Published by The Freeman Center

The Maccabean Online

Political Analysis and Commentary
on Israeli and Jewish Affairs

"For Zion's sake I shall not hold my peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I shall not rest."



IS SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST PEACE?      
by Richard H. Shulman       
 
It is, according to the NY Times.  It is, the paper suggests, when practiced by Israel .  It’s 5/3 headline was, “ Israel ’s Tactics Thwart Attacks, With trade-Off At Odds With Peace Bid.  Raids Reduce Suicide Bombs, But Undercut Palestinian (Arab) Forces.”
 
The article is long, but the news in it is short.  Opinion abounds, not candidly labeled editorial.  The obvious purpose of the article is to suggest that Israeli defense may work but keeps the P.A. from making peace.  What facts back up that conclusion?  None.  There only is the assertion by the P.A. that Israeli raids keep it from fighting terrorism. 
 
That assertion is a lie.  Israel has informed the P.A. of the identity and location of terrorists.  Instead of arresting the terrorists, the P.A., whose government and forces are comprised largely of terrorists (as if the Times, which piously expects much from the P.A., didn’t know), puts them under protective custody and uses its counter-terrorism training to try to track down and execute Arabs who informed Israel about planned terrorism.  The P.A., in fact, has been allotted security control over certain of its cities, as an experiment. That gives it the opportunity to prove intent and capability.  Result: order is kept, traffic moves, ordinary criminals are arrested.  But terrorist organizations are unhindered!  At least, an Israeli general states that nobody believes any more that the P.A. will fight terrorism.  (Nobody but governments, that is, which keep demanding Israeli sacrifices to prop up the corrupt Abbas as the one with whom to make peace and whose peace would exclude terrorism and war.) 
 
What the P.A. and Abbas fight is anti-terrorism.  Why doesn’t the Times, which gives so much space to P.A. lies, have room for that truth?
 
The Times does acknowledge that the separation barrier is largely fence, but its photograph is of a wall.  Hmm.  It acknowledges that Israel ’s checkpoints and raids have reduced suicide bombing successes to a minimum, but not suicide bombing attempts.  Nevertheless it maintains, as if one with P.A. propaganda, that Israel ’s methods prevent peace.  The nice Abbas wants peace, the Times implies here and states constantly elsewhere. 
 
Is that so!  If he wanted peace, would his forces keep committing terrorism?  Would he threaten to resume warfare if he didn’t get everything he wants in a peace agreement, and what he wants means Israel couldn’t survive – from the influx of millions of bigoted and violent Arabs?  If he opposed terrorism, would his media constantly glorify terrorists?  Would his schools and media and mosques preach the duty of killing Jews and eradicating Israel ?  Would he keep agitating for the release of thousands of terrorists?  Would the US , for that matter?  Why doesn’t the Times explain that?  Because that would expose the real culprits as the Muslims, with whom the publisher sides.  It would lead people to question whether there is any point in Israel negotiating a final peace agreement with those who remain dedicated to destroy it and would use the agreement and sovereignty the better to exterminate Jews.  People might even question why there is a drive to give those undeserving Arabs another state in the Jewish homeland.                
 
An honest paper would remind readers that the P.A. already has a peace agreement, but never complied with it.  Islamic ideology does not permit it to, where it doesn’t have to.
 
Pretending to hear from the other side, the reporter quotes an Israeli saying that if Israel didn’t raid the P.A. in Judea-Samaria, “The price of staying out might be one that we don’t want to pay.”  How vague and ambiguous!  For clarity and fairness, they should find the many Israelis who put it, “If we stayed out of the P.A. in Judea-Samaria, terrorism would become as prevalent as from Gaza, even if Hamas did not take over, which it would do.”  
 
The article mentions Hamas’ take-over of Gaza .  Why doesn’t it include the assessment of knowledgeable commentators that Abbas’ forces are so weak and he is so unpopular, that Hamas, which has good military training and organization, would take over as soon as the IDF were to leave?  Why not report that?  Because that would show the fallacy of trying to prop up Abbas.  The governments of the US , which demands concessions to popularize Abbas on the theory that his people are so bellicose that if he can get terrorists releases, the people would approve of him.  Self-contradictory, that his popularity depends on how much he supports terrorism against Israel .  The government of Israel , which worries more about gentile approval than its own people’s security, keeps demanding and making more concessions without evaluating their effect.  What kind of policy-making is that?  What kind of reporting ignores the results of a policy that doesn’t succeed but whose proponents keep making the same false assertions about it?
 
Independent analysts in Israel have studied the results.  Abbas is losing popularity.  He has failed to make reforms in his corrupt government.  The pursuit of failed policy is evidence of stupidity or malice.
 
Speaking of stupidity or malice, the Times mentions that the P.A. Arabs and the “international community” want the checkpoints removed.  The “international community” includes anti-Zionist governments that oppose almost all Israeli security measures and fail to oppose almost all Muslim anti-Israeli measures.  But the Times cites them as if legitimate.  As for the Palestinian Arabs, sure they want the checkpoints removed.  This is where an honest newspaper would report the many poll results that show a majority there approving of terrorism.
 
Israel periodically yields to US demands to remove some checkpoints.  When it does, terrorism erupts through them.  Sometimes Israelis get killed that way.  Any regret by Sec. Rice?  No.  By the P.A.?  Maybe as a mere formality, but contradicted by Abbas’ honoring the terrorists and the people, supposedly moderate, celebrating.  If the US government were sincere about opposing terrorism, it would suggest more checkpoints.  Even some Israelis talk about working with “pragmatic” P.A. officials.
 
What does “pragmatic” mean?  Whom do they mean?  Why don’t they do something or say something.  “Pragmatic” is just a nice-sounding word, like “moderate,” used to deceive readers.  There is no group in the P.A. that rejects holy war.  The Times and State Dept., of impure motives, try to dupe us.  Unfortunately, they control both our government and most of the news that
We need to evaluate governmental policy.
 
That policy should recognize that Israel ’s actions are not at odd with its desire for peace.  It wants peace, but the P.A. foments war.  Truth is, the P.A.’s actions are at odds with its claim to want to settle the Arab-Israel conflict.
 
The Times usually finds vague and dry statements from Israelis that hardly make Israel ’s case, and concrete and emotions statements from Arabs that make wild assertions but are not challenged.  Can this be other than to steer readers against Israel , although the Arabs are the aggressors?
 
Isn’t it fundamental that failure to defend against aggressors’ probes encourages the aggressors to make full-scale war?
IS SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST PEACE?            15750 – Richard H. Shulman       
 
It is, according to the NY Times.  It is, the paper suggests, when practiced by Israel .  It’s 5/3 headline was, “ Israel ’s Tactics Thwart Attacks, With trade-Off At Odds With Peace Bid.  Raids Reduce Suicide Bombs, But Undercut Palestinian (Arab) Forces.”
 
The article is long, but the news in it is short.  Opinion abounds, not candidly labeled editorial.  The obvious purpose of the article is to suggest that Israeli defense may work but keeps the P.A. from making peace.  What facts back up that conclusion?  None.  There only is the assertion by the P.A. that Israeli raids keep it from fighting terrorism. 
 
That assertion is a lie.  Israel has informed the P.A. of the identity and location of terrorists.  Instead of arresting the terrorists, the P.A., whose government and forces are comprised largely of terrorists (as if the Times, which piously expects much from the P.A., didn’t know), puts them under protective custody and uses its counter-terrorism training to try to track down and execute Arabs who informed Israel about planned terrorism.  The P.A., in fact, has been allotted security control over certain of its cities, as an experiment. That gives it the opportunity to prove intent and capability.  Result: order is kept, traffic moves, ordinary criminals are arrested.  But terrorist organizations are unhindered!  At least, an Israeli general states that nobody believes any more that the P.A. will fight terrorism.  (Nobody but governments, that is, which keep demanding Israeli sacrifices to prop up the corrupt Abbas as the one with whom to make peace and whose peace would exclude terrorism and war.) 
 
What the P.A. and Abbas fight is anti-terrorism.  Why doesn’t the Times, which gives so much space to P.A. lies, have room for that truth?
 
The Times does acknowledge that the separation barrier is largely fence, but its photograph is of a wall.  Hmm.  It acknowledges that Israel ’s checkpoints and raids have reduced suicide bombing successes to a minimum, but not suicide bombing attempts.  Nevertheless it maintains, as if one with P.A. propaganda, that Israel ’s methods prevent peace.  The nice Abbas wants peace, the Times implies here and states constantly elsewhere. 
 
Is that so!  If he wanted peace, would his forces keep committing terrorism?  Would he threaten to resume warfare if he didn’t get everything he wants in a peace agreement, and what he wants means Israel couldn’t survive – from the influx of millions of bigoted and violent Arabs?  If he opposed terrorism, would his media constantly glorify terrorists?  Would his schools and media and mosques preach the duty of killing Jews and eradicating Israel ?  Would he keep agitating for the release of thousands of terrorists?  Would the US , for that matter?  Why doesn’t the Times explain that?  Because that would expose the real culprits as the Muslims, with whom the publisher sides.  It would lead people to question whether there is any point in Israel negotiating a final peace agreement with those who remain dedicated to destroy it and would use the agreement and sovereignty the better to exterminate Jews.  People might even question why there is a drive to give those undeserving Arabs another state in the Jewish homeland.                
 
An honest paper would remind readers that the P.A. already has a peace agreement, but never complied with it.  Islamic ideology does not permit it to, where it doesn’t have to.
 
Pretending to hear from the other side, the reporter quotes an Israeli saying that if Israel didn’t raid the P.A. in Judea-Samaria, “The price of staying out might be one that we don’t want to pay.”  How vague and ambiguous!  For clarity and fairness, they should find the many Israelis who put it, “If we stayed out of the P.A. in Judea-Samaria, terrorism would become as prevalent as from Gaza, even if Hamas did not take over, which it would do.”  
 
The article mentions Hamas’ take-over of Gaza .  Why doesn’t it include the assessment of knowledgeable commentators that Abbas’ forces are so weak and he is so unpopular, that Hamas, which has good military training and organization, would take over as soon as the IDF were to leave?  Why not report that?  Because that would show the fallacy of trying to prop up Abbas.  The governments of the US , which demands concessions to popularize Abbas on the theory that his people are so bellicose that if he can get terrorists releases, the people would approve of him.  Self-contradictory, that his popularity depends on how much he supports terrorism against Israel .  The government of Israel , which worries more about gentile approval than its own people’s security, keeps demanding and making more concessions without evaluating their effect.  What kind of policy-making is that?  What kind of reporting ignores the results of a policy that doesn’t succeed but whose proponents keep making the same false assertions about it?
 
Independent analysts in Israel have studied the results.  Abbas is losing popularity.  He has failed to make reforms in his corrupt government.  The pursuit of failed policy is evidence of stupidity or malice.
 
Speaking of stupidity or malice, the Times mentions that the P.A. Arabs and the “international community” want the checkpoints removed.  The “international community” includes anti-Zionist governments that oppose almost all Israeli security measures and fail to oppose almost all Muslim anti-Israeli measures.  But the Times cites them as if legitimate.  As for the Palestinian Arabs, sure they want the checkpoints removed.  This is where an honest newspaper would report the many poll results that show a majority there approving of terrorism.
 
Israel periodically yields to US demands to remove some checkpoints.  When it does, terrorism erupts through them.  Sometimes Israelis get killed that way.  Any regret by Sec. Rice?  No.  By the P.A.?  Maybe as a mere formality, but contradicted by Abbas’ honoring the terrorists and the people, supposedly moderate, celebrating.  If the US government were sincere about opposing terrorism, it would suggest more checkpoints.  Even some Israelis talk about working with “pragmatic” P.A. officials.
 
What does “pragmatic” mean?  Whom do they mean?  Why don’t they do something or say something.  “Pragmatic” is just a nice-sounding word, like “moderate,” used to deceive readers.  There is no group in the P.A. that rejects holy war.  The Times and State Dept., of impure motives, try to dupe us.  Unfortunately, they control both our government and most of the news that
We need to evaluate governmental policy.
 
That policy should recognize that Israel ’s actions are not at odd with its desire for peace.  It wants peace, but the P.A. foments war.  Truth is, the P.A.’s actions are at odds with its claim to want to settle the Arab-Israel conflict.
 
The Times usually finds vague and dry statements from Israelis that hardly make Israel ’s case, and concrete and emotions statements from Arabs that make wild assertions but are not challenged.  Can this be other than to steer readers against Israel , although the Arabs are the aggressors?
 
Isn’t it fundamental that failure to defend against aggressors’ probes encourages the aggressors to make full-scale war?