New York Times celebrates a pro-Palestinian propaganda piece

When the Left talks about “the children,” they only mean certain children.  For example, the useful idiots working at the New York Times have never waxed lyrical about the Israeli children killed in pizza parlors, in their homes, or at bus stops.  They’ve never expressed concern about the thousands of missiles that periodically rain down upon Israel with ferocious regularity, nor about the fact that Jewish children are one of the Muslim terrorists’ prime targets.  They don’t even weep tears for the Palestinian children whom the terrorists use for shields or train to become human bombs.

However, woe betide the Jews if those same Palestinian children — the ones the terrorists use as shields — actually die.  Then the propaganda machine goes into action, the movies get made, and the New York Times movie reviewers get to show both their poetic souls and their Leftist chops (emphasis mine):

A brutally uncompromising blast of outrage, Vibeke Lokkeberg’s “Tears of Gaza” is less a documentary than a collage of suffering. Dropping us smack in the middle of the Israeli attacks on Gaza in the winter of 2008-9, the film tramples politics beneath the raw weight of civilian testimony. Woven together, these monologues of bereavement and confusion, illustrated with images so terrible they repel rational explanation, form a tapestry of human misery that’s impossible to shake off.

Using extraordinary footage shot by several Palestinian photographers, Ms. Lokkeberg (a Norwegian who was refused access to Gaza) spotlights the extreme deprivation of life under a blockade and the physical and psychological wounds of war. A sickeningly beautiful rain of nighttime missiles is followed by wrenching shots of suffocated infants being hauled from pulverized homes. Tiny, broken bodies — some seemingly fired on at point-blank range — blanket the film, often in excruciating close-up. Postcarnage interviews allow the stunned reactions of three surviving children to shape a quiet meditation on lives irretrievably altered.

Unwaveringly committed to a method that spits on context, “Tears of Gaza” forces us to ask a single, electric question: Amid this much horror, does context even matter?

And it’s that last question that tells you everything you need to know.  Context matters tremendously.  There are wars fought to subjugate people and wars fought to free people.  There are wars fought for principles and wars fought for wealth.  There are wars to impose cruelty and wars to destroy cruelty.  For example, contrary to Michael Moore’s stupid belief, Islamists are not “freedom fighters” for Islam.  They have no interest in freedom.  They cannot be analogized to Americans during the Revolutionary War, because the Americans were fighting to increase individual liberties, rather than to subjugate people to a tyrannical ideology.

When a New York Times review waxes lyrical about suffering children and then asks “does context even matter,” you know that this lyricism is being bent to the defense of an evil cause.

That’s all.

The truth about Palestinian refugees

Another powerful Danny Ayalon video.  Watch it, then, please, please, please share it with people.

(Or view it here if it doesn’t load on my webpage.)

Incidentally, will it make you feel better to know that Danny Ayalon, reciting just the facts set forth in the above video, is causing some embarrassment for the UN, which is incapable of addressing the charges?  It certainly made me feel better.

Question:  I just wanted to ask a question about comments that were made by Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Daniel Ayalon, before the Human Rights High Commissioner for Refugees’ ministerial event in Geneva last week.  He basically said that the cause of the Palestinian refugee issue was not so much the dispossession of the majority of Palestinians from their homeland by Jewish militias during the 1948 war and refusal of Israel to enable their right to return under resolution 194.  He said rather that it was the establishment of UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] which has perpetuated the refugee status by applying unique criteria to it.  And I just wonder whether either the Secretary-General or UNRWA has made any response to this statement.

Associate Spokesperson:  No.  We don’t go into the lengthy history of how the refugee crisis started.  As you know, the historians may have differing interpretations of what brought on the refugee crisis.  UNRWA, it should be stressed, was established in response to the refugee crisis.  And, as you know, the presence of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency throughout the region is designed to deal with the number, the very large number of Palestinian refugees throughout the region.  If the situation can be resolved and the situation of the Palestinian refugees can be addressed fairly, then UNRWA’s work will have been done, but at this stage, we are not there.  It has a lot of work in a lot of countries with, as you know, tens of thousands of people.

Question:  Excuse me, is there no response to the statement by [Deputy] Foreign Minister Ayalon that UNRWA is perpetuating the status of the refugees?

Associate Spokesperson:  I wouldn’t react to specific comments.  Over the years people have disagreed and have had their own interpretations of…

Question:  This is not just a personal comment, this is on the Israeli Government official website, his statement is made.  And he is a minister in the Israeli Government.

Associate Spokesperson:  Like I said to you just a second ago, the creation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency was in response to the refugee crisis.  It is there to handle the situation, the very large situation of refugees across the region that had erupted.  And its existence over the decades is testament to the fact that, throughout this time, the situation of the Palestinian refugees remains to be resolved.  Yes?

Hat tip:  Sadie

Why Gingrich said something important when he talked about an “invented” people

Others have said it, but I like best the way Evelyn Gordon said it.  After confirming the historic accuracy of Newt’s claim (namely, that Arabs moved into the land at the end of the 19th century, rather than having lived there since time immemorial), Gordon goes on:

One might ask why this should matter: Regardless of when either Jews or Palestinians arrived, millions of both live east of the Jordan River​ today, and that’s the reality policymakers must deal with. But in truth, it matters greatly – because Western support for Palestinian negotiating positions stems largely from the widespread view that Palestinians are an indigenous people whose land was stolen by Western (Jewish) interlopers.

Current demographic realities would probably suffice to convince most Westerners that a Palestinian state should exist. But the same can’t be said of Western insistence that its border must be the 1967 lines, with adjustments possible only via one-to-one territorial swaps and only if the Palestinians consent. Indeed, just 44 years ago, UN Resolution 242 was carefully crafted to reflect a Western consensus that the 1967 lines shouldn’t be the permanent border. So what changed?

The answer lies in the phrase routinely used to describe the West Bank and Gaza today, but which almost nobody used back in 1967, when Israel captured these areas from Jordan and Egypt, respectively: “occupied Palestinian territory.” This phrase implies that the land belongs to the Palestinians and always has. And if so, why shouldn’t Israel be required to give back every last inch?

But if the land hasn’t belonged to the Palestinians “from time immemorial” – if instead, both Palestinians and Jews comprise small indigenous populations augmented by massive immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, with the West Bank and Gaza becoming fully Judenrein only after Jordan and Egypt occupied them in 1948 – then there’s no inherent reason why the border must necessarily be in one place rather than another. To create two states, a border must be drawn somewhere, but that “somewhere” should depend only on the parties’ current needs – just as the drafters of Resolution 242 envisioned.

Read the rest here.

Gilad Shalit returns home

Thin and pale, but Gilad Shalit is home at last.  To bring this beloved child (beloved of parents and of country) home, Israel released over a thousand Palestinian murderers and would-be murderers.  Many mourn that these killers are back on the streets, and rightly so.  I hope that Israel has drones hovering over them permanently, ready to erase their existence at the first sign they intend to engage again in violence against Israel.  (Netanyahu hints that something like this might be the case.)

In way, though, the exchange can also be viewed as a calculated insult against the Palestinians, but an insult the Palestinians willingly inflicted against themselves.  In the exchange rate, Jews have intrinsic to their own countrymen, while Palestinians do not.  If this was a financial exchange rate (comparing dollars to some other currency, for example), we’d instantly recognize that the other currency is virtually valueless.  The Palestinians’ countrymen love them only as cannon fodder.

It remains to be seen whether, in the long run, a country that values its citizens as individual human beings is going to do better than one that sees its citizens as nothing more than human bombs.  I will say that one of my Mom’s old friends (and I do mean old, as she’s 92), just returned from a trip to Israel.  She raved about how wonderful the country is:  low unemployment, solid infrastructure, happy citizens.  She didn’t even mention the two new Nobel science prize winners in her trip review!  I doubt that anyone going to the Palestinian territories can say that same, and that’s true despite the bazillions of dollars (and Euros and whatever else) that have been sent to those befouled neighborhoods.

Achmed the Dead Terrorist comes to the UN

Are you familiar with Achmed the Dead Terrorist?  Jeff Dunham, a ventriloquist, came up with a skeleton-shaped dummy named Achmed.  Achmed is a self-identified terrorist, with the catch-phrase “I kill you.”  Here, see for yourself:

Now that you’ve familiarized yourself with Achmed, read this bit of wisdom from the Palestinian representative to the UN:

“The UN is the only alternative to violence,” Shaath said during a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.”It will be very costly to us and the Israelis. Our new heroes are Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King.”

Could Dunham come up with better comedy than that?  “If you don’t give us what we want, ‘We kill you.’  And, by the way, we get the inspiration for our ‘do as we say or die’ negotiation tactic from those famous pacifists, Gandhi, Mandela and Martin Luther King.”

Is there any sanity left in a world that thinks these violent, duplicitous people are ready for their own state?

Obama presidency proves Palestinians have never wanted peace

Pro-Palestinian putzes have consistently claimed that if Israel would just bend a little more, and still a little more, then there would be peace in the Middle East.  The execrable President Carter (I always affix that adjective to this loathsome human being) now claims that he’s being forced to urge a UN vote for a Palestinian state because Obama didn’t exert enough force on the Israelis to make them really, really bend over.  Jonathan Tobin explains that Carter’s criticism of Obama, while reflecting badly on both, reveals a home truth about the Palestinians:

It is highly ironic Carter would blast Obama for being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinians, because the latter prioritized the peace process throughout his administration. Ignoring the evidence PA leader Mahmoud Abbas​ had no intention of ever signing a peace deal, Obama plunged into the negotiations picking fights with Israel and showing a clear preference for the Palestinian position. But despite Obama’s attacks on Israel’s positions on settlements and Jerusalem, Abbas refused to rejoin the negotiations. Even after the president ambushed Netanyahu in May with his proposal that the 1967 lines be the basis for talks, Abbas still wouldn’t budge.

Had Abbas been willing to make peace, he would have found Obama a useful ally who had little love for Israel. Obama did everything but present a U.S. dictat for peace in order to please the Palestinians, but Abbas never had any intention of negotiating. As the New York Times noted last weekend, the Obama-Abbas spat has been something of a lovers’ quarrel. Having been thoroughly embarrassed by the Palestinians, Obama has stayed aloof from diplomacy on the conflict in recent months.

It’s a really good article, so you may want to read the rest here.

How the Left uses children’s art in the war against the Jews *UPDATED*

Me, at Pajamas Media:

I challenge you to find a news report with more layers, all of them misleading, than an ostensibly unbiased San Francisco Chronicle “news” article about a canceled art exhibition at the Museum of Children’s Art in Oakland, California. The story’s core is uncomplicated: The museum agreed with an organization called the Middle East Children’s Alliance to showcase art that Palestinian children created. In response to protests, the museum halted the exhibit.

Through a magical combination of ambition, distraction, uglification, and derision, though, Chronicle readers are left believing that children in Gaza, after suffering horrible abuse at Israeli hands, are now victims of American Jewish censorship. (Of course, Chronicle readers, already primed with a steady diet of this kind of reporting, probably started out believing this statement to be true, so this most recent story is just fuel to an already raging fire.)

Chronicle staff writer Jill Tucker begins her report by saying that the museum, “citing pressure from the community,” canceled the exhibit, which was to have consisted of drawings that Gazan children created in the wake of the 2008 war. The pictures’ subject matter included “bombs dropping, tanks and people getting shot.” Barbara Lubin, spokesperson for the Middle East Children’s Alliance, the organization sponsoring the exhibit, validated the drawings on the ground that they represent the children’s “experience.”

Read the rest here.

UPDATE:  Kidkaroo’s link to a report about another child indoctrination program, this one in antisemitic Norway, reminds us that this is a worldwide problem.

Right of Return

If we’re going to do a Right of Return, I think we should be methodical.  Those who had first dibs on the land currently known as Israel get first dibs today.  Let’s work our way down the list:

The first known occupiers were probably the Canaanites.  As far as I know, there are no Canaanites still demanding a Right of Return.

The second known occupiers were the Jews, per the Old Testament.  They have pursued a Right of Return through purchase, diplomatic means and war.  The Jews have occupied the land continuously since the time of Abraham, although some of them left temporarily for destinations such as Egypt, Babylon, and Europe.

The third known occupiers were the Philistines, who gave their name to Palestine, although they are not to be confused with the modern Palestinian Arabs.  The Philistines were probably Cypriots.  As far as I know, there are no Philistines still demanding a Right of Return.  The Jews, incidentally, were in residence during Philistine times.

The fourth known occupiers were the Ancient Greeks.  Again, no ancient or modern Greeks have laid claim to a Right of Return.  The Jews lived on the land during Greek times.

Then there were the Romans, who are a distinct culture from modern-day Italy.  No ancient Romans have resurrected themselves or their claims to the land.  The Jews were there during Roman times.

The Romans gave way to Christians — by which I mean Christians who originated in the Holy Land itself or who arrived there during the Dark Ages and the Early Middle Ages from European lands.  These people pre-dated the Crusades.  Although many modern-day Christians, especially Evangelicals. are deeply supportive of the State of Israel, no one is claiming a Right of Return based upon the post-Roman Christian occupation.  The Jews lived in the Holy Land at this time.

The Christians were driven out by the Muslims — driven out quite brutally.  They tried to fight back with the Crusades, but the effort didn’t work, in large part, I suspect, because the Muslims were on the spot, while the Christians had to engage in endless medieval journeys.  Their hearts may have been in the Holy Land, but their homes were in Europe.  In a way, the Medieval Christians were claiming a Right of Return, but I do believe that modern day Christians have abandoned that claim.  Did I mention that the Jews lived in the Holy Land at this time?

The Muslims turned into the Ottoman Turks, who no longer exist.  There’s still a Turkey, and there are still Muslims, but Ottoman Turks are not demanding a Right of Return. Throughout Ottoman control of the Holy Land, Jews lived there, and were treated extremely badly.

It’s worth pointing out that, by the end of the Ottoman Turk era, the land we now know as Israel was a completely desolate land, inhabited by a few Jews — the direct descendents of the Jews who first displaced the Canaanites — and by an even smaller number of fellahins.  The latter didn’t own the land, they just lived on it, while their landlords swanned about in European Capitals, Istanbul or Alexandria.

When the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the British took over.  Meanwhile, Jews — claiming the Right of Return — actually started returning, beginning in about the 1880s.  They bought the land from those rich Ottoman landowners.  Much of the land was either useless desert or swamp that even the fellahin wouldn’t inhabit.  The Balfour Declaration, which predated the realization that the Arabs sat on the oil, affirmed the Jewish Right of Return.  (The thinking was (a) God gave the land to the Jews and (b) it’s such awful land, why would anyone else want it?)

The Jews did something interesting once they settled in the Holy Land:  applying brute force labor and modern scientific methods, they started turning this scraggly, hot land, a land that alternated between killing swamps and equally killing deserts, into a land of Milk and Honey.  The Arabs were not slow to follow.  By the 1930s, piggy-backing on the Jews’ surprisingly productive Right of Return,  Arabs were pouring into the land now known as Israel.

These Arabs were not claiming a Right of Return.  They were just following the money.  The British, with an eye to oil production, allowed the in-flow of Arabs, even as they did everything in their power to keep the Jews out, not because they denied the Right of Return (as noted, the Balfour Declaration affirmed the Jewish Right of Return), but because they did not want to offend those who sat on top of oil wells.

When the going got tough, the British walked away from Israel.  The British are not demanding a Right of Return.

In 1948, the Arab leaders told the Arab population in the newly created state of Israel to get out of the way of the path of the oncoming Arab armies, with the promise that, when the Jews were all dead, the Arabs could return and take over the Jewish wealth and harvest the Jewish fields.  Things didn’t work out as planned.  The departing Arabs, the majority of whom had arrived after the Jews, left and lost their chance to come back.  It is these people who demand their “right of return.”

Well, I’m sorry.  First come, first serve.  Jews had it first, a core group of them never left it, and the Jews are the first people who took it back.  That’s the real Right of Return.

And speaking of history, if we’re talking pre-1967 borders, here are some pre-1967 borders to talk about.

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.