First off, why do you call it the 'West Bank'. It should be called by its proper name Judea and Samaria.
Judea and Samaria are the historical and biblical names for the region, used for thousands of years, while "West Bank" was a term invented by Jordan in 1948 to erase Jewish ties to the land. Historical documents, including League of Nations mandates, recognize Judea and Samaria, and never referred to it as the bogus 'west bank'.
Second and relevant to this discussion is that the film is a typical anti-Israel, anti-settler hate film pushed by the left. Its pure propaganda, twisting the truth to paint Israel as the aggressor while ignoring reality.
Masafer Yatta was legally declared an IDF firing zone in the 1980s when it was empty. Over the years, Palestinians from Yatta illegally built hundreds of structures there, defying Israeli law and court rulings. This isn’t “ethnic cleansing” as Basel claims on twitter, it’s land theft, backed by foreign money, with the goal of taking over strategic areas and then crying victim when Israel enforces the law.
There is a video of Israeli soldiers filming the so called film makers of the so called documentary. Just from that video I can tell you that Yuval is an asshole.
Majority of Israelis would trade land for piece. Majority of Palestinian Arabs would kill every single Jew.
I agree with your overall thesis. One of the most significant flaws with the film, however, is that it's based on an implicit lie. It lets the viewer assume that the village destroyed by the Israeli soldiers is an ancient one, the ancestral home of an indigenous people. But the village was established only in the late 1990s, on previously uninhabited land, as an illegal Palestinian settlement, purely for political "facts on the ground" reasons. So the whole basis for the film's allegations is false.
While it's undoubtedly true that many of us who truly support Israel do not want to think Israeli soldiers (or settlers) ever do wrong, it's one thing to assume that like all people, we are imperfect, and foolish, flawed & even evil people exist among us.
But you implicitly claim there is a "significant problem of unjustified IDF and settler violence against Palestinians."… without providing any evidence or examples to support such a statement. (and 1 or 2 examples would not suffice to show that there is a significant problem).
With the kind of multiple, extreme stressors faced by every single person who serves in the IDF—the entire world calling them murderers; utterly depraved enemies who are demonstrably indifferent to any norms of honorable or civilized behavior; their own friends & relatives victimized by the enemies' etc.—low the incidence of wrong behavior on the part of Israeli soldiers & civilians alike is nothing short of remarkable.
For perspective—talk about inconvenient truths—we both know if you transposed this situation to, say, African-Americans in the US: if a distinct, identifiable other group—whites—were committing atrocities against black families & individuals—daughters raped, children run over, whole families burnt to death or blown up in cafes, random blacks stabbed in shopping malls, over years & decades… and the larger society mostly ignored it… there would be a hell of a lot more retribution killings. This assertion is not driven by racism; it's a cultural thing. The Jewish people is profoundly less prone to senseless or illicit violence, full stop.
"Introspective" articles or claims about the Jewish/Israeli people which fail to give us our cultural due in every context, fall short of the mark.
"if a distinct, identifiable other group—whites—were committing atrocities against black families & individuals—daughters raped, children run over, whole families burnt to death or blown up in cafes, random blacks stabbed in shopping malls, over years & decades… and the larger society mostly ignored it… there would be a hell of a lot more retribution killings."
Are you describing the Jim Crow South? I'm not sure what your point is. That there should have been more black-on-white retribution during that era that there was? Or less? I don't really follow your train of thought.
And isn't it obvious that Palestinians see *themselves* as the victims of the very type of abuses you are describing? Or is that your point? It's quite hard to follow where you are going with this analogy.
I am completely unsure of your point in bringing up Jim Crow era South (I assume?). Did black folks engage in a widespread campaign of terrorism? Because I am not aware of any widespread occurrences outside of the Wilmington, NC massacres. My understanding is that some semblance of justice and equality was achieved through widespread peaceful demonstrations.
I was NOT bringing up the Jim Crow South. Both people who made that mistake seem to not have taken my words as they were stated. I said **IF** such a thing were happening, there WOULD likely be a higher incidence of violent pushback, retribution killings, etc.
My point was only that Israel & the Jewish people in general ARE remarkable in this aspect. And we don’t get credit for it—which is highlighted by the way some people will immediately, virtuously, pretend that they’re unaware of any statistical, documented or simply observable difference between the Jewish community, and other minority communities who are—to put it gently —less exemplary in shunning violence, even when human nature might be conducive to it.
I had replied to this earlier, but it was attached to the main thread rather than directly to your comment.
(Of course, had you read my original post more carefully—or not simply chosen to understand my comments in a negative light, despite what the words actually said—I wouldn’t have needed to clarify anything. I actually write very carefully, and my intent was quite clear.)
The analogy wasn’t really the main thing—it was, like I said, just to add some sense of perspective, or proportion.
That said, NO, I was not talking about the Jim Crow South and [if that was meant to be ironic] YES, I’m all too aware that there actually was just such a time/situation in the US.
It’s equally worth noting that at the time of the civil rights struggle, most black Americans wanted nothing more than to be allowed to participate in the American dream. In the ensuing decades, with the rise of identity-obsessed politics, that is not the case.
At any rate, I was talking in the present— if such things were going on in the US, affecting blacks, comparable to what Israel is have been going through. Over the years, specific incidents of far more murky “racism” happened in the US—and the reaction, justified or whitewashed by *everyone* on the Left, was literally unbridled violence. As it is, there’s a huge lack of honesty on in any discussion of the um, challenges, that face black communities in America.
I’ve no desire to go down that rabbit hole—my fault for opening the door.
But I stand by my primary assertion: Jews, collectively and no less in the militarily powerful Jewish state of Israel, are distinctly non-violent. And that is all the more remarkable considering the ample justification there is and has been for a long time.
I wrote above that I was not talking about the Jim Crow era… To anyone with basic reading compression, that indicates that yes, I’m ‘aware of the Jim Crow era.
More importantly, whether or not I’m aware of it or marched for BLM or donate annually to the NAACP… is completely beside the point of what I was saying here.
… Except, of course, for some people. There’s a very basic type that invariably ignores the actual point of a comment or article, preferring to zoom in on a phrase or sentence they can performatively take issue with.
These people’s virtuous moral outrage is almost always triggered by the classic woke issues of identity, civil rights and the like.
Except it’s not ridiculous (a digression, yes—I already said that. But not ridiculous) to observe that Jews, as a people and a great many of us personally, have been through ALL sorts of $hit—for centuries, and right up to today.
And with all that, masses of Jews going on violent rampages looting & attacking random non-Jews is statistically a *very* rare phenomenon. And large numbers of Jewish people gaslighting everyone that it’s understandable or OK or “mostly peaceful” is something that does not happen at all.
And yes, this is a stark contrast to some other minorities.
You didn’t demonstrate why this is “ridiculous.” You just don’t like someone saying it, and you try to dismiss what they said, mostly by mischaracterizing what they said. (Racist!) That’s what passes for logical argumentation on the Left.
All there is here is your & some people’s reflexive emotional reaction to ANY indirect reference to black people’s suffering.
As rational arguments go that’s right up there with all the &$#% morons who see a picture of a crying child who may or may not be Palestinian, and immediately react as if this proves the whole Narrative of Palestinian Suffering. (hint: it does not.)
I can’t understand this sentence: “While it's undoubtedly true that many of us who truly support Israel do not want to think Israeli soldiers (or settlers) ever do wrong, it's one thing to assume that like all people, we are imperfect, and foolish, flawed & even evil people exist among us.”
The sentence you quoted is part of a thought completed by the sentence after it. The word "while" is a clue…
I said, WHILE it’s reasonable to assume that, like all people, we are imperfect, and among us are people who do foolish or even bad things…
—(Do you not agree with that??)—
BUT, I continued—and THIS* was the point (OBVIOUSLY)—the writer did not offer any evidence, nor do I think there IS any such evidence, to justify saying that the Jewish people has a “significant problem” of Israelis committing illicit violence against non-Jews.
So, there were two assertions in my statement:
1. We (Jews, Israelis) are not perfect—we even have among us individuals who do things that are foolish, unhelpful or even evil.
2. We are, as a people, extremely non-violent, along with other excellent societal virtues. It is hard to believe—and the author gave no evidence to bolster his claim—that the Jewish people has a SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM of unjustified IDF and settler violence against Palestinians". A FEW SUCH CASES—in the context of decades of being attacked, murdered, slandered & demonized—is not a SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM—it's extraordinary, impressive.
Anyone disagreeing with either of those statements is TA in this situation.
1. There is NO "settler violence". It is a myth and a lie invented and perpetuated by radical antisemic leftist "human rights" groups and adopted by the Anti-Israeli Biden administration. Haarez, Yediot Achronot and other antisemtic publications would love nothing more than to spread this lie, but even they are hard pressed to find such incidents, and when they do, it's always a lie. The context is always Jews defending themselves against Arab attacks (Pallywood). What is true is that are HUNDREDS of attacks by Arabs against Jews in Judea and Samaria, attacks which are not reported.
2. The violence used by the IDF is defensive and against terror.
3. You are naive to think that people should look at the big picture, and have to understand what are the causes and why Israel is there and so on...This movie is exactly the antisemetic propaganda that they wish to potray - Israel is the Big Bad Guy opressing the poor palestinians.
4. Yuval Abrahahm has ZERO good intentions. He's part and parcel of the "human rights" antisemitic organizations (look up his Bio).
5. "The film may assist in undermining Israeli abuses of power" - What abuses of power ?!?!
It is desperately naive to imagine that “There is NO "settler violence"”. Even if it is far rarer than Palestinian violence, that is still different than pretending it does not exist at all (which is simply not within the realm of possibility).
The same is true of Israeli abuses of power. It is simply inconceivable, in the course of human events, that abuses of power *don’t* happen in war. Better to confront them honestly than to pretend that Israelis are magically immune to the passions and influences that affect all other human beings.
Every society has it's share of violence. However, why doesn't anyone talk about "bus drivers violence", "city dwellers violence", "men who are 97 kgs violence" etc ? I am sure we can frame any slice of the society to fit a narrative. The term "setttler violence" means one thing - BAD Israelis being violent to poor ARABS. That kind isn't far rarer. It simply doesn't exist. Please show me cases.
You're not wrong, but there is a point in which "statistically low" becomes statistically zero, if not literally, absolutely zero.
Seems to me that illicit Israeli violence—especially in the context of the psychological/social pressures, menacing & uncertainties (in terms of feeling safe & secure) that Israelis regularly live with—is a good example of that concept; of statistical zero. Find another society where, faced with decade after decade of explosions of hate, acts of horrific violence & entrenched hostility from a specific, identifiable group, the people at the receiving end would refrain from violent, extra-legal retribution, and actively shun such violence—to the extent that Israelis have always done.
While the points you are trying to make is valid -- that the Jews really have no other land and that the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians do, and that this film may help in promoting what those Arabs and others like them want, which is the destruction of Israel, you can see by the other comments here that your calling out so-called abuse of Israeli power in Judea-Samaria (with the aim of being balanced, I suppose), that these points get totally lost.
I HAVE explored both the lies behind the film and the issue of "settler violence" and I would like to respectfully suggest that the advice commonly given to fiction writers -- write about what you know -- can equally be applied to opinion piece writers. Yes, there are cases of vigilantism among settlers, but there is no wide-spread phenomenon of settler violence. And there is no abuse of Israeli power in Judea-Samaria. To understand that you should understand the minutiae of the Oslo Accords and what is happening on the ground in Areas A, B, and C.
Unfortunately, it is simply not conceivable in the course of human events, that when one people holds power over another (or, heck, when one person holds power over another) there will be no abuse of power.
I say this as someone who believes that we have every right (biblical, historical, ancestral, legal, etc, etc, etc) to the Land of Israel (including of course Yehudah v’Shomron).
But, as R’ Slifkin has discussed before, Israel finds itself in the inextricable quagmire of being responsible for administering a hostile population on its doorstep, with no realistic end/solution in sight. In that context, it is frankly inconceivable that Israelis are fundamentally different from every other people in history that has ever held power.
Does this in any way strengthen Arab claims to our land? Not in the least. But “chotamo shel HKB”H emet”, as they say, and truth is its own value.
Israel is not "responsible for administering a hostile population on its doorstep." The hostile population on our doorstep is administered by their very own Palestinian Authority.
I hope you will read the article in the link below in order to understand the complexities of Areas A, B, and C as determined by the Oslo Accords. Understanding what is in the article is essential before voicing any opinions such as that Israel is responsible for administering the Arab population in what Jordan called 'the west bank' when they occupied it between 1948 and 1967.
I haven't seen the film either, and it is hard to get to see because it is not getting any distribution house to distribute it. But, I have seen numbers of these type of movies, for instance, "Checkpoint," and have some idea as to how Israel is slammed unfairly and unncessarily. Even Israeli films such as "The Gatekeepers," was very one-sided in my opinion, largely because it failed mostly to interview those on the Right and in positions of power or leaders on the West Bank about the observations and feelings/analysis of the Shin Bet commanders. But, that is exactly the problem: The Left gets a full voice, and the Pals get a full voice, but the Right gets muted. You can't assume that anything said in the film "No Other Land" is true or even partially true until you have more neutral sources, or sources willing to be neutral, though factual and analytical. Because of the intransigence of the Palestinians, any of the implications of reality is dubious. They need better proof, and a documentary run by Palestinian and Israeli activists does not fill the need here.
The film should be called No Other VIEWERS. To date its reported that only 400,000 have seen the film, whereas an obscure film called Am I a Racist is reported to have been seen by 5 times that.
I think any discussion would have to start with whether the claims made in the film are accurate. Since no one here seems to have watched the film, not really sure what there is to talk about. If the claims are fallacious, we can all complain about the negative effects of the film. If the claims are true, then you have to deal with the truth. You don't want to be the Mayor of Amity Beach who knows there's a man-eating shark in the water but suppresses the story because it will create negative publicity.
It’s no surprise that this film won, the folks in the arts and sciences world seem to feel that they are so with it that they can champion this cause because we mere mortals just don’t understand. So any movie that bashes Israel is wonderful. I also have not seen this movie, I don’t know if the movie tells the full story about the area depicted. The events leading to the proposed expulsions of the Palestinians from this area started in 1980. The area was sparsely inhabited used primarily by sheep and goat herders on a seasonal basis. There were few permanent structures, when using the land the herders lived in caves in the area. Because of the unique features of the area the Israeli army wanted to use it as a training facility. Clearly it would be dangerous for civilians to be there so they wanted to have the area declared a military training zone. Because Israel is a democracy the case went to the courts. The case was there for several years until the court ruled in favor of the army. During this time period I am sure more Palestinians moved into the area. The site is also in area C which according to Oslo is under Israeli control. Do not know if the film shows this. so putting it out there in case it was omitted.
" the folks in the arts and sciences world seem to feel that they are so with it"
They are, and have always been irrelevant. They are entertainers and that's it. Even the high brow tripe remains just entertainment. They don't provide enlightenment, just pretense. They lie to themselves and think that they are influential, but the list of successful Hollywood propaganda products are slim indeed. (The Birth of a Nation did encourage the goons to organize, but that was a century ago, and its enduring legacy is ironically the antithesis of its content. Maybe Bambi and Mrs. Miniver. Nobody (or not enough people) left a Oliver Stone film and voted left and changed an election outcome. Anything more recent in the past 80 years?) Despite the pervasiveness of Hollywood in American culture, their leftist ideology does not reflect America, nor has it had tilted America leftward. The greatest influence a film has is to encourage other filmmakers.
The Oscars are a 60 million dollar ad campaign, solipsistic mutual admiration fashion show masquerading as a solemn ceremony honoring the intrepid guardians of Western "culture". At the end of the day, Yuval Abraham is in the same business as Hal Roach. Except, that the light distractions of Hal do more for peace (of mind?) than the rousing pretenses of Yuval.
While I imagine I agree with your political positions about all this, I don't see where you get your confident assurance that Hollywood's heavy-handed Lefty slant, built into virtually all of its product, has little or no effect. I think that itself is something Hollywood tells us—something I've seen often, over many decades, anytime a TV show, or pop music album, for example, came under heavy fire for promoting offensive values or attitudes: "We're only reflecting society. We don't *make* it what it is. This is the real world, and we're just portraying it…"
This, from people who constantly—self-aggrandizingly—see it as their mission to instruct & lecture the rest of us… on their shows, at their awards ceremonies, in their music… on how we *should* think, and how awful we are if we're not 100% on board with their approved values & political positions. They have zero credibility when they claim not to be trying to influence society… and sadly, the fact is, they largely do.
One more important comment - It turns out that funding for the movie came from Miseror, a German Cathoilc organization which has contributed to many antisemtic organizations operating against Israel. The movie was also finanaced by Broederlijk Delen, a Belgian organization which also funds many antisemtic organizations (I know it comes as a shock that an antisemitic lie is funded by antisemitic International organizations...)
The analogy wasn’t really the main thing—it was, like I said, just to add some sense of perspective or proportion.
That said, no, I was not talking about the Jim Crow South and [if that was meant to be ironic] yes, I’m all too aware that there actually was just such a time/situation in the US.
But it’s equally worth noting that at the time of the civil rights struggle, most black Americans wanted nothing more than to be allowed to participate in the American dream. In the ensuing decades, with the rise of identity-obsessed politics, that is not the case.
At any rate,I was talking in the present— if such things were going on in the US, affecting blacks, comparable to what Israel is have been going through. A few incidents of far more murky “racism” happens in the US—and the reaction, justified by everyone on the left, was literally unbridled violence. As it is, there’s a huge lack of honesty on in any discussion of the um, challenges, that face black communities in America.
I’ve no desire to go down that rabbit hole—my fault for opening the door.
But I stand by my primary assertion: Jews, collectively and no less in the militarily powerful Jewish state of Israel, are distinctly non-violent. And that is all the more remarkable considering the ample justification there is and has been for a long time.
Does such a thing exist? I read different papers and magazines across the spectrum, hoping it all adds up to enough useful information to allow me to figure out what's going on. But on the topic at hand, I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive analysis (such as, per year, how many killed, seriously injured, how much property damaged or confiscated, etc.), just one or two facts plucked from the greater context to make a political point, as most news stories are.
yeah that's the point, there's no such thing as a truly unbiased news source, but you can read from both sides and sort of average out to get the facts
Except it clearly does not "average out" to a fair, factual assessment—any more than the relative justice of each side's positions can be assessed by averaging out the number of Palestinians & the number of Israelis.
The media is *overwhelmingly* biased against Israel—besides being plainly observable to anyone, this has been proven & demonstrated repeatedly, in every imaginable way. The fact that the same overwhelmingly biased media denies or simply ignores all that evidence does not prove anything.
I haven’t seen the film, but if it is even roughly accurate, then I question who the useful idiots really are. Would that be filmmakers who are reporting an inconvenient truth, or stupid Israelis doing their best to prove to the world that Israel really is as oppressive, inhumane, unjust, and evil as our enemies say?
There is no excuse for Jews to act like Cossacks perpetrating a pogrom. It is historically perverse, morally wrong and, by pushing Israel closer to becoming a pariah state, harmful to Israel's long-term survival.
I usually agree with you, Rabbi Dr. Slifkin, but I think you need to examine what it says about you and about Israel if you have to rationalize the suppression of truth for the supposed good of the nation.
First off, why do you call it the 'West Bank'. It should be called by its proper name Judea and Samaria.
Judea and Samaria are the historical and biblical names for the region, used for thousands of years, while "West Bank" was a term invented by Jordan in 1948 to erase Jewish ties to the land. Historical documents, including League of Nations mandates, recognize Judea and Samaria, and never referred to it as the bogus 'west bank'.
Second and relevant to this discussion is that the film is a typical anti-Israel, anti-settler hate film pushed by the left. Its pure propaganda, twisting the truth to paint Israel as the aggressor while ignoring reality.
Masafer Yatta was legally declared an IDF firing zone in the 1980s when it was empty. Over the years, Palestinians from Yatta illegally built hundreds of structures there, defying Israeli law and court rulings. This isn’t “ethnic cleansing” as Basel claims on twitter, it’s land theft, backed by foreign money, with the goal of taking over strategic areas and then crying victim when Israel enforces the law.
Is this article supposed to be rational?
There is a video of Israeli soldiers filming the so called film makers of the so called documentary. Just from that video I can tell you that Yuval is an asshole.
Majority of Israelis would trade land for piece. Majority of Palestinian Arabs would kill every single Jew.
I agree with your overall thesis. One of the most significant flaws with the film, however, is that it's based on an implicit lie. It lets the viewer assume that the village destroyed by the Israeli soldiers is an ancient one, the ancestral home of an indigenous people. But the village was established only in the late 1990s, on previously uninhabited land, as an illegal Palestinian settlement, purely for political "facts on the ground" reasons. So the whole basis for the film's allegations is false.
While it's undoubtedly true that many of us who truly support Israel do not want to think Israeli soldiers (or settlers) ever do wrong, it's one thing to assume that like all people, we are imperfect, and foolish, flawed & even evil people exist among us.
But you implicitly claim there is a "significant problem of unjustified IDF and settler violence against Palestinians."… without providing any evidence or examples to support such a statement. (and 1 or 2 examples would not suffice to show that there is a significant problem).
With the kind of multiple, extreme stressors faced by every single person who serves in the IDF—the entire world calling them murderers; utterly depraved enemies who are demonstrably indifferent to any norms of honorable or civilized behavior; their own friends & relatives victimized by the enemies' etc.—low the incidence of wrong behavior on the part of Israeli soldiers & civilians alike is nothing short of remarkable.
For perspective—talk about inconvenient truths—we both know if you transposed this situation to, say, African-Americans in the US: if a distinct, identifiable other group—whites—were committing atrocities against black families & individuals—daughters raped, children run over, whole families burnt to death or blown up in cafes, random blacks stabbed in shopping malls, over years & decades… and the larger society mostly ignored it… there would be a hell of a lot more retribution killings. This assertion is not driven by racism; it's a cultural thing. The Jewish people is profoundly less prone to senseless or illicit violence, full stop.
"Introspective" articles or claims about the Jewish/Israeli people which fail to give us our cultural due in every context, fall short of the mark.
"if a distinct, identifiable other group—whites—were committing atrocities against black families & individuals—daughters raped, children run over, whole families burnt to death or blown up in cafes, random blacks stabbed in shopping malls, over years & decades… and the larger society mostly ignored it… there would be a hell of a lot more retribution killings."
Are you describing the Jim Crow South? I'm not sure what your point is. That there should have been more black-on-white retribution during that era that there was? Or less? I don't really follow your train of thought.
And isn't it obvious that Palestinians see *themselves* as the victims of the very type of abuses you are describing? Or is that your point? It's quite hard to follow where you are going with this analogy.
I am completely unsure of your point in bringing up Jim Crow era South (I assume?). Did black folks engage in a widespread campaign of terrorism? Because I am not aware of any widespread occurrences outside of the Wilmington, NC massacres. My understanding is that some semblance of justice and equality was achieved through widespread peaceful demonstrations.
I was NOT bringing up the Jim Crow South. Both people who made that mistake seem to not have taken my words as they were stated. I said **IF** such a thing were happening, there WOULD likely be a higher incidence of violent pushback, retribution killings, etc.
My point was only that Israel & the Jewish people in general ARE remarkable in this aspect. And we don’t get credit for it—which is highlighted by the way some people will immediately, virtuously, pretend that they’re unaware of any statistical, documented or simply observable difference between the Jewish community, and other minority communities who are—to put it gently —less exemplary in shunning violence, even when human nature might be conducive to it.
IF such a thing were happening? Such a thing DID happen. Are you unaware?
I had replied to this earlier, but it was attached to the main thread rather than directly to your comment.
(Of course, had you read my original post more carefully—or not simply chosen to understand my comments in a negative light, despite what the words actually said—I wouldn’t have needed to clarify anything. I actually write very carefully, and my intent was quite clear.)
The analogy wasn’t really the main thing—it was, like I said, just to add some sense of perspective, or proportion.
That said, NO, I was not talking about the Jim Crow South and [if that was meant to be ironic] YES, I’m all too aware that there actually was just such a time/situation in the US.
It’s equally worth noting that at the time of the civil rights struggle, most black Americans wanted nothing more than to be allowed to participate in the American dream. In the ensuing decades, with the rise of identity-obsessed politics, that is not the case.
At any rate, I was talking in the present— if such things were going on in the US, affecting blacks, comparable to what Israel is have been going through. Over the years, specific incidents of far more murky “racism” happened in the US—and the reaction, justified or whitewashed by *everyone* on the Left, was literally unbridled violence. As it is, there’s a huge lack of honesty on in any discussion of the um, challenges, that face black communities in America.
I’ve no desire to go down that rabbit hole—my fault for opening the door.
But I stand by my primary assertion: Jews, collectively and no less in the militarily powerful Jewish state of Israel, are distinctly non-violent. And that is all the more remarkable considering the ample justification there is and has been for a long time.
I wrote above that I was not talking about the Jim Crow era… To anyone with basic reading compression, that indicates that yes, I’m ‘aware of the Jim Crow era.
More importantly, whether or not I’m aware of it or marched for BLM or donate annually to the NAACP… is completely beside the point of what I was saying here.
… Except, of course, for some people. There’s a very basic type that invariably ignores the actual point of a comment or article, preferring to zoom in on a phrase or sentence they can performatively take issue with.
These people’s virtuous moral outrage is almost always triggered by the classic woke issues of identity, civil rights and the like.
Tedious beyond belief.
The only thing that triggered me was your ridiculous analogy, lol.
Except it’s not ridiculous (a digression, yes—I already said that. But not ridiculous) to observe that Jews, as a people and a great many of us personally, have been through ALL sorts of $hit—for centuries, and right up to today.
And with all that, masses of Jews going on violent rampages looting & attacking random non-Jews is statistically a *very* rare phenomenon. And large numbers of Jewish people gaslighting everyone that it’s understandable or OK or “mostly peaceful” is something that does not happen at all.
And yes, this is a stark contrast to some other minorities.
You didn’t demonstrate why this is “ridiculous.” You just don’t like someone saying it, and you try to dismiss what they said, mostly by mischaracterizing what they said. (Racist!) That’s what passes for logical argumentation on the Left.
All there is here is your & some people’s reflexive emotional reaction to ANY indirect reference to black people’s suffering.
As rational arguments go that’s right up there with all the &$#% morons who see a picture of a crying child who may or may not be Palestinian, and immediately react as if this proves the whole Narrative of Palestinian Suffering. (hint: it does not.)
I can’t understand this sentence: “While it's undoubtedly true that many of us who truly support Israel do not want to think Israeli soldiers (or settlers) ever do wrong, it's one thing to assume that like all people, we are imperfect, and foolish, flawed & even evil people exist among us.”
The sentence you quoted is part of a thought completed by the sentence after it. The word "while" is a clue…
I said, WHILE it’s reasonable to assume that, like all people, we are imperfect, and among us are people who do foolish or even bad things…
—(Do you not agree with that??)—
BUT, I continued—and THIS* was the point (OBVIOUSLY)—the writer did not offer any evidence, nor do I think there IS any such evidence, to justify saying that the Jewish people has a “significant problem” of Israelis committing illicit violence against non-Jews.
So, there were two assertions in my statement:
1. We (Jews, Israelis) are not perfect—we even have among us individuals who do things that are foolish, unhelpful or even evil.
2. We are, as a people, extremely non-violent, along with other excellent societal virtues. It is hard to believe—and the author gave no evidence to bolster his claim—that the Jewish people has a SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM of unjustified IDF and settler violence against Palestinians". A FEW SUCH CASES—in the context of decades of being attacked, murdered, slandered & demonized—is not a SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM—it's extraordinary, impressive.
Anyone disagreeing with either of those statements is TA in this situation.
Oh boy....so many fallacies, so little time.....
1. There is NO "settler violence". It is a myth and a lie invented and perpetuated by radical antisemic leftist "human rights" groups and adopted by the Anti-Israeli Biden administration. Haarez, Yediot Achronot and other antisemtic publications would love nothing more than to spread this lie, but even they are hard pressed to find such incidents, and when they do, it's always a lie. The context is always Jews defending themselves against Arab attacks (Pallywood). What is true is that are HUNDREDS of attacks by Arabs against Jews in Judea and Samaria, attacks which are not reported.
2. The violence used by the IDF is defensive and against terror.
3. You are naive to think that people should look at the big picture, and have to understand what are the causes and why Israel is there and so on...This movie is exactly the antisemetic propaganda that they wish to potray - Israel is the Big Bad Guy opressing the poor palestinians.
4. Yuval Abrahahm has ZERO good intentions. He's part and parcel of the "human rights" antisemitic organizations (look up his Bio).
5. "The film may assist in undermining Israeli abuses of power" - What abuses of power ?!?!
It is desperately naive to imagine that “There is NO "settler violence"”. Even if it is far rarer than Palestinian violence, that is still different than pretending it does not exist at all (which is simply not within the realm of possibility).
The same is true of Israeli abuses of power. It is simply inconceivable, in the course of human events, that abuses of power *don’t* happen in war. Better to confront them honestly than to pretend that Israelis are magically immune to the passions and influences that affect all other human beings.
Every society has it's share of violence. However, why doesn't anyone talk about "bus drivers violence", "city dwellers violence", "men who are 97 kgs violence" etc ? I am sure we can frame any slice of the society to fit a narrative. The term "setttler violence" means one thing - BAD Israelis being violent to poor ARABS. That kind isn't far rarer. It simply doesn't exist. Please show me cases.
As to abuse of power, what abuse of what power ?
You're not wrong, but there is a point in which "statistically low" becomes statistically zero, if not literally, absolutely zero.
Seems to me that illicit Israeli violence—especially in the context of the psychological/social pressures, menacing & uncertainties (in terms of feeling safe & secure) that Israelis regularly live with—is a good example of that concept; of statistical zero. Find another society where, faced with decade after decade of explosions of hate, acts of horrific violence & entrenched hostility from a specific, identifiable group, the people at the receiving end would refrain from violent, extra-legal retribution, and actively shun such violence—to the extent that Israelis have always done.
While the points you are trying to make is valid -- that the Jews really have no other land and that the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians do, and that this film may help in promoting what those Arabs and others like them want, which is the destruction of Israel, you can see by the other comments here that your calling out so-called abuse of Israeli power in Judea-Samaria (with the aim of being balanced, I suppose), that these points get totally lost.
I HAVE explored both the lies behind the film and the issue of "settler violence" and I would like to respectfully suggest that the advice commonly given to fiction writers -- write about what you know -- can equally be applied to opinion piece writers. Yes, there are cases of vigilantism among settlers, but there is no wide-spread phenomenon of settler violence. And there is no abuse of Israeli power in Judea-Samaria. To understand that you should understand the minutiae of the Oslo Accords and what is happening on the ground in Areas A, B, and C.
Unfortunately, it is simply not conceivable in the course of human events, that when one people holds power over another (or, heck, when one person holds power over another) there will be no abuse of power.
I say this as someone who believes that we have every right (biblical, historical, ancestral, legal, etc, etc, etc) to the Land of Israel (including of course Yehudah v’Shomron).
But, as R’ Slifkin has discussed before, Israel finds itself in the inextricable quagmire of being responsible for administering a hostile population on its doorstep, with no realistic end/solution in sight. In that context, it is frankly inconceivable that Israelis are fundamentally different from every other people in history that has ever held power.
Does this in any way strengthen Arab claims to our land? Not in the least. But “chotamo shel HKB”H emet”, as they say, and truth is its own value.
Israel is not "responsible for administering a hostile population on its doorstep." The hostile population on our doorstep is administered by their very own Palestinian Authority.
I hope you will read the article in the link below in order to understand the complexities of Areas A, B, and C as determined by the Oslo Accords. Understanding what is in the article is essential before voicing any opinions such as that Israel is responsible for administering the Arab population in what Jordan called 'the west bank' when they occupied it between 1948 and 1967.
https://open.substack.com/pub/ozsheri/p/arabs-in-area-c-i-thought-area-c?r=9b5em&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I haven't seen the film either, and it is hard to get to see because it is not getting any distribution house to distribute it. But, I have seen numbers of these type of movies, for instance, "Checkpoint," and have some idea as to how Israel is slammed unfairly and unncessarily. Even Israeli films such as "The Gatekeepers," was very one-sided in my opinion, largely because it failed mostly to interview those on the Right and in positions of power or leaders on the West Bank about the observations and feelings/analysis of the Shin Bet commanders. But, that is exactly the problem: The Left gets a full voice, and the Pals get a full voice, but the Right gets muted. You can't assume that anything said in the film "No Other Land" is true or even partially true until you have more neutral sources, or sources willing to be neutral, though factual and analytical. Because of the intransigence of the Palestinians, any of the implications of reality is dubious. They need better proof, and a documentary run by Palestinian and Israeli activists does not fill the need here.
The film should be called No Other VIEWERS. To date its reported that only 400,000 have seen the film, whereas an obscure film called Am I a Racist is reported to have been seen by 5 times that.
Surely you’re being facetious when you say “obscure film”…
I think any discussion would have to start with whether the claims made in the film are accurate. Since no one here seems to have watched the film, not really sure what there is to talk about. If the claims are fallacious, we can all complain about the negative effects of the film. If the claims are true, then you have to deal with the truth. You don't want to be the Mayor of Amity Beach who knows there's a man-eating shark in the water but suppresses the story because it will create negative publicity.
Excellent analogy! 😂
It’s no surprise that this film won, the folks in the arts and sciences world seem to feel that they are so with it that they can champion this cause because we mere mortals just don’t understand. So any movie that bashes Israel is wonderful. I also have not seen this movie, I don’t know if the movie tells the full story about the area depicted. The events leading to the proposed expulsions of the Palestinians from this area started in 1980. The area was sparsely inhabited used primarily by sheep and goat herders on a seasonal basis. There were few permanent structures, when using the land the herders lived in caves in the area. Because of the unique features of the area the Israeli army wanted to use it as a training facility. Clearly it would be dangerous for civilians to be there so they wanted to have the area declared a military training zone. Because Israel is a democracy the case went to the courts. The case was there for several years until the court ruled in favor of the army. During this time period I am sure more Palestinians moved into the area. The site is also in area C which according to Oslo is under Israeli control. Do not know if the film shows this. so putting it out there in case it was omitted.
There are
" the folks in the arts and sciences world seem to feel that they are so with it"
They are, and have always been irrelevant. They are entertainers and that's it. Even the high brow tripe remains just entertainment. They don't provide enlightenment, just pretense. They lie to themselves and think that they are influential, but the list of successful Hollywood propaganda products are slim indeed. (The Birth of a Nation did encourage the goons to organize, but that was a century ago, and its enduring legacy is ironically the antithesis of its content. Maybe Bambi and Mrs. Miniver. Nobody (or not enough people) left a Oliver Stone film and voted left and changed an election outcome. Anything more recent in the past 80 years?) Despite the pervasiveness of Hollywood in American culture, their leftist ideology does not reflect America, nor has it had tilted America leftward. The greatest influence a film has is to encourage other filmmakers.
The Oscars are a 60 million dollar ad campaign, solipsistic mutual admiration fashion show masquerading as a solemn ceremony honoring the intrepid guardians of Western "culture". At the end of the day, Yuval Abraham is in the same business as Hal Roach. Except, that the light distractions of Hal do more for peace (of mind?) than the rousing pretenses of Yuval.
While I imagine I agree with your political positions about all this, I don't see where you get your confident assurance that Hollywood's heavy-handed Lefty slant, built into virtually all of its product, has little or no effect. I think that itself is something Hollywood tells us—something I've seen often, over many decades, anytime a TV show, or pop music album, for example, came under heavy fire for promoting offensive values or attitudes: "We're only reflecting society. We don't *make* it what it is. This is the real world, and we're just portraying it…"
This, from people who constantly—self-aggrandizingly—see it as their mission to instruct & lecture the rest of us… on their shows, at their awards ceremonies, in their music… on how we *should* think, and how awful we are if we're not 100% on board with their approved values & political positions. They have zero credibility when they claim not to be trying to influence society… and sadly, the fact is, they largely do.
One more important comment - It turns out that funding for the movie came from Miseror, a German Cathoilc organization which has contributed to many antisemtic organizations operating against Israel. The movie was also finanaced by Broederlijk Delen, a Belgian organization which also funds many antisemtic organizations (I know it comes as a shock that an antisemitic lie is funded by antisemitic International organizations...)
The fact that woke Hollywood celebrates the film tells me all I need know.
Oct 7 that's all I gotta say
The analogy wasn’t really the main thing—it was, like I said, just to add some sense of perspective or proportion.
That said, no, I was not talking about the Jim Crow South and [if that was meant to be ironic] yes, I’m all too aware that there actually was just such a time/situation in the US.
But it’s equally worth noting that at the time of the civil rights struggle, most black Americans wanted nothing more than to be allowed to participate in the American dream. In the ensuing decades, with the rise of identity-obsessed politics, that is not the case.
At any rate,I was talking in the present— if such things were going on in the US, affecting blacks, comparable to what Israel is have been going through. A few incidents of far more murky “racism” happens in the US—and the reaction, justified by everyone on the left, was literally unbridled violence. As it is, there’s a huge lack of honesty on in any discussion of the um, challenges, that face black communities in America.
I’ve no desire to go down that rabbit hole—my fault for opening the door.
But I stand by my primary assertion: Jews, collectively and no less in the militarily powerful Jewish state of Israel, are distinctly non-violent. And that is all the more remarkable considering the ample justification there is and has been for a long time.
OK. Which sources of news give an accurate picture of unfair treatment of Palestinians by Israelis or the IDF?
where do you get your balanced news from?
Does such a thing exist? I read different papers and magazines across the spectrum, hoping it all adds up to enough useful information to allow me to figure out what's going on. But on the topic at hand, I don't think I've ever seen a comprehensive analysis (such as, per year, how many killed, seriously injured, how much property damaged or confiscated, etc.), just one or two facts plucked from the greater context to make a political point, as most news stories are.
yeah that's the point, there's no such thing as a truly unbiased news source, but you can read from both sides and sort of average out to get the facts
Except it clearly does not "average out" to a fair, factual assessment—any more than the relative justice of each side's positions can be assessed by averaging out the number of Palestinians & the number of Israelis.
The media is *overwhelmingly* biased against Israel—besides being plainly observable to anyone, this has been proven & demonstrated repeatedly, in every imaginable way. The fact that the same overwhelmingly biased media denies or simply ignores all that evidence does not prove anything.
I haven’t seen the film, but if it is even roughly accurate, then I question who the useful idiots really are. Would that be filmmakers who are reporting an inconvenient truth, or stupid Israelis doing their best to prove to the world that Israel really is as oppressive, inhumane, unjust, and evil as our enemies say?
There is no excuse for Jews to act like Cossacks perpetrating a pogrom. It is historically perverse, morally wrong and, by pushing Israel closer to becoming a pariah state, harmful to Israel's long-term survival.
I usually agree with you, Rabbi Dr. Slifkin, but I think you need to examine what it says about you and about Israel if you have to rationalize the suppression of truth for the supposed good of the nation.