Friday, March 1, 2013

Palestinian-Arabs Lie About "Price Tag" Attack

Mike L.

Police: Palestinians tried to fabricate 'price tag' attack

An investigation into the suspected torching of Palestinian vehicles in the village of Kusra showed that the case was an attempt to fabricate a "price tag" act.

Earlier this month, Shai District Police began probing claims by Palestinians that settlers from the Esh Kodesh outpost had torched their cars but found there had been no arson. 
Last week, residents from Kusra reported that settlers had infiltrated their village in the middle of the night, torched six cars and fled the scene. They produced an ID card to prove that settlers were behind the act. 
It was later revealed that the card belonged to a soldier who had lost it in the village a few days earlier. When police arrived at the village to investigate the claims, they were pelted with stones and driven away.
This is essentially Pallywood.  It is the effort by Palestinian-Arabs to defame Palestinian-Jews in the court of international opinion. This kind of thing is part of the delegitmization effort in the Arab war against the Jews which is why I give virtually no credence to these horrendous reports about Jewish evil.

The go-to guy on Pallywood is Dr. Richard Landes of Boston University.

44 comments:

  1. The same for the prisoner that allegedly died from Israeli torture.

    Some people eat this stuff up because it proves that Israel and all Israelis are outlaws, while others go so far as to accuse the ones who expose such frauds as engaging in the same hate as those who perpetuate the frauds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fortunately, those in the latter category are an insignificant bunch taken seriously by exactly nobody. For example, I know of one site like you describe, which essentially consists of two people (let's call them Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber) talking to each other, where the general pattern is one tells the other how awesome he is, while the latter then thanks the former for his incisive thoughts on that matter.

      Such is the extent of their intellectual prowess and debating capability. No honest, fair and open-minded person would ever stumble across such a place, and be convinced by such a hollow charade. So, at least there's that...

      Both of those types you mention are simply one and the same in the end.

      Delete
    2. Actually, I do not subscribe to insults from any quarter, with rare exception, and believe there is too much of it, even if I do not condemn each and every instance.

      Just because one behaves poorly, it does not give license for another to reciprocate. That is what happens too often and it achieves nothing.

      My main objection is when the pot calls the kettle black, which I believe is a frequent occurrence by the intolerants who pretend to be tolerant.

      Delete
    3. I agree with this, and though I realize I'm no angel myself, I do at least try to recognize my flaws and correct them as I go along.

      Would that this were true of everyone...

      Delete
    4. Some are worse than others, especially those who try to come off as exemplars, yet fail so mightily. It would be comical if it were not so sad.

      Delete
    5. "The amount of outrage over an Arab death is inversely proportional to the square of the possibility that the death can be blamed on Jews. "

      http://elderofziyon.blogspot.ca/2013/03/another-palestinian-arab-dies-in.html

      Delete
    6. Thousands upon thousands of humanitarian racists are wagging disapproving fingers at you in a haughty manner right now, Doodad...

      Delete
  2. Mutual blog friend Shirlee has some words at the Joint that I freshly snitched from Daphne Anson

    http://geofffff.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/shirlee-has-some-words.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Geoff for flattering me by re-posting my 'rave and rant'

    There are now a number of us actively trying for change. One more outspoken than me but he lived in the middle of 'loony left 'Jews of Melbourne'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commented at Daphne's place. And thanks for the reminder that I need to go there more often. That also has the added benefit of driving one of my crazed fans, a former acquaintance, into a foaming rage. So all the better!

      ;)

      Anyway.

      Thanks for the view from around your way. I think one of the points missed on the 'multiculturalism' stuff is that defining others as The Other, which is what Big-M Multiculturalism does, is problematic in and of itself. I don't view my shwarma guy down the street, who keeps a framed photo of Morsi at his grill station, as an Arab or a Muslim. Both of which he is. I just view him as my neighbor, and a damned great cook. He views me as a regular customer, and the guy who occasionally has amusing stories of his day to share. Though we surely disagree on many things, we get along just fine as we are. We're just two people living in the same city, trying to make it to the next day.

      What I find most amusing regarding those who are so fundamentalist about Big-M Multiculturalism, is that I've found most are white liberals who live in extremely self-segregated communities, and are so full of shame at their own choices that they feel they must loudly lecture all those who don't unquestionably accept their moral superiority, and are so quick to drop charges of 'racism' (Political Islam isn't a race, last time I checked), to assuage their own guilt.

      The current state of discourse among certain quarters of the 'progressive' community is dumbfounding these days. Being accepting of people who are different from you, does not mean accepting those whose values include wanting to see you dead or forced into permanent second- or third-class citizenship.

      I don't know much about Wilders, to be honest, nor is it my job to work myself up into a crazed lather every time someone who is generally considered 'controversial' is brought up. I'll get to that in my own time, and eventually form my own judgments. After all, I'm a Philadelphian first and foremost, and my main concern is what Maria Quinones-Sanchez, Mark Squilla and Kenyatta Johnson are up to down in City Hall.

      I will say for right now, though, that I've certainly learned enough about certain people elsewhere on the web to state with absolute certainty that they are no better than the devilish (and likely exaggerated) pictures they paint of others with whom they disagree. Unlike them, at least I am willing to admit that I do not know everything and everybody in the world, and if I'm wrong on something (or somebody) I'm fully capable of, and willing to, recognize that and correct myself as I go along.

      Anyway, sorry if some of this doesn't make too much sense. I'm just thinking out loud here for the most part...

      Delete
    2. The problem is not multiculturalism, per se, but cultural relativism that seeks to find equal value among cultures that are far from equal in respective values.

      In such a paradigm, to raise the issue makes one a bigot or racist, even if what one says is true.

      This is the world that Orwell warned about, and which is fast approaching if some get their way and criminalize the freedom to express and even offend.

      Delete
    3. I think that's exactly what I was getting at, though I didn't necessarily say it as well as I should have.

      (Now stay tuned while I'm smeared as The Most Racisty Racist Ever in the Entire History of the World, by some anonymous blogger in a gated community who only sees non-white faces when The Help comes...)

      Though one point I do mean to make is that multiculturalism is the default situation for so many of us, and such things as relativism have only come about recently, since certain people fled our cities and then decided they had to be so loud on these issues simply to assuage their guilt at their own life choices.

      Delete
    4. Which, to be clear, such choices I do not criticize in and of themselves, except for only when those who've made them turn around and try to play Super Progressive Exemplar at the expense of others...

      Delete
    5. And yes, you're correct. Thanks for clearing up my mistaken hazy area. I did mean "cultural relativism."

      Mea culpa.

      Delete
    6. It is also known as multiculturalism because this is how it started, I believe in Canada, as a doctrine to be implemented.

      Tragically, the so-called experts created a monster of relativism where values and associated behavior are set aside, unless one is scrutinizing one's own culture, often to kill it despite that it has been the primary engine of human rights and progress, even with its many flaws.

      Delete
    7. And ideally, this happens organically in urban melting-pot societies like the US and Canada. In instances like that I outline above. We only need this as a doctrine to be implemented after hypocritical supporters of same set up communities where such a thing is impossible in their own everyday lives, and which therefore requires the apparent need for everyone to be taught all over again, what we all, deep down in the well of our common humanity, already know - that we should all respect each other as the fellow human beings that we are.

      These so-called experts, and those who buy into and defend their themes, predictably react viscerally to being called out on this, and lash out at those who do so. I suppose the best we can hope for, in those cases, is that honest and decent people who come across that can see it for exactly what it is. And I think most do.

      Call me an optimist. Heh.

      Delete
    8. The problem becomes when society practices the doctrine under the artificial direction of the experts, but there are groups in reality that not only do not accept it, but seek to abuse the benefits it bestows.

      Delete
    9. And when there are apologists for those who do so. I'd argue they might even be worse.

      Delete
    10. Many of the apologists have a different agenda, which is to replace the system itself and install themselves as the deciders of our fate, or else! Life under them would be no better, despite their lofty claims. It is Orwell's "Animal Farm" brought to life.

      Delete
    11. And btw, great job taking on and exposing the guy at that other place. Sorry I won't see what's going there from now on, as I've decided I will never again click on that site. But anyway, yeah. Good point on 'why didn't he come here and object to the comment he's been throwing a phony fit about?' for the past 24 hours.

      Of course, it's because he can't delete comments here which embarrass him. He'd have to stand up on his own intellectual merits, which frankly don't merit much.

      Delete
    12. I wonder how they would define Orwell today.

      Delete
    13. It's worth going there and showing there is a different context, and how unable some are to handle a bit of pushback without violating the principles they claim to uphold.

      Delete
    14. It was indeed fascinating to see you repeatedly make your case(s) there, only to be met with Romper Room-style, juvenile putdowns (the last time someone insulted my mother was in like third grade). Or worse (being called a cockroach... he still denies there's a problem with this?).

      One would think that one of his friends would eventually step in and point out what a buffoon continually makes of himself, but whatever. Not my problem anymore.

      Delete
    15. Some cannot help themselves, even with the help of friends, but a crude and juvenile approach is certainly not a way to persuade, and something that people interested in actual discourse would never resort to.

      Delete
    16. and something that people interested in actual discourse would never resort to.

      Yeah, there's the thing. I actually, amazingly, had one decent exchange with the guy a few weeks ago, and thought he had possibly changed for the better. Silly me.

      For all the braying some do about seeking discourse, to insist that one only address 'the question at hand,' when that 'question' was merely a juvenile smearing of no sense whatsoever ("when did you stop beating your wife, Jay?!"), or have one's comments deleted, well... I think he showed himself for all who are willing to see as exactly the childish fool that he is.

      He is no more interested in discourse on his site than Commentary Magazine was, when they refused to post my respectful, though disagreeing, comments on Pennsylvania's "voter ID," so called, law, a few months ago.

      Delete
  4. "PMW: PA TV honors terrorists who killed 22 children and 4 adults for the second year in a row
    Other terror attacks by DFLP also honored

    The Ma'alot massacre was done by the DFLP in 1974. Terrorists took school children as hostages.
    22 of them were murdered along with four adults.
    The PA TV tribute also honored terrorists who were described as "the heroes of Beit Shean, the pride of the Palestinian revolution."
    These were three PFLP terrorists who killed four civilians in the Israeli city of Beit Shean."

    http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8605

    How anyone can support these savages is beyond me unless one favors the killing of Jews; especially Jewish children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How dare you call them savages, you ray cyst!

      Delete
    2. I will call these terrorists savages, too. Because they are.

      Those who defend them have the 'splainin to do. Not us.

      Delete
    3. Ray Cyst? Is that you volleyball?

      Delete
    4. Gasp! Are you threatening to 'out' him, Doodad?! And / or sic Zombie Kahane on him?

      ;)

      Delete
    5. lol...just my little nod to the ludicrous off-his-meds rant over there recently. Slow day at the self-righteousness bank I guess.

      Wanna go slit some throats later? ;)

      Delete
    6. Sure thing! Though we should probably switch it up with some ethnic cleansing, too. I mean, doing one thing over and over just gets boring...

      ;)

      Delete
    7. Exactly. It's so hard to stay for a genocidal racist to stay occupied these days. (Occupied, get it?)

      Delete
    8. hmmmmm just washed my tongue and can't do a thing with it. delete the first "to stay."

      Delete
    9. I think that what I object to is when some Jewish people hold Jews, in general, to a far higher moral standard than they hold anyone else on the planet.

      Isn't that basically the definition of anti-Semitism?

      Delete
    10. "Isn't that basically the definition of anti-Semitism?"

      Yes it is.

      Delete
  5. In early February I went to hear the journalist 'report back' from their Board Of Deputies sponsored visit to Israel, which as usual was very interesting

    What is interesting is the fact that these people go with no preconceived ideas about Israel and all return with very positive attitudes.

    I won't go into the whole spiel, I'll just make one comment which each of them made in their prepared speeches.

    They had a day in Bethlehem with the Mayor and each one was equally horrified when they were shown a children's playground named in honour of a 'martyr'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A little knowledge can go a long ways to quell the ignorance of the well-intentioned and open minded.

      As is a theme at my blog.

      http://oldschooltwentysix.blogspot.com/2013/02/ignorance-of-well-intentioned.html

      It is amazing to see just how unaware even the aware can be.

      Delete
    2. each one was equally horrified when they were shown a children's playground named in honour of a 'martyr'

      Can you believe some consider it 'racist' to even bring this disgusting fact up?

      Such are the times we live in. Interesting ones, eh?

      Delete
    3. "A little knowledge can go a long ways to quell the ignorance of the well-intentioned and open minded."

      ^
      This.

      ----

      It's about Standing Up for the Human Rights of the Jewish People.

      Delete
  6. In answer to Randall Kohn on March 1, 2013 at 11:16 PM

    Posted : "How dare you call them savages, you ray cyst!"

    On simple question for you.

    How can one be racist when speaking of a non-existent people.??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shirl, the question of "Palestinian" identity is a fascinating one, but it's one that people are not even allowed to discuss without getting their reputations dragged through the mud by hostile ideologues.

      Does a distinct "Palestinian" national group exist? Yes, I would say so. It's just that all national groups are, in some measure, social constructs that have starting points and the starting point for the "Palestinians" was a quarter past last Tuesday.

      Here are my questions on the subject.

      If the "Palestinians" represent a distinct people, just how are they distinct from Syrian Arabs or Jordanian Arabs in language or religion or cuisine?

      "Palestinian" national identity is the news national identity on the planet. So what caused the emergence of the Palestinian national identity?

      Also, just who is in and who is out of "Palestinian" national identity? It seems rather flexible and inconsistent.

      In any case, the question of "Palestinian" national identity is right at the center of the conflict and therefore it's a terrible shame that it is taboo for discussion among so many self-righteous ideologues.

      Delete
    2. Did you actually miss the sarcasm in what I wrote?

      Delete
  7. Arab culture is an honor culture, a vendetta culture. One's allegiance is to one's family, tribe or clan. If your neighbor isn't part of that he's fair game. And because he's fair game, you are free to do whatever you like. A 'collaborator' is often no more than someone who insulted your uncle 5 years ago or they have a nicer car or a washing machine, and you don't. This is why it should be obvious that some graffiti on a mosque and torching a car are not the same thing. One is vandalism, ostensibly by some angry Jewish young people or whatnot, but hardly a crime. The other is arson, robbery and attempted murder. Arabs based on their culture of honor and reprisal are going to set fire to cars or another's house or denounce each other as 'collaborators' because that's what they do. Arson is punishment, but denouncing someone allows you to confiscate their property intact. Clearly not the same thing as graffiti.

    ReplyDelete