Greta Thunberg's a vapid leftist — and a useful idiot for terror
Professional leftist Greta Thunberg was brought to Israel this week after the 'selfie yacht' she was traveling on attempted to break through the naval blockade of Gaza.
Her boat, the 'Madleen,' was part of a flotilla pretending to deliver aid to alleviate an imaginary famine.
The 22-year-old was given food and shelter and sent home by the Israeli government, which she accused of 'kidnapping' her. All the usual suspects went along with this predictable framing.
Advertisement
If Thunberg really wanted to better understand the concept of an abduction, she might have asked Hamas to visit the Israelis still being tortured in a dank basement somewhere in Rafa.
But the 'human rights activist,' which is how the legacy media unironically describes her, has never once called for the release of the hostages taken by Islamists.
Advertisement
Indeed, the flotilla effort was reportedly organized by a 'Hamas operative.'
'[The Israelis] tried to make us watch all kinds of propaganda videos,' Thunberg told reporters after landing in Paris, 'but I didn't watch. This is nothing compared to what is happening in Gaza, which is in desperate need of humanitarian aid.'
Referring to GoPro videos made by Palestinians that document the gleeful slaughter of women, children and the elderly as 'propaganda' is a bold accusation coming from a cosplay revolutionary whose biggest problem was getting a vegetarian meal from her hosts.
Advertisement
As this was all going on, incidentally, Israel has been sending hundreds of aid trucks into the Gaza Strip.
Hamas opposes this effort, as it uses food and aid to control the Palestinian population.
On the day Thunberg was whining to reporters in Europe, at least five aid workers were murdered by Hamas trying to bring food to the population.
The real question is: Why is she in the news at all?
Advertisement
Thunberg was named Time's Person of the Year in 2019 after dropping out of high school and 'raising awareness for climate change.'
It was quite a historic accomplishment: No one was talking about global warming before Greta came around, apparently.
Me? I tend to think the kid who stays in school and learns a thing or two about biology before lecturing me about science is the real hero.
But we live in a time where emotionalism and vapidity are often confused with decency and wisdom. Thunberg is the embodiment of this trend.
Thunberg's most infamous moment was a frivolous emotional outburst at the United Nations, where she screamed at those who had bequeathed her with unprecedented wealth, safety, and freedom.
'You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,' she claimed.
Advertisement
But really, her dream was to be famous. Or, maybe, it was first the dream of exploitative parents who persuaded their child that the world was on the precipice of Armageddon.
Since her Time magazine cover, Thunberg has achieved nothing.
Her native Sweden has turned back to fossil fuels. Europe, as well.
The Earth, however, is still here.
Advertisement
Subsequently, Thunberg has moved on to champion other trendy leftist causes, such as Black Lives Matter and now 'Free Palestine.'
The only thing she understands less about than climate science seems to be the Middle East.
As far as I can tell, Thunberg has never once said anything remotely compelling or witty or smart. There are millions of young people far more worthy of attention.
For years, youth shielded Thunberg from criticism. Even now, journalists fail to ask her any serious, in-depth questions about the issues she champions.
Advertisement
The chances she could answer one are incredibly slim.
Well, Thunberg is now a young woman, and so we can freely point out that she's always been an extraordinary imbecile. But now, she's also a useful idiot for terrorists.
For that, there is no excuse.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
24 minutes ago
- Vox
Will the US get drawn into the Israel-Iran war?
is a senior correspondent at Vox covering foreign policy and world news with a focus on the future of international conflict. He is the author of the 2018 book, Invisible Countries: Journeys to the Edge of Nationhood , an exploration of border conflicts, unrecognized countries, and changes to the world map. In announcing Israel's strikes against Iran's military leadership and nuclear program last night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the case that Israel had 'no choice but to act, and act now' in response to recent advances in Iran's capabilities that put his country at risk of a 'nuclear holocaust.' It's far from clear that the Trump administration shared Netanyahu's sense of urgency. President Donald Trump waved off Israeli plans for a strike in April, amid ongoing efforts to negotiate a new deal over Tehran's nuclear program. Just hours before the attack was launched, Trump still seemed committed to the diplomatic path, saying he would 'rather that [the Israelis] don't go in in order not to ruin it.' One of the biggest questions in the days to come — and perhaps the one with the highest stakes for Israel — is whether Trump will come to embrace the war he publicly opposed. Initially, reporting on the lead-up to the attack suggested that the Trump administration was aware the attack was coming but did little to stop it. The first high-level US response to the strikes, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was relatively noncommittal, stating that the Israelis 'believe this action was necessary' but that the US was 'not involved in strikes against Iran.' On Friday morning, however, Trump seemed more enthusiastic about the strikes, posting that he had warned Iranian leaders of the consequences of making a deal but that they 'couldn't get it done.' He added, 'the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it.' This appears to be a case of Trump associating himself after the fact with what appears to be a remarkably successful military operation. The hope in the Trump administration seems to be that the Israeli operation will force Iran to make concessions at the negotiating table. Trump urged Iranian leaders to take a deal 'BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' and US officials reportedly still hoped that planned talks in Oman on Sunday will still go ahead. A meeting on Sunday, at least, seems unlikely. Iran has threatened retaliation for the strikes and made clear that it doesn't believe Washington's disavowals of involvement. Netanyahu's government is also clearly hoping for a more active US role. 'The president seems to still hope that his preference for a diplomatic solution can be salvaged,' said Nimrod Novik, a former foreign policy adviser to the Israeli government. 'Few in the political-security establishment here share that hope.' He added: 'From an Israeli vantage point, it seems that the better the operation looks, the more Trump wants to own it.' The question in the days to come is just how long the US will stay on the sidelines. How the American role in the conflict could escalate According to the New York Times, the Israeli attack plan that Trump rejected in April, 'would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.' The conventional wisdom has long been that a military strike to destroy or seriously degrade Iran's nuclear enrichment capability would require US involvement: Iran's key enrichment sites are located in fortified facilities deep underground, and destroying them would require heavy bunker-buster bombs. Israel doesn't have those bombs or the heavy bombers required to carry them, but the US does. But that's not the approach Israel took, at least initially. Analysts say Israel does not appear to have struck the most heavily fortified compound at Fordow, or its nuclear site at Isfahan. A third key nuclear enrichment site, Natanz, sustained only light damage. Instead, Israel's strikes targeted Iran's top leadership, including the commander in chief of its military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and prominent nuclear scientists. Several military bases around Tehran were hit, as well as air defense systems. 'This was not a campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities,' said Nicole Grajewski, an expert on the Iranian nuclear program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'This was a campaign against Iranian command and control and leadership.' This was, however, just the opening salvo of a campaign that Netanyahu said 'will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.' The operation's aims could very well expand. 'This is day one,' noted Raphael Cohen, a military analyst at the RAND Corporation. 'On day 20, day 40, day 60, once everything drags on as stockpiles dwindle, that's when we're going to start to see to what extent Israel needs the United States.' How will Iran respond? Iran fired at least 100 drones at Israel on Friday, which, so far, appear to have been intercepted without causing any damage. Notably, it has not yet fired ballistic missiles, its most potent long-range threat. The Iranian leadership is likely still reeling from the losses it sustained. Its capacity to respond is likely also hampered by Israel's success over the past year and a half against Iran's network of proxies across the Middle East. Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based militia that was once the most powerful of these proxies, but was decimated by last year's pager bombings, has been notably quiet so far, in contrast to the wide-ranging rocket barrage it launched immediately after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. Iran fired missile barrages at Israel twice last year, first in April in response to the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, and a second, much larger barrage in October in response to the killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in Tehran. Neither caused extensive damage, though in the October strikes, Israeli air defenses were overwhelmed in some places, suggesting that a larger strike could cause serious damage. Iran may have as many as 2,000 ballistic missiles at its disposal, and Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly warned senators last week that Iranian retaliation could cause a 'mass casualty event.' 'In October, you saw more advanced ballistic missiles being used, but not like the full suite of Iranian ballistic missiles,' Grajewski told Vox. She also noted that during both strikes last year, Israel needed international support to successfully repel those attacks, notably help from the US military in shooting down missiles as well as intelligence support from a previously unlikely alliance of Arab countries sharing intelligence. Though the Trump administration was perfectly willing to cut a quick deal with Yemen's Houthi rebels, despite the group continuing to periodically launch missiles and drones at Israel, a massive attack of the type Witkoff warned is a different story. Israeli policymakers are likely counting on the Trump administration to assist in mounting the kind of multilayered defense that the US did under Joe Biden last year. Could Iran attack Americans? Iranian leaders are plainly not buying US disavowals of involvement in Israel's operation. Military commanders had warned that US forces in the Middle East could be exposed to attack in retaliation for such a strike. In the days leading up to the attack, the US partially evacuated its embassy in Baghdad and authorized the departure of personnel and families from other sites in the region due to that risk. Iran has generally been very wary about taking steps that could draw the US into a direct conflict, preferring to act through proxies. This would suggest a direct strike on US facilities or a drastic move likely blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, which could cause a spike in global energy prices, is unlikely. Attacks by one of Iran's proxy militias in Iran, or a resumption of strikes against US ships by the Houthis, seem somewhat more likely. On the other hand, we may simply be in uncharted waters where the previous rules of restraint don't apply. The Iranian government will almost certainly feel it has to mount some significant response, if only for its own credibility. There have already been some reports of civilian casualties–if those increase, the need to respond will only grow. For Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 'there's a personal element,' said Alex Vatanka, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. 'How do you get yourself out of the situation without being entirely humiliated? … Is he going to do what Qaddafi did and give up his nuclear program, or is he going to say, you know, what, to hell with it, I'd rather die. I'd rather seek martyrdom. It remains to be seen.' How much has Trump changed? Khamenei isn't the only leader whose motives are something of a mystery at the moment. During his first term, Trump authorized the strike that killed senior Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani, a major provocation, but also called off a planned strike on Iranian soil due to concerns about escalation. During his second term, he has been surprisingly unconcerned about coordinating with Israel — cutting deals with the Houthis as well as launching nuclear talks with Iran that Netanyahu was highly skeptical of from the start. His administration this time includes some notably less hawkish voices when it comes to Iran, such as Vice President JD Vance, who has warned against letting Israel drag the US into a war, and described it as a scenario that could 'balloon into World War III.' In 24 hours, Trump has gone from publicly opposing an Israeli strike to taking at least partial credit for it. Netanyahu, who has been advocating an operation like this for years, is likely hoping that continued military success will prompt Trump to abandon his hopes of a big, beautiful deal and join the fight.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-OPEC+ would struggle to cover major Iranian oil supply disruption
By Ahmad Ghaddar and Seher Dareen LONDON (Reuters) -Oil market participants have switched to dreading a shortage in fuel from focusing on impending oversupply in just two days this week. After Israel attacked Iran and Tehran pledged to retaliate, oil prices jumped as much as 13% to their highest since January as investors price in an increased probability of a major disruption in Middle East oil supplies. Part of the reason for the rapid spike is that spare capacity among OPEC and allies to pump more oil to offset any disruption is roughly equivalent to Iran's output, according to analysts and OPEC watchers. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are the only OPEC+ members capable of quickly boosting output and could pump around 3.5 million barrels per day (bpd) more, analysts and industry sources said. Iran's production stands at around 3.3 million bpd, and it exports over 2 million bpd of oil and fuel. There has been no impact on output so far from Israel's attacks on Iran's oil and gas infrastructure, nor on exports from the region. But fears that Israel may destroy Iranian oil facilities to deprive it of its main source of revenue have driven oil prices higher. The Brent benchmark last traded up nearly 7% at over $74 on Friday. An attack with a significant impact on Iranian output that required other producers to pump more to plug the gap would leave very little spare capacity to deal with other disruptions - which can happen due to war, natural disasters or accidents. And that with a caveat that Iran does not attack its neighbours in retaliation for Israeli strikes. Iran has in the past threatened to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz if it is attacked. The Strait is the exit route from the Middle East Gulf for around 20% of the world's oil supply, including Saudi, UAE, Kuwaiti, Iraqi and Iranian exports. Iran has also previously stated that it would attack other oil suppliers that filled any gap in supplies left due to sanctions or attacks on Iran. "If Iran responds by disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, targeting regional oil infrastructure, or striking U.S. military assets, the market reaction could be much more severe, potentially pushing prices up by $20 per barrel or more," said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad and a former OPEC official. CHANGE IN CALCULUS The abrupt change in calculus for oil investors this week comes after months in which output increases from OPEC and its allies, a group known as OPEC+, have led to investor concern about future oversupply and a potential price crash. Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC, has been the driving force behind an acceleration in the group's output increases, in part to punish allies that have pumped more oil than they were supposed to under OPEC+ agreements. The increases have already strained the capacity of some members to produce more, causing them to fall short of their new targets. Even after recent increases, the group still has output curbs in place of about 4.5 million bpd, which were agreed over the past five years to balance supply and demand. But some of that spare oil capacity - the difference between actual output and notional production potential that can be brought online quickly and sustained - exists only on paper. After years of production cuts and reduced oilfield investment following the COVID-19 pandemic, the oilfields and facilities may no longer be able to restart quickly, said analysts and OPEC watchers. Western sanctions on Iran, Russia and Venezuela have also led to decreases in oil investment in those countries. "Following the July hike, most OPEC members, excluding Saudi Arabia, appear to be producing at or near maximum capacity," J.P. Morgan said in a note. Outside of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, spare capacity was negligible, said a senior industry source who works with OPEC+ producers. "Saudi are the only ones with real barrels, the rest is paper," the source said. He asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter. PAPER BARRELS Saudi oil output is set to rise to above 9.5 million bpd in July, leaving the kingdom with the ability to raise output by another 2.5 million bpd if it decides to. That capacity has been tested, however, only once in the last decade and only for one month in 2020 when Saudi Arabia and Russia fell out and pumped at will in a fight for market share. Saudi Arabia has also stopped investing in expanding its spare capacity beyond 12 million bpd as the kingdom diverted resources to other projects. Russia, the second largest producer inside OPEC+, claims it can pump above 12 million bpd. JP Morgan estimates, however, that Moscow can only ramp up output by 250,000 bpd to 9.5 million bpd over the next three months and will struggle to raise output further due to sanctions. The UAE says its maximum oil production capacity is 4.85 million bpd, and told OPEC that its production of crude alone in April stood at just over 2.9 million bpd, a figure largely endorsed by OPEC's secondary sources. The International Energy Agency, however, estimated the country's crude production at about 3.3 million bpd in April, and says the UAE has the capacity to raise that by a further 1 million bpd. BNP Paribas sees UAE output even higher at 3.5-4.0 million bpd. "I think spare capacity is significantly lower than what's often quoted," said BNP analyst Aldo Spanjer. The difference in ability to raise production has already created tensions inside OPEC+. Saudi Arabia favours unwinding cuts of about 800,000 bpd by the end of October, sources have told Reuters. At their last meeting, Russia along with Oman and Algeria expressed support for pausing a hike for July.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel says missile launched from Yemen fell in Hebron; at least 5 Palestinians hurt
CAIRO (Reuters) -The Israeli military said on Friday a missile that was launched from Yemen towards Israel fell to earth inside the city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank, adding that no interceptors were involved. At least five Palestinians, including three children, sustained injuries from the missile's sharpnel that fell in Hebron, the Palestinian Red Crescent said in a later statement. The incident occurred amid an ongoing Israeli military campaign targeting nuclear sites in Iran that wiped out that country's entire top echelon of military commanders and also killed nuclear scientists. Yemen's Houthis, who usually claim responsibility for missiles launched towards Israel from Yemen, are allied to Iran.
