Some thoughts on what it takes to slit the throat of a baby:
…to live under the rule of Jews! This is a matter of great shame, an “overpowering horror” that justifies baby-killing in the minds of many (I’d wager most) Palestinians to expiate that shame. I suspect that part of the loathing other Arabs feel for the Palestinians stems from their view that the Jews made the Palestinians their bitches, to be vulgar about it, and no Muslim worthy of the name would permit such an inversion of the natural order to happen. The very notion that a Jew should command and a Muslim obey, that a Jew should ride while a Muslim walks, that a Jew should be armed while a Muslim is weaponless is simply an abomination — an “overpowering horror.”
Not that most would be able to do such a thing — human beings are hard-wired to recoil from slitting throats of three-month-old babies. But while in other circumstances the inability to kill babies would be seen as a good thing, in this case those Palestinians who can’t bring themselves to do that see it as a weakness — they wish they could muster the courage to murder Jewish babies, but unfortunately they can’t. So the second best is to lionize those heroes who do have the cojones to wipe away the shame of being subject to Jewish overlordship.
We underestimate the cultural war in which we are engaged at our extreme peril. I’m not sure I agree that it’s “most,” but it’s enough that it’s as big a problem as the Nazis were, in terms of having to break the back of a racist totalitarian ideology. And we’re not doing much along those lines. Instead, we pretend it doesn’t exist, or that it’s just a few “extremists,” and that we should give equal time to the KKK and murderers of abortion providers.
the arab death cult at its basic level
First, it is easy to forget that we don’t know who did the killings, and so we don’t know why the killings took place.
But lets presume everything the author quoted above is true. If this is true, why no problems from the Israeli Muslim population?
Israeli Muslims don’t need to cut through a security fence – they live right there in Israel. And yet, you don’t see the kind of violence from them the author seems to expect. Could it be that the problem is civil rights? In Israel, muslims have civil rights in abundance; in the West Bank, they don’t. Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that gun control laws in Israel are looser than in the United States, and that Israeli Muslims have every right to arm themselves to the teeth. And yet, no guerrilla movement, no political shootings, no intifada (protests, of course, as you’d expect in a country with free speech), no subjugation, and so, no shame.
Bob, not all Muslims are evil (didn’t you get the memo?)
By the way, Arab and Muslim can’t be used interchangeably, as the author and maybe Newrouter are doing. I chose “Muslim” because I figured that’s who was really getting the criticism, but of course, Christian Arabs in Israel have rights, and Christian Arabs in the West Bank don’t.
Bob-1 Says:
“First, it is easy to forget that we don’t know who did the killings, and so we don’t know why the killings took place.”
We know who passed out candy in celebration.
And we know who condemned the killings, right?
OK, put Bob down as “pretending it doesn’t exist.”
“By the way, Arab and Muslim can’t be used interchangeably, as the author and maybe Newrouter are doing.”
the majority of arabs are muslims since 700 ad and they’ve spread out since to include berbers to maylays
True, it could have been Sarah Palin and the Teabaggers…
No Titus, the left hates her because she DIDN’T kill a baby.
Bob-1 Says:
“And we know who condemned the killings, right?”
It is funny that you mention that. (I’m only using your comment as a segue not trying to attack you.)
The leader of Hamas condemned the attacks in English but praised the attacker in Arabic.
Bob-1, your moral equivocation is an outrage. Your stubborn willful ignorance is breathtaking. Your efforts at diversionary dialog seeking some kind of underlying societal cause for this horrific evil act makes me pity your children.
While I will defend to the death your right to express your opinion, I say that your opinion is stupid and that you are an enabling ass.
Just don’t call them a “Death Panel.”
The leader of Hamas condemned the attacks in English but praised the attacker in Arabic.
That, if true (not that I doubt that it IS true), speaks volumes about the leadership of Hamas, and their stupidity. It’s really no wonder that they remain outcasts from civilized nations.
What, you think the rest of the world doesn’t have translators?
Moron.
The network news either doesn’t have translators or doesn’t bother to ask them what was said. Speaking one way for the West and another for the locals works just fine.
Jiminator,
Nonsense. Unless you have a blanket bigotry against Muslims, I bet there isn’t one thing you and I disagree about, or at least, there wouldn’t be once you really thought things through.
Did you read what I had to say on Rand’s previous posting about this murder? The quickest way to get it is to substitute “p=32577” in the URL above. Alternatively, it is called “There Will Never Be Peace In The Middle East”.
Toward the end of that thread, I lay out a vision for the future of the West Bank. It does not deny the reality of Palestinian terrorism, and it certainly doesn’t justify barbaric murders — it simply seeks to bring an end to this kind of violence. The short version is this: the security wall works, while the demographics of the West Bank mean that settlements on the interior like Itamar will have to be abandoned if Israel is going to be a free & democratic country with a Jewish majority and defendable borders.
Saying “But they are evil!” does not solve the problem. Saying “kill ’em all” does not actually solve the problem either – Israelis won’t listen to you. Suggest an actual solution, or stop talking about denying reality and pretending that problems don’t exist.
Bob,
Here’s a solution.
In Arab culture an important component of fighting is humiliating your opponent. To the extent that a defeated fighter can seem to be moral he has not lost. Why not use that? I mean if we’re all serious about ending this we should use that. Right?
We can even do it non-violently.
I propose to fight this battle by removing any hint that there is morality on the side of the terrorists. So:
1) Any person who performs acts of terror is vermin. Such people are cowards and weaklings. It should be said… universally, repeatedly. Without any mitigation permitted. That way there’s no doubt in the minds of anyone who may support the overall goals of such scum that the path to those goals does not include these acts. A person who supports these acts should be regarded as worthless. A culture or philosophy that supports these acts – the same.
2) Anyone who makes excuses for such vermin are dullards. Their opinions are dispensable. A person who celebrates atrocities needs to know they have no moral weight outside their community of like-minded animals. There should be no one in the west worth anything who is on their side.
3) Anyone who attempts to deflect consideration of these atrocities is also a dimwit. Their opinions are also dispensable. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between this act and say – the Israelis fighting in Gaza a few years ago to stop rocket attacks – needs to start with an easier mental puzzle. Maybe discriminating circles and squares.
Mind you the people in 2 and 3 only need to be regarded as what they are – near mentally retarded buffoons.
It’s simple really. These acts are a show for the west and for each other. When the people who can be reached realize the show that is being played is for the dull witted children in the west, they’ll realize that we regard them with the same disgust. Then they’ll leave the audience too.
When that happens these acts will become universally regarded as murders committed by the deranged.
And all we have to do is remove any hint that there’s any morality or mitigation that goes with these acts.
Is that too much to ask?
Joe, It is too little to ask, because it won’t stop the killing, and it doesn’t create a peaceful future for Israel. And for whatever it is worth, I don’t think the murder of the Fogels is morally equivalent to anything the Israelis are doing or have done. But the murders do point out how utterly stupid it is for Israel to continue to support small settlements of the interior of the West Bank. The Fogels were in Itamar for political reasons: to try to move Israel in a direction that will not ever be workable, because of the demographics of the West Bank and because of the decency of the Israelis. The Fogel children were put in harm’s way to support an unworkable plan. It would no doubt infuriate the Fogels to hear this, but Israel needs a better plan for the West Bank. Arguing about whether two acts of violence are morally equivalent will not yield a better plan.
Let me put this in space policy terms: When a shuttle was lost, various commentators mentioned that the STS program was flawed, and such critics were shushed as being insensitive — they were told this time of mourning wasn’t the right time to point out the flaws in the program. Maybe the day of the accidents, this was true. But it WAS a good time to point out the flaws soon after, before a new orbiter was built. This is the same thing — the Fogel deaths are horrific, and probably the due to terrorism. If so, the murders came about because of a settlement program that desperately needs a course correction.
Bob,
Whether or not you think there’s a moral equivalence, you’re deflecting attention from the atrocity to Israeli behavior. This serves the interests of the terrorists.
Since, in the West, servants pick their employers, we entitled to judge the servant by who he serves.
Israel is pursing a dead-end policy. Because the West Bank + Israel = an Arab majority, settling and eventually annexing the entire West Bank will force Israel to lose its Jewish majority or force it to lose its status as a free and democratic Western democracy, or both. This suits the terrorists’ goals. I’d like to see Israel to pursue a sensible policy that will give it a sustainable future as a free country. So, to the extent that you respond to the Fogel’s murders the way the Israeli right did – to advocate continued building of settlements, *you* are the one serving the terrorist’s goals.
But fortunately, I can’t believe that anything posted on Rand’s blog actually helps or hurts the terrorists. I’m just trying to point out something about Israeli policy to readers here.
And Joe, you do understand that within 24 hours of the murders, the Israeli governments position was, and I quote, “”At least 1,000 new housing units for every murdered soul.” Does this deflect attention away from the atrocity to Israeli behavior too?
My reaction and the current Israeli government’s reaction is the same — both of us think that the murders should spur a change in construction policy – we just disagree over which policy makes any sense. If I thought it was possible for Israel annex the West Bank and make everyone there citizens, I’d agree with the government’s position. But either way, no one except you thinks that the focus should solely be on the atrocity itself — everyone else understands that Itamar’s geographic position and political purpose makes that next to impossible.
There is a rumor that the killer was a foreign worker – not a Palestinian – who had a dispute with his employer. This might explain why the Israeli government put a gag order on the investigation. If the rumor turns out to be true, it won’t matter to either side, because of Itamar’s political poignancy.
Notice how Bob immediately assumes the worst of the government based on a rumor. So Bob, how many friends do you have at J Street?
Zero – you’re the only one who brings J-street to my attention; I just read Ha’aretz. But I’m not assuming the worst — if the rumor is true, the government would have only jumped to the same conclusion as almost everyone else. But hey, if I was assuming the worst of “statists”, wouldn’t I fit in better with people here?
Bill, what’s your vision for the West Bank? What should be done?
Bob-1, I do not have a blanket bigotry against Muslims, I have a blanket bigotry against evil terrorist baby-killing cowards and the enabling sphincters who defend them and their actions through deflecting dialog.
Based upon what you write in these threads, I have yet to identify anything that I believe you and I will agree with.
Thanks for making my point so thoroughly.
Me talking to a friend: “Rand pointed out an article which contrasted the Muslims of India to the Muslims of the West Bank. I pointed out that a a more telling contrast would between the Muslims of the West Bank and the Muslims of Israel.”
Friend: “What was the reaction on Rand’s blog?”
Me: “I was told that I was enabling and defending terrorists.”
Friend: “I hadn’t thought of it like that! You scumbag!”
I pointed out that a a more telling contrast would between the Muslims of the West Bank and the Muslims of Israel.
While your grammar is atrocious, I understand what you are trying to say to your friend seemingly better than you understand what Mark Krikorian wrote in the article you referenced. Goes to my stubborn willful ignorance comment earlier.
You keep making my points for me!
Your comments are all insult with no content. What did I not understand about Mark Krikorian’s article? You don’t say.
Bob-1, with all due respect it is your comments that are insulting. You are attempting to create some kind of moral equivalence between murdering infants and Israel’s regional politics. Also, as noted by others, you frequently try to deflect attention from that atrocity to Israeli behavior. Honestly, you use a space policy metaphor to amplify your point?
While I am not conceding your point about the lack of civil rights for Muslims living in the West Bank, how would the perceived lack of those rights in any way justify the murder of an infant?
The Palestinians lost their land when they attacked Israel and were defeated. They elected a government that denies the Holocaust and calls for the annihilation of Israel. That government has broken every subsequent peace attempt with Israel. They launch thousands of unguided rockets indiscriminately across the border into Israel. They use their women and children as shields.
And that is who you are defending, Bob.
Bob-1,
Your “roadmap for the West Bank” seems to come down to, “give the terrorists what they want and abandon the West Bank so that there can be peace.”
I’m not entirely certain what part of giving in to terrorist demands actually leads to peace, though. That’s kinda the point of terrorism, isn’t it? The bully gets their way, gets an inch, and continues to take a mile?
Well Bob, I would start with the expulsion of Abu Mazen, err Abbas and friends and get the people there started on an actual government with which to negotiate. That will be enough for the next -insert number of decades here- . Israel is not the problem in the West Bank or Gaza. I’ll tell you this too. Innocent Muslims in Israel don’t have to worry about being kidnapped and tortured by other Muslims or Israelis.
The “gag” order would be to keep from inflaming passions about murdered children. J Street and Ha’aretz, the NYT of Israel, have more in common than you realize.
John B,
I’m pointing out that keeping the West Bank is worse than giving it up, because of the three “d’s: democracy, decency, and demographics: because of Israel’s fundamental decency and commitment to democracy, and because of the demographics of the West Bank, Israel *can not* keep settling the West Bank and maintain a Western democracy with a Jewish majority, and because of Israel’s fundamental decency, they won’t deport millions of Arabs. Treating the West Bank like Gaza is not giving in to terrorism. It isn’t giving in to terrorism to unilaterally withdraw from the interior of the West Bank while annexing the suburbs Israel has built along the border behind the security wall. Security walls have already drastically reduced terrorism from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and IDF operations like Cast Lead in Gaza can deter the sort of attacks walls can’t stop – it is only isolated outposts like Itamar that are threatened. No doubt Itamar could be defended, but why? Israel can’t annex the West Bank and keep its Jewish majority, so places like Itamar serve no purpose. This has nothing to do with the terrorist goals – this has to do with Israeli goals.
It is easy to be like Jim and say “you’re defending evil terrorists” but note that neither he or anybody else can explain how Itamar makes any sense in light of the three Ds.
OK, Bob…
Your 3 “d”s are simply a bad model.
The political freedoms of action posited in any discussion of democracy are, quite simply, not available to those families, clans, and tribes that presently call themselves “Palestinian”, in *any* future that puts their political freedoms at the forefront in their present culture. This is because they have never had the other *equally*important* freedoms in a culture that supports democracy, and the key you do not mention killed out of their culture, by Arabs and their funders. The multicult assumption, that we *must* define “decency” as taking the “Palestinians” *as*they*are* when we speak of the future of the area, is the core of the problem.
Once Israel cleanses itself of multicultural drivel about these families, clans, and tribes, it will have a clear, if expensive, path to act on. The last 10 decades of the history of these people has seen a rising tide of anti-Jewish propaganda, from the first speech of Amir El-Husseini onwards. For the last 8 decades, those members of this group who do *not* hate Jews have been able to say so only at the risk of death, at first from those organized by El-Husseini, and then funded by the Nazis, and then by the KGB, and then by the Oil tyrants of the ME.
By 1955, the half-life of a effective advocate for peace inside the Arab refugee camps was about 3-6 months. Most were dead by the 1967 War, in which Israel earned the eternal hatred of the Left, for breaking the Egyptian Army, which had the only chance of conquering the Oil of Arabia for “the Socialist Camp”, from their base in Yemen. There exist few among the population descended from those refugees, in spite of employment inside Israel, willing to tolerate a live Jew if they don’t have to, much less an Israeli State.
Tolerance for Jews has been successfully *killed*out* of that population by other Arabs, as well as being buried under propaganda. That tolerance is the key you did not mention. Without it there can exist no “Palestinian State” that is not an immediate threat to the survival of Israel, and of its Jews as individuals. That they will, by now, not tolerate the freedoms of action for others needed to run an industrial world is just icing on the cake for Israel.
So,…what would work? The long slow process of tearing apart this toxic anti-industrial culture must be begun *in*spite* of all protests, including those of the people involved. Then and only then, can they join or build a new culture that includes the key of toleration for others, whether Jews, or other infidels. The “Palestinian Culture” of Jew hating must die, for a Palestinian State to be born, and that will take tearing that culture apart. Not too surprisingly, the “industrialization”, in real terms of human actions of this population, will obviate the demographic problem as well. The major reason for high growth rates is their relative poverty.
That means *massive* suppression of the former political groups who have poisoned them, and then, *generations* of Israeli-approved education and in that they will learn what “occupation” truly means, again. Why again? Because some of that is what they were subjected to in Gaza and the West Bank when they were controlled by Egypt and Jordan, who enhanced the poison, instead of scouring it from the culture.
Once you have a West Bank and Gaza population where the vast majority do *not* favor killing all Jews, or even Israeli Jews, or even the Israeli State, only *then* does it become sane for the Israelis to allow a Palestinian State to begin a climb into reality. Just as the Israeli State should be forthrightly for Iraelis, and for their growing industrial culture, I believe that is true outside Israel as well.
Not too surprisingly, I believe the rest of the industrial world, outside Israel, should have the same attitudes to other such agrarian-holdover cultures that threaten them. Fortunately, we are in less of a crunch situation with them than the Israelis are with their neighborhood, and so can take more time, with more indirect means, as long as we scour multiculturalism from our own culture, and proceed to take on the reactionary aspects of the agrarian cultures around the world that still assault industrial society.
Bob. I cannot see where in my posting I mentioned settlements. You’re the only one taking about settlements in a hysterical attempt to talk about something else (Israeli government cover-up? Disgruntled employee? Let’s discuss!). I was responding to your plea for someone to discover an approach to dealing with terrorists who can murder a infant in a crib to make a political point.
The minimum answer is don’t pretend they’re anything but scum. Don’t offer excuses or divert attention from their crimes unless you’re a moron. I agree with you that its not enough but it’s something that can be managed by everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of morality.
I suppose it’s a sign of the seriousness with which you take this matter that you’ve raised the issue of settlements to address infanticide and not one of the more frivolous grievances that can lead to brutal murder such as imaginary Koran abuse, political cartoon depictions or improper Teddy bear naming conventions.
So all that celebrating in Gaza was for nothing? Makes wonder though why you’re still raising the issue of settlements in the context of child murder.
It’s great you have a friend. Your philosophizing must blow the roof off that “Cup O’ Books” near the quad.
The people people who committed these atrocities are barbarians. The people who celebrate these atrocities are scum. People who attempt to divert attention from these atrocities to for political discussion are morons.
Parse those three sentences and you’ll discover why you’re not entitled to an explanation. If you can’t parse those sentences, then no explanation will work on you.
Joe, you said “People who attempt to divert attention from these atrocities to for political discussion are morons.”
Then, clearly, you think the entire Israeli government, as well as the majority of the Fogel’s friends and neighbors, are morons. Or, in other words, you don’t understand what all of Israel and the Jewish community in the West Bank is discussing right now, in reaction to the murder of the Fogel family. Those murders *do* deserve the feelings you feel, and I share them too – those photographs are gut-wrenching – but in the face of such an atrocity, it isn’t stupid to try to think strategically.
Bob-1, you may have an insurmountable reading comprehension problem, but I am willing to try one more time.
Let’s start really small, just two words, and I will ask you to read the title of Rand’s post: “Overpowering Horror”.
What was the overpowering horror that led Rand to create this thread?
Jiminator,
The supposed overpowering horror was, and I’ll quote “the very existence of Israel, and specifically its rule over Muslims”.
This claim can be debunked by contrasting the experience of Muslim Israeli citizens benefiting from civil rights within the borders of Israel with the experience of the Muslim Palestinians living without civil rights on the West Bank.
Bob, do you not see the logical fallacy in your supposed “debunking”?
Rand, respectfully, I don’t see it. My last comment is too terse to be an independent argument, but I’ve expanded on my argument in preceding comments. If you’d like to spell out what the fallacy is, I’m all ears. If you’d like me to restate my argument in logical terms, I can do that,
Also, Rand, I’ve been hoping you’d comment on “the demographic argument” or “the three d’s argument” for why Israel should not permanently settle the West Bank.
I’ll point it out again: the author, Mark Krikorian, contrasts Muslim citizens in today’s India with the West Bank, and fails to discuss the Muslim citizens of Israel.
Rand, respectfully, I don’t see it.
You are assuming that Krikorian’s comments apply to all Muslims, rather than Islamists. It is to them that the horror is overpowering.
Thanks. I wish he had written specifically about Islamists, or at least that he had meant to be referring only to them. I don’t see any evidence in Krikorian’s four paragraphs that he did.
Maybe I just read Krikorian differently. My take was that he was noting that the Palestinians’ justification for practically beheading an infant is based on a deranged mindset (their loathing of Jews and Israel) that is now ingrained into the Palestinian culture.
Based upon that understanding, that is why I found what I perceived to be your effort to excuse that act with a civil rights argument to be so appalling. Civil rights cannot be expected when a group condones and encourages the murder of babies (not to mention the rest of that family).