UPDATE: Hamas has denied responsibility for the killing, and so, until more information comes out, I’ll assume that the perpetrators are simply unknown. Their denial, of course, doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. As for my hearing they were responsible, I did, so what I said below was true. The title of this post, however, is inaccurate for the present. Stay tuned.
___________
As the Israel/Palestine crisis seems stalemated, the forces of terror continue their beastly depredations against Israel. This time, according to both the New York Times and the Telegraph, three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed last week. Hamas was suspected, and has now, so I hear, admitted responsibility.
The teenagers, Gilad Shaer and Naftali Fraenkel, both 16, and Eyal Yifrah, 19, were kidnapped while hitchhiking, and then shot. Their bodies were found under a pile of rocks yesterday. The kidnappers are apparently known to Israel, who entered their homes, blowing off the doors after being refused entry.
As well as committing this cold-blooded murder, the Palestinians, without provocation, also fired 18 rockets into Israel before the bodies were discovered. The aim, of course, was to kill and terrorize Israeli civilians. Israel has responded by going after 34 targets in Palestine. Some sources mistakenly report that the Israeli strikes were retaliation for the kidnappings. In reality, they were a response to the missile attacks. (As we all know, Palestine fires its missiles from civilian areas, endangering innocent people nearby and inhibiting retaliation.)
As the Times of Israel notes:
Three Israeli teenagers, Naftali Fraenkel, Gil-ad Shaar and Eyal Yifrach, were kidnapped and murdered in cold blood on their way home from school only because they were Israeli Jews. Their Palestinian Arab murderers, as identified by Israel, did not know their victims and they did not care. The objective was to attack some hated Israelis, and perhaps exchange them or their bodies for jailed murderers. Any random Jews would do.
Can you deny the truth of that? The “Islamophobia” card is a canard, leveled at those who dislike the tenets of Islam, not Muslims themselves. But those who kill children, or want to wipe out Israel, are anti-Semites, pure and simple. This is not hatred of the tenets of Judaism. It is hatred of Jews themselves: a hatred that permeates the Arab world just as it permeated medieval Europe. Europe has largely (but not completely) gotten over it; the Middle East has not. Every day vile anti-Semitic caricatures and videos appear in the Arab media.
The Hamas charter still calls for the complete elimination of Israel. It also includes references to the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Czarist forgery supposedly laying out plans for a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. If you were an Israeli, surrounded by those who wish to push you into the sea, how would you feel if three innocent kids were kidnapped and killed for the crime of being Jews? How would you feel if rockets were being fired randomly into your country?
In the face of this, President Obama urged “restraint on both sides” (though he at least had the decency to call it a “tragedy”). What does that mean? Israel is supposed to stand by idly while its children get murdered and it remains the target of randomly-fired rockets? Did we exercise restraint when the World Trade Center went down? Would we exercise restraint if, say, the Mexican government fired rockets into Texas and their operatives killed three American teenagers in Arizona?
As the Times of Israel argues, this is not a “cycle of revenge” that perpetuates the stalemate, but unilateral and unconscionable acts of terrorism against Israel:
Similarly, today, there is no “cycle of revenge,” as many journalists, diplomats and self-proclaimed human rights activists often claim. A cycle means symmetry, automatic tit-for-tat, mindless action and reaction, in which all sides, and none, can be held morally responsible.
But attack and defense, terror and counter-terror, incitement and fear are not symmetric or morally equivalent. When diplomats and academics repeat the “cycle” analogy, and meekly issues calls “to both parties to exercise restraint,” as the European Union, the UN and even the US did after the kidnapping, they are endorsing a dangerous fiction. When journalists invent an artificial balance and an immoral equivalence between attacker and victim, or an NGO with European and US taxpayer funds equates the mother of a Palestinian terrorist with the mothers of Gilad, Naftali, and Eyal, this is fundamentally immoral.
For years, Palestinians and their supporters have been able to peddle the fiction that murderous terrorists in Israeli jails are political prisoners, guilty only of participating in the “cycle of violence,” including opposing the “occupation,” albeit with violent means. European human rights funds have also channeled government money to lobbying groups (non-governmental organizations) to promote this fiction and the public campaigns on their behalf.
I still favor a two-state solution for this problem, but it’s not going to happen so long as Israelis are being targeted in this way and so long as Hamas swears to destroy Israel. And if you think a two-state solution is going to stop the attacks on Israel, I have a bridge over the Jordan I’d like to sell you. The Palestinians, and other Arab states, are simply too deeply permeated with the hatred of Jews.
And if you say that the rocket-firings at civilians and the murder of children are justified by Israeli “apartheid” (a false comparison if ever there was one), then you’ve lost your moral compass. These are the acts of monsters. They are given a pass by the West because, for some reason, anti-Semitic Muslims are not held to the same standards of civilized behavior as everyone else.