Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New leftist cheers on baby-killer
Front Page Magazine ^ | 10-14-03 | Davis Horowitz

Posted on 10/14/2003 10:44:02 PM PDT by ambrose

New leftist cheers on baby-killer - Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:38 PM
Print this entryPrintable    Send a comment to DavidComments

In a column which shows that there is apparently no depth to which a leftist will not sink in the name of her progressive ideals, Ruth Rosen, a professor at UC Davis, celebrates baby-killer Hanadi Jaradat, a suicide bomber who killed twenty people in a restaurant in Haifa last week. In fact this monster  -- fully conscious of the targets she had picked -- murdered three generations of two  entire families including children aged eleven years, four years and fourteen months because they were Jews. Or because they were with Jews -- five Arab Christians were among the dead. But while Rosen is critical of the crime, she thinks the criminal is some kind of Palestinian heroine, someone to understand and sympathize with because her act is what inevitably happens "when despair triumphs over hope."

In fact Hanadi Jadarat hailed from a family of terrorists. Her two brothers had earlier killed several families themselves -- also men, women and children and also because they were Jews. Ruth Rosen herself is a Jew but in the same way she is a human being -- in name only. Like all those who celebrate murder in the name of revolution Rosen long ago traded her humanity for a totalitarian creed.

In Rosen's entire column, which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, she never once stopped to consider or even mention the victims of the demented Hanadi Jaradat. Rosen claims the patriomony of her own ancestors -- Jews who were incinerated by people like Jaradat -- and ascribes Jaradat's motive to despair. It is not even personal despair that is supposed to excuse this crime against humanity, since Jaradat is a lawyer and comes from a prosperous family. It is communal despair.

This is arrant nonsense, which only an intellectual could believe. In their 2,000 year diaspora the Jews had plenty to despair about, including the Holocaust. But they never thought to murder innocent men, women and children -- Romans, Germans, Christians -- because their governments and churches had persecuted Jews, had denied them their homeland and had burned them at the stake. Only a sick culture -- sick in the way the Third Reich was sick -- could justify the murder of innocents for a political grievance.

Hanadi Jaradat was a sick woman, but her dementia was not personal. It was religious and societal. A Muslim terrorist, Jaradat belonged to Palestine Islamic Jihad an organization that has killed more than a hundred Jewish men women and children as part of a genocidal program to rid the earth of infidels in general and Israel and Jews in particular.

Naturally, the leader of Islamic Jihad is also a professor, Sami al-Arian, late of the University of South Florida,  currently in federal custody. Al-Arian, Jaradat and her suicide-bombing brethren, are great favorites of American leftists like Rosen. During the Vietnam War, these leftists had a slogan: "Bring the War Home." It's only a matter of time before some so-called progressives with brains no bigger than  Rosen's and morals equally missing will make that slogan a reality.

 

Anyone wishing to give Rosen a piece of their mind can reach her here: rrosen@sfchronicle.com

 



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: davidhorowitz; hanadijaradat; uc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

1 posted on 10/14/2003 10:44:02 PM PDT by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: yonif; dennisw
ping
2 posted on 10/14/2003 10:44:17 PM PDT by ambrose (Free Tommy Chong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
SHOW YOUR PRIDE! SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


3 posted on 10/14/2003 10:49:24 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
She would have the innocent pay for the crimes of the guilty.
4 posted on 10/14/2003 11:02:00 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I don't agree with the author of the original article, but I think Horowitz totally misrepresents her. Rather than present an argument, he just attacks the author, and he manages to misquote her as well. Its 'despair trumps hope' not 'despair triumphing over hope'.

The author neither cheers the suicide bomber on, or celebrates her. Contrary to what Horowitz says, she nevers call for us to 'sympathize' with the bomber. I suppose Horowitz believes we shouldn't try to understand the motivation of these people, even if it helps up prevent other atrocities in the future.

Horowitz is a demagogue masquerading as a deep thinker.

5 posted on 10/15/2003 12:00:07 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
thanks for the ping
6 posted on 10/15/2003 12:04:56 AM PDT by yonif ("If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem, Let My Right Hand Wither" - Psalms 137:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
I suppose Horowitz believes we shouldn't try to understand the motivation of these people

Oh, c'mon.
Should Horowitz undergo sensitivity training?
Enough already.
These people kill because they are murderous cuttthroats.
They need to be dealt with and annihilated.

7 posted on 10/15/2003 12:07:00 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Understaning their motives and being sensitive to their motives are two very different things. In her article, the author looked at a phenomenon (suicide bombings), made a hypothesis as to the cause (despair), and came up with a solition (giving them hope.) While I disagree with the author, I don't think that it is 'sensitivity training' to try to get into their heads, if only for the practical reason that that is the best way to stop them.
8 posted on 10/15/2003 12:36:02 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaiwen
While I disagree with the author, I don't think that it is 'sensitivity training' to try to get into their heads, if only for the practical reason that that is the best way to stop them.

Baloney.

10 posted on 10/15/2003 12:55:50 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
You're right. We should just give up trying to understand them, how they think, what they''re motivations are, and just continue to slam our head against the wall until the problem solves itself.
11 posted on 10/15/2003 1:08:51 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
they''re = their
12 posted on 10/15/2003 1:10:26 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
We should just give up trying to understand them, how they think, what they''re motivations are, and just continue to slam our head against the wall until the problem solves itself.

Wrong.
The problem will not solve itself.
There needs to be resolve to stand unflinchingly in the face of terror - and annihilate it completely.
Somehow, I cannot imagine Winston Churchill saying we need to be more understanding of Herr Hitler and his minions.

13 posted on 10/15/2003 1:18:17 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All
A couple of you here validate Leftist rants, you know that?

I'm all for waging the War on Terror. I don't think we owe those that would employ Osama's methods a second's thought. But there are people who live there who don't resort to those methods - and it's clear you wouldn't care less about their opinions either. Probably because they have the same "Baal-worshiping ancestors".

Unfortunately, you "crush their skulls to powder and suck the marrow from their bones" guys aren't right-wing, no more than Hitler or the Klu Klux Klan were right-wing. But we have to deal with having to defend quotes made by you guys. Thanks tons.

Qwinn
14 posted on 10/15/2003 1:18:48 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
I don't think that it is 'sensitivity training' to try to get into their heads, if only for the practical reason that that is the best way to stop them.

Depends on what it is that we try to get into the terrorists' heads. A bullet would work nicely.

15 posted on 10/15/2003 1:22:09 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Wrong.

The problem will not solve itself.

Re-read my post. It was sarcastic.

There needs to be resolve to stand unflinchingly in the face of terror - and annihilate it completely.

In WWII, we annihilated the German ability to wage war. We did not annihilate the Germans.

Somehow, I cannot imagine Winston Churchill saying we need to be more understanding of Herr Hitler and his minions.

So I guess I was wrong in believing that the OSS spent a huge amount of time and resources during WWII studying the Nazi movement and composing phychological profiles of its members and the German public.

16 posted on 10/15/2003 1:29:58 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Actually... having read the original article and then Horowitz's again... I take at least part of what I said back.

He's actually raising enough good points that I don't think he hits "demagogue" status here. While I STILL don't like the gnashing-teeth bloodlust of some of the posters here, he makes a good case that other societies in their same position do -not- resort to these tactics, and have had far more reason to.

Now, I don't think it has a DAMN thing to do with who their ancestors worshipped, and I -do- care about innocents caught in the crossfire - but in the original article, she IS -actively defending- this woman who killed many. She deserves no sympathy, not even a little. The victims deserve the sympathy, and Horowitz's diatribe against the author for failing to notice them, or the bomber's part of a terrorist family, is right on.

I wanted to agree with you at first... but after reading the original poster's article more carefully, it's clear it's Leftist pity-our-hired-killers-they're-just-victims propaganda. Big time.

Qwinn
17 posted on 10/15/2003 1:31:33 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
After re-reading your post, I think you misunderstand the point I am making. I am not calling for us to be more understanding of suicide bombers. I'm calling for more understanding of suicide bombers. Can you see the difference?
18 posted on 10/15/2003 1:34:43 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
So, what exactly do you find disagreeable about Horowitz's analysis of this terrorist sympathizing puke leftist professor?
And don't just come back with ad hominem digs.
19 posted on 10/15/2003 1:40:11 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
I never said I agreed with the author. In fact, I disagree with her completely on many issues she raises. My original point was that the article in no way celebrates the suicide bomber in question.

IMO, the author's argument, that despair causes suicide bombers, is a valid arguement that merits discussion, even though I think that it is woefully naive and wrong. To state that there are reasons for a persons actions, as the author does, and to defend that person are not the same thing. For example, a dissertation on the reasons behind Hitler's rise to power is not the same as defending the German people who voted him in.

I think that Horowitz, though he does sometimes raise good points, is as much a demagogue as those on the left. Neither side wants an honest evaluation of certain actions because they are afraid that it will make their pet cause, be it Israel or the Palestinians, look bad.

20 posted on 10/15/2003 1:43:36 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
The fact that he throws around statements like "cheers on baby-killer" and "celebrates" the suicide bomber, when she does nothing of the kind in the article. That he mischaracterizes her position as 'we should be more sympathetic to suicide bombers', when what she is saying is that their actions are caused by a certain factor, despair, and that removing this factor we could stop the suicide bombings. As I have said, I think her analysis is naive, but it is nowhere near "cheer[ing] on [a] baby-killer".

And as for ad hominem attacks, try reading Horowitz's article for some good ones.

21 posted on 10/15/2003 1:51:32 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Neither side wants an honest evaluation of certain actions because they are afraid that it will make their pet cause, be it Israel or the Palestinians, look bad.

Oops!
Your moral relativism is showing.
What, exactly, is Israel doing that is so "bad"?

22 posted on 10/15/2003 2:02:19 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
I might agree with you more, if it was not for the part that the author explicitly lays at least equal blame on the Israelis for their military response to this action. That's ridiculous.

What solution would satisfy Arafat and his cronies beyond pushing Israel into the sea? Maps in Palestine aren't showing a two-state solution, no - they show the entire area known as Israel as "Palestine".

The deal offered to them in the road map was -plenty- fair. Even if the Palestinians weren't thrilled with it, they could've taken 99% of the loaf and bargained for the other 1% later. The way they responded simply -sucked-.

I think it's hypocritical for us to believe that we were injured enough by Iraq to go and bomb the hell out of them, but the Israelis can't retaliate when they're bombed. Frankly, they've lost a much higher percentage of their population than we did on 9/11, and they've got a WHOLE lot better idea exactly where those responsible for the attacks on them are.

The Israeli response could have been MUCH more final over the last 5 decades - and they haven't. What gets derisively called "settlements" and the sympathy we ought to feel for Palestinians have to endure for their existence, we would call "segregation" anywhere else. Where else is a Jew not allowed to move? If you moved just across the border to Mexico, would you feel that the Mexicans were justified in feeling "despair" at your presence enough to throw suicide bombers at people back in the States just to get you out of there? When whole families came to New York from, say, Italy to set up shop, did we start lobbing bombs at Italy for them setting up settelments here?

1967 showed that if Israel wanted to, they could simply expel every last Palestinian right up to the 1967 border, claim ALL the land for themselves. But we tell them they can't even build a wall to keep them out.

I have no problem with Israel taking measures to defend themselves, just as we are. I don't think they should do it with bloodlust, and yes, there are times that I think they could have been more careful in avoiding civilian casualties. But after all the years they've had to endure of being bombed by these people for having the patience of -not- steamrolling over them, I'm getting to the point where I can't blame them either.

The Palestinian terrorists simply want every Israeli dead. If you want to understand them - well, that pretty much DOES sum it up. That's at least how Horowitz feels, and given the history, I can't tell him he's wrong. Given that, I can't find any fault in the tone of his article.

Qwinn
23 posted on 10/15/2003 2:02:46 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
The Palestinian terrorists simply want every Israeli dead. If you want to understand them - well, that pretty much DOES sum it up.

It does indeed.

24 posted on 10/15/2003 2:13:31 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
What, exactly, is Israel doing that is so "bad"?

My morals are far from relative. What is 'bad' is the fact that the policies of the Israeli gov't have not made Israeli citizens any safer. In that sense, they are bad, and have failed. No military solution will be able to solve the problem. Kill all of the Palestinians, and you'll have Egyptians and Jordians blowing themselves up in Tel Aviv. Expell all of the Palestinians, and they'll just have to walk farther to blow themselves up. Build a wall, and as long as there is still a will, there will be a way to get around it.

I don't know the solution, but I can see that Israel's current ones aren't working. Instead of admitting this, people like Horowitz just assume that the Palestinians are somehow genetically pre-disposed to terrorism, and push for the same failed policies.

25 posted on 10/15/2003 2:23:11 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Thank you for the long and thought out answer. Unfortunately, its time for me to get off work and go buy dinner. (I'm on the other side of the globe from you all.)

If I have time tonight, I'll try to respond to your post.

26 posted on 10/15/2003 2:25:47 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: skull stomper
Uh, did you even read any of my posts in this thread after the first?

I'm fully in support of Israel's military action against terrorists. And if that means they use superior force of arms, so be it.

But I don't -like- it. It doesn't make me feel superior. And I don't make huge racist statements condemning them for the religion of their -ancestors-, ferchrissakes! That seems, spectacularly, even more racist than just calling every last Arab on the planet a "mad dog" and getting it over with.

I mean, look at your tag-line for God's sake!

Read my last response in this thread. It's pretty clear I have no intention of "kissing & cuddling", and it's pretty damn clear which "side" I'm on. But you are practically foaming at the mouth, and that's a characteristic of... what? Oh. Yes. Mad Dogs.

Just because I may agree that too many Palestinians -are- behaving like mad dogs doesn't mean -I- have to... and it doesn't mean I have to think they have a monopoly on all the mad dogs in the world. Given the nature of your tag line and first post... I'm pretty positive they don't.

Let me guess - I'm betting you think rebuilding Iraq is a waste of time, too, right? Should've just gotten rid of Saddam and left? After all, they're all hopeless anyway.

No, you're the type of fanatic that gives conservatives a bad name. As if we don't have enough problems with liberals throwing out the 'racist' label whenever we ask order coffee without milk, we have to have real racists on our side to back them up.

Do me a favor - don't be on my side. Okay?

Qwinn
28 posted on 10/15/2003 2:53:59 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Well I understood her motivation. She wished to murder a lot of innocent Jews, and she succeeded. Throw away your Chomsky and pull your head out the sand. The Palies problems have nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with their own sick, twisted culture of death. Quit defending homicidal maniacs. Horowitz is right on the mark.
29 posted on 10/15/2003 2:58:08 AM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
bttttttttttttt


A curse on these killers and their families if their families support them, and most seem to.
30 posted on 10/15/2003 3:00:31 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen; SJackson
The author neither cheers the suicide bomber on, or celebrates her. Contrary to what Horowitz says, she nevers call for us to 'sympathize' with the bomber.

You are dead ass wrong. The entire article sympathizes with the Paleostinians and their suicide bombers. Justifies their suicide bombers. She does this cleverly and indirectly because this column would never get to appear in the San Farn Chronicle if she directly praised/justified suicide bombers.

There is no critique of the Paleostinians here. Just dumping on Israel by a cheap Jewish traitor who uses her Jewishness to help the Jihad

31 posted on 10/15/2003 3:08:57 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Horowitz is a demagogue masquerading as a deep thinker.

Why? Because you say so? You don't even know how to read well enough see what the author's message is. That suicide bombers and other Paleostinians psychos are justified in killing Jews. Are you one of those ultra naive people who thinks that peace would come if only Israel would end "the occupation"?

32 posted on 10/15/2003 3:13:51 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: driftless
You are correct.
33 posted on 10/15/2003 3:14:42 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaiwen
Instead of admitting this, people like Horowitz just assume that the Palestinians are somehow genetically pre-disposed to terrorism, and push for the same failed policies.

Islam was preprogrammed for terrorism and Jihad by Muhammad the assassin and murderer. Muhammad the thief, the robber of caravans. Muhammad the pedophile prophet. And you should darn well know this given that your freeper home page makes references to interest in Islamic and Buddhist writings

Terrorism advocated in Koran:
Surah 8:60 says, "Against them (unbelievers) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.  Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly."  Strike terror into your enemies?  Does this sound familiar?

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Zirl-rPZOfcJ:www.tysknews.com/Depts/terrorism/muslims_terrorists.htm+koran+strike+terror&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

35 posted on 10/15/2003 3:26:45 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Okay, I'm back. Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your civility. Its sad that so few people seem able to discuss this issue without foaming at the mouth.

I might agree with you more, if it was not for the part that the author explicitly lays at least equal blame on the Israelis for their military response to this action. That's ridiculous.

I don't see how its ridiculous to say that the occupation is part of the cause of suicide bombings. Terrorism existed before the occupation, but suicide bombing didn't, even though the technology was available--which makes me think that there is some sort of relationship, if not actually causal.

What solution would satisfy Arafat and his cronies beyond pushing Israel into the sea? Maps in Palestine aren't showing a two-state solution, no - they show the entire area known as Israel as "Palestine".

The deal offered to them in the road map was -plenty- fair. Even if the Palestinians weren't thrilled with it, they could've taken 99% of the loaf and bargained for the other 1% later. The way they responded simply -sucked-.

No argument there. Whether or not the deal was fair was one thing, but they certainly shouldn't have walked away from the table. It was probably the best deal they'll ever get, now. The sooner Arafat is no longer in power, the better. The Palestinians have been cursed with horrible leadership, which makes any sort of peaceful solution impossible.

I think it's hypocritical for us to believe that we were injured enough by Iraq to go and bomb the hell out of them, but the Israelis can't retaliate when they're bombed. Frankly, they've lost a much higher percentage of their population than we did on 9/11, and they've got a WHOLE lot better idea exactly where those responsible for the attacks on them are.

Considering my opposition against the war in Iraq, I'll have to disagree. (And no, I'm neither a liberal nor a peacenik. I just don't think the benefit to our national interest will outweight the cost in men and money.)

The Israeli response could have been MUCH more final over the last 5 decades - and they haven't. What gets derisively called "settlements" and the sympathy we ought to feel for Palestinians have to endure for their existence, we would call "segregation" anywhere else. Where else is a Jew not allowed to move? If you moved just across the border to Mexico, would you feel that the Mexicans were justified in feeling "despair" at your presence enough to throw suicide bombers at people back in the States just to get you out of there? When whole families came to New York from, say, Italy to set up shop, did we start lobbing bombs at Italy for them setting up settelments here?

I don't know enough about the settlements to really comment too much. But I do not believe the freedom of a small number of settlers to live in the territories is worth the sacrifice of the safety of the rest of the Israeli population.

1967 showed that if Israel wanted to, they could simply expel every last Palestinian right up to the 1967 border, claim ALL the land for themselves. But we tell them they can't even build a wall to keep them out.

They could have, but where would it have gotten them? They would still be under attack, just as they would be if they expelled all the Palestinians right now. As I said earlier, the suicide bombers would just have to walk farther.

I have no problem with Israel taking measures to defend themselves, just as we are. I don't think they should do it with bloodlust, and yes, there are times that I think they could have been more careful in avoiding civilian casualties. But after all the years they've had to endure of being bombed by these people for having the patience of -not- steamrolling over them, I'm getting to the point where I can't blame them either.

I agree. I'm not accusing the Israelis of bloodlust, or being murderers, or anything else. I just think that their policies on the Palestinians are counter-productive.

The Palestinian terrorists simply want every Israeli dead. If you want to understand them - well, that pretty much DOES sum it up. That's at least how Horowitz feels, and given the history, I can't tell him he's wrong. Given that, I can't find any fault in the tone of his article.

The Palestinian terrorists who want the Israelis dead didn't just drop out of the sky. If we want to drain the swamp, we need to learn what turns them into terrorists. Horowitz's tone is that any attempt to understand them is somehow sympathizing with them. That's what I disagree with.

36 posted on 10/15/2003 4:21:04 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
There is no critique of the Paleostinians here. Just dumping on Israel by a cheap Jewish traitor who uses her Jewishness to help the Jihad.

Yes, I'm sure her hidden motive is the destruction of Israel. Isn't that what everyone who disagrees with the Likud party line really think?

And as she's not an Israeli, she can't be a traitor, unless you mean a race traitor.

Why? Because you say so? You don't even know how to read well enough see what the author's message is. That suicide bombers and other Paleostinians psychos are justified in killing Jews. Are you one of those ultra naive people who thinks that peace would come if only Israel would end "the occupation"?

It seems like you have a problem with the differentiation between understanding their reasons and justifying them. The author attempts (and in my opinion, fails) to do the former. She does not do the latter. Saying that people have reasons for how they act is not the same as saying they are reasonable or justified.

As for ending the occupation, what's the other option? Expelling them? That won't end anything. Killing them all? Aside from impossible, it wouldn't solve anything either--you'd just incite suicide bombers from the Palestinian populations in other countries.

So what would I do? Unilaterally withdraw from the territories, dismanlting all settlements. Finish the wall--it probably won't be very effective, but I suppose its better than nothing. Is that fair for the settlers? No. But the point isn't fairness, the point is Israel's security. The occupation, in addition to crippling the economy, is a huge drain on military budgets and training. Knocking out the terrorist infrastructure piece by piece won't do a thing if there is an unlimited pool of recruits to draw from.

With the settlements dismantled, the roadblocks pulled up, the terrorism most likely wouldn't end, but I believe that it would be reduced. It would also remove the biggest bloody shirt the Palestinians have in terms of world opinion.

If Israel doesn't end the occupation, its options are limited. It can expell the Palestinians, which wouldn't solve anything, and most likely make things much worse. It could grant them citizenship, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Or it can continue what its doing now, letting the Palestinians bleed them to death, cripple the economy, and make them a pariah in the world community.

37 posted on 10/15/2003 4:51:48 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
"And no, I'm neither a liberal nor a peacenik. I just don't think the benefit to our national interest will outweight the cost in men and money."

Would you feel that it was worth it if we'd lost 40,000 to terrorist attacks in the last couple of years, as opposed to just the 3,000 from 9/11?

Cause, as a percentage of population and since the Second Intifada began, the Israelis suffered the equivalent of about 40,000 dead in our country as of several months ago. No idea what it's up to now.

Even if you don't think Iraq was worth it, hopefully you think it was at least somewhat a close call. Multiply our dead on the home front due to terrorism by a factor of 15-20... you'd still be opposed? And when it was ongoing, a fwe hundred more here and there every few weeks, rather than all at once like 9/11 was?

Even if Iraq wasn't worth it for the U.S., it's hard to tell the Israelis that in our judgment it's not worth it to them. If I were in their shoes, I would most -definetly- be supporting military action.

And btw - I know you say you're not a peacenik - but you ARE arguing that "violence never solves anything", which sounds somewhat familiar.

Me, I don't think violence ever solved anything either - well, except slavery, fascism, genocide, communism and tyranny.

The Islamists don't respect weakness. They respect strength. If Israel said "Enough!", pushed out to the '67 borders, said "This is over NOW! The borders of Israel are -here- and here they will remain for all time. One bombing and we throw a small tactical device at Damascus. We kid you not.".... and then they built a big wall around that border? Ya know what? I think the problems would be over. Is it maybe too big a risk for them to take? Yeah. For now. Let 'em try to get 'em one by one a while longer, especially since we're taking 'em down now too in Iraq.

But contrary to myth, there -isn't- an endless supply of terrorists, and eventually they'll run out of money and/or just give up trying. And someday, when Iraq is prosperous and free, the neighbors will start thinking about the propaganda they've been fed all their lives and wonder if maybe their own leaders, and not Israel and the U.S., have been the problem all along.

BTW - how can you not think the payoff on Iraq has been worth it, when just yesterday they began the process of holding democratic elections in Saudi Arabia? Think that didn't have anything to do with Iraq? I disagree if so. It had everything to do with Iraq.

Qwinn
38 posted on 10/15/2003 5:01:22 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
My brief answer is you are in dreamland. You are completely naive about Jihad and the Jihad against Israel. It will never end. You have no solutions except surrender to Jihad to make it easier for Islam to conquer and destroy. Sure, give them the West Bank so they can establish a terrorist base there. Why don't you go tell India to cave into Muslim Jihad too?

My prediction is Islam is headed for a major smackdown with Mecca/Medina being obliterated instead of Israel. Israel should never cave into these scum. Israel should kill and destroy them instead.

39 posted on 10/15/2003 5:11:41 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
If Israel doesn't end the occupation

What are the Israelis "occupying"? Former Palestinian lands? Nope. The Gaza Strip is a former part of Egypt. The West Bank is a former part of Jordan. Why is there a problem among Palestinians with Israel occupying Jordan and Egypt? Would Jordan and Egypt have been willing to give up their territory for a Palestinian homeland if the Israeli Army wasn't sitting on it? Of course not! And if Israel were to give the Palestinians all that they want without question, if they were to grant the wishes and hopes of an unfettered rule and even give the entire city of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, would that be enough? No.

The terrorists that live and operate in the occupied territories have only hate to feed them, and only hate to sow. They cannot be understood by anyone with a sense of mercy or humanity, for they reject all traces of anything that does not reflect their hate.

You kill the rabid dog, not try to get it to sit and stay. And you kill whatever other animals it has been in close contact with. And you keep killing until you know that any animal left alive is not infected. That is how you save your children and secure your peace.

BTW, as I am sure you are well aware, there are plenty of Arabs who are Israeli citizens. There are even Arabs who sit in Parliment. How many Jews sit in places of authority in any of her neighbors? I forget, it's Israel who is on trial here. And her accusers are her Judge, Jury, and wannabe Executioner.

40 posted on 10/15/2003 5:14:10 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Qwinn the Eskimo >>> Well said!
41 posted on 10/15/2003 5:16:13 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Yes, I'm sure her hidden motive is the destruction of Israel. Isn't that what everyone who disagrees with the Likud party line really think?

Get the Likud out of your mind and start thinking about Jihad. Jihad is the enemy of the world, not the Likud party of Israel, a small nation of 6 million. Silly leftist always refer to Ariel Sharon and Likud while never mentioning the Islamic Jihadists who fight and terrorize across the world. Not just in Israel. Islam is a world wide menace. Not the Likud party.

42 posted on 10/15/2003 5:21:34 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
I won't reply to all your points individually, because I think we're retreading the same ground. But I will clear up a few things:

Nope, I don't think Iraq was a close call, and I think that we'll end up there for too long, for too little. We can't make them democratic. Even if we did, they'd just vote themselves another Iran.

I'm not a pacifist. Violence can certainly solve problems, as it did in WWII against Germany and Japan. But in terms of Israel, I don't see how violence will solve their problem. It didn't in 67 or 73. It didn't in Lebanon. Violence may bring them peace with the other Arab gov'ts, but it won't work with the Palestinians. The last 30+ years and two Intifadas show that. Of course, this goes for the Palestinians, too. They'll never get what they want through terrorism, but they're too stupid and stubborn to realise that.

And if Israel threatened Damascus, do you think the Palestinians would care? Most of them hate the other Arab gov'ts. They'd probably love to see Assad go. True, it would help to reign in Hezbollah, and might cut some of the funding to Hamas and IJ, but the problem would still be there--what the hell are they gonna do with all these Palestinians?

43 posted on 10/15/2003 5:31:12 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Or it can continue what its doing now, letting the Palestinians bleed them to death, cripple the economy, and make them a pariah in the world community.

Sounds good to me - this death cult homicidal people to bring it on themselves.

44 posted on 10/15/2003 5:32:34 AM PDT by Colosis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
That's fine--we obviously disagree, and I doubt I'll convince you, or vice versa. Still, thanks for the conversation.

As for nuking Mecca, well, we'll see. If it gets to that, the world is pretty much FUBAR and in for another Dark Ages, anyway. If we survive, that is--Israel better make damn sure that it keeps the nukes out of the hand of any of its neighbors. And pray that Pakistan doesn't fall to a coup.

45 posted on 10/15/2003 5:36:18 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
"We can't make them democratic. Even if we did, they'd just vote themselves another Iran."

*sigh* Look, this is a fine conversation and all, and you seem like a nice person, and I hate to say this, but your entire thesis seems to be based on 100% pure pessimism. They can't win militarily (even though they've never really tried - all they've done on a serious military level has been repelling attacks, never on a real offensive to my knowledge), walls won't work (tho it hasn't been tried fully yet), expulsion won't work (tho it hasn't been tried), Iraq can't be democratized (working on it, with to me -astonishingly- fast progress), given the chance they'll ELECT to be ruled by despots, etc. etc. etc. The only solution is to surrender.

Forgive me, but... are you French?

On my worst days I can't get as pessimistic as you are. Of course democracy is possible in Iraq. Why would you say that when they're holding elections in Saudi Arabia? Iran is on the -verge- of a populist and very very pro-U.S. uprising.

If the only answer is "Doooooom dooooom surrender doooooom"... you -are- sounding just like the Lefties. Sorry.

Qwinn
46 posted on 10/15/2003 5:40:41 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Just meditate on Jihad and conquest. This is where Muhammed and Islam begin. In the Koran Muslims are exorted to emulate the life of Muhammed. Thus a good Muslim must immitate the Jihads of Muhammed and is assured of reaching heaven if he does.
47 posted on 10/15/2003 5:42:44 AM PDT by dennisw (G_d is at war with Amalek for all generations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
LOL. Yeah, no one has ever accussed me of being an optimist. But no one will ever go broke betting on the dark side of human nature. For an article that sums up my feelings on how things stand for Isreal, check out John Derbyshire's article Israel's Future at NRO.

And while I may be doom, I'm not for surrender. I'm more for a well-armed, well-enforced isolation, such as Switzerland has. Enemies to none, trade with all. Strictly limited immigration. And the occasional slapdown of groups like Al Qaeda, when neccesary.

48 posted on 10/15/2003 6:11:58 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
"I'm more for a well-armed, well-enforced isolation"

Aaaah. Assuming your other stances aside from this issue really are conservative, you must be a big Patrick Buchanan fan.

Paleoconseratives can be very nice people, and their arguments are certainly infinitely more intelligent than the Left's, but they lose me on the whole xenophobia thing.

Qwinn
49 posted on 10/15/2003 6:15:36 AM PDT by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
Yeah, pretty much. I'm with him on most things, except for his economic principles. I'm more pro-free trade. I wouldn't be living and working where I do (China) if I didn't believe the pluses outweigh the minuses.

True, some paleos are a bit xenophobic for my taste, but I don't think that there is anything xenophobic about neutrality or a strict immigration policy per se. That's not to mean that some people who pull for them aren't racist. And sometimes neutrality can be a hard position to justify, morally. I still think its the right call, though. The only exception I can think of in recent history is WWII.

And with that, I'll call it a night. It's been nice hammering out this issue with you.

50 posted on 10/15/2003 6:30:10 AM PDT by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson