Sunday, July 06, 2014

I don't mind people who purportedly care about human rights and human dignity use the term "racist" and provide horrifying tales of Israeli racism. What I do mind is the moral condescension and hypocrisy of such "peaceniks" who harbour in their heart of hearts dark and unreconstructed pathological prejudices.I'm not suspecting Elizabeth Tsurkov of any such prejudices. I'm sure she has been very solicitous towards Mizrahi Jews in Israeli society and

their haughty marginalization by certain parts of the Squeaky Clean Left. I'm just saying, you know, how impressed I am by her concern for the Mizrahi Jew mistaken for an Arab.

This in response to this tweet:

And then I wondered about that "racist" thingy and how it can act like a moebius ring:

Nonsense, Ochovsky style

And still on the same subject. Gal Ochovsky, on his television show, conducted a terrible racist interview with Ronen Shoval from “Im Tirtzu”.** “You are such an Ashkenazi , he told him “with blue eyes”. And that really is wrong that this young man with his Aryan looks should behave like the barbarians and the Feiglins. In the mind of the enlightened Ochovsky in order to be a dangerous racist you need to be dark skinned, dark-eyed. Though, in fact, Feiglin has blue eyes, too. This won’t do any good. Ochovsky has solid opinions about blond blue-eyed people. For him they are über alles and that was just for starters. There was no interview there, only an unleashed fulmination, cringing support for and self-ingratiating to Bakri, the great actor, and analogizing “Im Tirtzu” to McCarthyism and the benighted thirties. So said the man who loves the Aryan look.
The problem does not spring from Ochovsky’s opinions. The problem is his shallowness. It was Bakri who called for a boycott against Israeli culture, and not just at the Paris Festival. Is there a chance that Ochovsky would turn Bakri into a Nazi or a McCarthyite? Not bloody likely. Ochovsky was one of those who aligned himself with the boycotting of Hall of Culture at Ariel. So there. He is for boycotts but will tag as Nazis ("The thirties”) those who call for boycotting Bakri.
It is all right for Ochovsky to have his own television program in which he sprays his agenda. Freedom of Speech and all that. How come, though, that there is not a similar television program which promotes the antithesis to Ochovsky?"

To quote a well known Jewish rabbi:  He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first  stone.

Just saying, like.

 "The following story illustrates my point: In 1947, before the declaration of Israel’s statehood, an incident took place at exactly the same spot as this one, the corner of Jaffa and Ben Yehuda streets. A group of kids just out of school encountered two Arabs, “one young, the other old” and treated them with “distinct crudeness”, including “coarse provocation” and bodily injury. An eye witness to the incident was Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, the spiritual leader of national Zionism in general and the settler movement in particular. He saw what happened and later published a scathing letter to the principal of the school these kids attended. He specified that “not everyone was complicit in the deed … some [of the kids] protested against it”, but the letter was severe and sharply-worded.
“I was pained and ashamed … The reality of the incident upset and offended me and forces me to alert you to the need to pay special and intense attention to prevent such incidents in future. From a moral aspect instructed in the Torah and from the practical aspect of good social and national politics. We need to educate for  peaceful manners and neighbourly relationship”. There is a double message being made, simultaneously moral and political. We should not learn everything the Rabbi had to teach but this letter should be taught in school, in the subject of civics."

Consider Palestinian hatred of Israel (and 50+% of Jews) in the light of story told by Reinhard Heydrich to Adolf Eichmann and Rudolf Lange in "Conspiracy":

 He told me a story about a man he had known all his life, a boyhood friend.  This man hated his father.  Loved his mother fiercely.  His mother was devoted to him, but his father used to beat him, demeaned him, disinherited him.  Anyway, this friend grew to manhood and was still in his thirties when the mother died.  The mother, who had nurtured and protected him, died.  The man stood at her grave as they lowered the coffin and tried to cry, but no tears came.

The man’s father lived to a very extended old age and withered away and died when the son was in his fifties.  At the father’s funeral, much to the son’s surprise, he could not control his tears.  Wailing, sobbing….he was apparently inconsolable.  Utterly lost.  That was the story Kritzinger told me.

The man had been driven his whole life by hatred of his father.  When his mother died, that was a loss, but when his father died and the hate had lost its object, the man’s life was completely empty.

Palestinian identity IS hatred of Israel. It's not a self-sustaining identity as it thrives only on fantasies of destruction and revenge. 

Prof. Abu Khalil is a great supporter of Palestinian nationalism. He is much admired by many of the more educated Palestinians and supporters of Palestinians. His view is a fairly accurate representation of the kind of hatred Kritzinger's story explains. It's an hatred that is  a core of identity. Everything a person is rides on that core. It explains why Palestinians (and by extension most Arabs) cannot deal with the very idea of Jewish suffering, that they celebrate murder of Jews and beatify mass-terrorists. Their response to horrors inflicted on Israelis is compatible with the type of pure hatred epitomized in the son's relationship to his father. Cultural ethos is always an enactment of a worldview, a philosophy, a way of defining oneself.

Hatred and violence are partners in the same way.  Hatred is the worldview. Violence is the ethos. Therefore, the ideal extends towards destruction, more destruction, and nihilism. The celebrations of mass-murder are only a manifestation of the constitutive hatred that forms Palestinian identity.

Reduce the hatred, and you augment civilization. But only Palestinians can do that for themselves. They have to decide what they are going to be when they grow up. Make no mistake about it, nothing, not even the annihilation of Israel,  is ever going to satisfy this unappeasable hatred and its need to feed itself. It's a bottomless pit.  And only Palestinians can climb out of this pit.

I said it before and I'll say it again: Humans tend to opt for the lower, baser, primitive instincts of our nature. Humans also learn things by observation and imitation. When faced with an enemy whose ethos preaches, supports and glorifies no-holds-barred hatred and violence some humans will respond in kind. 

It is a law of nature. 

To prevent this, we have created civilization. But "Civilization is not self-supporting. It is artificial. If you are not prepared to concern yourself with the upholding of civilization -- you are done." (Ortega y Gasset).

This is what happened with these murderers. They gave in to the most primitive of rage. What I would like to know is what is their relationship with civilization and how come they grew so wild that they could even come together, think together, plot and carry out such a horror.

More important I want to know who is truly responsible for turning these persons into murdering monsters. Who is the inciter? Who told them this can be done and that it is right?

Monday, June 30, 2014

Friday, June 20, 2014

British Foreign Office in 1949...

As per the love that flows towards the Jewish state from the Presbyterian Church, voting to boycott Israelis and remove them from the circle of grace accorded to all humanity

Friday, May 23, 2014

 What are the goals of the BDS movement?

From the pen of a BDS-supporter, mover and shaker, comes a vision for a one-state solution:

There is only conflict between you and us: only conflict.  I even cringe when I see you protests because I know how deeply racist you are and how much you suffer from self-admiration and delusions.  But your delusions are good for us: you won't know what will hit you in the future in response to all the war crimes that you have committed against our people.  You may hear a cheer or two from a handful of puppets of your occupation, or from a propagandist or two in Saudi publications.  But the conflict will continue:  It will only end by the end of that Zionist entity and an end to the occupation of Palestine.  And once the Palestinian refugees are returned to their homes all over Palestine, I will make sure that you get decent rents in the formerly Palestinian refugee camps because we may be a bit short of space for the occupiers then.  Oh, one more word: go and shed more tears for Mubarak and ask him for space in his Sharam Ash-Shaykh hospital. 

And here is Norman Finkelstein, providing the glossary necessary to understand these goals:

"... the BDS movement “think they are really clever” by covering up their real intentions when they call for a “three-tier” agenda of ending the occupation, demanding the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and equal rights for all Arabs in Israel. “You know and I know what the result is. There is no Israel!” he said."

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Before and After

I don't get it. The "before" photo shows a valley between two mountain slopes. There is a group of trees in the middle but the mountain slopes are bare, brown and rocky. The "after" photo shows a valley between two mountain slopes. The valley in the middle is bare and seems to be covered by some sort of sand. The mountain slopes on either side of it are green and covered with trees and grass for as far as the eye can see.

So I really don't understand what kind of a before and after this is. How long has elapsed between the before and the after? How long would it take for the trees in the after to grow on those bare slopes of the before? How many years, or seasons, hours, would it take for those slopes to turn green? And how come neither the author of the piece nor any of the commenters noticed this anomaly? Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

The New Moral Frontier: It's not a lynch if the victim is a Jew 

In recent news: 

Two Israeli journalists covering Palestinian riots in Beitunua, near Ramallah, were attacked by masked Palestinian rioters on Friday.

The journalists, Walla Arab affairs analyst Avi Issacharoff and a cameraman, were attacked after a Palestinian woman claiming to be a journalist set the rioters on them, Issacharoff told Channel 10 News on Friday evening.
 The two were beaten by masked men and suffered bruising before being evacuated from the area by plainclothes Palestinian Authority security officers, who then transferred them to the custody of the IDF’s Civil Administration for Judea and Samaria.

Look how the BDS Angry-in-chief characterizes the near-goring of two Israeli journalists:
"... two Israeli journalists said they were nearly “lynched” by a Palestinian mob."  Today, I NEARLY invented a cure for cancer."
Now see how he characterizes similar (very few) incidents in the past when the victims were Arabs:

Zionism is a mass hate crime

lynching Arabs in Israel:

that Israelis habitually lynch Arabs,

This is Zionism: “Two Palestinians narrowly escaped a lynching attempt in Jerusalem Tuesday evening after they were assaulted by dozens of ultra-Orthodox Jews. The two Arabs were wounded, while a Jewish resident who protected them with his body was stabbed.” (thanks Rashid)
Posted on July 23, 2008 by As'ad

According to Haaretz, following the incident in Zion Square:
Four minors between the ages of 13-15, including one girl, were arrested on Sunday in connection with the attack at Zion Square, in which one victim was seriously injured and three others were slightly hurt.

Let's look at some records:

The professor says thathat Israelis habitually lynch Arabs,

 Googling " lynching of Arabs by Israelis" produced 409,000 results . 

I looked at the first 5 pages. There were lynching stories and near- lynching stories but only one  story about a "near lynching" of  Palestinian youths by Israeli-Jewish youth, the same incident I mentioned above.

Other lynching and near-lynchings stories were about Palestinians murdering or attempting to murder Israeli -Jews, one attempt to lynch a Palestinian family mistaken for Jews. ("She spoke to them in Arabic and only then did they understand that we ourselves are Arabs, and left us alone. I hit the gas and drove away as fast as possible.” According to him, the youth clearly mistook them for Jews: “Me and my wife look Jewish, even the police officer who arrived said ‘at first sight I was sure you were Jews.")

Then there are other Arab-on-Arab lynchings, like this one:

They had been "caught red-handed," working for Israel, and so were executed.
According to the Associated Press, who also photographed the grisly spectacle, masked Hamas gunmen had forced the six men suspected of collaborating with Israel to lie face down on the street, then shot them dead. Later, while an angry mob stomped and spat on five of the bodies, the sixth was tied to the back of a motorcycle. “Spy! Spy!” the people screamed as the corpse was dragged off.

There are websites where one can find accounts of these lynchings that ended in death. All you need is to look for them.

But I think in view of these records  we will be justified in puckering our brow at Prof. As'ad AbuKhalil's manner of reporting gory near-murders and lynches. And we may wish to ask the respectable Professor who teaches young Americans at a bona fide good university in the US:

Why does he claim that "Israelis habitually lynch Arabs," when the record shows that it is Palestinians who seem to be unable to resist lynch-mobbing lusts?

Why does he belittle the serious near-lynching of Israeli journalists when not too long ago he referred to a violent clash among youths as a lynching, and extrapolated from this lie that Israel is in the habit of lynching Arabs?

One would be forgiven for concluding that for the venerable, justice-loving professor, it is almost as if the murder of an Israeli Jew is a normal occurrence, only to be expected, nothing to be exercised about.  His justice juices begin to flow furiously only when an Arab is killed (or almost killed) by a Jew.

He has no inclination for law and justice when Palestinians are summarily lynched for the suspicion of collaborating with Israel:

According to the West, those collaborators should be respected and their freedom of movement ensured because such are the rules of Western freedom of expression.  I can say this: Palestinian treatment of collaborators over the years has been far less brutal and indiscriminate than French resistance treatment of Nazi collaborators.  There is no question about that."

So we see a professor who is in charge of forming the minds of future generations of Americans, promoting, on his well-attended website, distortions of historical, easily-verifiable records, perversions of notion of justice, contempt for human life, justifications for murder and valorization of gory revenge as a reasonable recourse of action.

Of course he is not a man of peace. As can be evidenced from the most cursory perusal of his "news" service. This is the man whom universities trust with educating the young. This is what a BDS mover and shaker looks and sounds like.

Make no mistake: The BDS movement reflects this man's values. 

He tries, here, to put some distance between himself and the BDS movement, as if it does not go far enough:

"I count myself as BDS supporter, advocate, and even spokesperson but I am categorically against the existence of the State of Israel"

However, as we see from the quote he provides from Norman Finkelstein  he is fully aware that there is no light between his position and that of BDS:

"... the BDS movement “think they are really clever” by covering up their real intentions when they call for a “three-tier” agenda of ending the occupation, demanding the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and equal rights for all Arabs in Israel. “You know and I know what the result is. There is no Israel!” he said."

" I am categorically against the existence of the State of Israel", says the self-proclaimed
"BDS supporter, advocate, and even spokesperson". Which is exactly what Finkelstein claims is the goal of the BDS movement: "There is no Israel!” 

It all hangs together, the subhumanization of Israelis and the avowal to have Israel eradicated.
People who support BDS should know what it is they are supporting.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

By Your Slanderous Fabrications You Shall Be Recognized:

From avowed BDSers:

The passage highlighted in red is the source of a quote which circulates on the Internet in a distorted manner, attributing to Menachem Begin a declaration that Jews are a 'Master race" and Palestinians are "two footed animal". 

This is an excerpt from Begin's statement to the Knesset on June 8, 1982:

  "Mr. Speaker, what did we do after all the considerations, after all the weighing, after all the hesitations? What could we do? Could we accept the malicious interpretation of an unsigned agreement for the cessation of hostilities, according to which it was only from south Lebanon that terrorists could not strike at us, but from any other sector it is permitted, and all the Jews of the world can be their target?

We have never accepted this explanation. I asked Mr. Philip Habib, who I will soon meet with again, to note that we give no permission to strike at Jews in the Diaspora, and we stood by this correct interpretation. The talk that striking at Jews in London, in Athens, in Rome and in other locations is not a breach of the agreement for the cessation of hostilities - is a strange interpretation that I have never accepted, but it exists.

What could we do, therefore? In this generation, shall we abandon Jewish blood? Shall we allow the murder of an ambassador of the State of Israel, who represents its glory, honor and sovereignty? It is apparent that we had to react to this criminal act, and we did so. And what did the enemy do? It immediately began massive shelling. In the course of two days, 800 shells were fired on 23 of our settlements in the Galilee. There was mass destruction of property. There were wounded. A soldier was killed, our blood was spilled, and they threatened to continue. Men, women and children by the thousands and tens of thousands were forced to sit in shelters day and night, in the summer.
In the course of the past year, we added shelters. It is true that we improved shelters, but nevertheless it is very difficult. I have been in them. It is very difficult to sit in them even for a few hours. We have here a Knesset member who recalls her visit to her kibbutz, Gesher, our Edna. She once said to me: Soon we will have children who we will call "shelter children." Thank God, in that part of the country there is peace since then. And then we began shelter-children in Nahariya, shelter-children in Kiryat Shmona, in Kfar Giladi, in Metulla, in Misgav Am, in Dafna. Shelter children. 

Is there a nation which would tolerate such a phenomenon?  Is there a nation which would acquiesce in such aggression? I want to declare to all nations: The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow and in Peking; in Paris and in Rome; in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of a million and half a million Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

But, here there are Katyushas, missiles and artillery shells day and night, with the sole intention of murdering our women and children. There are military targets in the Galilee. What a characteristic phenomenon, they are protected, completely immune to these terrorists. Only at the civilian population, only to shed our blood, just to kill our children, our wives, our sisters, our elderly. Such a method, so despicable, terroristic. Despicable. There has been none so despicable since the days of the S.A. the S.S. and the Gestapo.

There was never an armed organization so low, so despicable as this terrorist organization, which aims its unclean weapons against men, women and children. Therefore we have implemented our right to national self-defense.

In reply to U.S. President Reagan's letter, a very friendly letter, I explained to him: Here the U.S. supports Britain's actions in the Falkland Islands, or the Malvinas as the Argentinians call them. How does Mrs. Thatcher justify it? On the basis of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which speaks of "The inherent right of self defense." 8,000 miles from that country, this is a right of national self-defense? Whereas one mile, two miles, three miles, on our doorstep, our threshold, we are attacked and have no right to national self-defense? We have to sit by and watch the shells falling on our brothers and sisters? It is clear that we had to implement our right of national self-defense, and we did so. We continue to do so.

Once more, I would like to tell all peoples - for a long time, too long, the Jew was excluded from all the laws which applied to all nations. No more. The laws which apply to other nations will apply to our nation - to the Jewish people. The right of self-defense accorded to all other nations is also accorded to us. No more and no less.

Since I am still on the subject of Britain, I want to return to the important and famous newspaper, "Times". which today published a leader attacking Israel and me, personally, for what we have done in the north in order to protect our people in the Galilee and in Lebanon. That is its right - we believe in freedom of the press - however, if someone attacks he has to expect a response. I wish to say:
A newspaper which supported the treachery of the Munich Agreement must be very careful about moralizing to a small nation fighting for its life. Were we to listen to it, we would no longer be in existence. Czechoslovakia vanished because of the famous line of the "Times" in 1938, and the famous, or infamous lead article at the time of Rumciman's visit to Prague. But we learned the lesson. Therefore, we are also not taking the latest advice of the "Times", just as we did not take its advice at the time of Munich. It should take stock of its deeds and articles."

With regard to "two footed animal" I have this to say:

 It seems to me that the description of a person so evil and perverse that he seeks out to kill Jewish children qua Jewish Israeli children, that there is simply no comprehending him, as “two-footed animal” does gross injustice to the animal. Animals do not kill randomly. Animals do not murder innocents for revenge.

It is quite puzzling, in fact, that some people assume the Palestinians are the ones, as a collectivity, designated as "two legged animal"s. Surely this is not intended to imply, that all Palestinians, to a person, raise their hand to slay Jewish kids? I would hazard a guess that most Palestinians are horrified when Jewish kids are deliberately targeted and gunned down by a Palestinian or any murderer, in their name. In fact, even if images of celebrating Palestinians beam across the world's TV screens, they represent only themselves, and not the millions of other Palestinians who are not celebrating, and are not seen to be celebrating. Why, then, the assumption that Palestinians can be   essentialized as murderers? Why assume that Begin's angry description of the terrorist as "two legged animals" refers to all Palestinians?


I ask again: what good is  a cause that needs to be supported by lies, slanders and hateful inventions to prove its justice?