Man, I saw the title of the article <a href="https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/10/08/murder-and-rape-for-the-cause/" author="Scott H. Greenfield" source="Simple Justice">Murder And Rape For The Cause</a> and my heart sank. I wrote about why in <a href="{app}view_article.php?id=4846">Some commentators are still MIA</a>, where the author featured prominently.<fn> I don't even have anything to cite from this article because it's so insipid. I just wanted to keep in my notes that, once again, an ordinarily useful writer and thinker simply cannot keep his shit together or think of justice when his team's been attacked. Greenfield is Jewish. He loves Israel. He cannot stand to hear a single bad word about anything that Israel does. Every time there is a larger altercation, he comes down rabidly on the side of Israel against Palestinians. He deems the Palestinians animals, heedlessly slaughtering innocent Israelis, who've done nothing to deserve even reprobation, to say nothing of violence. Read his responses to the comments on the post. Those are the comments he's even allowed to appear, after moderation. It's a shame, because he writes so much that is useful about law and justice and oppression in the U.S. On the topic of Israel, though, he's an utter fool, a complete and unquestioning tool for the oppressor. <h>Two wrongs don't make a right</h> Look, two wrongs don't make a right. Palestinians and their militant wing Hamas are humans and are thus capable of shocking cruelty and savagery when they get the chance---especially against what they consider to be an utterly demonic enemy. They also don't recognize that civilians are illegitimate targets. But neither does Israel. And they get a <i>lot</i> more chances to prove their savagery. If, like Greenfield, you only pay attention---or care---when the opposing team does it, then, ... yeah, you're going to look like a total asshole who can't read a newspaper---who thinks that Israel heard about Palestine for the very first time on the morning of October 7th, 2023---and then you're going to sound off in an utterly unhinged way. <h>Netflix wants me to watch the Mossad</h> In other news about unhinged support, there's this: <img src="{att_link}fauda_recommendation_from_netflix.jpeg" href="{att_link}fauda_recommendation_from_netflix.jpeg" align="none" caption="Fauda Recommendation from Netflix" scale="50%"> This recommendation popped up about a day after what might have been the start of the next Intifada. Netflix thinks that I should watch a movie or series about heroic Israeli secret agents who are hunting nefarious Palestinian terrorists. Cool, Netflix. Nice to see where your loyalties lie. <h>The Babylon Bee's mask slips</h> There's also the satirical site Babylon Bee, which often claims that it takes the piss out of everyone, published the only possible thing that it could have published: <iq>White House Issues Condemnation Of Attack Biden Funded</iq>. <img src="{att_link}babylon_bee_on_israel_(1).jpeg" href="{att_link}babylon_bee_on_israel_(1).jpeg" align="none" caption="Babylon Bee on Israel" scale="50%"> I was confused for a second because I couldn't figure out that the Bee was accusing Biden of having funded the Palestinians. But the picture shows what looks like a bombing in Palestine, presumably by Israel? But the text is the exact opposite? In my world, this is ludicrous---the Biden administration funds Israel nearly infinitely more. In the Babylon Bee's world, where Biden is wrong about everything, he is a massive supporter of Palestine and probably delights in dead Israelis. This is, again, what it looks like to be so partisan as to not be able to think straight. Biden would, of course, go on to make subsequent statements that make this accusation seem even more ridiculous. It was ridiculous from the beginning, though. Again, only if you can muster the energy to read a Wikipedia page or two. <h>Greenfield is still <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_(military)">section eight</a></h> After having noted in the footnotes of the article <a href="{app}view_article.php?id=4846">Some commentators are still MIA</a> that Greenfield was once again publishing normal---not unhinged---stuff, he recently wrote the article <a href="https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/11/22/ceasefire-follies/" author="Scott H. Greenfield" source="Simple Justice">Ceasefire Follies</a>. It shows pretty well where our long-ailing blogger is at, mentally. He writes, <bq>Note for future terrorists. Take some hostages atop your rapes and murders, and they give you huge leverage to stop your victims from coming after you. That, and convincing the useful idiots to march for the sake of the babies you use as shields so you can perpetrate terror but they can’t do anything to stop you.</bq> Once again, you can see the spittle speck his lips as he slams the keyboard in utter indignation. He goes on to express his incredibly sarcastic indignation at thinking that anything at all could be expected of Israel. <bq>[...] those demanding a ceasefire from the side that didn’t break the ceasefire on October 7th.</bq> He really seems to believe that Israel is the sole aggrieved party and never did anything wrong and has no power to change anything other than to defend its sworn enemy into the deepest, darkest hole it can, filling it with bodies until ... well, until there are no more bodies around, one way or another. Next, he positively whines that no-one cares about Israeli lives---Jewish lives---especially in America. Dude, what? How can you possibly believe that is a thing? <bq>Oddly, Gazan lives matter. Israeli lives, not so much because they deserve to die for being a Jewish state. The connection there with Jewishness seems not to matter much, even as they indulge in sophistry to differentiate between Zionism and Judaism so they won’t feel like the hypocrites and fools they are.</bq> Differentiating between Judaism and Zionism is sophistry? What a horribly antisemitic thing to say. Does Greenfield even know what a poisonous creed Zionism is? At the very least, as it is practiced by the extremely radical Zionists who have the reins firmly in their fists right now? Has he ever read or heard an interview with actual Israelis, to say nothing of settlers? I can't imagine he would think that he has anything in common with that worldview, but he's using his bully pulpit to defend Zionism as the same thing as Judaism. <bq>As for the Gazan children, they’ll be martyrs as far as Hamas is concerned [...]</bq> So, yeah, Greenfield's not doing so hot. He still hasn't put a second of his time into finding out what has been going on in Israel over the last decades, what is going on there now, or what would be a possible solution that doesn't involve more tragedy. He seems to be on the same page as the Israeli settlers: dead Palestinians, no matter their age, aren't tragic. They're just dead terrorists. Cool ethics, bro. There is no speaking to someone who's out of the gate with that kind of viewpoint, unless they're family or friends or someone you need to invest time in. Everyone else doesn't have to deal with them, can instead just back away slowly and hope that someone like this doesn't have too much influence on anyone else. The poor guy is still absolutely livid, incoherent, and about as grounded in reality as a Trump-Uncle at Thanksgiving. You know, the kind that sends me political cartoons of Joe Biden giving away the U.S. to China. Just batshit. I wonder if Greenfield knows that he's writing at the same intellectual level as the Babylon Bee these days? For example, maybe he could steal the snarky headline <a href="https://babylonbee.com/news/hamas-offers-to-release-hostages-if-israel-agrees-to-not-exist" author="" source="Babylon Bee">Hamas Offers To Release Hostages If Israel Agrees To Not Exist</a> from the Bee for his next post. <hr> <ft>Actually, the examples in that article came <i>after</i> the ones in this article---except for the update at the end---but I published out of order. Sue me. I thought it was still interesting to publish a few more examples.</ft>