Tag Archives: Arab

Open Letter to the Editorial Board of the NY Times regarding article about Israeli Elections

israel-election_1-e1426664737956

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Editorial Board,

The first 3 words of this letter already tells so much of the story.  To be forced to start a letter “Dear Editorial Board” makes you wonder why no individual had the intestinal fortitude to use his or her name when going on the attack as they did against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu one day after his election victory.  For those of you reading on this self-perceived holier than thou and smarter than the rest of us board, here is how criticism is given when you are not afraid to stand by your convictions.

My name is David Groen.  I am a proud American, a proud Jew, and proud Zionist. I am also an ardent supporter of Benjamin Netanyahu who found your editorial titled “An Israeli Election turns ugly” to be not only offensive, but skewed to suit your political agenda and a contradiction to the factors that make democracy great.

CLICK HERE TO READ NY TIMES ARTICLE

Israel is not only a great democracy, it is the only real democracy in the Middle East.  You speak of Benjamin Netanyahu as though he is some fascist dictator on the rise.  This is a man who leads a nation constantly under attack from terrorist organizations and threats from rogue nations such as Iran calling for its annihilation.  Yet somehow you have a problem with Netanyahu trying to defeat the Arab vote knowing full well that their agenda would be to go against his political strategy of how to keep Israel safe and secure.  I’m not debating whether or not his strategy is right or wrong because this letter is not so much to debate his tactics, it is to debate yours.

There is no evidence that voters were harassed, be they left-wing Jews or Arabs, and no reason to believe this was an election ripe with any significant corruption. What it was instead was an example of an ambitious politician using democracy to his advantage.  It is almost comical to me that the NY Times, that great defender of freedom and civil rights would have a problem with democracy functioning on a prime level.  No one forced anyone to vote for Prime Minister Netanyahu.  The Arab population had a big vote in the election.  Their representative party has seats in the Knesset.  They have a say and a role in the Israeli political system.  How many Arab nations have Jewish representation?  None.  Because in most Arab nations the Jews were run out of town.  If “you” don’t like Benjamin Netanyahu that’s fine.  Just don’t attack him for utilizing his country’s democratic structure.

Which bring me back again to that question.  Who is the “you” in all this? Who am I actually writing to? The entire Editorial Board is in agreement on this issue?  How about signing all of your names to it so we know how many of you there are and know you are all in agreement.  Not because I believe there should be anything heinous done to you, but because if you are to criticize someone who speaks to the people just because you are upset he got what he wanted, don’t you think you should at least let everyone know who you are when you criticize him?  To hide behind the title “Editorial Board” is a level of hypocrisy that totally destroys any credibility you have left.  Whoever “you” actually are.

What Benjamin Netanyahu did this election was nothing different from what any other politician would do in any democracy.  He did what he felt he had to do to win.  Creating this perception that his words were racist attacks on the Arab population of Israel is either irresponsible on “your” part, or even worse, an attempt at manipulating the minds of your audience.  But here is the difference between “you” and me.  I accept your right to do this in a democratic society with free speech, and when I don’t like “your” methods, I sign my name to my criticism.

Sincerely,

David Groen

 

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

CLICK TO JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

 


Open Letter to Ron Jones regarding BBC’s The Big Questions’ tweet:”Is it time to lay the Holocaust to rest?”

 

BBC

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Mr. Jones,

“Is it time to lay the Holocaust to rest?”  I would say “good question”, but in truth it is not a good question.  It is not a wise question, nor a sincere question.  It is a question that exhibits ignorance and hate and lack of understanding of the world as it is meant to be.

I do not know what connection you or your personal viewpoints have to this question tweeted by BBC’s;The Big Questions, but since it is produced by Mentorn Media and you are the Executive Chairman, it is you I will address regarding this matter.

Naturally, as a Jew, I am beyond offended.  I am only in my 50s, so the fact that I never knew my grandparents nor my mother’s only brother and my father’s younger sister, should already indicate that this is not ancient history we are talking about.  To be frank, even if it was ancient history I would find this question offensive.  Should we put Passover to rest as well while we’re at it?  After all, it WAS only Jews who were slaves in Egypt.

6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.  To make it easier for the small-minded people at the BBC to comprehend, that is the equivalent to filling up Wembley Stadium 66 times.  The question is not an example of enlightenment through journalism, rather an irresponsible, ignorant, and quite honestly a disgraceful opening for a discussion that should not even be considered in the civilized world.

The very question is not much different from blatant Holocaust denial, a media tool perpetuated most significantly by the Iranian government, a regime that has expressed its desire to wipe Israel off the map, a process that would lead to almost the same amount of Jewish deaths.  The question might as well be, “is it time to get rid of the Jews?”

Even from a non-Jewish perspective the question is offensive.  It’s not as though we live in a world without evil.  We still see people getting tortured, persecuted and murdered.  Is it time to put slavery to rest?  How about the Cambodian genocide? Or the Armenian genocide? For that matter we might as well put the Rwandan genocide to rest as well.  After all, we would hate to get in the way of BBC’s quest for enlightenment.

Even without putting the Holocaust to rest the Jewish people face threats and challenges.  If we put the Holocaust to rest it will lead to those acting as though it never happened, empowering those that wish to see it happen all over again.  We as a person are not prepared to let that happen and nothing a staunchly Arab-influenced BBC does will change our resolve.

NEVER AGAIN is the motto many of us live by, and that is exactly the opposite of putting the Holocaust to rest.  Get over it.

Sincerely,

David Groen

 

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

CLICK TO JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK


Defending our brother Alan Dershowitz

alan-dershowitz-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are the Jews to defend Alan Dershowitz?  This is the question that was presented by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and to be quite frank, it’s a very good one.  Let me be very clear.  If there was clear evidence that Mr. Dershowitz was guilty of the accusations of sex with an underage girl, there would be no defending him.  However, if ever there was a time to invoke the great American principle of “Innocent until proven Guilty”, now is the time.

I am often disgusted by the mentality in parts of the Arab world that promotes accepting immoral behavior by those who share a common hatred for Jews and westerners.  It’s acceptable to treat women poorly, steal, rape and murder, as long as the core of your philosophy speaks to the destruction of Israel and western society. Jews don’t think that way.  If Alan Dershowitz is indeed guilty of this crime, his status in the Jewish community will drop significantly.  He can defend Israel all he wants, attack the enemies of the Jewish people till he is blue in the face, but if he is indeed guilty of statutory rape he will lose the respect and status of most of the community. And rightly so.  However, with all that he has done, with all the clearheaded defense of Israel, and his staunch advocacy of the Jewish people and Jewish state, we owe it to him to accept him on his word unless there is evidence to the contrary.

I do not believe in sticking one’s head in the ground and ignoring harsh realities.  However, it is a lot easier to accept that one person is lying than that many are lying.  This accusation comes from one woman making accusations against many.  Whether some or all of these accusations are true, there is no question that this woman has to be at least somewhat disturbed, be it from crimes committed against her or by her very nature.  I believe all the accusations must be investigated and that any and all guilty parties must be held accountable.  That does not necessarily mean that any of the allegations are true.

Alan Dershowitz is our Jewish brother.  He is our American brother. While other high-profile Jews and Americans remained silent this past summer, Mr. Dershowitz spoke loudly in defense of Israel. Let’s not forget that the allegations against Israel were also mostly fabricated.  Why would it be so difficult to believe allegations against one of Israel’s most high-profile and intellectually capable defenders would be fabricated as well?  This is a man who has defended us loudly and proudly.  He deserves our support.  He’s earned it.

I have no problem with people jumping ship if the allegations are shown to be true, but unless that happens we owe it this man to not only treat him like family, but to treat him like family we have liked and respected.  That means the burden must fall on the accusers to prove his guilt, not on Mr. Dershowitz to prove his innocence.

We owe that to our brother.

 

LIKE THIS POST? SHARE IT ON FACEBOOK OR TWITTER

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

CLICK TO JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK


For the Ignorant and Complicit history only Started on July 8, 2014

Operation-Protective-Edge-square-564x400July 8, 2014 was the day Israel began Operation Protective Edge.  After countless missile attacks with no end in sight and the kidnapping and murder of 3 Yeshiva students by Hamas, Israel finally had enough.  It began with airstrikes and turned into a ground operation.  Once Israel discovered the terror tunnels, they were committed to staying in Gaza till each and every one was destroyed.  Over 2,000 people died during the operation, a large percentage of which were Palestinian civilians.  Awful.  Just awful.  Especially if the first day of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was July 8, 2014.

However, despite what Palestinian leadership, the Turkish President, Russell Brand, Bryan Adams and millions of Muslims everywhere want you to believe, this conflict did not begin this past July 8th.  If you are  to look at the events that took place from July 8, 2014 without going back further, you may see Israel as being a lopsided aggressor.  Even then you need to choose to ignore how Hamas uses its people as human shields.  If however you look at the months, years and decades leading up to this operation you see a completely different story.  The true story.

I could go back to 1929 and speak of the Hebron massacre when Jews were slaughtered by Muslims prior to any establishment of a Jewish state.  We could talk about how after the United Nations in 1948 partitioned land for the new Jewish State of Israel, of which the West Bank and Gaza was not included, and how all the surrounding Arab nations attacked it in am attempt to wipe out the Jews and finish Hitler’s work.  We could talk about how the West Bank belonged to Jordan but Jordan didn’t want it back because they didn’t want to deal with the residents.  We could also talk about how Egypt controlled Gaza and never wanted it back for the same reason or how Israel withdrew from Gaza and gave it every opportunity to develop into something special, but instead allowed Hamas to take over and drive it into the ground.

We could  talk about the civilians Israel killed while aiming at missile launchers or we could talk about the thousands of Israelis killed in terrorist attacks.  We could talk about a blockade or bombing of a hospital shielding Hamas missiles, or we could talk about how entire families were blown up in Pizza places and malls by people who were proud to kill as many Jews as possible.  I could go back to Yasser Arafat, the Godfather of terrorism and hijacked planes, murdered passengers and the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.  I could go back to 3 murdered Yeshiva boys.

But none of the matters if you want Israel to look like the aggressor, because when you do you only go back as far as July 8, 2014.  If you go back any further you might have to admit that Israel has every right to defend itself. Something it has always been forced to do and has become so good at doing it now gets criticized for it.  It’s the greatest lie of omission you will ever see.  It pretends nothing ever happened before July 8, 2014.  And too many people are believing it.

 

HOW TO BUY THE BOOK

CLICK TO JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

Follow Holland’s Heroes on Twitter @hollandsheroes

 


A Logical and Moral Response

aaron-david-miller-190Yesterday on CNN I watched an interview with Aaron David Miller.  Miller worked for the U.S. Department of State from 1978-2003 and was an adviser on Arab-Israeli relations under 6 different Secretaries of State.  He made a statement that I believe to be the most accurate assessment of what Israel is doing in Gaza and what can be used as an honest response to anyone who accuses Israel of brutality in the ongoing Operation.

He said the following, and I paraphrase: “Israel, without question, is not attempting to cause civilian casualties.  However, Israel is conducting this operation with a specific set of objectives, and their priority is not concern for Palestinian civilians, it is to accomplish these objectives.”

I believe this to be a fair assessment.  I will however elaborate on it somewhat. Israel’s objectives are to wipe out a terrorist organization guilty of killing both Israeli and Palestinian civilians, protect Israel’s civilians in the future, and to restore a peaceful life for all Israelis.  These objectives must be met, for if they are not, a lot more children will be killed in the future, and many of them will be Jewish.  It shows the moral right Israel has to carry out this mission, despite the tragic consequences we see today.

CLICK TO JOIN “THE GLOBAL COALITION FOR ISRAEL” ON FACEBOOK

Follow Holland’s Heroes on Twitter @hollandsheroes


What We Don’t do when Children Die

kids-three-fingers (1)Unlike the festivities that took place in the Arab world when the 3 Yeshiva Students were reported as kidnapped and subsequently murdered, there is no joy in the Jewish world over the deaths of 4 Palestinian children.  There are no Jewish children being put in front of a camera and told to hold up 4 fingers.  There is no social media blitz with a 4 fingered salute celebrating their deaths.  In fact, the Jewish way of thinking can be summed up with one finger, the pinky finger.

At the Passover Seder, the dinner celebrating the freeing of Jews from slavery in Egypt, when we recount the 10 plagues we dip out pinky finger into the wine and acknowledge the suffering of innocent Egyptians during each of the plagues.  Our respect is so great that we dip twice when we get to the last plague, the killing of the first-born.  The Egyptians were our oppressors and we were freed from this oppression.  We celebrate our freedom.  We thank God.  But at no time do we celebrate the death and suffering of Egyptians.  Next time you see a 3 fingered salute celebrating the death of innocent Jewish children take a moment to acknowledge a people who value life and despise murder, instead of the other way around.


Back when I was a Moderate…2 weeks ago

111Two weeks ago I would have been considered a moderate regarding the situation with Israel and the Palestinians.   I even held hope that the Palestinian Authority would do the right thing in response to what then was the kidnapping of the 3 Israeli teens.  However, like anyone else in life I have a breaking point. Mine was the moment it was clear that these 3 boys had not only been kidnapped, but murdered as well.  Having reached that breaking point I have come to following conclusions. Any person who does not believe Israel is in its rights to use any manner of force necessary, be it in Gaza, Judea or Samaria (aka ‘The West Bank’) falls into one of the following categories:

Non Jew: Ignorant; Gullible; Anti-Semitic

Jew: Ignorant; Naïve; Flat-out stupid; Self-hating

As a Jew, two weeks ago I fell into the naïve category.  That is a category with many different levels.  My naiveté was rooted in the belief and hope that a peaceful solution was possible.  I was a moderate.  The 3 murdered Israeli teens are 3 among thousands killed by terrorists, but somehow it was their murder that destroyed my moderate status as well.  Yes I questioned my moderation even then, but I was always open to the idea that there were enough people in power on their side who wanted peace more than they wanted the destruction of Israel to create an atmosphere of coexistence.   Sadly that is not the case.  As Golda Meir once said so eloquently, “Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”  It is with genuine pain that I say that day is further away from us than ever before.

First to the Non-Jewish people I make mention of, I say this.  I respect anyone whose genuine desire is a world of peace.  Even if you are ignorant to the truth or gullible as to the intentions of Israel’s Arab enemies, you may desperately cling to the hope that peace can break out.  I admire your motivation and appreciate your decency.  However, if you really take time to look at the situation you will come to the same tragic conclusion.  They do not want peace.  They want dead Jews.  If you can show me any concrete evidence to prove otherwise I would be happy to see it, but I truly do not believe that evidence exists.

If you are anti-Semitic I have nothing to say to you.  You live with hate in your heart and to make matters even worse, that hate is directed towards me and my family.  You therefore are nothing to me other than disgusting and potentially dangerous.

To the Jews in these categories I say this.  Please learn from the past.  The Nazis set out to kill every last Jew.  Not merely the Jew who opposed them, but even the Jew whose fear motivated them to work for them in concert in the hope that they would be spared.  They were all targets.  As we all are today.  The naïve amongst you who believe in a peaceful solution, are making the mistake I so genuinely understand.  You are applying rational thinking to irrational minds.  These are people who are taught that the greatest honor they can achieve in life is through death.  Not merely death, but death through murder and destruction.  I am sure those of you who are applying your rational standards do not for one second relate to that way of thinking, but if you analyze it honestly and without personal prejudice you may see the sad truth.

To the self-hating Jew, the one who chooses to be extra vocal about criticism of Jews when they do things wrong but are only half as vocal, at best, when Jews are attacked and murdered, I say this.  It is not just your fellow Jew you will bring suffering to, but to yourself as well.  You are a pawn on a chessboard of evil, and those who play chess know that the pawns are the most expendable.  My father, Rabbi Nardus Groen of Blessed Memory once wrote when referring back to his account of the Holocaust,  “We may in the course of it meet people who, for whatever it’s worth,may be portrayed as heroes, while others are cowards, pacifists, or activists.They are all the products of mankind. For them, there will always be a place under the sun (with the exception of the traitor).”   It is not my place to determine who are the cowards and pacifists and who are the traitors.  God will know what is in your heart and I trust will judge you accordingly.

One may make the argument that every day a moderate turns radical Hamas has gained another victory.  That may be true.  But it is safer to be a realistic radical than a delusional moderate.  Unfortunately I now believe those are the only two choices.


How the Oscars Helped Show the BDS Movement’s Lack of Credibility

Omar_poster_croppedBy now I know I was not alone in cringing when a film from Palestine was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Film category.  My personal discomfort wasn’t out of any objection that a film was made in the Palestinian territory, but rather for my immediate nervousness at the prospect of an acceptance speech.  When I thought about it further however, I was actually quite pleased by the nomination.  Not so much because I feel any personal investment in the growth of the Palestinian film industry, but rather because of the damage it does to the argument made by the BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) Movement.

The movement, one that has influenced wealthy corporations and high-profile entertainers to boycott Israel, pushes the agenda that Israel is an apartheid state where Palestinians are persecuted with no hope for any sort of future.  Along comes a movie, “Omar”, a movie that tells a story of a young Palestinian man accused of being an accomplice in the murder of an Israeli soldier.  In the movie the man is beaten by an Israeli interrogator and convinced to collaborate with Israeli intelligence.  Having not seen the movie I can not speak to how good or bad it makes the Israeli authorities look, but I do know that in an apartheid state a film of this sensitive nature would never have been made.  This movie was made in Nazareth, in what is territory ultimately under control of the Israeli government.  It is hard to imagine a film like this would even get off the ground in China or Russia if a filmmaker from one of those countries showed either of those governments in a similar light.  So when the nomination of this film was read out loud for the entire world to hear, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences was making the statement for those who needed to hear it that Israel is not only NOT an apartheid state, but a country where people can express themselves freely, be they Arab or Jew.

I don’t expect the anti-Semites who mold the BDS Movement to their agenda to be influenced by this at all, but I am hoping that the message was loud and clear to anyone out there who is objective and maybe not as educated to the reality of the situation.  For this I would like to thank the Academy.


The Solution Starts with the Media

media coverage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is one thing the majority of people opining since last week’s tragedy in Newtown, Ct., myself included  have in common, is that we have said a lot, spoken of what we like and don’t like about the current situation, and have offered no solution to the problem.  Part of this is due to the fact that many of the responses are emotional, so in essence the comments are reactions and expressions of how we feel, and since the tragedy caused so many to feel strong emotions, it is easy to understand why this is happening.  In this post however, I offer my solution, conceptually if nothing else.  Where does the solution lie?  It lies in the middle.

Let me start by saying something that may shock those who know me well.  My views have somewhat changed in the past week.  As a result of speaking with people, reading articles and posts, and watching news programs, I have moved somewhat away from my extreme view of wanting to ban guns from the common citizen.  I have spoken with some very good people who own guns.  The country does not become a better place by taking away their guns.  I have read posts on social media outlets and articles in news agencies from people who are not angry or hateful people, who feel owning a gun is important to them and give every indication of being thoughtful people who know that guns are dangerous if misused or unaccounted for.  The country does not get better by taking away their guns.  I watched Bill O’Reilly a few days ago, and was impressed by the insistence of a well-known Republican celebrity and gun owner admitting that there is a problem and that something needs to be done.  So now there is me, someone who has in the past made the statement that I question if the American people have lost their right to bear arms, thinking that the best answer may very well be one that allows people to continue to have that right.  However, they may need to make some sacrifices to help improve the chances that others don’t end up making the ultimate sacrifice.  I make no claim to know the technicalities of the current gun laws, but this post will not be dealing with technicalities, instead it will be dealing with a concept that I feel is critical to our civilizations survival.

I came up with my “solution” after going through a thought process brought on by a combination of factors.  One factor was the attempt by lunatic organizations and the Iranian government to somehow connect Jews and even Israeli military to the shootings in Newton, Ct.  It’s so insane that it’s gotten very little play outside the inner circles of those who fabricated the stories, but enough that many of us have heard it.

The next thing I considered was the situation between Israel, the Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world.  All reports indicate that tensions are now rising in the West Bank and that radical organizations are trying to get another Intifada started.  The key and extremely important word there is “radical”.

I also read about those so-called religious leaders and organizations that blame the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary on the lack of God in the school and in our society, implying, sometimes saying outright that it is our behavior as people going away from God that caused this and other tragedies to happen, even those not caused by man directly, such as Hurricane Sandy.

The final thing that helped me come to my conclusion was the frustration of a good friend who, after looking at many of these issues, concluded that there appears to be no way to solve any of them.  This was coming from an otherwise positive individual who was feeling tremendous frustration at the apparent futility of any of the answers provided by anyone out there with any influence.

So what is the answer?  The answer lies in marginalizing extremists.  Over the past week I have seen a very clear distinction, on both sides of the political spectrum, between those who attack policy and those who attack people.  Those who without provocation attack the people who do not agree with them are always extremists in one way or another, while those who attack the issues are sometimes extremists, often not extremists, and generally not the problem.  Although I believe that the influence by their leadership has caused a large percentage of Muslims to at best dislike Jews and Israel and be people who would not mourn the loss of Jewish life, I absolutely believe that the majority do not want to murder anyone, including Jews.  I am confident that the majority of gun enthusiasts find making America a safer place to live just as important an issue as those who push for stricter gun laws.  In fact, it needs to be said, in fairness, that many gun owners feel this way because they in fact do not feel safe without one.  This means that although stricter gun laws may be important, they need to go hand in hand with finding ways to make citizens feel safer.

So how do we go about marginalizing extremists?  We call on, actually we demand help from the media.  The Mayans may or not be correct about the date, but unless we do something dramatic, they have a really good chance at being correct about the outcome.  Except at this rate the world is headed more towards catastrophic implosions than cosmic explosions.   Here is my call to the media and why I feel the answer lies in the major media outlets working together.  Most people hold views that fall in a safe zone somewhere between the far right and the far left.  By safe zone I mean a place where even if they are clearly Liberal or clearly Conservative, they are not dangerous people.  I also believe that even if a network like FOX News has a Conservative agenda, and MSNBC has a Liberal agenda, they both agree on the issues that have the greatest impact on our survival.  Neither advocates terrorist activity, mass murder, or outright bigotry.  These networks have enormous influence worldwide, and if they took it on themselves to work together in discussing the issues they do agree on, they might be able to impact society towards a middle of the road mentality.  In fact I feel that on a daily basis the major networks should coordinate a simulcast for at least one hour where they discuss the issues they agree upon regarding our safety, health, and basic ethics, and leave the harsher philosophical battles for the rest of the day.   Imagine Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and Bill O’Reilly on the same broadcast, shown on all 3 of these networks discussing the heroics of the schoolteachers of Sandy Hook, Ct., or condemning terrorist who blow up buses or kill dozens in roadside bombings.  They can discuss their feelings on the specifics of gun control laws on any other broadcast, but if they got together for one hour a day and spoke of ways to improve mental health or identify potential murderers, imagine the good they could do.

There has been much talk this past week on the need of our society to change its mindset.  I believe everyone agrees with this in one way or another.  However, with all the time being wasted on blaming the extremists on both sides, we may be missing out on a great opportunity to begin the shift towards a more civilized world.   I don’t lay the blame on the media, but I do think that it has an unprecedented opportunity and responsibility to marginalize the radicals and extremists who either are only concerned about their own personal or agenda or are so far gone they no longer care about anything important.


Being Objective in the Face of Hypocrisy

Occasionally when watching reports on the events in the Middle East I make an attempt at being objective.  As a Jewish man, I feel anger any time I perceive Jews as being indiscriminately attacked.  It is never pleasant to see any innocent people being hurt, but human nature is that we often feel most passionately when the attack is on one of our own.  Be that as it may, I made every conscious effort to listen objectively to both Mark Regev and Hanan Ashrawi on CNN earlier today.

Mark Regev, an Israeli government spokesman, naturally was on to portray the Israeli side of the conflict.  He explained how the importance of this mission is not only to stop the missiles now, but to allow the southern borders of Israel to live in peace and security in the future.  The subject of the “occupation” (not objective quotation marks) never was broached with him as the discussion was entirely about the direction the conflict could go and how to stop the missiles from flying.  He made one very important point.  Israel has a large Arab population and there is absolutely no way of knowing that these missiles will not injure or kill Arabs and Palestinians, the one group Hamas claims to be fighting for.  I am still trying to be objective but as I was listening to Regev speak, I found it increasingly difficult to understand how any sane person would argue with anything he was saying.  But then again throughout the ages sanity has never been in the forefront when it comes to assaults on Jewish populations.  Objectively speaking.

I then listened to Hanan Ashrawi, who as everyone knows only tells the Palestinian side of the story. I have no problem with her doing this since after all, that’s her job, but after being painted into a corner by CNN’s Gary Tuchman, Ashrawi, as intelligent as she may be, in my estimation unwillingly displayed her approval of violence.  Tuchman asked her what she expected Israel to do after being victim to hundreds of missile attacks from Gaza throughout the year.  He drew the comparison to Florida being attacked by Mexico and rightfully so, said that the citizens of the United States would demand retaliation and that the President would almost certainly oblige his citizenry.  Her response was to speak of what she sees as the underlying problem, which in her estimation is the “occupation”.  At this point I put on my Mr. Objective hat and decided to consider the “occupation” the real issue here.  But when Tuchman continued to push her on what Israel should do about the missiles, she replied something along the lines of, “go back to the negotiating table.”   At this point, if my imaginary hat was real, I would have taken it off, lit a fire somewhere, and burnt it to ashes.

Ashrawi, who is supposed to be one of the intelligent voices of the Palestinian world, basically revealed the worldwide philosophy among Arab and Muslim leadership today.  This philosophy is violently attack until the people you are trying to defeat know that it only stops if you adhere to their demands.  Throw missiles at Israel until you get what you want and then cry to the world about how Israel is killing your people without restraint.  Well let’s examine that as well.  40 people have been killed in airstrikes in Gaza since Wednesday.  That is 4 days of Israeli attacks “without restraint”.  It doesn’t take a genius, or even someone objective to realize that if there were 4 days of unrestrained attacks there would be a lot more than 40 deaths.  In fact, the reason the number is not larger is because these attacks are focused on what is believed to be terrorist hideouts or bases of operations.  When the Arab League gets together to discuss this do they also talk about the 17 civilians, many women and children killed the other day by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan?  These people were part of a wedding party and were killed by a bomb placed by the Taliban, an organization like Hamas in its methods and intent.  In October, 19 civilians were killed by a roadside bomb.  Between these 2 bombings alone 36 civilians were killed.  When you factor in the fact that the Israeli attacks are targeted and have killed Hamas operatives, it is pretty safe to say that more innocent people were murdered in 2 roadside bombs planted by the Taliban, a Hamas ally, than by the “unrestrained” attacks by Israel on Gaza.

I have heard a few Palestinian spokespersons say that Israel should allow free movement in and out of Gaza.  I have a simple response to that.  Israel is currently being attacked by Fajr 5 missiles.  These missiles are being supplied to Hamas by Iran, the nation that has publicly stated its desire to destroy Israel.  With Iran in the process of attempting to construct a nuclear arsenal, and Hamas in alliance with Iran, allowing free access to Gaza would be the equivalent of cutting oneself and walking into shark infested waters.  At this point it would be so easy you almost can’t even blame the shark anymore.

As someone who appreciates objectivity and hates violence, I welcome the true voices of honor and decency.  But both objectivity and peace by definition can’t be one-sided.  I am sure Hanan Ashrawi, a woman with multiple degrees in literacy is aware of this, but admitting this would be breaking from the strategy of force over reason and would put her in a position to do something not very politically expedient for her, which is be at peace with Israel.