Friday, March 6, 2015

The Big Lie and "Palestinian" Jew-Rammin' Fun

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

Itamar Sharon, writing in the Times of Israel, tells us this:

gazamanFive people were injured Friday morning in a car-ramming terror attack near a Jerusalem Light Rail station in the north of the city. Four of the wounded were young border policewomen, in their twenties, and the fifth was a civilian bicycle rider in his fifties

A Palestinian man in a private vehicle hit the five as they stood on a sidewalk. He was identified as Mohammad Salima, 21, from east Jerusalem’s Ras al-Amud. After the car attack, he then emerged from the vehicle with a butcher’s knife and attempted to stab passersby, but was swiftly shot and incapacitated by a Border Policeman and a Light Rail security guard at the scene.
We need to remember that our alleged allies on the Left literally believe that "Palestinians" have every right to murder Jews, or attempt to murder Jews, because of the so-called "Occupation of Palestinian Territories."

They would rarely put it in such blunt terms, of course.  Instead, with a shrug of the shoulders, they wave away any Arab responsibility for attempts to murder Jews by portraying those attempts as perfectly reasonable responses to Israeli Jewish bad behavior.

Of course, the only way that they can get away with this is through ignoring thirteen hundred years of Jewish (and Christian) persecution under the heel of Islamic-Arab imperial aggression and the fact that it is not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because the Arabs involved include pretty much every Arab government on the planet, to greater and lesser degrees.

It is, in fact, a Koranically-based ongoing Arab war against the Jews.

The reasons that young Arabs in Israel seek to kill Jews - aside from the fact that Israel is practically the only country in that entire part of the world where Jews can be found - is because the greater Arab world and the progressive western-left continually feed their hatreds and prejudices.  They constantly tell the Palestinian-Arabs that they are victims of Israeli-Jewish aggression.

This is The Big Lie of the Arab-Israel conflict.

The Arabs of the region are actually what you might call "pathetic aggressors."  They are aggressors because they have sought to keep Jews as second and third class citizens under the rules of Sharia and are more than happy to use violence in order to reestablish Jewish submission.  They launched the contemporary war against the Jews out of ingrained anti-Jewish Arab-Muslim bigotry which, for hostile theological reasons, simply cannot accept Jewish sovereignty on Jewish land, because at one time that land was conquered by Muhammad's armies and thereby incorporated into the Umma.

And, needless to say, once any bit of land, whomever it may rightfully belong to, becomes part of the Umma it must, under al-Sharia, remain within the Umma in perpetuity.

It is this which they have never gotten over because they feel that their honor has been violated. Furthermore, they are too often willing to ruin the lives of their children, if it results in Jewish death or injury.  The Arabs who live in and around Israel have no moral case for their continuing aggression against their Jewish neighbors.  It was the Jews, after all, who were willing to share what little Jewish land that there is and it was the local Arabs who have continually, up until the present moment, absolutely refused a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one.

So, yes, the Arabs, taken collectively, are aggressors against the small Jewish minority in that part of the world.

They are pathetic aggressors, because they do nothing but lose.

The Palestinian-Arabs have, through this poisonous hatred for the Jewish people, degraded their own culture to such an extent that they cannot even feed themselves through their own efforts.  Instead they get by as the world's foremost welfare recipients, even as they bite the European, American, and Israeli hands that feed them.

Of course, many in Europe and the United States, not to mention throughout the Middle East, blame the Jews for the toxicity of Palestinian-Arab culture and for their relative economic poverty - despite the fact that they tend to be more well-to-do than most other Arabs .  But, then, many in Europe and the United States share a reflexive tendency to spit hatred at Israel, anyway, and always blame everything to do with this ongoing Arab aggression against the Jews on the Jews.

For example, in 2005 Ariel Sharon did what the western-left had been demanding for years.  He yanked 15,000 Jews out of their homes in Gaza, thereby ending the alleged "occupation" of the Strip.  This was a hugely controversial move and it tore at the social fabric of the country in an exceedingly painful way.

So, the Strip was left Judenrein, but did Israel accrue any credit whatsoever from its self-righteous critics in the West?  Of course, not.  On the contrary, because they need the "Occupation of the Palestinian Territories" as a weapon, they merely changed the definition of the word "occupation" to include circumstances where the occupying forces are not actually occupying anyone.

When Israel ended the occupation of Gaza, Gazan leadership could have said something along these lines:

"For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, we wish to normalize relations with Israel economically, politically, and even academically.  We want prosperity and a government by, and for, the people."

If they had said anything along those lines, and meant it, there would be no blockade today and many thousands of Gazans would be working within Israel, proper.

Instead they embraced the Jihadi Death Cult known as Hamas, that calls literally for the genocide of the Jews in its charter, and started shooting rockets into southern Israel, giving Israeli children a "thank you" gift for departing the Strip of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

For fourteen hundred years it has been the Arabs, not the Jews, who have been, and still are, the aggressors in this conflict.  Part of the reason that it doesn't look this way is precisely because they have been pathetic aggressors.  

Many in the western-left, for reasons having to do with The Tyranny of Guilt, favor "people of color" and despise "Zionists."  Thus in any conflict between Arabs and Jews, it is always the Jews that are a priori guilty and any and all Jewish measures of self-defense are viewed as forms of aggression against a persecuted Arab minority.

The truth is, the general western understanding of, and orientation to, the Arab-Israel conflict is entirely upside down and backwards.  The West points the trembling finger of blame at the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors, while totally ignoring the men who hold aloft their swords and their automatic weaponry while crying out "Alahu Akbar!" and "Death to the Jews!"

The Jewish people, of course, are in no position to ignore such aggression from a far larger, majority population.  If history has taught us anything, it has certainly taught us that.

In any event, Israel must put its foot down on Arab attempts to murder and otherwise harass the native Jewish population.

And Mahmoud Abbas should be sitting in an Israeli prison for incitement to genocide.

From the comments:
Margaret Kelso ·

How the BBC, Guardian and NY Times will report this.

Israeli Jews prevent Palestinian man from driving & walking peacefully with knives
That is kind-of how much of the media headlines such attacks.  But as we know from Matti Friedman, the Jew Rules are not for Daily Kos alone, but also for journalists covering the war.


  1. "The West points the trembling finger of blame at the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors"

    ...and descendants of the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in Arab lands in the middle of the 20th century, and who are the majority of Jews in Israel today.

    Those who view this conflict through the "brown people vs. not-brown people" lens don't even have that aspect of it correct.

    1. Excellent point.

      Shame on me for letting it pass.

    2. Ethnic Cleansing Inversion is yet another insidious meme, used to attack Jews who are actual victims of a recent, unfortunately successful ethnic cleansing, undertaken by Arabs.

      Those who engage in that crap are either spiteful bigots who do it knowingly, or silly mindless morons who outsource their 'thinking' to the aforementioned spiteful bigots. Neither is a good thing to be, needless to say.

      It really makes you wonder why these idiots are taken seriously by anybody, when their equivalents who treat other ethnic minorities or similarly discriminated against groups, are rightly dismissed out of hand by virtually all good people as the dark, hateful, miserable bastards that they are.

  2. And Ms. Kelso is absolutely correct. Remember the AP headline flap from a previous Jihadi Drive attack?

    "The Associated Press ran an initial report on the incident with the headline, "Israeli police shoot man in east Jerusalem.""

  3. To figure out what scared and instills fear in these savages is priority # 1 and DO IT.

    If it's an Islamic thing? Bacon coated bullets… If it's a nationalistic thing, then every attack MUST be met with a NEW construction project.

    If they fear deportation? Then deport the family…

    i don't have the answer, but I sure do wish someone would do something...

    1. Not that I agree with the solutions, but imagine if it was Egypt, Syria, or even Jordan. Israel adheres to human rights, but the message needs to be absorbed that it is not going away.

  4. From the Guardian:
    "Palestinian motorist rams pedestrians in Jerusalem"

    last paragraph of article reads:

    "The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which have been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Middle East War, and in Gaza, a strip of land on the Mediterranean coast that is separated from the West Bank."

    You mention "The Tyranny of Guilt" : The treatment of Israel by the western left is uniquely hateful and hysterical. However, within their ideological worldview, where all violence towards western targets is justified and even to some extent desired, ( see responses to 9/11 etc) they can only frame attacks on Israelis or Israel in this way. The self- loathing that dominates their thinking demands it. There is a direct correlation between believing that "America had it coming" or " London had it coming" and the belief that killing or attempting to kill Israelis is not only understandable, but praiseworthy.

    The western left don't just justify such attacks, they champion them.

    1. "Gaza, a strip of land on the Mediterranean coast that is separated from the West Bank."
      Separated or just separate? West Bank of what? How did that name come about? Don't expect to find the answers in the Guardian.

    2. The Jordanians allegedly came up with the term "West Bank" after the '48 war to erase Jewish history from Jewish land.

      They couldn't very well stake an Arab claim to Judea, so they simply changed the name.

      What I do not understand is why the Jews went along with it and continue to go along with it?

      How can you have much faith in a Jewish advocate for Israel who goes along with the erasure of 4,000 years of Jewish history on Jewish land?

      We can never win the battle for hearts and minds if we insist upon fighting that battle on our enemies rhetorical home turf.

      Part of the reason that the Jews are always on the defensive in places like Daily Kos is because by using the language of the enemy they automatically put themselves into a defensive posture. In other words, if you think that a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria represents an "Occupation of Palestinian land" then you simply have no case.

      What, after all, could reasonably justify land theft from an indigenous population?

      This is why we need to resort to the truth and the truth is that Judea and Samaria have been the heartland of the Jewish people millennia before anyone had ever heard of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be unto him.)

    3. "Separated from" is another one that slips by. Good catch. The implication, of course, being that somebody must have 'cut it off' from something it's a part of.

      I suppose it's okay for Israel to be cut up into pieces; but not a country that has never existed led by two parties that want to kill each other almost as much as they want to kill Jews, no sir!

  5. This might be interesting - it's an article from 2007 by Howard Jacobson:

    ( Sorry, I don't have the technology to properly link it.)

    Hope that's right.

    1. This is great stuff -

      "The other thing that seemed worth saying related to that now classic formulation - "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel." I wasn't concerned to make the no less classical rebuttal - "Of course being critical of Israel doesn't necessarily mark you out as an anti-Semite, but it doesn't necessarily mark you out as not one either." Enough already with who is or who isn't. What I wanted to address was something different - how the glamour word "anti-Semite" has transfixed both parties to this semantic tussle, when the real issue is what we mean by "critical".

      Reader, only think about it: was ever a tiny word sent on such a mighty errand, or to put it another way, was ever such a massive job of demolition done by so delicate an instrument. Critical - as though those who accuse Israel of every known crime against humanity, of being more Nazi than the Nazis, more fascist than the fascists, more apartheid than apartheid South Africa, are simply exercising measured argument and fine discrimination.

      I know a bit about being critical. It's my job. Being "critical" is when you say that such-and-such a book works here but doesn't work there, good plot, bad characterisation, enjoyed some parts, hated others. What being critical is not, is saying this is the most evil and odious book ever written, worse than all other evil and odious books, should never have been published in the first place, was in fact published in flagrant defiance of international law, must be banned, and in the meantime should not under any circumstances be read. For that we need another word than critical.

  6. And in other headlines:

    Jews in Israel mercilessly damage palestinian's transportation by being hit by cars!

  7. I honestly wish that a thoughtful person who disagrees with our most basic premises would come forward for a fair dispute.

    1. How would you define that?

      I'm guessing you probably don't mean somebody who hates Israel and supports an expansion of the Arab-Muslim war against the Jews of the Middle East. ;-P

      Volleyboy generally agrees with us more than he disagrees, so I guess you don't mean somebody like him.

      I'm having a hard time thinking of who that can be. Like a Michael Walzer type, perhaps?

    2. They are afraid to. The hate crowd over at DK/DSKF know where to find us. But they can't engage in an honest debate and they know it! As such it is easier to hide behind shouting "islamophobe" than to have a legitimate debate where their points are shown for what they are!

    3. Jay and Panther,

      Fundamental assumptions.

      For example, what does it mean to say that the Jews are "ilegally occupying" Judea?

      That is an unquestioned, fundamental assumption.

      How does a nation "illegally occupy" the land that its forbears have lived upon for around 4,000 years? The very charge is demeaning and insulting and it comes from a political movement that we tend to support. Have we no pride?

      Another more current question that I would ask the Left is, is Netanyahu mistaken to identify the potential marriage of political Islam with nuclear weaponry as a major threat? I obviously think so.

      Do they? And if so, how come they took such exception to Netanyahu's speech?

      And if not, how can they not?

      These are just a few of many basic, fundamental questions that never get asked or answered in any western Left venues.

    4. That's what I assumed you meant, but I wouldn't consider people who held such beliefs to qualify as 'thoughtful,' myself.

      In fact, they're the antithesis of that, since they're obviously not giving much thought to assumptions they've just picked up somewhere as part of their wholesale 'progressive' ideological package.

      (I'm glad I never shopped where they did!)

      If they're willing to re-examine those assumptions, sure. But if they're just going to bullheadedly argue from a state of complete ignorance as to actual facts of the history surrounding the conflict, from a position of such a deeply-ingrained subjective anti-reality (this latter point might be the most important - how do you really hope to reason with somebody who is really convinced that Israel is a demonic entity?)... well, I just think such people as you're thinking of are pretty hard to find. If they do actually exist, they're probably not posting on blogs.

      So maybe I was just hung up on that one word, 'thoughtful,' then.

  8. "He was identified as Mohammad Salima, 21, from east Jerusalem’s Ras al-Amud. After the car attack, he then emerged from the vehicle with a butcher’s knife and attempted to stab passersby,..."
    21 years old. That makes him an Oslo baby. Generation Arafat. How's that working out?

  9. "Of course, the only way that they can get away with this is through ignoring thirteen hundred years of Jewish (and Christian) persecution..."

    They've been sold a different bill of goods. We should be telling them this at every turn (as you do brilliantly). At first there will be much resistance to absorbing this history as it really is. The effort must be persistent and sustained to have any chance at changing minds (back to what used to be so obvious).

    1. Part of the problem, Jeff, is that they have also bought into this Golden Age of Islam mierde in which Islam is portrayed as a largely benevolent political presence, throughout the centuries, in the lives of others. It wasn't. What we can say is that the conditions of dhimmitude varied from time to time and place to place. In some times and places it was more odious and oppressive than in other times and places, but it was never better than Jim Crow at its best.

      So, yes, I am a broken record on this.

      We must expand the terms of the discussion both geographically and historically in order to present a more honest picture than the so-called "Palestinian narrative" of pristine victimhood. There is no question but that the Palestinian-Arabs have won the Victimhood Olympics. They see themselves as the Quintessential Victims, the Victims Par Excellence, and ceaselessly encourage others to do so, as well. .

      The truth, however, is that they are descendents of our former masters or, at least, the masters of Mizrahi Jews. Zionism, as the movement for Jewish freedom, redeemed the Jewish people from 14 centuries of oppression on historically Jewish land under the boot of Arab-Muslim imperialism.

      This ongoing aggression against the Jews in the Middle East is emphatically NOT a fight between Jews and "Palestinians," but an aggression by Arab governments, including, but not limited to, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, on behalf of the Arab peoples, against their former dhimmis.

      This is how we need to frame the argument, not merely because the truth favors our side, but because it is the truth and therefore more closely resembles historical reality as opposed to the fiction the other side has concocted of militaristic psuedo-fascistic Jews marching out of Europe for the purpose of stealing land and crushing the national aspirations of the native population.

      What a bunch of crap!

      Jews are the native population.

    2. The one thing I would add to that is to compare the reversal of fortunes between the Arabs and their dhimmis to what Reconstruction in this country attempted to be.

    3. Mike,
      I agree with you. There was a time within my living memory where this conflict was seen by most as the Arabs ganging up on this little Jewish country. The thing that most prevents people from seeing this most obvious reality these days is the constant piling on of charges of criminality and atrocity myths which resonate sympathetically with well-ingrained anti-Semitic calumnies.

  10. They'll need to consult with each other first, in order to determine if the truth is "Islamophobic." And if it is, well then no way bubba.

    You know, for a bunch of people who ceaselessly mocked Karl Rove for the "we create our own reality" quote, to the point where they even began calling themselves the so-called 'reality-based community,' I've gotta say that they certainly seem to be doing pretty much the exact same thing, in this instance, that they mocked Rove for.

  11. You don't hear them calling them themselves reality based anymore, do you?
    I can think of two reasons for this, 1. They're no longer the opposition, 2. It's not true.

    I couldn't sit through Bill Maher's show last night. He had David Axelrod on, and when it came time to talk about Bibi's speech, well, let's put it this way, Maher should have remained the show "Obama Administration Talking Points with Bill Maher."
    The constant insistence that Netanyahu offered no alternative is right of the Soviet Union, IMO. If we deny that he put forth an alternative, we don't need to discuss that alternative. If find this kind of propaganda scary and antithetical to the American way and a full frontal assault on liberalism from pseudo-liberals.

  12. Agreed. And sad to hear that about Maher. He's usually one of the small handful out there anymore willing to talk sensibly about most things, even if it marks him out as... gasp!... siding with 'The Other Side.'