Thursday, July 10, 2014

A response to Jeremy Ben-Ami

Sar Shalom

In Jeremy Ben-Ami's response to the kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli teenagers, the most important message is that we should see the Palestinians' point of view so that we will not fill with hatred against them. Ben-Ami has a kernel of truth to his point. Our tradition teaches us that we should emulate the ways of the Lord. When it comes to provocations, Ashkenazim say to G-d during the unetane tokef on the High Holidays, based on Ezekiel 33:11, "You do not desire the death of the condemned man, rather that he shall repent and live." It continues, "You will wait until he dies."

What this teaches is that our preferred aftermath of the atrocities that the Islamists commit against us should be that the Islamists will repent and allow us to dwell securely in our land which even their book recognizes as ours, and that is what we should pray for. The issue becomes what should be our secondary preference, that is what if they do not repent. Ben-Ami is implying that we should just turn the other cheek until they do. Such a position has no support, particularly in what follows in the passage in Ezekiel.

What we need to do is hone our ability to interdict their atrocities against us. The guiding principle should be the legal definition of proportionality, not the pseudodefinition of one Hatfield for one McCoy that is so popular in politically correct circles. That is targets have to be selected based on how hitting them degrades their ability to perpetrate what is legitimately called a grievance and the impact on non-combatants should not clearly outweigh the gravity of the provocation. Doing so will minimize the harm they can inflict until, if it should ever happen, they repent.

25 comments:

  1. What the Ben-Ami's the world have to say about anything should not interest or concern any of us. They are proxies for Obama and Obama is at best worthless but more often dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd agree that Ben-Ami is odious. The thing is that when he does have a kernel of truth, denying that kernel of truth undermines our denial of what deserves to be condemned.

      One thing John Marshall used to do was establish principles that people in power did want to have in place. He did so by having the first use of the new principle be a justification for what those in power want to do with the effect that if one wanted to stifle the principle Marshall introduced, he would have to forgo an action that he wanted to do.

      My response to Ben-Ami is somewhat in this mold in that I start by agreeing to a sliver of what he writes and then add a twist to condemn him.

      Delete
    2. It is neither moral nor ethical to give the benefit of the doubt to people who themselves brook none. It would be as if the spies returned to Moses and were given a parade for telling Bnei Israel that the giants have as least as good a case as anyone else.

      Delete
    3. How is this giving him the benefit of the doubt? The point is to condemn him on grounds that he can't reject. Achieving that requires acknowledging that his sentiment is partially in synch with traditional Jewish values.

      Delete
  2. soysauce sez:

    "I admit shame to feeling more agony for Palestinian Mohammad Abu Khdeir, the 16-year old abducted from in front of his Jerusalem home, burned alive and murdered than I did for Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah, the three Israeli teenagers who were abducted and murdered. Why? They are all children caught up in a system of violence.

    Why do I cry for one and not the other? "

    Anybody surprised?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/09/1312779/-Dismantling-Oppression-This-Palestinian-s-Cry-for-Justice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is too much public crying going on.

      I never liked that woman, as I am sure that you will be shocked to learn, Doodad.

      Delete
    2. In fact, wasn't it "Soysauce" that got picked up at Ben Gurion awhile ago?

      Delete
    3. Yes, it was. Astonishing that a terror lover seeking to visit the country she loudly wants to see destroyed would be singled out, eh?

      Racism!!1!

      Delete
    4. Yet she is wrapped in the mantle of the Quakers. I guess hating Jews is part of their thang now. Evil witch.

      Delete
    5. She is an Arab Christian Quaker?

      You don't run into one of those every day.

      I am sure that she must be exceedingly proud of herself.

      Delete
    6. Yeah, as a dhimmi I'm sure she's also obliged to blame the Joooz for the disappearance of her people in the place where they came from, even though Israel is the only country in which Christians are safe and free.

      Delete
    7. *the only country in that region where Christians are safe and free

      Delete
  3. "What we need to do is hone our ability to interdict their atrocities against us. The guiding principle should be the legal definition of proportionality, not the pseudodefinition of one Hatfield for one McCoy that is so popular in politically correct circles."

    I think that what we need to do is kick their ass.

    What I think is that Israel needs to eliminate Hamas.

    But I do thank you for the Hatfield & McCoy reference!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is all in the realm of strategy that is beyond my league. Michael Totten raised the point this week that if we eliminate Hamas now, something worse (Islamic Jihad, Islamic State) will inevitably take power in Gaza or anarchy will allow small groups to fire rockets without the return address that Hamas has. I have no basis on which to assess that statement, but I would call for evaluating potential courses of action based on whether or not successfully achieving tactical objectives will further strategic aims.

      Delete
    2. Sar Shalom, who could deny it?

      But the bottom line is that so long as Hamas exists Israel is under threat.

      Period.

      Delete
  4. Unfortunately, Obama and the "world community, "will never allow Israel to eliminate Hamas once and for all. Look at the history of it. Israel makes some gains with Hamas or Hezb and is forced to stop while the terrorists regroup/reload then do it all over again some other time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They consider Jewish self-defense to be inherently immoral.

      The only good Jew is an intimidated Jew.

      Delete
  5. I'm now reading on Daily Kos that calls to eliminate Hamas are tantamount to support for genocide. A prime example of 'progressive' racism, in their equating all Palestinian Arabs with a terrorist group, if ever there was one. Not to mention a prime example of stunning stupidity, as well, of course...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember, all forms of Jewish self-defense are entirely unacceptable to most progressives.

      They like their Jews weak, intimidated, and guilt-ridden.

      The fact of the matter, as you well know, Hamas calls specifically for the genocide of the Jewish people in its very charter.

      This being the case the government of Israel has a moral obligation, not only to its citizenry but to all Jews everywhere, to eliminate this organization permanently.

      I doubt that will happen, however.

      Delete
  6. Here's some good ole', "mere criticism of Israeli policies" for ya, Daily Kos style...

    It's information that's not hard to get(0+ / 0-)

    all you have to do is look outside the Jewish cheering, corporate run American Media.

    Wanna bet the first Jewish person killed by a rocket will get specials where we will learn all about their lives, dreams, and aspirations. We will get interviews with friends, family members, and their elementary school teachers about how tragic this death is......

    Yesterday is but today's memory, and tomorrow is today's dream. -Khalil Gibran

    by Toyotabob7 on Sat Jul 12, 2014 at 08:16:59 PM EDT


    'Toyotabob' (is that like Baghdad Bob?) needs to tighten the strings of his mask, it just slipped pretty fucking far...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tell you, man, I do not envy you pro-Jewish / pro-Israel people on Daily Kos.

      The reason for that is because they always have you back on your heals. Sometimes you guys make some pretty good throws, but it's always on the defensive.

      They attack. We defend.

      The problem is that you are not allowed really to fight back because then they would simply evict you from the community.

      This means you need to curb your speech in their company and whenever we curb our speech to make others happy we also curb our ability to think in an independent manner.

      And that's why the primary purpose of a very successful project like Daily Kos is ultimately to patrol the borders of acceptable thought.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and by the way, let me also say that you did a terrific job with some of these anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.

      Delete
    3. I'm not done yet, Mike. Stay tuned. There's a diary in the works... ;)

      Delete
  7. dKos is a Jew hating sewer. I hope Jay et al wear Haz-mat suits on every visit.

    I wonder how many Kossack a-holes are praying Hamas rockets get more accurate or that Hezb joins in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it was an all-out war between the Jews in the Middle East and the Arab majority, there, they would side with the Arabs for ideological reasons.

      Because they conceive of Jews as "white" and because they believe that white people are the oppressors of "people of color" then Jews deserve whatever beating that we get.

      What I think is that the Jewish people are on a long, slow learning curve on how to stand up for ourselves.

      After all, we barely did it for well over 2,000 years.

      So, we're rusty.

      Delete