Friday, July 30, 2021

Hamas' Useful Idiots

Although there is a widespread perception that Jews are clever, sometimes they can be extremely stupid.

Consider Hamas, and all the others who seek the destruction of the State of Israel (which necessarily includes the massacre of countless Jews). You'd think that Jews would make every effort not to assist them in this goal. And yet, there are countless Jews who unwittingly benefit their cause.

One such case is with Rabbi Yaron Reuven, a.k.a. "Hitler's rabbi." In one of his apocalyptic teshuva rants, he notoriously spoke about how Hitler had good reason to hate the Jews, who were corrupting German society. Now, as it happens, his claims about Jewish life in Germany and Nazi antisemitism are false. But even if it were to be true, as Reuven believes, what he doesn't seem to grasp or care about is that by producing such a YouTube video, he's not just stimulating Jews to improve their ways; he's also licensing antisemitism of massive proportions, with this video being shared and viewed by antisemites literally hundreds of thousands of times. 

Another case of this occurred during Operation Guardian of the Walls. A number of Jews (or as Natan Sharansky called them, un-Jews), scholars in academic Jewish studies, signed a public statement. They decided to condemn Israel for using "state violence" to try to stop Hamas from firing rockets. Of course, this is innately foolish in that they didn't actually present any explanation of how Israel is supposed to stop thousands of rockets without engaging in military action. But an additional layer of folly is that although at least some of them believed that they were equally condemning Israel and Hamas, the bottom line that they were clearly effectively strengthening Hamas. After all, their criticism of Hamas was only obliquely mentioned at the end of the second paragraph, where they referred to the rockets being "unjustifiable and indiscriminate," whereas their condemnation of Israel was touted explicitly and strongly in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph. They might not believe that they are out to strengthen Hamas and those who seek to destroy Israel, but that's unquestionably the effect of their actions.

The most recent case of useful idiots for those who seek to destroy Israel is, of course, the Ben & Jerry's affair. A number of Jews, sincere supporters of Israel, also quite reasonably believe that controlling Judea & Samaria, with its huge number of Palestinians that are not being accepted as citizens of Israel, is an enormous problem. Rather less reasonably, they also believe that Israel is primarily to blame for this, and that pressure on Israel will lead to a solution (of course, they never explain what this solution entails and how it would play out). And very foolishly, they do not realize that joining the Ben & Jerry's campaign has the effect of strengthening those who are trying to destroy Israel entirely.

It's all about the context. If you believe that Israel should be making greater efforts to achieve a withdrawal from the West Bank, then there are ways to fight for that; you could support Meretz or something like that. Joining a global effort led by, and supporting, those who wish to destroy Israel entirely is not the way to do it. The distinction between Israel and the West Bank might be very significant to you, but it is of absolutely trivial significance to the haters of Israel, the BDS activists who want to destroy the country, all of whom are welcoming the Ben & Jerry's decision.

The most blatant display of such folly is by none other than Ben and Jerry themselves. In an op-ed for the New York Times, Bennett Cohen and Jerry Greenfield declared that they are fully in favor of the action, and that there's clearly nothing antisemitic about opposing Israel's settlement policy in this way, because they are strong supporters of Israel. Apparently they know nothing at all about the director of the board of the company that they founded, who is opposed to Israel's very existence. While Cohen and Greenfield themselves state that they support the State of Israel, their company is not saying any such thing. The company did not put out a statement saying "We support Israel against those haters and activists who seek its destruction, but we do not support the control of Judea & Samaria."

The Haniyahs and Nasrallahs and Omars and Sarsours of this world must be laughing with incredulity when they see how well-meaning Jews latch on to efforts to destroy Israel, piping up with their little spiel about they oppose the '67 occupation and thinking that they are part of the same fight. When will these Jews wake up from their little bubble and see what their actions are doing in the larger context?


If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

92 comments:

  1. As somebody else pointed out in the previous post, Ben and Jerry are just doing to Israel what you do to chareidim all the time. You say you just want to help chareidim, and "criticizing harmful wrongs in a community is not Sinas Chinam", they likewise claim they just want to help Israelis improve, the opposite of hatred. They just want to help Israelis become more moral and ethical. What could be wrong with that?

    Thorny problems, thorny solutions.

    Like it or not, the problem has been on going for a long time, and Israeli leadership has been ineffective at fixing it. Or to paraphrase you: "Most of the Zionists who are screaming about the evil of BDS do not have a moral leg to stand on. If there's a problem that you're not fixing, you can't complain when other people try to fix it in ways that you don't like."

    As for their motivations, to quote you yet again, "It's just irrelevant. You don't stop someone trying to put out a fire just because you think he has bad reasons for doing so."

    Ben and Jerry and BDS are just criticizing harmful wrongs in a community, trying to help Israelis, trying to fix problems. Something you do all the time. And just like you, they are very influential in many ways. You don't have a moral leg to stand on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stupid comment which entirely misses the point of the post. The post is not about the motivations, it's about the effects.

      Delete
    2. The effects? Ben and Jerry are influential in many ways. Of course they can have effects! Just like you do vis-a-vis the chareidim! Or, to quote somebody you may know: "If there's a problem that you're not fixing, you can't complain when other people try to fix it in ways that you don't like."

      Delete
    3. Do you seriously not understand the point of the post?

      Delete
    4. "Ben and Jerry and BDS are just criticizing harmful wrongs in a community, trying to help Israelis, trying to fix problems."

      I might have some respectd for Ben, Jerry, and the B*J Board if they actually lived in Israel and were at least going to experience the negative consequences of their destructive policies.

      "Ben and Jerry are influential in many ways."

      Not really. They sold the company over two decades ago.

      Delete
    5. Ironically, while Israel has its fair share of leftists who share some of these views (although a lot less than you'd think)- and like you, I at least have a little more respect for them than people living happily elsewhere attacking Israel- those leftists will never, or rarely, hold these positions. Yair Lapid is no one's idea of a right-winger, but he flatly called Ben & Jerry's idea "anti-Semitism." OK, OK, Yair Lapid is also no one's idea of a nuanced thinker. But to take a more significant example, in the recent war in Gaza, you couldn't even find a Meretz member condemning Israel's actions the way the critics- even those diaspora Jews who are so quick to assure us that they love Israel so much- did.

      As to Ben and Jerry themselves, sure they sold the company. But they made sure it can keep doing its silly leftist stuff, and don't underestimate the power of their image. (Watch City Slickers for a really funny take on that.)

      Delete
    6. The "larger context", eh?

      Hmmm...You had no concern about empowering Jew-haters when you constantly attacked chareidim. That was just "criticizing harmful wrongs in a community".

      It's all fun and games until your own side is attacked.

      Delete
    7. That has got to be the most ridiculous comment I have seen here in the last five years. And that includes the ones by the geocentrists and Earth-is-flat-because-Torah ones.

      Delete
  2. I don't understand what Rabbi Yaron Reuven is doing. Why does he justify Hitler's actions? Mizrachi and Reuven keep saying that G-d was punishing Israel with rockets because of sins, not because Hamas uses their free will to kill innocent civilians because they are evil.

    Also, I noticed the author mentioned Omar at the end. This is why, whether you like him or not, you should be a Trump supporter. Biden and the Dems are anti-Israel and aid Hamas with rockets to fire at Israel.Biden gave 200 billions dollars to Hamas and hardly condemned their actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US hasn't given any money to Hamas. Show your sources or be exposed as a liar.

      Delete
  3. "Of course, this is innately foolish in that they didn't actually present any explanation of how Israel is supposed to stop thousands of rockets without engaging in military action."

    Elementary--Israel has Iron Dome. They're supposed to shoot an Iron Dome rocket which costs $100,000 every time Hamas sends a $100 rocket at Israel. (I've read Arab tweets about how gleeful they are that Israel has to ask for another $1 billion from the US. Sure, because Israel just shot off 1000 Iron Dome anti-rocket missiles, and they need more.)

    It's like Shylock: he's rightfully entitled to a pound of Antonio's flesh, but he mustn't spill one drop of blood. Israel has the right to defend itself, but they mustn't spill even one drop of Palestinian blood doing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is your blood redder than Palestinian civilians?

      Delete
    2. If Hamas antiaircraft against Israel's air raids on the tunnels were to ensnare Israeli civilians, it would be every bit as legitimate as the collateral damage that Israel causes. When there are victims of perfidy, the blame should be placed on those practicing the perfidy, not those trying to work around the perfidy.

      Delete
    3. Unbelievable--they shoot rockets to kill our civilians. What does Israel not do to warn their civilians? Phone calls, leaflets, knocks on the roof--and we're still the bad guys!

      Delete
    4. Also, who can ever conduct a war in such a manner? An enemy attacks--who says you're allowed to kill them? Maybe their cause is more just than yours! Maybe you should lay down your life, or at the very least, give them the land that they demand, for the sake of peace and justice, and so that there shouldn't be needless bloodshed?!

      Nonsense--It says in Mishneh Sotah (8:1):
      "על אויביכם" אתם הולכים--שאם תיפלו בידם, אינן מרחמין עליכם.

      Hamas hasn't the slightest smidgen of mercy towards Jews. They have the chutzpah to bemoan the fact that they don't manage to kill enough Jewish children, while their useful idiots call Israel the "child killers"!

      Delete
    5. Aw, c'mon Hat, the Israeli army does its best to avoid hurting civilians. You have a few episodes of bad actions; mazeltov.

      And if you are referring to the dwellers of the Arab towns in Yesha, then you also didn't understand the post.

      Delete
    6. I'm not objecting to the operations in the Gaza strip. I'm perfectly happy to place to kill terrorists and destroy rockets in a way which places a proportionate risk or even a proportionate certainty of injury or death to civilians to deal with an imminent attack.

      I'm objecting to the occupation of the West Bank, which puts civilians who are not firing anything at daily risk from the nearby presence of armed hostile soldiers and civilians. Why does your security s'fek s'feika outweigh their daily sakonos nefashos?

      Delete
    7. Think it through before you respondAugust 2, 2021 at 11:33 PM

      "Why is your blood redder than Palestinian civilians?"

      Same reason allied blood was "redder" than Dresden's and Nagasaki's.

      Alternatively, no one claimed that it is. Wanting to win vs. wanting to commit suicide does not make my blood redder than someone else's.

      Delete
    8. "Why is your blood redder than Palestinian civilians?"

      Possibly the most shocking and disturbing comment ever posted on this blog.

      Delete
    9. I think Hat's blood libel a little further down this blog about Israeli soldiers "killing little kids daily" has got to be a close contender.

      Delete
  4. ''If you believe that Israel should be making greater efforts to achieve a withdrawal from the West Bank, then there are ways to fight for that; you could support Meretz or something like that.''
    In answer to your last post, I specifically asked you to explain how people OUTSIDE of Israel could do something. It would seem you have no idea. So your opinion is just as relevant as the one of someone wishing to perpetuate the kollel system, on Liebermann's policy: not much.

    The reason why joining BDS is weakening Israel in its entirety is because the ISRAELI RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS HAVE THOUGHT IT SMART TO LOBBY OTHER COUNTRIES (Germany, the US, the UK, France, Canada, etc...) into making ANY boycott of israeli goods (including those which only affect the West Bank) illegal ON THE BASIS OF ANTISEMITISM (because it's oh so convenient).

    Now of course a lot of antisemites support BDS, and probably the ultimate goal of most of them is to destroy Israel. But that's not what BDS ACTUALLY SAYS. And so by putting everyone in the same basket Israel (and you) are creating more enemies to yourself. It might be easy, but it's harmful in the long run (just like the colonization of the West Bank).

    People tire of being accused of antisemitism for any criticism of Israel. It doesn't mean much anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But that's not what BDS ACTUALLY SAYS." Sure it is. One of the explicit goals of BDS is to allow ALL palestinian refugees/ descendants to return to Israel. Which is code for destroying Israel.

      Delete
    2. The boy who cried wolf

      "All BDS is anti-Semitic because some BDS is anti-Semitic and even though B&J isn't BDS it looks like BDS and a board member of the parent company has the be audacity to tweet more than 130 times so that board member must be anti-Semitic. And BDS has a secret code for destroying Israel."

      By which token all Israelis are racist because ex-PM Netanyahu once said "the Arabs are voting in droves".

      There is no form of meaningful protest you would sanction.

      You are feeling the heat and insofar as that dissuades you from inhumanity that must be a good thing.

      South Africa took a long time to change course. It too wailed about terrorism but even that with all the disfunction corruption and violent crime nobody thinks the sum total of human happiness would be increased by reverting to apartheid.

      Delete
    3. Hat - I see you took the time to write up some more of your trademarked "carefully compacted nonsense".

      Have you even bothered to take a look at the BDS website? You're right it's not anti-semitic, it just wants Israel wiped off the map.

      Let me help you - taken right from the BDS website (but you probably agree with his) - https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds:

      "Since its violent establishment in 1948 through the ethnic cleansing of more than half of the indigenous people of Palestine, Israel has set out to control as much land and uproot as many Palestinians as it can. As a result of this systematic forced displacement, there are now more than 7.25 million Palestinian refugees. They are denied their right to return to their homes simply because they are not Jewish."

      Delete
    4. Hat: "South Africa took a long time to change course. It too wailed about terrorism"

      Did South Africa ever experience anything like the second intifada? The stabbing intifada? Widespread use of motor vehicles as weapons to roll over pedestrians?

      Given that Israel has experienced all of those, shouldn't it be plausible that Israel can legitimately claim a threat of terrorism even if South Africa couldn't?

      Delete
    5. I do wish you would do your own research, Sar Shalom. The answer to your question is yes, South Africa faced widespread violence from the ANC during the Apartheid years.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe

      Delete
  5. The opinions of Hamas and Hezbollah are irrelevant. This is about holding Israel and the people of Israel to their own standards. The "Only democacy in the Middle East" should act like one and treat everyone with respect and dignity.

    Israel is not going to stop existing because of ice cream. But if it was, you would cut your losses and end the civilian expropriation. Logically, 3 billion USD subsidies are worth more than Gopstein and Marzel.

    If you really were worried about Israel's survival you wouldn't be so utterly, infuriatingly unresponsive to well-founded criticism of state apartheid.

    There is no security reason for Jews to live in Chevron.

    There is no security reason for Jews to live in Kfar Tapuach.

    There is no security reason for a shrine to Boruch Goldstein in the middle of Kiryat Arba.

    These setlements threaten Israel's security far more than ice cream manufacturers.

    The real useful idiot is someone who thinks that "not every human rights inequality is apartheid" is a sustainable, sensible, moral, or logical position.

    It isn't sustainable. It isn't sensible. It isn't moral. It isn't logical. And it will end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The opinions of Hamas and Hezbollah are irrelevant." The power of those who seek to destroy Israel is extremely relevant to those of us that live in Israel.

      Delete
    2. Isn't it interesting that you accuse Israel of apartheid and then declare that there is no reason for *Jews* to live in certain places? Try googling "apartheid; definition"...

      Delete
    3. Hat's a firm believer of making all of Yesha and East Jerusalem Judenrein. But he'll take umbrage against those who use such a vile term. He is a big proponent of its implementation but recoils when someone utters the word. Go figure.

      Delete
    4. I'm all for equal Jewish citizens of an Arab majority Palestine. Bringing in settlers at the barrel of a gun into territory which isn't yours is not a legitimate security concern as had been established ad nauseum.

      Apartheid is when the only people in the West Bank who are protected by the role of law and get to vote are the Jews.

      Delete
    5. "I'm all for equal Jewish citizens of an Arab majority Palestine"

      Fantasy!

      "... into territory which isn't yours is"

      Read the Palestine Mandate and Article 80 of the UN Charter. Fully realizing that would mean that Israel would cease to have a Zionist majority even if she maintains a Jewish majority. However, the prudence of giving the Palestinians part of the Jordanian conquest does not mean that the entirety of the Jordanian conquest belongs to them.

      "Apartheid is when the only people in the West Bank who are protected by the role
      [sic] of law and get to vote are the Jews."

      First of all, the Palestinians do have some benefits of Israeli rule of law. For instance, there are IDF operations that are devoted to interdicting Jewish extremists' actions against the Palestinians.

      Even without that, the root of Apartheid is apart. It refers to a complete prohibition on interaction between two groups that does not demonstrate the inferiority of one group to the other. For instance, South Africa allowed blacks to be servants to whites. Virtually every other way people might interact, whether shopping in the same stores, riding the same common carriers, receiving health treatment in the same place, learning in the same schools, was prohibited.

      The contrast with Israel could not be starker. Prior to the second intifada, there were no standing restrictions on Palestinian entry into internationally recognized Israel and once there Palestinians could go where they pleased. There were temporary restrictions imposed after pigguim, but not standing ones. Even now, Palestinians can get authorization to enter Israel and can study at the same universities as Jewish Israelis, receive medical treatment at the same hospitals as Jewish Israelis, and shop in the same supermarkets as Jewish Israelis. The only limits on athletic competition between Israelis and Palestinians are those imposed by the PA. All of those were not the case in Apartheid South Africa.

      Delete
    6. Yes Hat. Like the Jewish equal citizens in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, ... Useful idiot seems to tame a term for this guy.

      Delete
    7. Nothing in the Palestinian charter affects Israel's territorial claim or failure to claim the West Bank. If you want it, you should've put a ring on it, long, long ago, and then you would really have a useful point to make about destroying the state of Israel by demographic means.

      No Israeli government is going to accept millions of Palestinian refugees.

      The Jews in the West Bank get to vote for the regional hegemony, whose policies decide if the Palestinians may build a new house, who gets water, electricity, whose house gets demolished, where roads go, who gets 4g telecommunications, where there is road blocks, which 4 year old gets thrown out of bed to have his picture taken at 3a.m., amongst other decisions.

      The Palestinians get to vote on refuse collection, second grade medical centres, and that is pretty much it.

      Delete
    8. 1) Democracy means that the people who reside in a territory get to choose the government of that territory.

      2) You say the IDF operates against settlers. Why are there tens of settlements which are illegal under Israeli law left standing when a Palestinian who builds gets his building razed? Why does this IDF soldier not intervene here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kem1ajIKv1k to protect the innocent? Why do hundreds of olive trees get destroyed every year by fire?

      Are the IDF that inept?

      There is no rule of law protecting Palestinians from Jews. There is complete impunity.

      In the West Bank there are many Jew only roads. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4EEPVRBsE

      I accept that in Israel proper the term apartheid is inappropriate.

      Delete
  6. If you were really scared of Hamas and Hezbollah you'd stop wasting precious military and diplomatic resources defending Boruch Marzel.

    If you haven't got the emotional strength to read the totality of my arguements before blasting away: maybe log off for a while. Anger has rendered you unable to thoughtfully engage. Snipping memes out of a bigger argument shows the irrational emotional mess you are in. I can see that arguments longer than one sentence aren't being read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Hat - what a hack. Up to his usual antics of winning arguments by telling people that if they disagree they must be "too angry" or spent "too little time" reviewing his obviously superior arguments. Oh and spraying his venom all over in multiple unrelated threads rather than sticking to a single thread to avoid being pinned down on his debunked points. Next thing he'll do - he'll tell you that you already know that he's right. That's his playbook. BDS must be so proud.

      Delete
    2. Cite one statement for Rabbi Slifkin defending Baruch Marzel. You're the one who conflates denying that Jewish rights end at Jordan's line of conquest with support for Marzel.

      Delete
    3. The Occupation is support for Marzel. An entire brigade of troops and police officers is deployed in the Chevron area to secure the ground for 1,000 Jewish families to shame Jews everywhere with their violent nationalistic version of Judaism.

      Delete
    4. If you defend the Occupation without qualification, you defend the Boruch Marzel bits of the occupation. It's not like they are insignificant bits. If the Rabbi Dr did not support Marzel, his support for the Occupation would be qualifed.

      Delete
    5. Hat - I assume it's too much to ask of you to have the integrity to back up your accusation of R Slifkin of "defending the occupation without qualification". His whole post was in fact a treatise of this qualification.

      Please do him the minimum courtesy of reading what he wrote.

      Delete
  7. I'd have more respect for Rabbi Dr if he lived as a Palestinian with the destructive impact of Israeli policies.

    How many Israeli and Palestinian lives are lost defending Marzel and the less than 1,000 families who are so terrified of Hamas that they live in the heart of the West Bank's largest city?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell us Hat - how many? And also tell us how many lives are saved by those policies. I'm sure you have the accurate numbers at the ready.

      Delete
    2. It would improve the quality of your content if you did your own research and contributed rather than low grade enraged spam. It took me all of 5 minutes to find the numbers, which are 149 Palestinians and 25 Israelis.

      https://statistics.btselem.org/en/all-fatalities/by-date-of-incident?section=overall&tab=overview&citySensor=%5B%22630754d%22%2C%228fce573%22%5D&regionSensor=%5B%225f6a04e%22%5D

      I'm going to leave the second part of your question - how many lives have been saved by occupying Chevron - for you to complete as homework, or not to complete and instead resort to anti-Semitic spam if you prefer.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the Btzelem link (I think it helps to provide the context that the period for the numbers you provided are over a 21 year period).

      I failed though to see where the statistics noted that those lives were lost defending Marzel and the 1000 families in Hebron. Is it possible that some of that number was defending Jews outside of Hebron? I mean I seem to recall that at least 2 of them killed 3 Jewish teens in 2014 around the Gush area and were killed themselves in Hebron.

      And while on the topic of terrorists (or "freedom fighters" as you'd probably prefer to call the 2 who killed the Jewish teens) - it seems that a good number of those killed were "participants in hostilities" (even according to Btzelem's generous description) - perhaps that can help you to answer the second question?

      Delete
    4. Jews have a right to live in their holiest cities. This does not entitle them to infringe the civil rights of non Jews in and around their holy cities.

      Palestinians are allowed to protect their civil rights. However, when they go beyond that in order to rid themselves of those whose presence offends them, then Jews can defend the rights granted by Article 18 of ICCPR.

      Delete
    5. Visting Chevron is not a mitzva which is yehoreg v'al ya'avor. This is basic. Get a grip.

      Chevron is the da'ati Leumi Meron, the da'ati Leumi Coronavirus. Pointless deaths.

      Delete
    6. Ah yes, as long as we never dare step foot on any piece of earth where it is possible someone might murder us for their twisted genocidal and tyrannical agenda, then we can establish world peace and a world without any Jewish offenses. No more pointless deaths, if we all just leave all of Israel and go live in Berlin!

      Delete
    7. Daati Leumi people: Palestinians are all genocidal maniacs who must be occupied. Also daati leumi people: Chevron is like any other piece of Earth.

      Let's get real.

      Delete
  8. "There is no good reason for Jews not to live pre war Europe. The opinions of the Nazi's and their collaboraters are irrelevant ".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh here we go with the Nazi comparisons from the people claiming to care so much about anti-Semitism.

      The self pity is nauseating. You are the ones killing, wounding and harrassing little kids daily. Have the decency not to moan about being victims of a Holocaust at the same time please.

      Delete
    2. Does anyone care about the two Palestinian kids under the age of Bar Mitzva shot and killed by the Israeli state in the last week alone?

      Delete
    3. In this post, The Hat has revealed who he really is. This line is directly out of the BDS and hate Israel mob. Killing children daily... Wicked lies and wickedly anti-semitic.

      R. Slifkin - is it your policy to allow blatant anti-semites to post on your website?

      Delete
    4. ... Emotional mess

      Delete
    5. R. "The Hat", I encourage you to read the Quora space "Palestine Today". Pure demonization of Israel, Zionists, and even just Jews. It's impossible to get a word in edgewise to try to say that there are also moderate Zionist Jews. One of their rules is "no Zionist talking points", like saying that the Arabs in 1947 rejected the Partition Plan, while the Zionist leaders accepted it. They'll delete your comment. They did it to me three times.

      Disturbing to think that people actually think the way they do. And I'm afraid that their actually the majority of Palestinians.

      https://palestinetoday.quora.com/

      Delete
    6. I'm genuinely sorry you've not been treated fairly when you try to interact with the other side. That's not acceptable.

      The people you are arguing with in this context are not Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Moslems. Ben and Jerry are *Jews*. I am a *Jew*.

      We are asking you to stop, not for a quid pro quo deal but out of basic decency and to prevent Israel becoming a Messianic theocracy.

      I agree with you that a majority of Palestinian opinion is intractable at this moment. Maybe that would change if they weren't systematically discriminated against. Maybe not.

      Either way ending the most egregious parts of the occupation like Marzel improves the security of both Israelis and Palestinians.

      Delete
  9. Excellent point here, R' Slifkin. So many Jews, obviously the expected lefties but even lots of Orthodox ones who love to have a "nuanced" view of Israel, were trying to justify Ben and Jerry ("Oh, they just mean the West Bank!", not that that's a defense either) even before- and especially after- they wrote their op-ed, never noting that Ben and Jerry were lying through their teeth: Their own chairwoman explicitly stated that she'd wanted to cut off Israel altogether and only Unilever (which she, predictably, condemned as "racist and sexist" for doing so) kept her from her dream.

    (Said chairwoman, by the way, seems to be doing quite well by all this- Ben & Jerry's foundation, which I suppose is controlled by her, gives big grants to her own foundation, part of which she passes on to anti-Israel groups and part, I'm sure, she keeps for herself.)

    I suppose there might be room to consider how Jews might have messed up in Weimar Germany. But in today's day and age, there's no reason to be putting it on the internet. Just look at Haaretz's page every time they put up an anti-Israel piece. One explicit anti-Semite after another complimenting them. Of course, Haaretz is doing it consciously and this lovely, I think, isn't. But in the end it's the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can you cite a source for "Apparently they know nothing at all about the director of the board of the company that they founded, who is opposed to Israel's very existence."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.timesofisrael.com/ben-jerrys-board-in-dispute-with-owners-unilever-over-complete-israel-pullout/

      Delete
    2. Also, I'm an Israeli citizen, many on this message boards are also Israeli citizens, I am too close to BDS, therefore you are all too close to me, and you are all anti-Semitic genocidalists. QED.

      Delete
    3. Hat, the way you keep mentioning you citizenship makes it clear, in a "lady doth protest too much" way, that you've probably never actually lived in Israel. I'm guessing born in the UK to cosmopolitan charedi parents who spent some time in Israel or something? Yeah, something like that.

      Delete
    4. Yup, olim v'yordim with me born in the interim.

      Delete
  11. Mr. Hat,

    I agree with most of your sentiments. There is no security reasons to plant frenzied fanatics in Arab population centers. Historically in post biblical periods, unrelenting True Believers like these have been the cause of Jewish death and misery. Why foment more ill will than already exists? Why exacerbate a volatile religious and social conflict?
    If you wanted to create sympathy for Hamas and Hezbolah, you couldn’t bring it about any better than through the fanatical settler zealots.
    However your description of Israel as an Apartheid state on par with past South African racist social and political policies, really don’t lend credence to your criticism. For all it’s faults, that is not the criticism that should be directed at Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's shocking but the more you read the history the more striking the parallels are. I have been radicalised by Frank.

      Delete
    2. Yes Hat - that's what tends to happen to extremists when you keep debunking their radical view points. They get more desperate and reveal their true colors. Like you bringing the blood libel above of Israelis "killing little kids daily" (just 2 threads above this one).

      Uriah - be careful of the company you keep.

      Delete
  12. I don't know about "useful", but they are certainly idiots, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. They and their Vermont buddies, Bernie Sanders and Howard Dean before them. Equal parts arrogance and stupidity. They live in their Bungalow Colony of a state, and deign to preach to others. They have no immigration problem, because they have no immigrants. They have no black riots, because they have no blacks. They have no city issues of any type, because they don't have any real cities.

    Such naive simpletons shouldn't be debated with, as though their opinion was significant, and here I mean the others I mentioned beyond just Cohen and Greenfield. They should be told quite bluntly to sit down and shut up, and be happy that they're even allowed to vote, let alone speak, on issues that will never affect them personally. As for the ice cream company, it goes without saying, of course, that their product should not be bought, and they should be fully prosecuted for flagrant violations of law. Frankly their franchisees should be suing them too, and I've heard that such suits are in the works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I saw a meme that put it succinctly: "Never listen to the advice of someone who won't have to live with the consequences."

      Ben & Jerry's can tell Israel to leave the West Bank. Israel follows their sage advice, and leaves the West Bank. Will Hamas rockets rain on Vermont?! Will their children have to serve in the army to ferret out terrorists?

      (The people in favor of the Gaza Disengagement were telling the opposition that they're paranoid when they said that there will be further Intifadas--but this time, with artillery!)

      And the human rights argument is also a farce. If you look at the Democracy Index, Israel is ranked #27, with a flawed democracy. Where is Palestine? #113!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

      Delete
    2. 2 kids died in the last week in the West Bank, killed by the gunfire off the Israeli state.

      You don't have to live with the consequences either. Your security is other people's dead children.

      Nobody wants a pullout now, and nobody genuinely believes that after more than 50 years of occupation every last iota is all entirely necessary right now for security.

      Delete
    3. "You don't have to live with the consequences either."

      You're playing word games. You know damn well what he meant by "consequences". You simply redefined "consequences". What that means is that you actually haven't honestly responded to YP.

      Delete
    4. Unfortunate shootings of innocents like this are not a product of "the occupation", or of the "Israeli state".

      (There was also the unfortunate story of the handicapped young Arab man, who was killed in Jerusalem last year. He was wearing a mask and gloves as part of the COVID restrictions, and police thought he was "acting suspiciously". He probably was freaking out because the police were so suspicious of him.)

      It certainly wasn't "settler violence", and the IDF soldiers that shot didn't intend to kill anyone. It's not like they said to themselves, "Let's blow away some Arabs,and just say that we had to do it in self defense."

      No matter what the borders of Israel will be, there will always be interaction and even friction between the Jewish and Arab population. And what about Jewish people who were lynched during the May riots in Lod?
      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-lod-man-attacked-by-arab-rioters-succumbs-to-his-wounds-1.9815503

      We see cases in which American police officers also open fire on people who weren't really a threat. Was that also because of the occupation?

      The IDF rules of engagement should be more strict, when it's not clear at all that the soldier's life is endangered. And there should be stricter punishments if an IDF soldier does kill someone recklessly.

      But don't give me fairy tales that the only solution is just leaving the West Bank, and handing it over to Palestinian control.

      Delete
    5. It's entirely predictable that when you deploy thousands of young soldiers and armed religious extremists to settlements which are illegal under Israeli law to a *hostile* and *racially distinct* occupied population then these people are much more inclined to pull the trigger.

      These deaths are very much the inevitable toll of the Occupation. You know damn well that if an Arab or a British army occupied the Jewish homeland that there would be similar incidents. Occupations kill.

      Very few Jews die of Israeli friendly fire. And you know damn well why.

      Delete
    6. "Very few Jews die of Israeli friendly fire. And you know damn well why."

      Yes, because very few Jews are going to stab or run over an Israeli police officer or soldier. That's also a factor.

      There are over 400 terror attempts that are thwarted by the General Security Services every year. Many are defused by the security cooperation with the PA, but sometimes the Israeli GSS has to do the dirty work themselves, and the terrorists won't give up without a fight.

      Not every Palestinian killed is as innocent as the two children who were killed last week. Sometimes the Palestinian is really a Hamas/Islamic Jihad/PFLP member trying to kill a Jew. Or someone who just pulls out a knife.

      Delete
    7. "They have no black riots because they have no blacks" one of the most shameful comments i've ever read on a Jewish blog. They don't have a problem with welfare fraud either, i suppose.

      Delete
    8. The comment above of "MV" is a disgrace. He's oh-so-worried about a perfectly straight observation of Vermont hypocrisy, but in the very same sentence has no problem making thinly veiled, disgusting slurs against religious Jews. (And he doesn't even have the guts to say it straight out.) Pathetic.

      Delete
    9. @Yehuda P: I put it to you that if Jews weren't in Palestinian cities, we wouldn't actually see 70 year old women lashing out with garden shears.

      I accept that there are costs and benefits but you must accept that the occupation is, as well as a security solution, its own security problem.

      Delete
    10. A.S, glad you had the minimum amount of sechel to understand my obvious point. Simply holding up a mirror to you.

      Delete
    11. I guess insulting religious Jews is what you mean by making an "obvious point." OK, MV. Whatever you say.

      Delete
    12. Referring to a large and diverse group of people by their worst stereotype is wrong. If it hurts when someone turns it around on you, perhaps it's not the right thing to do.

      Delete
    13. I didn't say it hurt, I said you were a hypocrite. You're worried about blacks, but have no problems hurling slurs and insults at Jews. Shame on you.

      And I nowhere referred to anyone by any stereotypes. If you somehow read that into my comment, it means in your heart of hearts you yourself are the racist, and just accuse others of it as a deflection. As Chazal said, כל הפוסל במומו פוסל. Shame on you again. You really ought to do some soul searching.

      Delete
    14. Oh please. My comment was meant to mirror yours, period. I'd never say such a thing out of the blue. Your comment was the equivalent of Ayn Aravim Ayn Piguim - no blacks, no riots. It's wrong. Have a day.

      Delete
    15. MV, I think you made a bad comment and are smart enough to realize it, but don't want to admit it and don't know how to get out of it. It's fine, I'm not interested in prolonging it. I'm already over it. Good Shabbos.

      Delete
  13. @Hat

    In any war your side's blood is reder then the enemy's. Nothing is more elementary then this. The one's who don't understand it are evolutionary unfit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 100%. In a war.

      The Occupation is not a war. It's a never ending nightmare. Civilians are not combatants.

      Delete
    2. Funny, your friends in the supposed "occupied" territories believe the existence of Israel is itself a cause for war. Even if the so-called "occupation" ended tomorrow.

      Delete
    3. With Hamas, Israel is pretty much at war. There are "hudnas" every so often, but they're always planning and preparing for the next confrontation. And people infiltrate with the intent to kill.

      https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-troops-nab-4-gaza-infiltrators-3-of-them-armed-with-knives/

      "Four Palestinians, three of them armed with knives, were detained by Israel Defense Force soldiers after infiltrating into southern Israel overnight from the Gaza Strip, the military said Monday morning."

      Delete
    4. Hat, I have exactly zero confidence you would support Israel in an actual war either.

      Delete
    5. @Yehuda P puts his finger on the never ending war.

      Any attempt to claim an exemption from the normal rules of decent behaviour for *fifty years* on the grounds of war will always meet with scepticism.

      It's this continuous mission creep in words which are used to justify extremism.

      Boycotts are not 'Terrorism'. Opposition to the policies of Netanyahu is not 'anti-Semitism'. Three men with knives is not a 'war'. I am not a 'traitor' or a 'kapo' or a 'useful idiot' for advocating for common decency.

      (Conversely Israel proper is not an 'apartheid' and the Palestinians are not victims of 'genocide').

      What happened with Gaza earlier this year: that's a war. And Nachum, you can go back and read my comments on this blog at the time. They certainly weren't unqualified support: I expressed frustration at the lack of a decisive strategy for a ground invasion. I would never write a blank cheque and suspend all critical faculties at any stage and blindly obey the state.

      Delete
    6. "I expressed frustration at the lack of a decisive strategy for a ground invasion."

      Ground invasion in 2014 meant 2000 dead Gazans, even with the phone calls, knocks on the roof, and leaflets.

      There is no decisive strategy for a ground invasion that can avoid heavy numbers of civilian deaths, especially how Hamas plants its weaponry in civilian areas.

      And Palestinians don't say, "It's all Hamas' fault! They shouldn't shoot rockets!" The clear majority say, "Hamas is fighting for our freedom, Israel are genocidal oppressors." WB Arabs called the 2014 conflict "genocide".

      I keep saying that the West Bank can't be vacated by Israel, because of the risk of losing the territory to Hamas there as well.

      Settler violence should not be tolerated. IDF soldiers abusing rule of engagement should not be tolerated. The quality of life for WB Palestinians should be improved.

      But we can't just rashly "leave" and hope for the best. We'll have far more than just 2000 dead Palestinians, if we have to do the same cleanup in the West Bank.

      Delete
    7. It's like the encounter between Alexander the Great and Amazonian women (in מסכת תמיד): The women tell Alexander: "You can't win against us. If you defeat us, people will say, "What kind of a king was he? He slaughtered women." and if we defeat you, people will say, "What kind of the king was he? Women defeated him."

      Since the Gaza Disengagement, we haven't seen a single encounter between Israel and Hamas where the Western media paints Hamas as the instigator, the terrorist organization, the ones recklessly ruining their people's lives. All the media concentrates on is: What did Israel do to provoke the attack? (like, existing). How many innocent people have lost their lives in Israeli attacks? Why is Israel's response so disproportionate? Blah, Blah, Blah.

      We can't really win against Hamas, because the Palestinians themselves don't really want to get rid of Hamas. And if we score a "win" militarily, the focus is on the civilian lives lost, and the infrastructure destroyed. And "losing" to such an opponent is unconscionable.

      Delete
    8. It is indisputably clear that Palestinians don't like Israelis, and Israelis don't like Palestinians. Both sides have a plurality of opinion for positions which are utterly unacceptable to the other.

      So what?

      The Egyptians don't like us either. It's just that all territorial claims having been extinguished, they have no reason to fight. And make no mistake: the dispute with the Palestinians is a dispute about land.

      This is all entirely irrelevant anyway. I've no said this so often and you just do not seem to engage at all. Treating Palestinians decently is not a transactional agreement with the Palestinians: it is a sacred duty Israelis owe to themselves. That means:
      no crop destruction, no stone throwing, no harassment, no abuse, no house demolitions, no land grabs, no Jewish only roads, no dawn raids to photograph children.

      Delete
    9. The Palestinians have far more than just a territorial claim to the West Bank. Like, not even accepting Israel in the pre-67 borders. How about the "Globalizing the Intifada" demonstration in Brooklyn? Well, that's how a lot of Palestinians think. They demand a right of return to Israel proper. That shouldn't be news to you. No, it's not just "a dispute about land", but a dispute as to whether Israel should exist at all!

      You think that all of the problems stem from West Bank settlements. There weren't incursions into Israel from the West Bank from 1948-1967, and no terror attacks?

      Delete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Shaken By The Lulav

There are many aspects of Judaism which make people feel uncomfortable. The mitzvah of arba minim sometimes falls into that category. Shak...