perfidy

Or at least I do. In between inane-but-cleverly-crafted spam pushing the latest pump and dump stock (It's on the Pink Sheets now, but Honest! It could be the next Exxon!), I get the occasional email message that doesn't intend to offend, but still does, all the same.

Like this nugget, peristaltically placed in my inbox within the last hour, from Grassfire.org:

Despite a truce to end the current fighting, lasting peace in the Middle East will never take hold so long as anti-Semitic Islamic leaders continue calling for the elimination of Israel.

But that isn't the only battle front facing Israel. They are also battling the liberal media who seems to accept the spin that this latest battle is about some ancient claim to land--when in reality the fighting is based on a hatred of Christians and Jews.

A look at the media coverage during the incursion underscores that fact. Doctored photos and misleading reports have all found their way into mainstream
reporting.

That is why Grassfire, along with our partner the Media Research Center launched a national petition supporting Israel against these anti-Semitic attacks.
Over the next 30 days, we want to rally 75,000 "Friends of Israel" petitions to present to the Israel Embassy. Click here to sign:(link expunged)

It's not clear to me whom Grassfire is accusing of "anti-Semitic attacks" - I know it's either the various Muslims, Islamic leaders, the press, all three, or someone else entirely.

And when I saw the note, I got mildly irked, possibly at the imprecision of their rationale for requesting an electronic "signature" on a truly meaningless "document".

First off, as strange as it sounds, even as I type it, nobody is attacking Jews, per se. They might be attacking Zionists, and are definitely attacking Israelis, but I'm quite comfortable asserting that neither the press, the more murderous and adventuresome of the Islamists, nor the area's governments, is attacking "Semites".

The actions of the aggressors in the current unpleasantness are distinctly terroristic, distinctly anti-Israel, and reek of "please, kick my ass", but they're not anti-Semitic, because if they were, then there's a chance they'd be killing some of themselves, too. Neither, then, are the noticeably biased (against Israel and, by extension, the US) reports in the popular press. There's anti-American and anti-Israeli froth in full flower, but to call it anti-Semitic is both lazy and unhelpful.

The world's made up of two types of people: Those who believe the world's made up of two types of people and... No, scratch that.

If the world could be said to truly be made of two types, one possible classification would be those who dislike anything Israel or the US does to protect itself and those who don't. Another possibility would be a preference for "the little guy", no matter how cynical and childishly lame his protestations of correctness. Reflexively being against the US or Israel is not a new phenomenon, and neither is a preference for David (ironic, that) over Goliath.

But an email trying to get my knickers in a twist by playing on some silly-ass claim of anti-Semitism shows a lack of intellectual seriousness on Grassfire's part, and on the part of those who share their lazy methods of eliciting support.

• I prefer that the attacked be allowed to defend themselves, vigorously, and that if they happen to be in the right, they prevail.
• I prefer that opportunistic militants who play with fire get burned, preferably badly enough that they stop playing with fire.
• I prefer that the weaker-constitutioned nations of the world desist in their (successful, it would seem) shaming of Israel into a cease fire whose purpose is solely to allow Hizb'allah to rearm, in the manner dictated by the prophet himself (piss be upon him), who thought truces were good ways to lick one's wounds and live to fight the same fight another day, or later on the same day.
• I prefer the simple, unvarnished truth in the reporting that I read, rather than being told, obliquely or not, what I should think of a given situation. If I care what someone thinks, rather than what they saw, I'll read the op-ed page (and I do)
• I'd prefer that "we" could stop pretending to be shocked when propaganda is used as a tool of war, and that instead, when a non-party to such a war intentionally spreads propaganda, they should be punished in the marketplace of reputation, ideas, or business

And I'd prefer that those allegedly well-intentioned souls who seem to think that 75,000 imaginary signatures on an imaginary document will do fuck-all for the Israeli people go find some better use of their time and my mailbox. Such an imaginary signature has no effect on any of the things about which they've gotten their bowels in an uproar.