Skip to comments.DID THE ISRAELIS DO IT?
Posted on 05/05/2002 4:11:32 PM PDT by MaxwellWolf
DID THE ISRAELIS DO IT? Sat May 4, 9:02 PM ET By William F. Buckley
As the curtain closes on the question whether, at Jenin, the Israeli army committed war crimes, one guards against a cynicism that, in general, is welcome. Where there is no free press, one tends to ask: What is it that is being hidden?
The United Nations (news - web sites) brought together a special unit to enter Jenin and investigate charges of war-criminal behavior. It has been all but formally disbanded. The reason for it? The Israeli government forbade it license to conduct an investigation on its own terms. The government of General Sharon protested that dissimulation was afoot and that until it was investigated and repaired, no entry into Jenin would be permitted. It is understandable that there should be suspicion.
Some years ago, appearing on television, Lawrence Eagleburger made a startling statement. Mr. Eagleburger had served as under secretary of state, briefly as secretary of state, and before that for a long stretch as ambassador to Yugoslavia.
"The trouble with dealing with the Yugoslavs," he said with extraordinary bluntness for a diplomat, is that "you can never" -- he emphasized the word -- "believe one word they tell you. You can travel from one faction to another bearing proposals, compromises, bribes, intimidations -- and they end up serving you no purpose."
In the current issue of National Review we hear from David Pryce-Jones, the eloquent and highly informed journalist who in 1973 wrote "The Face of Defeat," a book about the Palestinians.
He took the reader back to the Six Day War of 1967. It was then that a representative of the Council for Anglo-Arab Understanding, a pro-Arab lobby, protested that the Israeli army had massacred 200 Arabs in Gaza. The plaintiff was Mr. Michael Adams.
Pryce-Jones, doing journalistic and historical duty, was alarmed at the charge, Gaza being his beat. "So I investigated. The story had begun with Gazans themselves. For days on end, they escorted me helpfully through the crowded streets of Gaza City from one house to another in search of families with a missing relative. There was always one more address to be visited, and one more rumor to be explored, but we found neither victims nor burial place for the simple reason that none existed. The story was untrue."
Pryce-Jones' inquiry went beyond the streets of Gaza City. He found what he thinks now is a clue to understanding in these times. He found this in an unlikely book, the 19th-century memoirs of Isabel Burton, wife of the famous explorer and linguist Richard Burton. There was this sentence in her text: "Out of the very stones they will fabricate such a tower of falsehoods that you can only stand and gape in wonder and admiration at their fruitful invention."
The stereotype of the Arab as a born liar had been acknowledged, when Mrs. Burton wrote, by experienced English observers including Sir Henry Layard, the excavator of Nineveh, Field Marshall Kitchener and Lawrence of Arabia. We learn from Pryce-Jones that Mrs. Burton was exceptional in having the human sympathy to perceive "that the lying was a sign not of innate bad character but of creative self-defense in circumstances of relative weakness."
If correctly guided by such reasoning, "Palestinians know in some reserved part of themselves that the Israelis are normal human beings and only doing what they themselves would do if the situation of the two people were reversed." But to admit any such thing is to surrender a weapon, one which seems to be working on luminaries of the international community, including Kofi Annan (news - web sites), Christopher Patten, and U.N. Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen, a Norwegian -- and Michael Adams. They see what was done in Jenin as "totally unacceptable and horrific beyond belief."
Twice in my 40 years of journalism I have been mistaken in doubting that atrocities were at the level claimed by critics of the regimes. I found myself unwilling to grant the alleged atrocities of the Greek generals and, a few years later, those of the Argentine military troika. I swore then not to express doubt where there was no independent press around for corroboration.
This time, even without that corroboration, I express doubt that the Jenin "massacre," at the dimension being charged, actually took place.
Poor, poor Pallies, they have only sticks and stones and lies to defend themselves.
Oh, a bit of levity for this serious thread ;)
It is a lie ,the Muslim PR company thinks whinning wins points..Most Americans hate lying...and this light will come to day and backfire on them big time IMHO
This amateurish psychoanalysis is maybe OK for home use, but what "free press" does the guy have in mind? The NY Times' radical libs or The Independent's anti-Semite bullshitters?
There are scores of hysterical Left-wingers in the lamestream media ready to get themselves killed or maimed at a battlefield knowing that it would cause a huge anti-Israeli outcry. These wannabe martyrs are in urgent need of a shrink's services, and to give them access to Jenin during the ongoing fight would be stupid to extreme.
In it he says "My vote is that General Sharon's offensive is the stupidest campaign in recent memory. Defined here as a campaign that has: solved nothing, increased Israel's problems, intensified Palestinian hatred of Israel, estranged many Europeans and Americans, and fanned Islamic hostility. What is General Sharon up to?"
I don't think life at Yale educated him on the military reality of rooting out an entrenched terrorist army from an area like Jenin. The posted article almost sounds like some sort of mea culpa from ol' Bill.
That's the core of his concerns.
And I say, screw those estranged by the Israeli defensive operation. Screw Palis and Islamists.
And screw ol'Bill if he doesn't understand that, whatever amount of appeasement, it wouldn't change above mentioned hatred and hostility.
Proper Arab ass-kicking every several years is the only way for Israel to survive. Of course it doesn't resolve the problems forever, but the same is correct for the entire mankind history.
General Sharon might have sent in a platoon, pulled out Arafat and his 100 lieutenants and executed them on the entirely reasonable grounds that they embodied the terrorist movement in the West Bank. A bullet into the heart of Arafat is not a wayward contribution to the search for the infrastructure of the evil and genocidal war against Israel. So Palestine would be left leaderless? Such a problem would be that of the Palestinians who have tolerated Arafat for so many years.
I would have preferred the elimination of Arafat as well as the course Sharon followed. Let's just say that WFB was half right.
After the year of internal fighting to take Arafat's place. You don't kill a snake by destroying its den, you destroy a snake by killing it. Israel has known the exact whereabouts of Arafat and his entire command structure for 30 years and have let it survive. That is no ones fault but every Israeli government since Golda Mier.
At least as the lies come out, some are good for a bit of humor.
Yes. That is why I wonder about what goes on in: Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Iraq, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, . . . .
...But not about what goes on in Israel, one of the most open-to-foreign-media countries in all the world.
More than just a bit of humor. Apparently the casket-bearers were rookies, and they actually dropped the ersatz corpse on several occasions, after which he had to get up and lie down on the stretcher, AGAIN!
The morality of lying is one of the most confusing aspects of Islamic thought and, as a result, creates the impression that whether a person is truthful, or deceitful, depends entirely on the ethics of the situation.
At first glance, Islam appears to place great importance on the truth:
And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is). (YA, al-Baqarah 2:42)
There are TWO categories of lies which are not tolerated in Islam:
1. A lie against Allah.
Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying), "Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against Allah, and scornfully to reject of His signs!" Sura 6:93
2. A Lie against Muhammad
Narrated Al-Mughira: I heard the Prophet saying, "Ascribing false things to me is not like ascribing false things to anyone else. Whosoever tells a lie against me intentionally then surely let him occupy his seat in Hell-Fire." ... (Sahih al-Bukhari 2.378, cf. 1.106-108)
Lying to, or about, fellow Muslims is also a sin according to the Traditions.
Cases in which lying IS permitted
One of the most interesting moral dilemmas for Islam are the cases in which lying is permitted
The Traditions tell us that there are three instances where deception can be used:
Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them). (Sahih Muslim, Hadith number 6303-05; see also Sahih al-Bukhari 3.857)
More information is provided by William Muir's "Life of Mahomet", Volume I, footnote 88:
The common Moslem belief is that it is allowable to tell a falsehood on four occasions:
1st, to save one's life;
2nd, to effect a peace or reconciliation;
3rd, to persuade a woman;
4th, on the occasion of a journey or expedition.
To save one's life
The first is borne out by Mahomet's express sanction. Ammar ibn Yasir was sorely persecuted by the pagans of Mecca, and denied the faith for his deliverance. The Prophet approved of his conduct: - "If they do this again, then repeat the same recantation to them again." Katib al Wackidi; p. 227 ½. Another tradition preserved in the family of Yasir, is as follows: - "The idolators seized Ammar, and they let him not go until he had abused Mahomet and spoken well of their gods. He then repaired to the Prophet, who asked of him what had happened." - "Evil, oh Prophet of the Lord! I was not let go until I had abused thee, and spoken well of their gods." - "But how," replied Mahomet, "dost thou find thine own heart?" - "Secure and steadfast in the faith." - "Then," said Mahomet, "if they repeat the same, do thou too repeat the same." Ibid. Mahomet also said that Ammar's lie was better than Abu Jahl's truth.
To effect a peace or reconciliation
The second is directly sanctioned by the following tradition:- "That person is not a liar who makes peace between two people, and speaks good words to do away their quarrel, although they should be lies. Mishcat, vol ii. p.427.
To persuade a woman
As to the third, we have a melancholy instance that Mahomet did not think it wrong to make false promises to his wives, in the matter of Mary his Egyptian maid.
[This article provides more information on this incident.]
On the occasion of a journey or expedition
And regarding the fourth, it was his constant habit in projecting expeditions (excepting only that to Tabuk) to conceal his intentions, and to give out that he was about to proceed in another direction from the true one. Hishami, p. 392; Katib al Wackidi, p. 133 ½.
What was Muhammad's attitude towards lying?
Muhammad treated truth and deception according his own style of situational ethics. Muhammad condoned, and actually permitted, lying to further his goals:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." ... (Sahih al-Bukhari 5.369)
Muhammad clearly condoned dishonesty, as well as murder, when it suited his purposes.
Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)
Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.
But has theUN been turning a blind eye to the fact that killers were being bred from the ground up in the "schools" that it funded? Absolutely. The UN has been maintaining the breeding grounds of the vicious "put bulls" of the Middle East for 50 years, One more example of the fact that any "peace" to be maintained by the UN will be the peace of the grave for victims, no more, no less.
I particularly enjoyed the story I read where the Palestinians were having a funeral march carrying a body on a platform among several men. There was some sort of commotion and an Israeli military detachment showed up nearby and the funeral crowd took off running. The men drop the body but after a few seconds, the "body" got up and ran off too. I have little hope for the future of a people who can't even "lie" well.
The word "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."
I have seen it spelled in a couple of other ways, but the definition always comes out like this one.
As for ME, as a rule of thumb, I PRESUME whenever it serves their interest, that arabs-musli-palis ARE lying. It makes it easier to follow the discussion.
Wild exagerration is, to them, a negotiating tool. So is lying. I have done business with them. Not to be trusted.