This may be a good opportunity for Israel to take a chunk out of Kahane's nutbag following. They aren't "religious" so much as politicized.
Off topic: How is it that over a million Arabs can be Israelis, but a few thousand religious Jews can't remain in Gaza as future Palestinians? Oh, right... It's OK to "ethnically cleanse" Jews.
Huh? I'm a bit confused by the dueling google searches. Your "judiciously avoiding" one turns up over 500 entries, while the Jewish one yields about a third of that.
Seems a rather petty measure of bias anyway, if that's what you were going for. Even if the wires didn't constantly mention the "M word" when reporting Palestinian terror activities, it's not like their religious affiliation is a secret.
If anything, I would consider the fact that they mentioned that this terrorist was Jewish as a compliment -- it suggests that a Jewish terrorist is a more noteworthy phenomenon, while a Muslim terrorist, not so much.
Interesting P.O.V., Bill. I neeed to digest that (a pint of Czech pilsner is helping...) :)
Posted at 2005-08-04 16:58:41 [PermaLink]Did anybody say that Israeli citizens can't live in Gaza? I may be confused here... but I don't think that Israel can be responsible for their welfare in future though.
Posted at 2005-08-04 17:21:47 [PermaLink]"Huh? I'm a bit confused by the dueling google searches. Your "judiciously avoiding" one turns up over 500 entries, while the Jewish one yields about a third of that."
Note the number of stories about this incident which refer to a "Jewish terrorist" or a "Jewish gunman" in the headline, and then try to find a story about Palestinian terror with "Muslim terrorist" or "Muslim suicide bomber" in the headline.
"Interesting P.O.V., Bill"???
Man, that must be good Pilsener, Dan. Urquel, Perhaps? (My secret shame is that I still prefer Blue!!)
Hmm. So "judiciously avoiding"=not putting it in the headline. Whatever, dude. And as I said, it may just be a sign that the fact that when they're Muslim, it just isn't as newsworthy as when they're Jewish. But if you must see a conspiracy ...
Posted at 2005-08-04 18:30:25 [PermaLink]Well, I don't think the Israelis who want to stay in Gaza want to become Palestinians, they want to stay Israelis, and be guarded by the Israeli army and such and lord it over the Palestinians.
Also, most articles I've seen on this mention that killer was Jewish, but don't mention that of the victims. IMHO, probably because they were Christian. (At least there are a lot of Christians in the town, apparently).
But anyway, you are actually the first blogger that I read to actually mention this incident. Most (Roger Simon, LGF, Instapundit, the Corner, Opinion Journal, etc) seem to have ignored it, when if it was non-Jewish terrorist killing Israelis, they probably would have. I definitely think there is a double standard of some sort. Both ways.
The media is definitely biased against Israel (and Jews), but at the same time, a lot of people defend it (and Jews) unfairly as well. There are nutso people of every faith, and in this case, it's Jewish. Unless you've actually met some of these settler types, you don't really understand how fervetn they are. They really think God gave them Gaza (and the West Bank) and they will kill anyone to stay there.
(Anyway, my point is, there's a lot of nuts in the region on both sides, there. Only by condemning all of it will progress be made. The statements Sharon made is a good start, but he needs to crack down on these people. Otherwise if he doesn't, why should the Palestinians crack down on their nuts? Though of course, it's doubtful they will anyway)
Also let me point out, this guys family apparently made a great effort to get the authorities to stop him, or at least consfiscate his weapons, fearing something like this.
(Which is quite a constrast to the behavior of most terrorist's families, who either praise it or cash in).
OTOH, the Israeli authories really should have acted on his families concerns.
Jeremy:
I found out about this in the Corner. John Podhoretz writes, "Let's be clear about this. This kid was a monster, and got himself some seriously rough justice for his despicable act of terrorism."
No "but" follows. He goes on to criticize those who condemn the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in sky-is-falling terms for exacerbating the tension and making an incident like this more likely.
I'd be very surprised if several of the sites you accuse of "unfairly" defending Israel don't have similar posts in the next day or so. And I'd be absolutely shocked (and will never read them again) if any of them had a mitigating word to say for this murdering bastard.
As for me (and I am as pro-Israel as any of them), I hope he burns in hell.
JPS, Amen.
Gimme a pilsener, Dan. Look Bill, your point was valid, but boring. Yeah, "religious" Jewish terrorist. Odd, huh? Duh. Notice anything subtle or even vaguely interesting you'd like to share instead, or will you stick to prima facie stuff? "Hmm."
Never mind, I'll do it for you: When one reads a bit further, one discovers that the guy wasn't "religious". He'd fallen in with Kahane's group... 9 parts extremist politics, 1 part prayer. They're angry. The left loves to "equate" them to "religious" Jews. In reality, the Orthodox think Kahane's group are misguided idiots, but idiots all the same.
So a kid gets sucked in by the rhetoric and the anger, turns violent, kills innocents and gets himself killed in return. He was old enough to know what he was doing. I have precious little sympathy for him. I'll save that for his family and his victims. On the other hand, I will not count a follower of Kahane in a minyan. It's time for normative Orthodox to hold Kahane's dupes accountable for their sins.
A lot of simplification going on here, particularly when the kid is described as an "Orthodox soldier."
Technically that may be borderline right, but it doesn't explain anything.
The kid was still in basic training and had spent more time in lockup or on the lam than soldiering.
His family is not observant and he says he is. Observant of what? The Orthodox make an effort to observe all 613 commandments which includes, thou shalt not murder. You can't pick and choose and pretend you are Orthodox.
No question he is political. But the kahanist movement was placed outside the pale years ago. No one can run on that ticket for office.
What emerges are two facts. The kid was disturbed. And the authorities including army, internal security, and police screwed up royally. He skipped out from camp with an M-16, the parents badgered everyone who would listen including a prominent radio journalist Carmella Menasche to go get him or at least his weapon and informed where he was, in a kahanist hotbed. Menasche herself made inquiries. No one moved. He himself went up to a civilian cop two weeks ago and requested that he be arrested. Not my jurisdication, said the cop.
My point is stereotypes do not hold here. He wasn't indoctrinated at home in any religious or political beliefs. He showed himself to be problematical immediately to the army, and even disturbed, and should never have been given a weapon, as happens in many similar cases.
The streets are teeming with often violent teenagers floating around getting in all kinds of trouble. Who pays attention to them? The addicts, drunks, and petty criminals usually don't get into the army. Lately the youth movement Orthodox have been put under the microscope as well. I don't think the Orthodox should be blamed for not noticing this kid skulking on the periphery of some settlement. I do think the authorities can be blamed for a lack of vigilance.But Israel is not yet a police state, there are lots of civil protections in place such as a 45-day grace period for deserters before the army police acts, and these things unfortunately are going to happen every now and then.
The CBC (radio and the National) referred to him as an " extremist," and a " right wing extremist." If my memory serves me right, aren't the goodfellas of Hezbollah, Hamas, al Aqsa, etc, usually referred to by the leftish media as " militants?" Help me out folks. Isn't the latter much less pejorative, or am I all wrong?
Posted at 2005-08-05 07:09:38 [PermaLink]I think it's noteworthy that the Israeli PM called one of his own citizens a "bloodthirsty terrorist." Kinda puts to shame both the news organziations and the Arab leaders who won't do the same when the shoe's on the other foot.
Posted at 2005-08-05 07:36:35 [PermaLink]You're spot on, Mike, when it comes to the term "extremist"! Many, many news outfits ( CBC among them) refer to Iraqi or Palestinian terrorists as militants or insurgents. Rarely, if ever, do we hear the word "extremist" in connection with these fellas!
It's telling, too, that Sharon doesn't hesitate a second to employ the word "terrorist". Even after fifty-odd deaths in London the BBC still refuses to use the "word".
Sharon definitely made the right decision in publicly denouncing this guy as a terrorist and it does illustrate the unwillingness of some to acknowledge that in other cases. That being said, I don't think for a second that he wasn't aware of the fact that if he didn't, everybody in the world would be braying about it.
Now I'd like to ask why everyone here seems so comfortable in attributing this act of terrorism to an actual mitigating factor?
"..which appeared to be tied to tensions over this month's Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank."
Where is the righteous indignation about the suggestion that a terrorist could be motivated by events taking place in the world which he perceives as negatively effecting him? If London wasn't about Iraq, how can this be se easily and casually attributed to the Gaza withdrawal?
"these things unfortunately are going to happen every now and then."
Who says something like that after a terrorist attack? Really.
"Now I'd like to ask why everyone here seems so comfortable in attributing this act of terrorism to an actual mitigating factor?"
Answer: We don't, and as usual, your premise is wrong. The fault was the terrorist's, and no one here that I've read is making excuses. May he rot in Hell.
It only "seems" that we are "comfortable" to you because of your faulty preconception. We note why he may have been pissed off: but no one here believes being pissed off is license to go around shooting civilians on a bus. Terrorism is not a legitimate "backup plan", contrary to your earlier sentiments concerning the IRA, Dhara.
Mike listens to CBC?!! *disbelief!*
........;)
Re the Lately Departed, it was bound to happen and will happen again. The place is a pressure cooker and 18 - 19 year olds aren't noted for their equanimity.
The tragedy is that it could have been prevented had the authorities not dropped the ball.
Well-said, Preserved Killick.
Dara, there are some seriously questionable assumptions in your statement. I for one referred indirectly to his grievance. The fact that he had one isn't mitigating in the slightest; terrorists always do. But lots of people with the same grievances don't commit mass murder.
"Terrorism is not a legitimate "backup plan", contrary to your earlier sentiments concerning the IRA, Dhara."
I never made any excuses for IRA terror, all I did was point out that there were actual motivations behind it. For this I was criticized by many posters because the very listing of a legitimate grievance that a terrorist wrongly used to justify the unjustifiable was taken, by you and others, as an attempt to take the blame away from the guilty. That is not what is happening in this case.
"Noting why he was pissed off", as you put it, has been a lightning rod for indignation in response to any other terrorist discussion on this site. But on this topic, none of those who would be heaping abuse on me if I mentioned the security wall in relation to a Palestinian terrorist are making a peep on this topic.
Making a peep!? Everyone has condemned this atrocity, no one (here)is making apologies for it.
Trying to understand his motivation and the circumstances that allowed it to occur are natural and positive reactions.
Norman Spector's daily press review, "Norman's Spectator" ([External Link]is a very useful site, and a good indicator of how a mainstream moderate views things.
I was disappointed indeed to see that his choice today for "THE COLUMN I WISH I’D WRITTEN" is this piece of moral equivalency rot from the Guardian, by Peter Wilby: "The responsibility we share for Islamist shock and awe: Citizens in democracies will be held to account for what is done in their name"
[External Link]
An excerpt:
"...Muslims fight us on their own soil, but why should they not carry the fight to our homelands as we carry it to theirs?...Most importantly, Muslim warriors may think, bombing western civilians gets results: the things that make it horrible to us make it more effective in their eyes (shock and awe, perhaps) and if there are enough such outrages, we will demand a retreat from Iraq. They may be wrong on this. But it is the price we pay for living in a democracy: theoretically, we are in charge so we are frontline targets..."
Where to begin?
1) "We" are carrying on the fight in very few of the many Muslim countries. If Muslims everywhere are justified in responding, indeed murderously, then their prime loyalty must be to Islam, not to their citizenship.
2) "Muslim warriors": so those blowing up themselves and many innocents in tubes and buses are warriors? Please.
3) "we are in charge so we are frontline targets": so no more rules of war, just utter barbarism.
The most insidious thing in all this is Wilby's acceptance of people acting as "Muslims" against "us". If they are justified in so acting, then "we" would be equally justified in our countries to profile, and act against, Muslims generally.
I do not think Mr Spector would support that.
Mark
Ottawa
Norman Spector made a good choice today in "THE COLUMN I WISH I’D WRITTEN" with Salim Mansur: "Clerics must own up to poisonous preaching":
[External Link]
Mark
Ottawa
Comment by Jeremy:
"Well, I don't think the Israelis who want to stay in Gaza want to become Palestinians, they want to stay Israelis, and be guarded by the Israeli army and such and lord it over the Palestinians."
No, us settlers would rather want to stay Jewish, being Israeli is becoming a dirty word seeing as how 'they' (actually a minority of Jewish Israelis) want to evixt us from our homes for their own piece of mind and nothing else.
"Also, most articles I've seen on this mention that killer was Jewish, but don't mention that of the victims. IMHO, probably because they were Christian."
Welcome to Xian persecution. While us Jews are great at whining about it to everyone who'll listen, the Xians swallow it and turn the other cheek. The world media couldn't care less, not even the vatican (have they condemned us yet or is the Pope still too busy to comment on every incident?)
Oh, btw,
Why is this terror? (Okay, I know. wipipedia has a decent article [External Link]Does anyone know what his motives were? Does anyone know who sent him? How did hew get all the way to Shfaram up north (which has a majority of Druse residents who are Israel-friendly, serve in the army, and even patriotic too) without having second thoughts? If he supposedly spent so much time in the territories with Kahanists, why didn't he just conveniently walk into the nearby villages and empty his gun there? Or into the Israeli Arab villages on the green line?
I am totally condemning this massacre, but calling it terror is perhaps knee-jerk. Too bad the kid was killed handcuffed and in police custody. We'll probably never know his intentions whether he was chemically imbalanced, or really had a motive. Expecting the Israeli government to actually carry out a proper investigation into the whole affair is probably asking too much since it is full concentrated on the much more important expulsion of Jews from their land.
"but calling it terror is perhaps knee-jerk...We'll probably never know his intentions whether he was chemically imbalanced, or really had a motive."
Peep, peep, DaninVan. Pretend that I said that about the London kids and respond to it as you would to me.
Josh:
"We'll probably never know his intentions whether he was chemically imbalanced, or really had a motive. "
[Forgive me, Damian] I don't give the tiniest shit. I lost all sympathy for him when he shot a bunch of people who didn't deserve to die. That's all I need to call it terror, by the way.
Now if he was so chemically imbalanced that he meets the standard U.S. legal definition for insanity, then I suppose I shouldn't blame him or be glad he's dead. But the forethought and concealment involved in a surprise attack on civilians would make me very skeptical of that.
"I am totally condemning this massacre, but [emphasis mine]...."
That "but" is all you have to say for me to ignore any point you might otherwise have. Get it? When something like this happens, none of us want to hear any goddamned "but"!!