RECKONIN'
  • Features
    • Book Bench
    • Charlottesville
    • COVID Commentary
    • Dixie These Days
    • Links
    • Magnolia Muse
    • Matters of Faith
    • Movie Room
    • Southern History
    • Writing Contest 2022
  • Contributors
    • Full List
    • Mark Atkins
    • Al Benson
    • Carolina Contrarian
    • Enoch Cade
    • Boyd Cathey
    • Dissident Mama
    • Ted Ehmann
    • Walt Garlington
    • Gail Jarvis
    • Gene Kizer, Jr.
    • Neil Kumar
    • Perrin Lovett
    • Ilana Mercer
    • Tom Riley
    • H.V. Traywick, Jr.
    • Clyde Wilson
  • Contact
  • Features
    • Book Bench
    • Charlottesville
    • COVID Commentary
    • Dixie These Days
    • Links
    • Magnolia Muse
    • Matters of Faith
    • Movie Room
    • Southern History
    • Writing Contest 2022
  • Contributors
    • Full List
    • Mark Atkins
    • Al Benson
    • Carolina Contrarian
    • Enoch Cade
    • Boyd Cathey
    • Dissident Mama
    • Ted Ehmann
    • Walt Garlington
    • Gail Jarvis
    • Gene Kizer, Jr.
    • Neil Kumar
    • Perrin Lovett
    • Ilana Mercer
    • Tom Riley
    • H.V. Traywick, Jr.
    • Clyde Wilson
  • Contact

                 Ilana Mercer

Let's Mobilize An Army Of Stone Throwers On Border

12/13/2018

2 Comments

 
Picture

In the United States, even Customs and Border Protection apologizes for doing its job. CBP is supposed to “protects the public from dangerous people and materials attempting to cross the border …”
 
On one of the networks that wants all people, dangerous or not, to cross the southern border into the U.S., if they so desire, a CBP officer was bending over backwards to appear like a “global force for good.” (That, believe it or not, was the U.S. Navy’s motto, between 2009 and 2015!)  
 
Tear-gassing rubble-rousing migrants, who were charging his officers and breaching the U.S.-Mexico border, was in the service of protecting … the migrants, especially The Children. Perhaps that’s in the oath of office a CBP officer takes?
 
Law enforcement officers entrusted with the safety of the American people struggle to articulate pride in executing their mandate. Attached to the expected self-loathing repartee is, invariably, a declaration of loyalties to The World. (Of a piece with this confused loyalty is the typical argument made by the typical TV talker: Illegal immigration must be stopped, so as to … save migrants from the journey’s depredations.)
 
It’s instructive to contrast the apologetics around defending the U.S. border and the American people with the absence of apologies on Israel’s borders.
 
In May this year, “Tens of thousands of Palestinians massed near Gaza’s border fence, threatening to ‘return’ to the lands their forefathers lost when Israel was created in 1948.” They wanted in.
 
Israeli soldiers responded not with tear gas, but with bullets. They killed over 60 protesters who threatened to breach the border. The number has since risen to 120.
 
Most of us, this writer included, would condemn such excessive force.
 
Yet surprisingly, the Economist—a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly--pondered but briefly and nonchalantly about Israel’s army having used excessive force, concluding almost callously: “Every state has a right to defend its borders.”
 
Come again?!
 
This from the very same editorialists who never tire of protesting any disruption in the holy quest of weary columns of Christ-like caravanners, planning to defy the U.S. government, by illegally entering the United States of America.
 
Moreover, calmly and with no histrionics does the Economist report, matter-of-fact, that “Any Palestinian, even a farmer, coming within 300 meters of the fence [with Gaza] is liable to be shot.”
 
And while the august magazine has declaimed dutifully that “Israel must answer for the deaths in Gaza,” its writers have also evinced a good deal of impatience with the M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), stating: “It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence.”
 
In other words, grow up. The stone throwing was cute when your “Struggle” was in its infancy.
 
Go figure.
 
For the longest time, the world raged about Israel’s refusal to accept the necessity for its citizens to be blown to bits or be overrun demographically (by people who’re “only seeking a better life” for themselves and their posterity).
 
Israel paid no attention to the liberal lunatics aligned against its oft-excessive habit of defending its citizenry’s rights.
 
In fact, the Jewish State has recently gone one better. Israel has automated the process of defense, creating a set of "auto kill-zones” “by networking together remote-controlled machine guns, ground sensors, and drones along the 60-kilometer border.”
 
Bluntly put, Israel has deployed gizmos to Gaza; “Robo-Snipers” instead of flesh-and-blood men and women.
 
The nation’s “19- and 20-year-old soldiers” are still deployed to the front—but virtually. They sit at a safe distance “behind computer screens,” waiting on “approval by a commanding officer” before “pushing the kill button."
 
The IDF Southern Command’s rules of engagement along the Gaza fence are, shall we say, particularly aggressive.
 
Oh, it’s still pro forma for the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to open every one of their sessions with a rote condemnation of Israel’s actions on its borders and everywhere else.
 
But even the U.N., a cesspit of venality and stupidity, has gotten the message over the decades. And it is this:
 
Israel's army is not going to put down its guns and mobilize an army of stone throwers to throw stones back at the persecuted Arabs, thereby not committing the crime of using excessive force. 
 
Israel’s action on its borders is not unlike action taken by the U.S. Armed Forces in defense of borders not our own. 

This article was was previously published at IlanaMercer.com on Dec. 6, 2018.
2 Comments
Brutis
12/14/2018 11:16:15 am

I'm told that as an American Citizen, I actually claim South Carolina but for some reason that is not presently an option, if I were to jump the fence at come remote location, proceed to cross the 3 feet into Mexico and return to this side of the fence, I would be in serious trouble as I made an illegal exit and entry. Funny how, in the land of the free, we are as free as a canary in a cage, only going out and back in by our master’s leave.

But about the rocks.
It is simple; the leaders of Israel want to secure their border.
The leaders, so called, of the American government do not want to secure the border.

One can see in the recent events associated with the presidential elections those who support the candidates who oppose the Constitution are allowed to throw rocks and harm those who support their opposition. They are given tact approval, by the police, those who are supposed to protect and keep the peace, to disrupt the rallies and events. Even to the point of destroying private property. Funny how these people always know to keep their hands off of public property. Wonder if there is collusion?


Were the State of California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas take it upon them to protect the border, why, the force of the general government would soon be brought upon them. Why one may ask. For two reasons, firstly, the influx of so many millions of illegals is by the leave of the general government. It is desired, else it would be stopped. Secondly, the States stepping in would expose the incompetence of the general government and its failure to do one of its primary tasks, to wit, protect the realm from invasion. Why, should these States declare their intentions, deputize and bond any and all who are willing to help, the would not be room to swing a dead cat for the true patriots who will travel to lend a hand. No, we would be thwarted in our attempts to protect our homes by the very organization charged with that very duty.
There are a few private individuals who patrol the border and reported illegals to the proper authorities, but they do so at their own risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Project
Were the border states to man up, there would be a different outcome.
Americans who travel and live near the border have lost what little of their freedom is left.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275/.

Verbum sapienti sat est A
(A word to the wise is sufficient)

Reply
Cal
12/15/2018 02:25:06 pm

"It is simple; the leaders of Israel want to secure their border."

Yet, Israel was created from stolen land, land that even the US assisted in removing those people from their own homes and properties. Was that forgotten?

WARNING. Understand that I am NOT PC in any way, I am an American. I do know what the supreme CONTRACT for all who serve within the governments - state and federal - must follow, and what is also required by those who serve within each state is that they KEEP the state Contract also.

"May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day"
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/creation-israel

"... the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.

Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations."

I believe that the Palestinians were not happy to be kicked out of their lands, off of their homes/property. Anyone, can you show me otherwise?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa”(2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube
    Read more by Ilana Mercer on her website, www.ilanamercer.com

    Archives

    March 2023
    July 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    February 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018

Proudly powered by Weebly