Posted on 08/20/2006 5:46:58 AM PDT by SJackson
The Middle East 'conflict' boils down to this guiding principle: Jewish/Israeli lives are simply worth less than Muslim/Arab lives
As we witnessed the incessant calls and declarations for “an immediate cease-fire" from Israel's detractors – whether politicians, journalists, religious and community leaders, or the United Nations with its resolution mandating a “cessation of hostilities” – I couldn't help but conclude that for all of these addressing the Middle East “conflict” boils down to this guiding principle: Jewish/Israeli lives are simply worth less than Muslim/Arab lives.
When missiles are blasted into Israel by Muslim/Arab terrorists living in their non-disputed Muslim/Arab territory, resulting in the murder of innocent Israelis/Jews, the world tells Israel to show restraint and refrain from retaliating with targeted responses against the origins of the rocket launches. Why? Because some Muslim/Arab civilians might inadvertently be killed.
And when Muslim/Arab suicide-bombing murderers steal into Israel and blow to smithereens innocent Jewish/Israeli civilians in pizza parlors and discotheques, Israel is admonished to show restraint and refrain from targeting the planners, facilitators, and future perpetrators of suicide-murder actions. Why? Because some Muslim/Arab civilians might inadvertently be killed.
Attempts to eliminate immediate threat
In both these cases, Israel is simply making necessary and desperate attempts to eliminate, or at least diminish, the immediate and existentially dire threat to the very lives of its innocent civilians – and Israel is directed by these critics to not do so.
Israel’s innocent citizens are viciously and incessantly targeted for extermination by Muslim/Arab terrorists from Muslim/Arab land with the support of the Muslim/Arab governments who are voted into power by the Muslim/Arab citizenry.
Israel determines that it can go in with precision strikes to help destroy the capabilities of its enemies to murder Israeli civilians, thus helping to save their own inhabitants’ lives. And Israel is told not to!
Bottom line: Israel is strongly warned to allow – indeed facilitate – the ongoing murder of its citizens so as not to risk the possible death of an Arab/Muslim civilian. And if these critics “selection” of who should live and who needn’t live is not monstrous enough, there's more.
When Israel attempts to put up a fence solely for the sake of keeping out the murderers who try to infiltrate the border and invade Israel-property for the purpose of blowing up innocent Jewish children savoring an ice-cream cones at a cafe, Israel is rebuked.
Israel is told to tear down that (Jewish)-life-saving fence. Why? Because just the mere inconveniences caused to those on the enemy side of the fence is too great a burden to bear, too high a price for them to pay in order to save the life of a Jew.
Avoid (Arab) civilian casualties
And now, yet again, we have the “cease fire". But the question must be asked: Why is it that there is never a call for “an immediate cease fire” when Muslin/Arabs attack Israel and murder her citizens – but rather only when Israel responds to defend herself? The answer again seems all too clear – and hauntingly familiar.
Israel is told to remove roadblocks and checkpoints, to arm and fund the terror governments who rule within mere meters of the Jewish heartland, to negotiate with the terrorists, to show restraint, to submit to devastatingly premature cease-fires, and above all to avoid civilian (read: Arab/Muslim civilian) casualties and inconveniences at all costs – especially, it seems, if the cost is just some Jewish blood.
As the United Nations continues its work to undermine Israel, it would serve the civilized world well to remember that "cease-fires" imposed on Israel and her enemies invariably translate into Israel ceasing and the enemy firing.
It is also true that if the fanatical Muslim/Arabs withhold fire, none will be killed; if the Jews withhold fire, innocent Jews will be murdered. So when Israel is urged again and again to withhold fire while under present or immanent siege, leaving the murderers poised to continue their bloody assault to the bitter end, what is one to think of those who urge Israel’s restraint?
Israel’s critics and detractors, far from advancing the ideological bedrock of civilized goodness and decency – justice, freedom, and equality – are promoting instead a grotesque value-assessment of the lives of Jews/Israelis versus the lives of just about anyone else, and in their scenario the Jews lose. Will it be “never again” or is it “here we go again?"
Jonathan Pearl, Ph.D and a practicing Rabbi, is the co-author of "The Chosen Image: Television’s Portrayals of Jewish Themes and Characters". He is also the founder of the Institute for Wholly Living
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Tagline material!!!
To Islamic fanatics, "Never again" translates to "Not yet, but soon."
I have been forcefully saying this for years. I should be bald from pulling my hair out because of the libs that don't get it. And the Jewish libs that don't get it absolutely make me insane.
When I explained to one, at the time, that the Oslo "deal" would translate into dead Jews, I got blank stares in return. She saw it simply as "Clinton bashing" and thus refused to consider the point I was making.
These people's refusal to acknowledge the Clinton betrayals is the flip side of the BDS coin. It is just as deranged, just a little less vocal.
I don't especially care about the sick rantings on DU or KOS. But I do care that these people's derangements translate into lots of lost lives in the real world.
So you're objectively pro-genocide. Thanks for making that public.
How would that exterminate the entire population of Islam?
I take it that you actually understand what the word 'genocide' means, yes?
Maybe I should have said I'd understand. I'm no t reccommending they do it, but I'd understand their motives if they did.
BTW, what is Ahmanutjob advocating if not genocide of the Jews? What did the Jews ever do to Iran?
When someone issues a credible threat to "reduce your population",doing for him first would only be self defense would it not?
Who said it would?
I take it that you actually understand what the word 'genocide' means, yes?
As I understand it, nuking every Arab capital city in the ME and beyond, "Plus every non capital city that is of significant population or cultural/economic importance" is clearly genocidal. If you don't agree, I shudder to think where you set the bar for genocide.
I appreciate your willingness to correct a mis-statement.
I'm no t reccommending they do it, but I'd understand their motives if they did.
Although it would achieve certain security objectives for Israel, such an act would be primarily a genocide.
BTW, what is Ahmanutjob advocating if not genocide of the Jews?
I'm sure he would be splitting hairs about it, saying that he's really only advocating genocide of the Israelis. Iranian Jews aren't in his sights ... for now, at least.
What did the Jews ever do to Iran?
They developed a proud 2700 year history in the country, which makes anti-Semites uncomfortable. And they burn Haman in effigy every Purim. Other than that, not much.
When someone issues a credible threat to "reduce your population",doing for him first would only be self defense would it not?
It may be considered self defense to pre-emptively strike out against Ahmadinejad. Nuking major Iranian cities would be a genocidal act and is neither defensive nor defesible.
As I understand it, nuking every Arab capital city in the ME and beyond, "Plus every non capital city that is of significant population or cultural/economic importance" is clearly genocidal. If you don't agree, I shudder to think where you set the bar for genocide.
----
Hmm, I think I'll answer this with a paraphrase of your own post (#12).
BTW, what is (El Gato) advocating if not genocide of the (Muslims)?
I'm sure he would be splitting hairs about it, saying that he's really only advocating genocide of those (living in the independant Muslim nations). (Muslims living in the west) aren't in his sights... for now, at least.
:-)
Genocide of Arabs, not genocide of Muslims.
And just because the geographical scope of the genocide isn't exhaustive doesn't mean it's not genocide.
Machismo + inferiority + jealousy = Muslim
In addition, El Gato has clarified his earlier post and made it clear that he is not advocating genocide.
Don't want to drag him through the mud...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.