The perverse and vicious Palestinian “refugee” weapon

Suppose someone told you that they wanted to take a billion and a half dollars of American and European taxpayer money each year, and use it to raise an army.

It would feed and house more than five million people, and educate the children to prepare them for the future role as soldiers to overrun a particular country. The teachers would in many (or most) cases be members of organizations recognized in your country as terrorist groups.

This army would be required to live in camps in various countries. But its soldiers would not be allowed to become citizens of those countries.

Membership in the army would be hereditary, and child allowances would be calibrated to incentivize reproduction. There would be no need for members to work, since they would receive a dole regardless of employment. In any case, there are few options for work in the camps.

The members do not have passports. They are not allowed to settle anywhere else in the world. They are told that the only way to change their status is to overrun the target country and take “back” their homes from the current residents. But only 0.4% of them ever lived in the target country, and this was more than 70 years ago.

Of course I am talking about “Palestinian refugees” and the organization that supports and nurtures them is called UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine.

In the sad history of the 20th century, millions of people became refugees. After WWII, Jews could not return to Europe, and ethnic Germans were kicked out of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. In 1948, about 650,000 Arabs fled from what became the new state of Israel; and immediately afterwards some 800,000 Jews escaped unfriendly Arab countries. Many of these refugees lost all of their property and were forced to flee with just the clothes on their backs.

Most of these refugees found new places to live, and in many cases had to start over from nothing. Most of the Germans went to Germany, although some ended up in the Soviet Gulag. The Jews of Europe went to Israel, America, and other places. The Jews from the Arab world were mostly absorbed by the new state of Israel. By the mid-1950s, most of these refugees had new homes – all but the Palestinian Arabs.

The Arab nations were unhappy that they lost the war they launched against Israel in 1948. So they came up with a brilliant plan to create a weapon that could be used to destroy Israel, a weapon that would automatically grow stronger with the passage of time, which would be a military, psychological, and diplomatic weapon all at the same time. Best of all, someone else would pay for it.

They invented the Palestinian refugee, a creature like no other refugee, because Palestinian refugee status in hereditary. They established UNRWA, an agency whose charter – unlike all other refugee relief agencies ever – was not to resettle refugees, but rather to increase their number. And the West, which pays almost all of the bills of the UN, bought into it out of cowardice and lack of will to oppose the Arabs, who had all that oil, after all.

And so the “refugee camps,” which more and more became to resemble permanent neighborhoods, came into being in several nations and became breeding grounds for recruits to the multiplicity of Palestinian terror organizations – Fatah, Hamas, PFLP, DFLP, PFLP-GC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Abu Nidal group, etc. Unemployed young Palestinian men flocked to these groups in order to lend purpose to their lives. The growth of anti-Israel and international terrorism since 1960 was caused to a great degree by the activities of these groups. Palestinian terrorists popularized airline hijacking and suicide bombing, leading directly to 9/11 and other atrocities. Thus was the West paid back for its investment.

But the Malthusian logic of the Palestinian refugee system has finally caught up with it. There are about 5.2 million Arabs with Palestinian refugee status today, and the West can’t afford any more to feed, house, clothe, and “educate” them. The power of Arab oil is diminishing. The US is sharply cutting what it gives UNRWA.

The system is wrong in multiple ways. Hereditary and permanent refugee status is fiscally unsustainable for the Western donors, cruel to the “refugees,” destabilizing to the host countries, and a threat to the targeted country, Israel. There is no legal justification for it: despite Arab claims, there is no “right of return” for refugees in international law, and even less so a “right of return” for the descendants of refugees.

If you wonder why the Arab nations have allowed this system to continue, there is a simple reason, which I call the First Principle of Arab Leadership: it is always more important to hurt Jews than to help Arabs.

The US State Department produced a report on the Palestinian refugee situation during the Obama Administration which supposedly (it is classified) says that the actual number of true refugees – when counted by the criteria used for non-Palestinians – is actually closer to 30,000 than the 5.2 million that UNRWA claims today. Apparently the State Department believes that if the details in it were released, US contributions to UNRWA would be cut even further.

Which is what should happen. In fact, they should be cut to zero, and the terrorist-ridden organization disbanded. The Arab clients of UNRWA should be granted citizenship in their host countries, and funds for their absorption and integration into society transferred to these countries for a limited period of time. Hereditary refugee status should be abolished. The 30,000 who are actually refugees should be assisted by the normal UN refugee agency, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which has been successful in resettling hundreds of thousands of refugees since 1950.

The system could be changed tomorrow, and it would not be too soon.

The fact that the Western countries have tolerated this perverse and vicious system for so long is a massive moral failure on their part. The UN, the European Union, and the US State Department share in the blame. Israel, the target of this infernal mechanism, has suffered wars and terrorism for decades because of it. And generations of “refugees” have had their chances for a normal life foreclosed.

Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Middle East politics, Terrorism | Leave a comment

New thinking required to defeat Hamas

Back when music came on Bakelite discs that spun at 78 rpm, the very fragile records would crack easily. When you tried to play a cracked disc, often the stylus (what everyone called the “needle”) would strike the crack and slip back into the groove it had just played, causing the last few seconds of the music to repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

This is the genesis of the expression “like a broken record.” And I am like a broken record.

Friday night Israel was hit with about 174 rockets and mortar shells fired from Gaza by our enemies in Hamas and other factions, whose credo is that for reasons having to do with religion and a narrative of lies, the Jews of Israel should be dead. Several Israelis were injured when rockets hit a synagogue and a private home in the city of Sderot.

Those of you who are thinking “but occupation, blockade, cycle of violence, open-air prison, blah blah” and so on can stop reading. I have nothing to say to you. Go read Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz. If you don’t know by now that this conflict is about killing Jews because they are Jews, you aren’t going to learn, at least not from me. You are part of the problem.

The recent escalation comes after a 15-year old child soldier was shot trying to climb the border fence to kill Jews, and an IDF officer was seriously injured by a grenade thrown over the fence. And in the background is several months of arson by firebombs attached to kites and balloons sent over the fence, which have burned thousands of acres of farmland and nature reserves, destroying plants and animals that will take decades to return.

Israel retaliated by bombing Hamas installations and tunnels in Gaza. “The IDF hit Hamas with the harshest blow since Operation Protective Edge and we will intensify our reaction as much as necessary,” said PM Netanyahu Saturday. A crushing blow, supposedly. We heard the planes on their way Saturday morning, and thought “that’s it, now we are finally going to teach them that they can’t burn our country and get away with it.” But that isn’t what happened.

The “harshest blow” was delivered according to the doctrine apparently invented by the IDF, our political echelon, and 10,000 lawyers, called “War Fighting Without Hurting (Practically) Anybody” (WFWHPA). Thanks to WFWHPA, only two Gazans were killed by all of Israel’s retaliatory strikes, teenagers who apparently ignored warnings delivered an hour before a structure used by Hamas was destroyed.

A ceasefire agreement was reached Saturday night with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, broken only by a few mortar shells. But Islamic Jihad says the ceasefire doesn’t include incendiary devices, which was one of Israel’s main demands, and as I write this they have been trying to prove that it is their God-given right to burn our country.

So here is my (rhetorical) question: why and how did it happen that they got to set the rules?

The world allows them to hurt us as much as they are able. Most of the media, international organizations, and many governments appear to accept their point of view that “resistance to occupation” permits them to do whatever they want. We are forbidden to shoot the launchers of incendiary bombs, especially since some of them may be “children.” But they are permitted – or at least, excused – the use of child soldiers. They use human shields, shoot randomly at civilians, take hostages, burn our crops, and deliberately destroy our environment, all violations of international humanitarian law. But the champions of humanitarianism in Europe call for arresting Israeli officials for war crimes.

Unfortunately, even in Israel we have gotten used to it. We fight according to a technocratic cost-benefit principle. The IDF calculates that the cost of the arson campaign is less than the cost of a war. They calculate that it’s better to destroy Hamas’ property than its soldiers, because they have plenty of soldiers and limited money, and because of the propaganda value of dead Arabs (who can be called “civilians” or “children,” as was done effectively in previous wars). Our leaders say “so what if they keep trying to kill us, because we are strong enough to stop them.” We can sit underneath our Iron Domes and improve our ability to locate and put out fires, and we won’t even notice that our enemies are trying to kill us and turn our land into smoke and ashes.

There are two problems with this. One is that it doesn’t work. We won’t let Hamas fall, because we are afraid of the alternatives, which are even more extreme groups or anarchy. We are afraid of a humanitarian disaster, which would be blamed on us. So in any event the cost-benefit warfare won’t be carried to a natural conclusion, the end of the Hamas regime. In addition, our declared enemies in Iran and our undeclared ones in Europe will always find a way to prop it up. This kind of war will go on forever.

The second problem is that it is a recipe for losing the cognitive war against the broader coalition of our enemies, which stretches far beyond the Middle East. It damages our own morale: our PM brags about how someone said we are the 8th most powerful country in the world, but try explaining that to the people sitting in shelters in Sderot or the kibbutzniks in the “Gaza envelope” racing to put out the fires breaking out everywhere. But more than that, what picture does it present throughout the world: the cowering, victimized Jews, brought to their knees by the low-tech (but courageous!) youth of Gaza.

It is as if we are saying “go ahead, hit me again.” We Jews must deserve it, because we never hit back. Our strategy announces that we are weaklings, cowards, and evil oppressors all at the same time. Goebbels couldn’t have expressed it better.

We need to win both the kinetic and the cognitive wars. We can do both by actually confronting and defeating our enemy. That requires certain changes in our attitudes.

First, we have to stop worrying about the poor, victimized population of Gaza. They supported Hamas (it won a relatively fair election there), or the Islamic Jihad or the PLO, all of which are officially dedicated to killing Jews. Yes, it’s wrong to deliberately target civilians – and you Brits and Americans who criticize us should look into what the US Army’s bombers and the RAF did to Germany in WWII (google “strategic bombing”) – but the primary goal is to win the war.

Second, we need to understand and act on the proposition that Gaza is not our responsibility. Hamas and friends have been making war against us since they got power in 2007, and it’s time to destroy their ability to do so any more. What happens after that is the responsibility of the international community, which nurtured the nest of vipers with billions from UNRWA and other aid.

And third, we must start realizing that we have a right to be here. For decades, we have been acting as though we too accept the anti-Zionist propaganda that flows from Muslim countries and Europe, and their tool, the UN. We are the oldest indigenous inhabitants of the land, the natives. Nothing epitomizes our failure to assert our aboriginal rights to the land more than the way we have clung to the disastrous Oslo accords, long after it became clear that the Palestinians do not accept those rights.

We don’t need to feel guilty for establishing a sovereign state in our historic homeland – and we don’t owe the local Arabs any of it.

Posted in Israel and Palestinian Arabs, War | 3 Comments

The Nation-State Law rises again

Five years since its initial introduction by MK Avi Dichter, the Nation State Bill is being hotly debated in the Knesset once again.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence announced the creation of “A Jewish state in Eretz-Israel,” and added,

The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

These principles are generally referred to by saying that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state. The democratic part is further explicated by several Basic Laws including those that describe the details of Israel’s political democracy, and which guarantee individual rights, liberty, and dignity.

(That isn’t to say that the state always lives up to these commitments. For example, two recent serious lapses have been the treatment of the young suspects in the Duma arson/murder case, who were subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and the persistent leakage of transcripts from the police investigations of PM Netanyahu and Sara Netanyahu, both of which appear to violate the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty).

Basic Laws serve the function of a constitution in Israel, and because they serve as touchstones for court decisions (especially the Supreme Court), have great influence. The Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty is especially frequently cited by the Supreme Court.

The concept of the state’s Jewishness, however, is not elucidated any further by existing Basic Laws. Many Israelis (I among them) feel that there is an imbalance in the Basic Laws, such that the Jewish nature of the state is often in practice subordinated to its democratic nature. This feeling could be expressed by saying that there is more to a Jewish state than just a Jewish majority. Or, to put it another way, a Jewish majority is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a Jewish state. This is addressed by the attempt to pass a new Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.

The reason the bill is so controversial – despite the present version being highly watered down – is that there are competing visions of what the State of Israel should be. One view, which is preferred by Arab citizens and the Jewish Left, is that it should be a liberal democracy, period. Many Arabs would also like to see ethnically-neutral national symbols. Some would even prefer a binational state, with the Arab minority given a veto power over laws passed by the Knesset, a Law of Return for Arabs, and more (the Haifa Declaration of a committee of Israeli Arab academics is an extreme example).

As long as there is a Jewish majority, that isn’t likely to happen. But there is also a view that the Jewishness of the state is simply a function of its Jewish majority, and the only special benefit provided to Jews is the Law of Return. The Jewish character of the state, by this view, comes from the fact that Jews are in the majority and will naturally determine the symbols, holidays, language, and culture of the state.

Finally there is the position, reflected by those that favor the passage of a nation-state law, that Israel should explicitly define herself as a Jewish state. Having basic principles anchored in law could be practically important. For example, the current version of the nation-state bill in the Knesset includes the statement that “The State will act to ingather the exiles of Israel and to promote Jewish settlement in its territory and it shall allocate resources for these purposes.” In a case involving a conflict between claims of individual property rights and a settlement in Judea/Samaria, the courts would have to give weight to the need to promote Jewish settlement, and perhaps find a solution short of demolition.

Or, for example, consider that someone might petition the Supreme Court to improve access to the Temple Mount for Jews on the basis that “The holy sites shall be protected against desecration and all other damage and against anything that would interfere with freedom of access of religious groups to places holy to them or to their sensibilities regarding said holy sites,” one of the clauses in the law.

There is also the more abstract value of making explicit Israel’s primary function as a vehicle for Jewish self-determination, as well as the responsibilities of the state to the Jewish people as a homeland and a refuge. It might seem obvious to some Israelis, but not to others and certainly not to the rest of the world.

Parts of the bill are very controversial, like one that gives the right to a “community” (without defining that, except to say that ethnic and religious categories are included) to establish a “separate community settlement” where members of a different “community” would not be accepted. Yesterday’s Knesset debate about this was highly acrimonious, with several members being removed for bad behavior. President Rivlin, in a rare foray into politics, wrote a letter strongly opposing this clause, and my guess is that it will be significantly changed or removed from the final law.

In the next week or so, the bill will have its final two readings in the Knesset, and proponents say that they have the votes to pass it even in its present form (which I doubt, given the storm produced by the President’s letter).

Some who object to the law ask “Who needs it? We know who we are. It will damage the state among the peoples of the world.”

Israel is a special kind of state, in fact the only one of its kind. It is not only an ethnic nation-state, it is probably the only one established by the return of a nation to its homeland after a prolonged exile, and one whose first principles include the necessity of being a refuge for a persecuted people.

It is presently weathering an intensely hostile political climate in a world where ethnic nationalism is considered evil, both in the abstract and in particular for the Jewish people.

Rather than hide who we are, we should broadcast it. It might not make the world like us any more, but at least they will better understand what we are fighting for.

Posted in Israeli Politics, The Jewish people, Zionism | 5 Comments

Restraint, the strategy of defeat

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others. – Niccolo Machiavelli

It’s been reported that indirect negotiations are underway with Hamas for the release of two Israelis and the bodies of two soldiers that they are holding. Germany and Egypt are said to be involved in the negotiations. Needless to add, part of the price for their release will be the freeing of murderers associated with Hamas who are now in Israeli jails.

Some say that one reason the IDF is not taking stronger action (read: any action at all) against the terrorists that are launching incendiary devices that have burned thousands of acres in southern Israel is the sensitivity of these negotiations. Another reason is that officials are worried about tension of the northern borders and would prefer to avoid a two-front war. And the IDF also wants to finish the enormously expensive anti-tunnel barrier they are building along the frontier.

I understand the arguments for this policy. But it is wrong in every way.

Deterrence is created by conditioning the enemy to expect a painful response to aggressive behavior. If we train them to expect a minimal or no response, then they escalate their aggression, and it becomes the status quo. Today it has become normal that Hamas is burning our land. It has become normal for them to hold on to any Israeli, dead or alive, that they can get their hands on.

We have things backwards. We are the stronger power, and thus Hamas should be the ones begging for negotiations. Instead of using our power to force them to release hostages and stop setting fires, we deliberately restrain ourselves and thus allow them to control our behavior.

We are not deterring them. They are deterring us.

I can imagine the anguish of the families involved, both those of the soldiers whose bodies are in the hands of the ghouls of Hamas, and those whose apparently mentally disturbed family members wandered across the border. But Israel is full of families who will never stop feeling the pain of their loss, including some, like the families of Ron Arad, Zechariah Baumel, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, and Guy Hever, who will never even have the (small) comfort of knowing where their sons are buried or even the certainty that they are dead.

I wonder how many prisoners Hamas wants in return for our four. The Gilad Shalit affair set a precedent of roughly 1000 to 1. I wonder what else they are demanding.

In the north, the situation in Lebanon is a direct result of our restraint. Hezbollah built up its strike force over a period of 12 years, from 2006. What were we doing during those 12 years? Did we notice what was happening? Of course we did. But we allowed the buildup to become normal. Even our “right-wing” Prime Minister from 2009, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has both military experience and an understanding of history superior to most of his contemporaries, didn’t appear to worry about it – until, it seems, one day he woke up and realized that in the event of war Hezbollah could fire thousands of rockets and longer range missiles every day at almost every point in Israel (to his credit, Netanyahu seems determined not to allow the same situation to take hold in Syria).

There are external forces that always work to prevent us from taking action. The UN, the EU, and the US prefer restraint to action. During the Obama years, enormous pressure was put on us to prevent Israel from striking Iran’s atomic bomb project, until Obama got his nuclear deal to lock us down. So now, if we have to use force in any event, Iran’s facilities are more hardened and better dispersed and defended.

There is another lockdown on the horizon. Details about the so-called “deal of the century” of the Trump Administration are beginning to surface. It seems that it will involve Israel accepting a hudna (a temporary truce) with Hamas, while international aid is used to rehabilitate Gaza, including building port facilities in Cyprus. There are many problems, starting with the fact that Hamas will not be required to disarm. Once the deal is in place, there will be no more “mowing the grass,” as our periodic conflicts in Gaza have been called, and a massive buildup like Hezbollah’s in Lebanon will become a possibility. Perhaps pressure from the US to not upset the nascent deal is already one of the factors preventing us from responding to Hamas’ provocations.

Restraint as a policy is seductive. Nobody wants war, and there is always the risk that responding to aggression will bring about escalation, which will lead to all-out war. Calculations are made: we can become better at putting out fires, and we can afford to let some land burn, we can develop more effective ways to intercept firebombs. Better than dealing with a massive rocket attack on our towns, we think. Restraint, in the short term, is cheaper and more comfortable than maintaining deterrence.

But in addition to the obvious problems, like the military buildup of Hezbollah and Hamas or the progress of Iranian nuclear and missile programs, there are the psychological effects, both on us and our enemies. Every new rocket launcher and every burned field, every unbalanced prisoner exchange, encourages our enemies to believe that with perseverance they will achieve victory. From our point of view, every successful act of terrorism reduces our confidence that our leadership is capable of protecting us.

The policy of restraint does not send a message of strength, but rather of weakness. It buys a degree of peace and comfort in the short term for the price of insecurity and possibly war in the long term. It weakens deterrence and provides openings for “lockdowns” which can make it impossible to respond when provocations become intolerable. It invites conflict rather than deterring it. It is often an excuse for politicians to “kick the can down the road” rather than dealing with aggression.

Restraint is portrayed as the wiser, more mature policy than confrontation. It has a better reputation than its sister, appeasement, but in the end the result is the same: more violence, not less.

Posted in War | 7 Comments

What is it about us?

Today I read a very interesting piece by Times of Israel editor David Horovitz, an interview with David Brog, who runs Sheldon Adelson’s Macabee Task Force. The objective is to fight delegitimization of Israel and BDS on college campuses; but rather than applying a predetermined formula, the group cooperates with local pro-Israel students and community members to determine what works, in a very practical way. It was fascinating to me, as someone who spent years trying to counteract anti-Israel incitement in my own small community – and to a great extent, failed to do so.

One paragraph that stuck in my mind was this:

…when it comes to demonizing Israel on campus, there is no comparable effort focused on any other country. No remotely comparable effort. There’s intensive, relentless bashing of Israel… and of no other nation on earth. Not Syria, where President Bashar Assad has massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people. Not North Korea, which runs re-education and concentration camps. Not Venezuela, Cambodia or Afghanistan, which head the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. Not China or Russia, singled out in the latest US State Department report on human rights practices. Not Yemen, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, prominently criticized in Amnesty International’s latest human rights audit. Just Israel. Israel. And Israel.

What is true on American campuses is true for Western society as a whole. As Brog notes, here and there one finds demonstrations or campaigns for one cause or another, but anti-Israel agitation and propaganda is everywhere, despite the fact that the relative number of people hurt or killed in our little conflict is minuscule. Bashar al-Assad has killed half a million Syrians and turned his country into a bloody shambles, and yet he gets less media coverage than Israel killing a few dozen Palestinians trying to penetrate our border and murder our citizens.

This almost cries out for a conspiracy theory. Who is behind it? Who pays the bills and gives the orders? The answer is “quite a lot of people,” and while some of them are secretive, it is not exactly a conspiracy. Financing comes from governments of disparate nations like Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (despite our new-found common cause), Germany, Norway and Sweden; from the EU and the UN; from Oxfam, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Ford Foundation, and the multiple charitable enterprises associated with George Soros; from the Danish National Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Mennonite Central Committee, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Presbyterian Church USA; and from the pockets of millions of liberal Americans, mostly Jewish, who give to the New Israel Fund or J Street.

That’s just a small sample, which doesn’t begin to cover all of the sources of funding for anti-Israel causes. Did you participate in one of the US-wide CROP Hunger Walks sponsored by Church World Service? Then you, too, became part of the worldwide demonization-of-Israel project. Many other charitable organizations support the Palestinian Cause (the end of the Jewish state) in one way or another. Are you a college student in the US or the parent of one? Then the student activities fee that you or your child pays supports Students for Justice in Palestine, which has almost 200 active chapters in American universities.

It made news when Black Lives Matter (now called The Movement for Black Lives) published its platform which accuses Israel of “genocide” against the Palestinians and calls it an “apartheid state.” But virtually every progressive or left-wing group – including the left wing of the US Democratic Party and the British Labor Party – shares its point of view. The leaders of South Africa’s ruling ANC party called Israel a “blight on humanity,” compared it to Nazi Germany, and recalled its ambassador over the Gaza crisis. The Swedish Foreign Minister recently promised Palestinians at a PLO-sponsored event that Sweden would “fight with you and for you.”

And these are countries and organizations associated with the West. It isn’t necessary for me to add what officials and media in Iran, Turkey, and Arab countries (including those that have signed peace treaties with Israel) have to say about us every day.

Perhaps we are too close to it to recognize the historical uniqueness of the massive tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment that has washed over the world since it began, possibly aided by the Soviet KGB, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I certainly can’t think of anything comparable.

It becomes even more difficult to understand both the extent and viciousness of worldwide Israel-hate when one looks at the dimensions of the Israel-Arab conflict. Casualties in all the major and minor wars and terrorism from the 19th century to today amount to about 115,000 on both sides, about the number of Syrians killed by Bashar al-Assad in one year. The “mistreatment” of Palestinians by Israel, which is said to be so heinous, still leaves the Palestinian Arabs – at least, those in areas under Israeli control – among the healthiest and most prosperous Arabs in the Middle East. The Arab population between the river and the sea has tripled since 1970 (so much for “genocide”).

The Palestinians themselves are not so lovable. Their main contributions to modern society seem to be the popularization of airline hijacking, suicide bombing, and vehicular attacks. They glorify terrorism – Yasser Arafat once addressed the UN wearing a pistol. The father of Palestinian nationalism, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a Nazi sympathizer who broadcast propaganda from Berlin and raised a Muslim division for the SS. Israel, on the other hand, has been responsible for countless innovations in medical and agricultural technology, and sends delegations of medical personnel and aid to disaster sites around the world, including its Syrian border.

And yet, it continues. Irrational and vicious, it even grows. Palestinian terrorism is excused as a legitimate response to “occupation,” while Israeli medical aid is dismissed as an attempt to distract from its oppression of Palestinians. Palestinian violence against gays is explained as an unfortunate cultural artifact, while Israeli tolerance is called “pinkwashing.”

Maybe there is a reader who can explain it to me. Explain how Israel is so villainous that the good that Israelis do can be dismissed. Explain why it is so important that its conflict overshadows all the other disputes in our contentious world. Explain why they support “solutions” that imply the replacement of Israel by a Palestinian Arab state.

I can come up with only one explanation: Israel is the Jewish state, and the imperative to despise the Jewish people is so deeply ingrained in Christian and Muslim traditions, that the embodiment of Jewish sovereignty, the State of Israel, has become the Devil for them.

Posted in Jew Hatred | 5 Comments