel Musallam "Abunah" - Our Father in Arabic.
His is a huge family of 1,200 children and, although the school is part-funded by the Vatican, here, as in all of Gaza, Christians are the minority.
Ninety-nine percent of the pupils here are Muslim. This is one of the reasons Fr Musallam says he does not fear the Islamists.

"They should be afraid. Not me," he chuckled. "Their children are under my tutelage, in my school. Hamas mothers and fathers are here at parents' day along with everyone else."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7154134.stm

"Our relationship with Hamas is as people of one nation," Musallam contends. "Hamas doesn't fight religious groups. Its fight is against the Israeli occupation."
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40241

You go on to say:
"Israel cannot compromise with an entity that ..... is allied with the Iranian dictatorship"

Apart from the fact that the government of Iran is one of multiple power centres (The Guardian Council, Majlis, Spiritual Leader, President etc.) and could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a dictatorship, what evidence do you offer for this alliance? Is it weapons that Iran supplies? Food? Building supplies?

Lord Patten writes of the situation in Gaza:

"Gaza however remains in ruins, with thousands of families enduring the winter displaced, many still living in tents beside the rubble of their homes. Almost one year since Israel launched its Operation Cast Lead offensive, the lack of reconstruction in Gaza is not due to any lack of international pledges for assistance. The cause is Israeli policy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/6865254/We-are-failing-Gaza.html

What exactly is it that Iran supplies?

You then say:

" terrorist attacks on Israel proper (which is the territory internationally recognised as being legitimately Israeli territory)."

The right of Palestinians to return to the homes and property from which they were expelled in 1948 is enshrined in U.N. resolution 194. It is also guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
That property comprises around 80% of Israel proper.
Please explain where this fits into your thesis. Would it make any difference to you if it could be shown that Gazans fire rockets onto territory that is owned by them? See:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/sderot.html

mawm said...

The less said about Minto the better. Being in the news is his oxygen.

I'm glad to see someone recognises that valiant woman, Helen Suzman. The diminutive Helen took on the might of the Nat Goverment and singlehandedly shamed them and curbed the excesses of their apartheid policies - just as she critisized the Marxist ANC for theirs. Unfortunately the world, especially the AAM and its fellow travellers, has turned its attention away from that benighted land as it sinks further into post colonial decay and towards a one party 'African democracy'.

libertyscott said...

Brewerstroupe:
Simply look at excerpts from Hamas TV.
So Hamas does NOT want Sharia law? Seriously?

Iran's regime is an autocracy, in that it recently rigged the election result, oppresses those protesting against it, and has long brutally oppressed those seeking secular political pluralism. To ignore this is willful blindness.

Iran has long provided financial and military assistance to Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Palestinians had a chance to run Gaza as an autonomous open trading zone, which would be outwardly focused. Had they done so and ignored Israel it would have been very different.

Of course Palestinians should have the right to return home. However, you can't talk of UN resolutions and then not recognise the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state of Israel which is ALSO recognised.

Ultimately Palestinians would have a greater chance of success if they ran Gaza peacefully, renounced driving Israel into the sea, renounced terrorism in exchange for serious negotiations at a two state solution, with two future stages about Jerusalem and right of return.

Israel must cease settlements, and be prepared to talk about all issues. However, it is clear the one common denominator is for violence to cease to be waged or sought to be waged. Israel was an enormous mistake, like many other states (Pakistan being another striking example), but what is done is done. Israel and Fatah have both moved a long way from 10-15 years ago, it would be nice if Hamas did so, but better if Hamas didn't exist. It's ideology is repugnant and should be to any Western liberals.

Brewerstroupe said...

I shall have to reply in two parts.

"Simply look at excerpts from Hamas TV."
I do not speak Arabic but I am very conscious that much Christian rhetoric is viewed as alarming in the Arab World. Take just one example. To a Muslim, the word "Crusade" is synonymous with one of the most brutal episodes in history:
"The eyewitness Gesta Francorum states that some people managed to escape the siege unharmed. Its anonymous author wrote, "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."[6] Later the same source says, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone."

"Crusade" is now used by Christian leaders as a benign term. I suggest that an understanding of the nuances of Arabic and religious rhetoric is similarly crucial to the interpretation of statements made in a religious context.
In any event, we have the official statements of the Political Director of Hamas, supported by the testimony of a Catholic Priest who runs the largest school in Gaza to refute your position.

What do you make of this statement on Arabs by Rabbi Josef, the leader of the third largest political party in Israel?
""It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable,""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1270038.stm

"Iran's regime is an autocracy
I have studied the Iranian system in some depth and, whilst I would not be comfortable with the level of clerical influence, I am satisfied that it contains sufficient checks and balances on the concentration of power as to make "autocracy" a misnomer.
I suggest you provide evidence of your assertion that the election was rigged. Here is a collection of articles asserting the contrary p.o.v.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0616_iran_election_salehi_isfahani.aspx
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1706271
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/18/tehran-protests-peaceful-twitter

One thing we do know is that a large sum of money was directed to perverting the election result:
"On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”
I would suggest that "To ignore this is willful blindness."

"Iran has long provided financial and military assistance to Hamas, and Hezbollah"

I have no doubt they do. I also am under the impression that Israel is supported by the U.S. and others. What I would like you to do is provide some evidence of the nature and extent of Iranian support and explain to me why Hamas' primary weapon is a home-made rocket and Hezbollah's a WWII era Katyusha. Iran manufactures some pretty smart gear (check out the Sunburn missile). How come we don't see these being used against Israel? Also left unexpained is why Gaza remains in ruins a year after Cast Lead if Iranian support is anything but token.

Brewerstroupe said...

Part two.

"Palestinians had a chance to run Gaza as an autonomous open trading zone"
In complete disregard of International Law, Israel has imposed a blockade on Gaza since September 2000. Since that time, malnutrition in Gaza has hovered around 50%.
Not so easy to open a duty-free store in those circumstances.

"Of course Palestinians should have the right to return home.

Please link me to any statement made by Israel during the past 60 years that even hints at the possibility.

"Ultimately Palestinians would have a greater chance of success if they ran Gaza peacefully"

Didn't work.
Operation Cast Lead was planned during a truce. The Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center confirmed that Hamas held strictly to the cease-fire. Here is the money quote:
“4. An analysis of the situation on the ground indicates two distinct periods:
i) A period of relative quiet between June 19 and November 4: As of June 19, there was a marked reduction in the extent of attacks on the western Negev population. The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.”
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e017.pdf

See also the report by Henry Siegman who is a Rabbi, director of the U.S./Middle East Project in New York, a visiting research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/henry-siegman/israels-lies#

"Israel must cease settlements"

Hear hear. Do you think for a moment that they will? Do you think that 400,000 Jewish settlers on Palestinian territory (not to mention the 80% of "Israel Proper" that is today still legally owned by Palestinians forced off it at gunpoint in 1948 and 1967) might give us a clue as to Israel's intentions?

"Israel and Fatah have both moved a long way from 10-15 years ago, it would be nice if Hamas did so, but better if Hamas didn't exist."

The reason Hamas exists is because Israel's bad-faith bargaining destroyed the PLO and Fatah. Arafat's last desperate move was to sign up to Oslo which entailed settling for 22% of the land to which Palestinians are entitled. There might have been a chance that the majority of Pals would have swallowed this bitter pill but Israel did not fulfill one single part of the agreement and Arafat was hung out to dry.

" It's ideology is repugnant and should be to any Western liberals."

I suggest that you should actually learn a little of Hamas' ideology before making such statements.
Here are a few links. Please comment.

Blair v Sir Jeremy Greenstock:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7823000/7823746.stm

Hamas ready for peaceful coexistence with Israel within the borders of 1967. Interview with Hamas-Leader Khaled Meshaal
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4192

Gaza's Christian Community
http://www.culturalcatholic.com/ChristianGaza.htm

We must adjust our distorted image of Hamas
Gaza is a secular society where people listen to pop music, watch TV and many women walk the streets unveiled
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5420584.ece

Canterbury Atheists said...

Minto and his ilk are largely products of their Catholic education, so you have to feel sorry for anyone who suffered the childhood indoctrination that Jews are Christ killers.

Cheers.

Paul

ZenTiger said...

What school did you go to Paul?

Evidently, it has made you a rather rabid anti-Christian, and I can only presume everyone that went to your school also feels the same way.

ZenTiger said...

Brewerstroupe, what reasoning do Hamas use when they kill their fellow Palestinians, who are not the hated Israelis?

They are hypocrites, liars and murderers and cannot be trusted.

Brewerstroupe said...

Zen Tiger.
Here is an article in Vanity Fair that explains in considerable detail how Hamas and the PLO came to blows in 2006:

Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America’s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)

But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.

Some sources call the scheme “Iran-contra 2.0,” recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.’s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.

Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.

Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of “engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.” He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. “It looks to me that what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,” Wurmser says.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

In the face of a U.S. - sponsored violent coup, immediately after winning what were strictly monitored and fair elections, does it surprise you that a few heads got broken?