https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7923725288901074422&postID=8475466675623261887
The link above is the most recent posting at Dan's blog. It's an homage to Desmond Tutu following his death. As is his wont, Dan is keen to laud the lives of people in a manner which suggests sainthood. Indeed, the title of the post is "Rest in Glory, Desmond Tutu". It brings to mind thoughts of heavenly welcoming, perhaps sitting at God's right hand or something. I did a little reading of some of the many articles praising the man for all his work to end apartheid in South Africa. Work not defined in any way, but apparently it was essential to its downfall. One gets the impression...by both the articles, but especially from Dan's worship of the man...apartheid would be ongoing today if not for old Des.
Now, this isn't to say that I don't regard his work against that system as worthy of praise. I'm just not clear on what he did exactly which justifies the degree of praise lavished upon him. I'm not trying to be dismissive here. I really would like to know and in at least one of the many comments of mine Dan deleted, I asked just that. Was the BDS strategy his idea, or did he learn of it and then run with it? That's OK. To promote a good idea is something everyone should do. To come up with it is of course more worthy of compliment, but again, I really don't know. But if all he did was preach, teach and publicly speak out against apartheid there and abroad, that's without a doubt notable all by itself and also worthy of praise by all. And even more so if by doing so he was putting himself or his liberty at risk. Was he ever at risk? Did he do time? Was he beaten for speaking out? Was the S. African government routinely stifling opposition speech at all? Again...I ask because I do not know and as these questions concern Tutu, it would have been nice to have some of these things referenced in the many reports about his death. If he was so essential to the ending of apartheid, one would think it should be easy enough to describe just how. So far, zilch.
But at Dan's I was the first to post a comment, sometime prior to December 27, 2021 at 9:15 AM when he deleted it, saying, "Marshal, you will not attack Or attempt to demonize people who have just passed away on my blog. Shame on you." I don't recall that I "attacked" or attempted to "demonize" the guy at all. I don't recall exactly what I said, but thus Dan gets his wish. He now demonizes me by deleting my comments and leaving the above admonishment in its place. When his only other reader...his troll, feo...read it, he no doubt believed I said something horrible about the man.
In any case, my comments simply questioned in how much glory might Toots rest after spending so much time lying about Israel and their struggles with the murderous Palestinians who constantly launch rockets and suicide attacks on the civilian population based on the false premise that they are oppressed by Israel. It's a legit question and no small thing given just how egregious the lie is. To attempt to compare Israel to apartheid S. Africa is appalling given there is no comparison one can justly make.
So as I sought to defend myself and my wonderment, Dan insisted I provide something to support my position...to explain what Tutu said that was false, wrong or in any way improper. I did so. Dan deleted those responses on the flimsy excuse regarding the bias of my sources. I tried to explain to the low intellect fake that bias shouldn't be his concern, but only whether or not what is reported is true or not. Then we get the old "out of context" crap. But what's out of context about calling Israel "oppressors" or "occupiers" or "an apartheid state"? How does anyone get the wrong idea about Tutu's position about Israel when such words and phrases are used to label them?
So true to form, Dan eventually responded with biased sources of his own, because his sources, those he supports are always just and truthful in what they say and are beyond reproach. He cited:
Human Rights Watch
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/why-has-human-rights-watch-become-an-anti-israel-activist-group
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/experts-slam-human-rights-watch-for-biased-and-inaccurate-report-accusing-israel-of-apartheid/ (note the word "experts". Dan's down with "experts" always)
https://nypost.com/2021/01/29/a-new-libel-against-israel-from-human-rights-watch/
Amnesty International
https://www.camera.org/article/amnesty-internationals-latest-anti-israel-campaign-targets-jewish-tourism/
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/ngos/amnesty_international/
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/books/amnesty_international_failed_methodology_corruption_and_anti_israel_bias/
The United Nations
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/26/the-united-nations-releases-an-anti-israel-blacklist/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/un-human-rights-council-continues-its-anti-semitic-campaign-against-israel/ar-AAKuwBK
Yesh Din
https://jewishbubba.blogspot.com/2013/10/yesh-dins-anti-semitic-anti-israel.html
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/hrws-and-yesh-dins-israel-bashing-at-the-un-security-council/
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/reports/cases-in-israeli-courts-and-accusations-of-apartheid-eu-funding-for-ngos-in-action/
The Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa
I was unable to find anything about this outfit that wasn't from their own website, but Dan posted some quote of theirs which is just more of the same attempt to frame Israel as unjust occupiers and oppressors. Given who is running the show in S. Africa since the end of apartheid, I wouldn't put too much stock anything from there without something reviewing their work as objective outsiders.
In any case, as one can see if one chooses to read the few out of many articles I selected for this post, Dan's sources have their own serious biases and their positions are decidedly anti-Israel/pro-Pallie. Outfits like NGO Monitor and CAMERA describe how these organizations fail in their reports indicting Israel. Like Dan himself, they're way too often ignorant of the complex situation between the two peoples (I can't call "Palestine" a nation, because it isn't one), and too simple-minded in their superficial understanding. When a people have in their charter the goal of annihilating Israel, it's hard to take pity on them when they suffer the consequences of moving toward that goal with rockets and suicide bombers and other murderous activities. It's been said that if the Pallies laid down their arms, there would be peace in the land, but if Israel laid down their arms, they'd be destroyed. It's also been said that peace will only come when the Pallies love their children more than they hate Israel.
And all the tropes employed by these many NGOs and lefties in general to disparage Israel for daring to protect its people were echoed routinely in the words of Desmond Tutu. I can't see that a guy like him, who traveled the world to tell it about the suffering of South Africans has no way of educating himself on the truth of the situation in the Middle East. Thus, he was intentionally lying out of some misplaced regard for murderers. Or he was really stupid. Is it enough to deny him "Rest in Glory"? I think he'll be in the back row somewhere if he wasn't any worse than his irrational enabling of the Pallies makes him.
Of course, I never did get to his enabling of sexual immorality.
UPDATE: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/was_archbishop_desmond_tutu_antiisrael_or_an_antisemite.html
No comments:
Post a Comment