June 1, 2010 · By Mark Peters
(Welcome SDA readers. Be sure to digest the final link, particularly if you’re Canadian. -MP)
Turkish woman Nilufer Cetin said she agreed to be extradited from Israel after being warned jail conditions in Be’er Sheva would be “too harsh” for her one-year-old baby, whom she’d brought on the voyage. (Emphasis mine.)
Now, there are a whole slew of possible reasons why Ms. Cetin brought along her one-year-old.
Perhaps she didn’t trust her day care provider(s) to give better care for her child than she could give on flotilla bound for Gaza in spite of numerous serious warnings that the passage would not occur.
Perhaps the father of the child is an “activist” in Gaza and this was an excellent opportunity to let him see his son for the first time.
Perhaps the father of the child is an “activist” in Turkey who fondly dreams of his entire family becoming martyrs in the global jihad against the Great Satan and the Evil Jooos. (And who could pass up the opportunity to shmooze with a few Islamic nutbar big-wigs?)
Perhaps she thought she was on a tour of the Mediterranean and would simply be passing by Gaza on a $50 sightseeing, pictures-from-the-boat excursion instead of plowing full-on into Israeli forces.
But perhaps, just perhaps, she knew full well the dangers, presumed violence would occur and, like her “activist” Arabs brothers and sisters in Gaza and the West Bank, decided to put the child between herself and the evil Jooos and presume upon the moral integrity of the Israeli soldiers who would be getting a drubbing at the hands of her colleagues or thrown 30 feet between decks of the vessel.
The most logical explanation of how this one-year-old ended up on one of those vessels: human shield.
Update: 100 or more of the “activists” are jihadists and were recruited by “the same IHH handler who organized the flotilla.” One wonders if said IHH handler also encouraged Ms. Cetin to bring her child.
Update+: You can’t make this up. Ties to a Montreal terrorist cell.
The day before Israeli commandos stormed the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship leading a blockade-busting mission to Gaza, passengers were chanting an Islamic battle cry and singing songs reminiscent of the Palestinian Intifada.
One woman aboard the ship told an Al-Jazeera reporter the goal was “one of two happy endings: either martyrdom or reaching Gaza.” [...]
The latest flotilla was organized by the Free Gaza Movement and IHH, a Turkish humanitarian organization that has also been linked to weapons trafficking and a Montreal terrorist cell.
Update ++: Your must read for today — Peter Hitchens, “The Joys of Selective Outrage.” He’s better at the media game than his notorious brother. Some scrumptious bits:
The interesting thing is that [Modern Leftism's] outrage is so selective and inconsistent. This has long been so, and arises from the fact that the Left still hasn’t worked out how to replace the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, and so makes its ideas of good and evil up as it goes along. [...]
Another of my favourite Leftist inconsistencies is the tangle they get themselves in over Islam and Israel. In their universe Islam is good where it challenges the conservative Christian monoculture of Britain and the USA. Islam is bad when it denounces homosexuality and demands the veiling of women, and generally opposes the sexual revolution which is the main concern and aim of the modern left. Islam is good when it pursues its unrelenting war against Israel. It’s bad when, in the mythical form of ‘Al Qaeda’ or the more tangible form of the Taliban, it ‘hates our way of life’ and opposes the education of women, etc etc.
Islam’s attack on Israel (in the Islamic world) often takes rather unpleasant forms. Muslim clerics say things there that would get them drummed out of civilised society here. But Israel is the country everyone in Europe loves to hate – while making it clear that this loathing has nothing, nothing at all, to do with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Good heavens no. The very idea. How could you even think such a thing? Anti-Semite? Me? Etc etc. Well, no doubt these protestations are true, which is why I try to popularise the word ‘Judophobic’ instead. Call someone an anti-Semite and he will instantly and huffily say that he’s of course not Adolf Eichmann or that bad man in ‘Schindler’s List’. So he can’t be against Jews, let alone an anti-Semite. The very idea.