So a Pope Walks Into a Church

What I don’t know about Christianity could fill a new testament. I am not about to pretend that I understand everything there is to know about the various conflicts and divisions amongst the various sects. But I do know that the current pope went to Jerusalem to heal the wounds of the past. Good luck with that. If Jerusalem has seen one thing it is people holding ancient grudges.

Christians from my point of view are all the same religion. Different groups have different ways of doing things but so do Jews. I see all Jews as Jews, not orthodox, traditional, heredi.

Many Christians would obviously disagree with me. And I am in no position to counter whatever their argument is. Be one religion, be one hundred religions. Whatever works for you.

Whatever you think of the pope, his mission to Jerusalem seems like a decent enough idea to me. He will likely never reach his goal but Jerusalem welcomes all anyway. It is a democratic city in a democratic country. Even a pope is free to visit.

I cannot say where the pope went exactly or anything about his itinerary but I know that he went to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Say what you will about all that murdering in the name of Jesus but that is one impressive looking church.

Was Jesus really executed there? Was he buried there? Is that where he came back to life? Each question seems less likely than the last but who cares. It is a really good looking church. Anybody visiting Jerusalem, whether Christian, Jewish or miscellaneous, should have a look.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre

That ladder they are not supposed to move

The sepulchre

Entrance to the main church

Ceiling over the main church

The smaller of the two domes

A few mosaics

Greek Orthodox choir

A mosaic near the “Stone of Anointing”
This shot is an unusual angle because it was taken from above the stone on Calvary

Chapel of St Helena

From one dome to the other

Under the larger of the two domes

Voting Against Your Own Best Interests

Everybody knows that Jacob Zuma is a corrupt asshole. This is not simply an opinion or political position. This is a given. There are court rooms full of evidence.

Some will defend him because he heads the party that they support. Only a very small minority of people actually believe he is a good leader. Fewer still actually believe that he is a decent human being. But he is the head of the ANC and that is the party of Nelson Mandela.

The ANC won the elections with a safe enough majority since most South Africans blindly support the ANC. But it was the smallest majority they have ever received, which is especially interesting when you consider that this was the first election after Mandela’s death. The nostalgia of the Mandela years likely increased support. So we can assume that were he still alive the ANC would have won with an even smaller majority.

What annoys me the most is that people who loathe Zuma still vote ANC. They vote ANC because it was Mandela’s party a long time ago. It is like Americans who vote Republican because that was Lincoln’s party. But Jacob Zuma is no Nelson Mandela. Not even close. Nobody is and it might be unfair to hold any current politician to that standard. But Zuma is the exact opposite of Mandela when it comes to corruption, theft, extortion, violence, rape, saying crazy shit. South Africa will likely never have another leader like Nelson Mandela. But we deserve a lot better than Jacob Zuma.

In a standard parliamentary system you can vote for a party and hope that the party chooses a different leader. Though more often than not you know who that person will be long before you vote. In South Africa’s system there is no way you can vote ANC without Zuma being president. If you vote ANC you are voting for Zuma, no matter how corrupt you know him to be.

The good news is that ANC support is slowly slipping and the DA is slowly growing. Educated people tend to vote DA, which forces the DA to choose better leaders. Unfortunately, uneducated people tend to vote ANC, which allows corrupt assholes to take control. Uneducated people also tend to believe whatever the party of Mandela tells them, such as the DA being a white party. It will never matter that most DA supporters are black. Simply telling uneducated South Africans that a white party even stands a chance of leading the country again is like telling Americans that a Muslim party might win. Fear and ignorance are the ANC’s best hope.

Ask the man on the street why he voted ANC and he will either tell you that it is Mandela’s party, they do not want whites to take over, or that the ANC are giving them all their welfare benefits. What too many people fail to admit is that ANC corruption has directly led to an economic culture that requires so many welfare programmes. Even a cursory look at the Western Cape and what the DA have done shows you that their economic policies are far better for everybody. The ANC will give you four fish and take back ten. The DA will teach you how to catch your own fish.

South Africans love to complain about the economy, crime, unemployment, hazardous working conditions, government corruption, police brutality. As they should. But then they vote for the party that supports, encourages and more often than not controls the most negative aspects of life in what should be a great place to live.

South Africa is not especially prone to major natural disasters. It does not lie in a challenging climate or geographic region. It is almost topographically perfect. It has more than enough natural resources to not only sustain itself but also sell to neighbouring countries. The problems of South Africa are entirely made by man. And almost all of them can be traced back to greed and domination. This is not what Mandela wanted.

Fair and Balanced

Just for fun I did a Google news search of “Israel”. These are the top results, not including blog posts and videos. I also excluded three Haaretz articles, which could have easily been for or against Israel, because Haaretz only has teaser articles and wants you to pay for a subscription to read the rest. I think that is stupid.

After Failed Peace Talks, Pushing to Label Israel as Occupier of Palestine
New York Times

This is about the Palestinian Authority plan to join the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Most of the article tows the Palestinian line that if they were part of the court then Israel would be punished for crimes against humanity for building settlements. The article only hints at what might happen to the leaders of Palestine if they were members of a court that investigates genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and any number of crimes the Palestinian Authority practice on a regular basis.

If you read this article and knew nothing about Palestine’s crimes then you might assume that PA leaders never do anything bad.

Israel, Kerry is one of your best friends
CNN

This article tells us that “no U.S. leader has done more to help Israel gain acceptance in the international community and ensure its long-term peace and security” than Secretary of State John Kerry. I am not sure how that is at all true. But like most articles it repeats the mantra that Judea and Samaria are occupied territory without acknowledging why it was taken from Jordan, why they had it in the first place and who had it before they invaded.

Assi Dayan, a Celebrated Actor and Filmmaker in Israel, Dies at 68
New York Times

This is about the death of the actor and is neither for nor against Israel.

Candidates with impressive backgrounds to face off in Israel presidential race
New York Daily News

This is about the upcoming presidential election and Shimon Peres’ retirement. This could be seen as favouring Israel but it is mostly neutral.

Pink Floyd to Rolling Stones: Boycott Israel
The Washington Post

This is mostly about Roger Waters being Roger Waters. He has a lot of emotional opinions that have little to do with reason. And his indignation always seems to come at the most fashionable times. I do not remember him speaking out against the Chinese government before Tiananmen Square or about Wall Street during all that occupy business.

Since he has been very pro-Arab for a long time you would think he would support Israel since it is the only country in the vicinity that gives Arabs basic human rights. But he jumped on that whole boycott Israel bandwagon, probably without realising just how much he would really have to boycott.

Despite the title, David Gilmour is not involved. Though I suppose that means little to Roger Waters.

Israel's drone dealers
Al Jazeera

Nobody expects Al Jazeera to be unbiased but this article blames Israel for American drone attacks in Pakistan. The reasoning is that since Israel created the UAV technology it is responsible for how everybody uses it. Does that make Arab states responsible when anybody straps on a suicide vest? The article does not say.

Israeli PM Netanyahu: No peace talks if Abbas is backed by Hamas
CNN

This begins as an article about Netanyahu rejecting the terrorists in charge of Hamas but it quickly goes into a revisionist history of Gaza. According to the article Fatah and Hamas had a coalition before a falling out led them to go their separate ways. There is no mention of the bloodbath in Gaza when Hamas took control.

If you read this article and knew nothing about Hamas’ crimes then you might assume that Hamas leaders never do anything bad.

An interesting point about CNN is that every article about Arab states that have nothing to do with Israel are about Arabs killing Arabs. If Arabs kill Arabs in the name of killing Jews then it is Israel’s fault. But when Arabs kill Arabs in the name of whichever sect they favour then it is an unfortunate frailty of man. According to CNN.

Abbas, Hamas chief to hold first talks since unity deal
AFP

This article goes further than most, telling readers that “Hamas forcibly took over the Gaza Strip in 2007, ousting forces loyal to the president”. But there is no mention that more than a few people were tortured or murdered, including many of those who were “ousted”.

Israeli settlers launch enclave in Palestinian business hub
Reuters

This is about how evil Jews are for living in Jerusalem. It reminds us that Israel captured Jerusalem “in a 1967 war” and “most of the world views Israeli enclaves there as illegal settlements”. There is no mention of why it was taken from Jordan, why Jordan had it in the first place and who had it before Jordan invaded.

Israel approved record 14,000 settlements during peace talks with Palestine – report
Reuters

Another article about “illegal” houses on “occupied” land without any mention of who occupied the land before Israel took it back and how absolutely nobody did anything to make it a country while it was “free”.

Israeli troops destroy mosque in Palestinian village
AP

This is my favourite article of the lot. It is about how the evil Jews tore down a few houses and a mosque. That sure sounds evil. After all, no Muslims would ever damage a synagogue.

It tries to sound like an entire village was demolished, “leaving up to 30 people homeless” but fails to mention that three houses were torn down. That is not so great for those three families but hardly an act of genocide.

But a fairly important point that the article completely ignores is that these houses were built on an active live fire military test range. Imagine what would happen if the houses were not torn down and the people living in them were injured or killed the next time weapons were tested on the range. Would the International Community say that those people should not have built houses there? Would anybody point out that building your house on a military test range is probably not a great idea? For some reason I doubt it.

Why it is hypocritical to boycott Israel
The Telegraph

This is an unusual article in that it favours Israel and actually makes some pretty good points. The writer went on a bit much about British crimes but he is British and writing to a British audience.

He asks why he should have to explain a trip to Israel when he never has to explain trips to China, Saudi Arabia or the United States. I know the answer to that, and the writer probably does as well, but it is still a good question.

Of these 12 articles, 1 favours Israel and 2 are neutral. The other 9 are very much against Israel and leave out pertinent information that might otherwise cause the reader to question the author’s position. The one pro-Israel article mentions negatives against Israel in an effort to appear fair and balanced. None of the anti-Israel articles do the same in reverse.

I have never questioned why people who live in Arab dictatorships blindly follow what they are told. They have little choice. I used to always question why people in democracies with free information blindly follow what they are told. But the more people only see one narrative the more they accept it as absolute.

What Media Bias?

“The prisoner issue is an emotional one for Palestinians after decades of conflict with Israel. Palestinians generally view them as heroes, regardless of the reason for their imprisonment. Israelis mostly view them as terrorists.” The Guardian.

This “regardless of the reason for their imprisonment” is the closest I have seen from the international media admitting that these “heroes” are murderers who targeted schools and hospitals.

“The Palestinians have now abandoned an undertaking to refrain from applying for membership of various international organisations; a step which displeases Israel and the Americans.” BBC.

The BBC often go to great pains to avoid saying that any Palestinian dictator ever did anything wrong. “Abandoned an undertaking to refrain from applying” rather than simply saying they did what they agreed not to do. “A step which displeases Israel and the Americans”. It is not a massive violation of an agreement with Israel and the United States; the only countries on this planet that are keeping Palestine alive. It is merely displeasing.

“There is an identical twin of this plane. It has been sitting in a hangar in Tel Aviv, Israel, for the past couple of months. There was a shell-game played with this aircraft. It was in the south of France, and then they moved it down to Israel. Speculation is that there was some sort of false-flag plan afoot, perhaps another planes-into-buildings deception like 9/11.” Press TV.

This is about how Israel made that Malaysia Airlines flight go missing. It is easy to dismiss stories like this as the rantings of crazy people. But the more the crazies rant the more people listen. The narrative used to be that all terrorists were bad. Now some are bad and some are good. Depending on whom they murder. Someday “terrorist” will be a positive designation.

“Palestinians want an independent state in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem - lands captured by Israel in a 1967 war.” Reuters.

This is my favourite. I see this all the time. Israel took this land away from poor innocent Jordan. The international media always ignore a few key points. What prompted Israel to “capture” this land from Jordan in 1967? Why was it under Jordan’s control? Was it considered an ancient Palestinian homeland whilst under Jordan’s control? What country was it part of before Jordan captured it? Anybody who cannot answer these basic questions, which are not at all subjective, is not in the least bit qualified to discuss this issue.

I live in a world where terrorists from repressive dictatorships are given equal standing from the international media as the democratically elected representatives from a progressive liberal democracy. This same international media would never label al Qaeda and the United States as equals. Or Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka, PLA and India, Taliban and Afghanistan, FARC and Colombia, Shining Path and Peru, DHKP and Turkey. All of those countries are the good guys whilst the terrorists who blow people up are the bad guys. Most people will agree that strapping on a bomb and blowing people up makes you the bad guy. Unless you blow up Jews. Then you are an oppressed minority, despite being part of the overwhelming majority ethnic group in the region.

As we all know, minority groups are the good guys and majority groups are the bad guys. Yet all of the terrorist examples above are minority groups in their countries and they are the bad guys compared to that country’s majority. Israel, the bad guy, is the minority surrounded by a rather hostile majority of good guys. Maybe, just maybe, being in the minority or majority does not automatically make one right or wrong.

American liberals support homosexual rights, women’s rights, minority rights, abortion rights, gun control, high taxes, science, education, oppose capital punishment, religious law, and rabidly defend liberal political candidates who say and do crazy things whilst rabidly attacking conservative candidates who say and do crazy things. The same is true in other “western” countries. Although the terms “liberal” and “conservative” do not necessarily apply.

Arab dictatorships and terrorists generally want to kill or at least arrest homosexuals, kill or subjugate women, kill or at least subjugate minority groups, kill anybody who has an abortion or any doctor who performs one. They love guns, have little to no taxes, frown upon science and education, especially if girls want to get involved, absolutely love capital punishment and religious laws, and rabidly oppose any open dissent in countries where free speech is blasphemy. Liberals would not be very happy living in the average Arab state.

Israeli homosexuals, women, minorities have all the same rights as everybody else. Abortion is legal, guns are very hard to get, taxes are very high. Israel is one of the world’s leaders in medical research and technology, and environmental science. Education is open to anybody and everybody. There is no capital punishment or religious laws. The state does not demand that anybody keep kosher and does not give a rat’s ass if you honour Shabbat or not. I would argue that there is more freedom of speech in Israel than in the United States. Liberals flourish in Israel.

Yet American liberals, and often their equivalents in other “western” countries, support Arab terrorists and oppose Israel.

Aaron Sorkin has compared American conservatives with the Taliban. That is fairly extreme. But American conservatives actually agree with Arab dictatorship positions more than they agree with Israeli positions, albeit in a far more moderate form. Michele Bachmann says some crazy shit but the fact that she is allowed to speak in public shows that American conservatives are not the Taliban. And I would doubt that she has ever advocated throwing acid on a girl’s face. Yet American conservatives support Israel over these terrorists.

How does this make any sense? Has the international media mantra of Israel bad, terrorists good actually conditioned Americans to hate Jews in order to love Arabs? This would be odd when you consider that most Americans completely ignore the international media when it comes to any criticism of American actions. Also, and this might only be a minor point, the typical Arab terrorist would gladly sacrifice his own life to kill as many Americans as possible. The typical Israeli would not sacrifice so much as a bagel to kill an American. Israeli citizens and Arab terrorists might be equals in the eyes of the international media but there is a pretty big difference when it comes to our definitions of right and wrong.

I was very much on Palestine’s side before I came to Israel. Then I lived here and saw what it was really like as opposed to what the international media told me it was like. The more I saw people rationalising the murder of Jews and open support for terrorists the more I started to support Israel. Pretty soon terrorists will be like pirates. Everybody will love them and their madcap adventures. But pirates were murderers, rapists, kidnappers, thieves. In pirate movies the British Navy are the bad guys and the pirates are brave heroes who sing and dance.

Now I am not only protecting my family from people who would willingly kill their own families to kill people they hate. Now I am protecting my children from people who would willingly kill their own children to kill people they hate. I am not even a mother yet but I cannot imagine any circumstance where I would want to kill my own child just because I hate somebody’s religion or culture. I cannot imagine that it would ever be possible for me to hate any race or religion that much. I realise that racism is all the rage right now but how can hating others ever take precedence over protecting your own children?

Not only do these people hate Jews so much that they think all of this is reasonable, and they are willing to rationalise any horrors that terrorists commit against Jews, but they even take their hate a step further and complain that “the Jews” control the international media. If The Jews control the international media then I can only wonder what our devious master plan must be.