So if you have a home invasion and the cops come and shoot someone who just killed your family member, is that also “bloodshed on both sides?” https://t.co/6kdbEZxTqQ
— (((Varda Epstein))) (@epavard) July 16, 2019
A conflict must have two parties at odds with each other. You don’t have that here. In the case of Israel, you have one side minding its own business and interests.
The losers, meanwhile, can’t cope with reality. They won’t make the best of a situation and you can’t make them. They prefer to maim, kill, and destroy: an adult version of the two-year-old tantrum, albeit an evil version. Because two-year-olds aren’t responsible in any moral sense for their choices. But adults, are.
|Shalhevet Pass, HY”D, was ten months’ old when she was killed by Arab sniper fire.|
Anyone who describes the situation in Israel as a “conflict” needs to be told the story of Shalhevet Pass, HY”D. Because where’s the reciprocity in that? What did Shalhevet do to the man who murdered her? What was his “conflict” with her? Was she perhaps not wearing enough sunscreen that day?
|Chaya Zissel Braun, HY”D.|
But what did Chaya Zissel do to her murderer? Where is the conflict, the parity?
|Hadas Fogel, HY”D|
This is important because so many believe that there really is a conflict and that it is about land. And the only way that any of this is connected to land is that the Arabs don’t want the Jews to have it. Land rights is a pretend issue, an excuse for Arabs to murder Jews. Because once you paint terror as a conflict about land, there’s a focal point for disagreement. Which means two equal warring parties. Parties who can come to the table and negotiate. And since it’s a land issue, negotiations means land concessions, which means Jews giving up bits and pieces of the Jewish State until there is nothing left.
Such a process of course, seen from a truer lens, is only Jewish victims rewarding those who murder them. Rewarding terror, alas, only makes them kill more of us to get more of what we have.
Think about it: if it were about land, why on earth would that make it okay to kill a baby? The baby is not responsible for where it is raised. The baby has no guilt, has stolen nothing, does not oppress you. It is just a baby. Something most societies hold as a value to protect and nurture.
The answer, of course, is that it is not about land, and it is not a conflict.
It is about Jews and Jewish continuity. The Jews who continue to live and the people who don’t want them to. This is the locus of the conflict, the point of disagreement.
It is the Jewish identity of the victims, in fact, that gives the murderers their courage. It is what allows them to kill old people, children, pregnant women. Or rather, it is the Jewish identity of the victims that takes away any need for a murderer’s courage. Because if you’re taught to think of Jews as less than human: apes or pigs, as pests or some sort of vermin, you don’t need courage to kill them.
From that perspective, killing Jews is like killing ants or mosquitoes. There are no moral qualms. You step on one, slap at the other. The main thing is they die instead of crawling on your food, or stinging your arm.
In a conflict, there’s no question of guilt or blame or innocence. There are just two rivals lashing out at each other in perfect equality, both fighting for the same thing.
Which is so much nicer, after all, than thinking about the men who kill Jewish babies in their strollers and cribs, solely on the basis of their religion.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.