Attempted Murder, the Craven Israeli Judiciary, and Hitting the Road

Michael L.

{Given that the Israeli judiciary does not seem particularly interested in justice for the Jewish people, or in protecting them from Arab violence, is it time for Jews to move on? - ML}

In a piece written by Times of Israel Staff we read:

During a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem earlier Sunday to discuss Israel’s response to the recent flare-up of violence in the capital, (Attorney General) Weinstein expressed his opposition to a proposal to relax the rules governing police use of live fire against Palestinians throwing stones or firebombs in Jerusalem and the West Bank. He did however agree to review the procedures, Army Radio reported... 

The attorney general also came out against proposed legislation to enforce mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of throwing rocks or firebombs at police, civilians or cars in Jerusalem and across the West Bank — key legislative changes sought by Netanyahu as part of a crackdown announced at an emergency meeting last Tuesday.

Some within the Israeli government, such as Attorney General Weinstein, apparently, place a greater value on the rights of Arabs to try to kill Jews than on the rights of Jews to live free of constant violent harassment by Arabs filled with irrational, Koranically-based malice.  It seems as if this obstructionism in favor of the Arab throwers of stones and pipe bombs is having an effect on the resolve of Benjamin Netanyahu.

According to the Haaretz daily, Weinstein’s opposition to harsher penalties prompted Netanyahu to soften his tone, and issue a statement Sunday declaring that he was “leaning toward the idea raised in the meeting to stiffen penalties – setting mandatory minimum penalties for stone-throwers by means of a temporary provision that would be in place for a year at the first stage.”

Now Netanyahu is saying that any stiffening of policies toward Arabs who seek to kill Jews would be temporary, perhaps a year or two, if that.

As for the use of live-fire in order to protect regular Israeli Jewish citizens from those who seek to murder them:

Permission would be granted “in very limited instances, with lots of restrictions,” Israel’s Channel 2 said Saturday. It would likely be granted during incidents considered “grassroots terror” or lone-wolf attacks...

Essentially what we are being told is that this question of the use of live-fire in order to deter those who attempt to murder Jews is not going to happen.  This is bluster on Netanyahu's part for purposes of public perception.

Given the willingness of the Israeli government to maintain its bigoted policies toward everyone but Muslims on the Temple Mount, and given their craven tendency to bow to international pressure to maintain those bigoted policies, and given the unwillingness of the Israeli police to allow Jews to pray on the Mount and their general disinclination to protect Jews from harassment on the Mount, I have come to the reluctant conclusion that the Netanyahu government will not act.

Netanyahu will talk tough, but do virtually nothing, or so I suspect.

I certainly hope that I am wrong, but his resolve already seems to be crumbling.

According to reports, Netanyahu was seeking a minimum sentence for stone throwers of 4-5 years in prison, while those caught throwing firebombs would serve no less than 10 years behind bars. Parents of minors caught throwing stones could be fined NIS 100,000 ($26,000) under the new laws.

This is a step in the right direction, but I will believe it when I see it.

From the Comments: 

Yakov Lazaros ·

A stone thrown with force is a lethal weapon. Time to put a stop to this. The first rule of any Govt is to protect its citizens. If not, resign.

If Israel will not protect Jewish people from its Palestinian-Arab neighbors, then what good is it?

Sovereignty is meaningless unless it is exercised.

If Israel is unwilling to use its resources to protect Jews in Jerusalem then Jewish Israelis might as well pack it in and move elsewhere.  There are two places that I would recommend, North America or Australia.  As a Californian, of course, my first recommendation is the United States.  Jews currently living in the U.S. have it as good, from a security and acceptance stand-point, if not better, than any Jews living anywhere else in the entire history of the diaspora.

If Israel refuses to protect its Jewish citizenry this leaves those Jews with three possible options.

1)  They can do nothing and simply hope for the best.  This is one of the great survival mechanisms of the indomitable Jewish spirit!  Do nothing and hope for the best.  We did this throughout the Middle Ages in Europe before they came to throw us down the wells that we allegedly poisoned.  This was also the brave tactic of my Ukrainian forebears right before the pogroms and expulsions.  And, of course, it was the famously successful tactic of the Jews in Germany and Poland in the run-up to World War II and the Holocaust.

2)  They can organize in their own self-defense as communities outside of government assistance.  Of course, such a move would put them directly in opposition to their own government who would inevitably take the side of the Arab-Muslim attackers.  If Israelis seek to take their self-defense into their own hands they will end up fighting both the Arabs and their own government.

3)  They can, as we say in the U.S., hit the road.  Once the Arabs make the Jews sufficiently fearful and once the Jews of Israel recognize that their government is not likely to do much to protect them, then you will see a mass migration of Jews out of Israel to the delight of Mahmoud Abbas who will raise a joyous toast in salute of that famous humanitarian, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yassir Arafat.

Or the Israeli government can fulfill its vital role of protecting its citizenry.

It is entirely up to them.