Massacre at Jerusalem seminary

For those that didn't already know the Palestinian people, I think we learned pretty much all we needed to know about them on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, as they celebrated in their streets, dancing, honking horns, handing out candy, and listening to them thank Osama bin Laden for the "present" he just delivered.

In other words, this is just more icing on the cake.

Talking about lovely people, how about Israeli rocket fire that killed 120 people in the Gaza territories this week alone and the Israeli government that continue a blockade--with a giant wall, natch--that is worsening conditions for Palestinians.

No one's hands are clean in this.

And just why, Daniel, does the gov't of Israel believe the wall and blockade are necessary?

There are Christian Palestinians, oppressed by both the Jewish and Muslim people. Don't forget them.

Perhaps if the world was quicker and more consistent in condemning Hamas rocket attacks across Israel's border, Israel wouldn't need to engage in defensive attacks into Gaza. I never, and I mean never, hear the international community or the U.N. Security Council speak up about Hamas attacks.

Israel quite rightly feels it is on it's own relative to the rest of the world (except for the U.S.) -- and the pro-peace Palestinians risk being murdered by their own people for advocating peace.

Before the Palestinian people are universally condemned remember that Zionist settlers have elevated Baruch Goldstein to the status of a saint. His slaughter of 29 unarmed Palestinian Muslims in Hebron in 1994 is the occasion of an annual celebration.

When Goldstein committed his hideous crime, there were mass demonstrations all over Israel to condemn him.

When someone spots a Palestinian demonstration to condemn this kind of cold-blooded killing, let us know, willya?

Like Jeff said: I wonder why the Israelis built a wall? I wonder why the IDF conducted operations in Gaza, which is now wholly owned and operated by a Palestinian government whose constitution requires the destruction of Israel? Golly, it must be a cycle of violence thing. Nobody's hands are clean, yadda yadda.

The old cliche is as true as it always was: the Palestinians put down their weapons, we'll see peace. The Israelis put down theirs, they'll all die.

If you don't think 95% Christian Palestinians stand in solidarity with with their Muslim brothers, you're wrong.

Contrary to what you might think, ethnic divisions and ethnically based blood feuds are just as strong (if not stronger, in some cases) than religious ones.

That was "That brings the score for the week to fewer than 10 Israelis killed by Palestinians and more than 100 Palestinians killed by Israelis" before the html editor deleted out some stuff.

It would be wonderful if Beliefnet could be bothered to list html codes for comboxes somewhere and allowed preview....

Scott: We have learned - very well in the past century - at the hands of gentiles - the no one will stand up for Jews (or very, very, few) when we are attacked.

Sadly, you're right. Keep standing firm.

That's why there's a wall. And it isn't high enough.

That still doesn't morally or militarily justify the 10:1 kill ratio in civil violence, which was exposed in HaAretz a few years ago to be a tacit Israeli government policy.

>>>
I never, and I mean never, hear the international community or the U.N. Security Council speak up about Hamas attacks.
Posted by: Alicia | March 6, 2008 5:40 PM
>>>

Here you go, Alicia...

http:
//www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/17/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-UN-Rockets.php

UN humanitarian chief condemns Palestinian rocket attacks

SDEROT, Israel: A Palestinian rocket struck a house in this southern Israeli border town on Sunday, shortly after the U.N.'s top humanitarian official condemned Palestinians for the near-daily rocket barrages and urged the Gaza Strip's Hamas rulers to halt the attacks.

At the end of the day, to us, our lives are more important than theirs.

That vanity is exactly what keeps cycles of violence going.

Gaza is a tiny area with 1.5 million people in it (10 times the population density of New Jersey). I imagine even if they wanted to there wouldn't be that many they could place military assets that would be far from civilians.

Yet when Israelis die the world is outraged.

Really? Which world? Mars? Uranus?

How many really give a $hit when Jewish children die?

Would you be defending this if it were your kid's school that was shot up? Or if your kid were never coming home? I'll bet some here could justify Virginia Tech if the shooter happened to be Native American.

And then when people put obnoxious things like "All Israel need do is return the land they robbed from the Palestinian people." - thereby justifying the murder of Jewish babies and children - they can't even post a name? Even a fake one? That's ballsy.

Vanity?!? Boy, now I have heard it all. If the lives of one's own children and one's own people don't matter more to one than the lives of people who want to kill them, one is morally insane.

That's a contemptible finesse or conflation, Rod. No one said the lives don't matter intellectually or emotionally or spiritually.

It's behaving as if your life/lives matter absolutely and your enemies' lives are worth nothing by comparison: that is vanity. And immoralism. Say, needing to kill 10 of 'the Enemy'- or all of them- for any one of 'ours'. It assumes knowledge of God's judgment and suspension of His Law against murder for your personal and animal desires.

I feel quite sad having to explain this to someone who talks about Man being made imago Dei and the world-compelling example set by Jesus of Nazareth on the cross.

How many really give a $hit when Jewish children die?

Actually, I sent the money I could spare at the time to the main hospital's special fund when one of the first bombers killed and maimed all those little children celebrating Purim in that shopping mall in Tel Aviv. That was in 1995 or 1996 iirc. I'm not Jewish, though I have a number of Jewish Israeli friends, a former significant other now living in Israel, and several Palestinian acquaintances.

I don't give now. Back then it was a compassionate gesture. Times have changed, and now it would be a gesture of aiding and abetting the Israeli and Palestinian Rights' policies of retributive murder. Both sides have rich donors who pay all the costs in order to uphold the policies.

Imagine if rockets were falling on your town from Canada. Which candidate would you vote for? The one who promised to stop the rockets or the one who said "Too many Canadians would die if we tried to stop the rockets. And after all, they really don't kill too many of you."

Analogy often goes bad, and this is an example. Those don't represent the range of available choices in I/P, so you're posing a false choice dilemma.

Somehow the pro-Israeli combox warriors never stop to consider that the Palestinians are people too, and that they've been systematically targeted for genocide since the Israeli terrorists took over their farms and homes by force in 1948.

For Rod and company, the Palestinian victims are invisible, and only the Israeli dead count as fully human.

Fascinating, but very sad.

"Vanity?!? Boy, now I have heard it all. If the lives of one's own children and one's own people don't matter more to one than the lives of people who want to kill them, one is morally insane."

Jillian's comment skewered this accurately enough. Rod fails to show a grasp of Christian morality, but he does show a certain mastery of the survival of the fittest mentality of the secular culture. He's not totally without hope, as indicated by his voluntary edit of the original post. Like many conservatives, he allows his feelings to master his public oratory. Sadly, also, the myths, urban legends, and the Limbaugh group-think and -speak.

For the Palestinians, embedded as they were in Israel, I've often thought they were in a perfect position to shame the warmongers among the Israelis by non-violent non-cooperation. Rather than indulge the base passions by rocket attack and bomb, refuse to comply to the Israelis in anything until they achieved peace and political enfranchisement (either within Israel or in a separate state). They could have forced the issue to a conclusion without violence on their part.

Effectively, they would have split Israelis rather than unite them as victims. They would have harnessed more support internationally. It's not likely they would have suffered any more than they are now. And they might well have shamed Israel into concessions, if not slow down the economy to the point where Israeli business interests would align to support them. If they had Israeli business and bleeding-hearts on their side, the extreme would never hold.

For the Palestinians, embedded as they were in Israel, I've often thought they were in a perfect position to shame the warmongers among the Israelis by non-violent non-cooperation.

Have you read Clancy's "Sum of All Fears"? IIRC, he imagines a scenario where the Palestinians do just that, and it works. Admittedly things often work out "just so" in Clancy's universe, but you may well be right. It would certainly be interesting, at the very least.

"Yes but unfortunately, the courage required to lie down in front of a tank and not move is far greater than what is required to blow oneself up in a crowded bus."

If they're not in separate camps, and if they're among the Israeli citizens as they were, there's no way a tank is going to rumble down into Bethlehem if the Palestinians there decide to strike and not serve tourists.

Now with separate camps, I'd say there's less chance of non-violence working as effectively.

Interesting about Clancy's book--I've never read him.

"However, I think my point, that there is relatively little outrage about what Hamas does and disproportionate outrage over what Israel does, remains salient."

It is also possible that we human beings often hear what we expect to hear, and that our own bias (that others will be truthful or deceptive) contributes to that.

I suppose conspiracy theorists would be confronted with that as evidence that Jewish control of the media is a myth. More likely they would say there's not enough outrage about what Hamas does.

The bottom line, I suppose, if one feels there's an imbalanced sense of outrage would be to read English-language Israeli news sites. Balance, or lack thereof, is out there for those willing to look.

I suppose conspiracy theorists would be confronted with that as evidence that Jewish control of the media is a myth.

What would be the point of injecting that little ditty in a "bloggers v. Jews" discussion except to defame Jews even more?

My preferences, in an ideal world, Todd, would be for genuine commitment to a two state solution on the part of everyone. Yes, what I'm saying is purely anectdotal - based on encounters I have with people at, for instance, the liberal Episcopalian parish that I attend.

It's my impression that it's very rare for people to the left of center to speak up in defense of Israel these days. A couple of decades ago, when I was much younger, it was my experience that people on the left were very sympathetic to Israel, while most of them were equally sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians.

What changed? For one thing, the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism, IMO, has done more to undermine the peace process than Yasser Arafat did in his entire life. There is a narrative seems to be very appealing and that people on the left seem to have a hard time resisting.

It goes like this: When Palestinian suicide bombers blow up Israeli children, or random Israelis on buses, people on the left talk about how desperate the Palestinians are and how courageous they must be to make the ultimate sacrifice.

When Hamas launches rocket attacks into Israel, people talk about how ineffective those attacks are, as if they were merely an annoyance that oughtn't to be taken seriously by anyone. When Israel responds with military action, Israel is described as the aggressor. Noted "pro-peace" activists from places like Norway equate Israel with the Nazis. One of these peace activists recently wrote that he no longer believes Israel has the right to exist. These things I'm writing are based on my personal impressions of encounters I've had or things I've read -- so of course you are free to dismiss them if you wish, Todd.

Thanks, Peter. I don't remember 1967 very well, and in 1956 I was two years old.

I just feel that when people attack a nation's right to exist, they create a justification for committing all sorts of outrageous acts against that nation and its people. It's my belief that the U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism undermined Israel's right to exist. Equating Israelis with Nazis also undermines Israel's right to exist. If they are as bad as the Nazis, they must deserve the fate of the Nazis, right?

I don't idealize Israel. I simply support Israel's right to exist. And, I believe Israel should give up the territory it gained in the 1967 war. And I believe Israel should renounce the original program of Zionism of expanding into additional territory based upon the ancient boundaries described in the Hebrew scriptures. And, I support the creation of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel.

But, what should Israel do, when any move it makes to dismantle settlements or "give land for peace" is viewed as weakness, and any move it makes to defend itself against attacks by Hamas is viewed by the international community as "unwarranted aggression"?

PS: As a Catholic and a sometimes-loyal follower of Jesus Christ, I condemn the violence on both sides. I mourn for the poor innocent Israeli victims of this terrible crime, just as I do for their Palestinian counterparts.

Violence must be rejected; only the love of God has any hope of healing the Holy Land. The violence of "an eye for an eye" must stop, if there is to be any possibility that peace will reign.

But, what should Israel do, when any move it makes to dismantle settlements or "give land for peace" is viewed as weakness,

It has to overcome itself. It should just dismantle the wrongful settlements comprehensively and accept the short term costs and pain in return for the long term gains.

That means overcoming some of its paranoia/moral cowardice, punitive desires, and the ego that is wounded when Palestinians declare an imaginary victory. The real victory lies in Israel giving up petty material advantages to recover integrity and moral higher ground.

and any move it makes to defend itself against attacks by Hamas is viewed by the international community as "unwarranted aggression"?

In a lot of the rest of the world there is a much greater awareness of the overall extent of Palestinian suffering and grief and loss than there is in the U.S. There is less understanding of Jewish/Israeli suffering, and a moral judgment that Jewish historical suffering does not justify Israeli behavior. I/P gets seen through other countries' historical experience of defeat, occupation, dispossession.

American media biases the opposite way. But generally, Americans simply view I/P through their own historical experience, in which a colonization under a messianic banner is deemed a legitimate and desirable project, and (in the conservative analysis to date) the end justifying the means.

It's worth keeping in mind about I/P that the long term story of colonizations tends to be resurgence of the aboriginal population and mutual assimilation after a period of serious conflict.

When one is the (supposed) greatest military power in the region, with 250+ nuclear weapons, I would think if Israel wanted to commit genocide, they could do a better job of it. Yet even with Jewish immigration, Palestinian numbers are increasing far faster than Jews.

I guess we're just not good at genocide.

Or maybe we're just not committing it.

And the problem with the "pro-peace" activists is not that they are anti-Israel, they are anti-Jew. There are academic institutions in Britain that have threatened to bar Jewish academics from visiting lectures because they are pro-Israel.

When do you suppose they'll consider barring pro-Israel Xians?

Israel gave up Gaza. They should be half-way home to peace by now. That's worked out well.

I think some of the fanatical settler in the West Bank should be physically carted off their land, compensated, and the whole bloody lot given over to the Palestinians. Then a 20 foot high wall separating Israel from the new Palestinian state should be built, along with the same size fence by Gaza (and across the Lebanese border while they're at it.

And then any contact between the two people should be cut off forever - or until they can play nicely together. And that's what everyone wants, right? Back to the '67 borders. Let's do it then - as long as Israel's right to exist and safety is guaranteed and upheld and all contacts between the two states are blocked.

G-D, I wish I weren't the only Jew on this forum.

Thanks for responding, Alicia. I can't find any vehement disagreement with the practical solutions you suggest. If only you and I were the chief negotiators, eh?

"It's my impression that it's very rare for people to the left of center to speak up in defense of Israel these days."

I'd submit it's partly a social identification thing. Far-right Christians have adopted "pro-Israel" as their banner, and some of the Left are averse to march under it. I think if you scratched a bit, under the surface, you'd find mixed feelings on the part of many persons, left and right: sympathy for the suffering of the Israelis, but reticence on military and political policy.

"It goes like this: When Palestinian suicide bombers blow up Israeli children, or random Israelis on buses, people on the left talk about how desperate the Palestinians are and how courageous they must be to make the ultimate sacrifice."

Perhaps at your church. Pro-palestinians I know usually don't talk about it at all out of embarassment.

"These things I'm writing are based on my personal impressions of encounters I've had or things I've read -- so of course you are free to dismiss them if you wish, Todd."

Long ago, I learned to discount what the msm reports, except as an enhancement for corporate advertisers. Individuals I know have a greater or lesser grasp on the important issues of the day. I'd prefer to hear from the direct participants/witnesses/victims than heads talking about them.

I don't know that I would dismiss what you hear, or even what I would hear, as much as treat it with a degree of skepticism. When we appeal to arguments of complaint: so-and-so seems anti-Israel, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, anti-science, and there's bias afoot, I think it weakens the argument we want to make.

It may or may not be true, especially in light of what Our Corporate Masters want us to see and hear in the media, but I think a debate is enriched and enlivened by keeping to the high ground. Personally, if I hold a well-discerned opinion, I don't care if the whole world is against it.

Oh, and by the way:

They have walled up the Palestinian people into the world's largest concentration camp, denied them the ability to have even the most basic necessities, and conducted a systematic campaign of hateful harassment designed to drive them out of the Holy Land.

That is an apt description of the refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It would seem that Arab governments are willing participants in this secret genocide.

FBC, I never doubted that your heart is in the right place, and I've stated a couple of times my awareness of the stupid and criminal things done by Israelis... but please, why does "forgetting" what happened in 1948 justify massacres of unarmed Israeli citizens several decades later in a period when the "concentration camp" conditions have all but disappeared? Can you possibly acknowledge that West Bank Arabs were being welcomed into Israeli jobs and culture? Will you insist on seeing classism and racism -- things that never go away -- even as things demonstrably move away from them?

You insist on remembering the past. I couldn't agree more. But you stop short of seeing the situation as dynamic, and project that flat view on others. I don't use belief. I know that a growing majority of Israelis want to give the land back, want to end the oppressive sanctions, and know that as soon as those compromises are made, Syrian/Iranian/Saudi-backed terrorists will start right where they left off, making the daily carnage in Baghdad look like a schoolyard at recess. You ascribe extreme views to all Israelis, and you fail to acknowledge the circumstances that permit the very small minority who actually have those views to dominate the debate... the very "propaganda" you decry is given its fuel by the Arab minority who continues to see the destruction of Israel and death of all Jews as the only compromise.

I know what the solution is. It is actually quite simple, and it's price would be measured in the blood of innocents on both sides. It is the solution because no solution will succeed that doesn't rub the world's face in the realities of the situation.

1) Unconditional return to pre-1967 boundaries, including surrendering east Jerusalem.

2) Unconditional right of return to all refugees.

3) Completely open boundaries other than normal, civilized immigration controls.

Results:

Daily suicide bombings and gun attacks in every major urban center in Israel. Arab newspaper headlines crowing that the end of the Jewish invasion is near. In the growing horror of the present world's ignorance that these things happened in the past, the Israeli army invades the Palestinian territories and destroys their ability to launch attacks, and in simple self-defense expels every Arab from their borders -- and you know what that means in civilian casualties.

Tell me that the attacks would not happen. Tell me that the Israelis would be unjustified in such a response. Go ahead, call it propaganda. Take us back to the "crime" of the partition in 1948. Explain to me what that all is supposed to mean.

...your face being one of those in need of a rubbing.

My core disagreement with FBC -- and ser, despite my sometimes sarcastic take on your positions, I do recognize the valid points you make -- is that no one, neither liberals nor conservatives, diplomats nor politicians, are willing to step up and make the balanced case:

1) Israel was created for people who had spent centuries being easy targets for genocide.

2) Natives in Palestine were treated badly by every side of the political "solution", and have suffered for decades as a result.

3) The first crime worthy of emphasis in the present case is the Arab response to do in the Jews once and for all.

4) The Israeli paranoia, given the credence it gets from #3, must no longer be tolerated as a valid, policy-making factor.

5) The present Palestinian "authorities", in whatever incarnation, must be tasked with ending the military attacks against Israel in direct response to a cessation of military attacks by Israel against targets in the West Bank and Gaza.

I take no joy in the possibility of being right about what FBC sees as prescience. I pray to every deity there is that I'm wrong. However, the stakes must be set, clearly:

1) If Israel returns to its pre-1967 borders, all attacks must cease.

2) If any such attacks continue, either Israel must be given carte blanche for punitive response, or a third-party response must be made that is decisive and severe.

So long as Hamas and Hezbollah -- with their documented and demonstrated intention to destroy Israel -- remain political and military forces, explicitly supported by sovereign Arab nations in the Middle East and elsewhere, there can be no peace in Palestine. Any attempt by Israel to meet halfway will only kill more Israelis, who will then kill more Palestinians, and we might all have saved our breath and bandwidth and not even thought about it.

And FBC, to your implied requirement that someone be punished for past crimes, I respectfully point you to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. At some point, healing must also take place.