In 2001, a Palestinian sniper took aim, targeted and shot ten month old Shalhevet Pass in the head, as she sat next to her father in a Hebron playground.
The reason? Because she was Jewish.
Two weeks ago, Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz, wrote a shockingly disgusting tweet:
Shalhevet Pass was killed due to the irresponsibility of her parents, who thought it possible to bring up children in an embattled environment, and of the Welfare Ministry, which in a normal country would have removed children from war zones.
Don't mention the Fatah sniper that killed her. No, the enlightened Left expect Palestinians to be targeting babies. To them, Palestinians can't help themselves - these arbiters of morality consider Palestinians animals and if they attack children, it is the fault of the parents for allowing them to live near the animals.
To make the accusation even more grotesque, the Palestinian Authority originally denied that Shalhevet was murdered by a Palestinian. They claimed that her mother murdered her. Now the publisher of an Israeli newspaper is pretty much saying the same thing, redoubling the pain of a bereaved mother. But it's OK - he's on the side of morality and enlightenment, unlike the primitive Jews who still care about their second holiest city.
How about the parents of children who live in Sderot or Ashkelon, within range of Hamas rockets? Are they irresponsible too? Oh, yes, all of Israel is now in range of Hamas and Hezbollah rockets - so all parents must leave, right?
Schocken has come under deserved criticism and fired back with an entire column in Haaretz where he defends himself, badly.
Schocken says that there is a difference between Hebron and Sderot. His proof? "The UN Security Council, with the participation of Israel’s best friends, determined in December 2016 that any Israeli civilian presence beyond the 1967 Green Line, in the occupied territories, is illegal."
Notice how he moves the goalposts. Originally his criteria for bad parenting was raising kids in an "embattled environment" which has nothing to do with national borders. Now he says that it has to do with whether they live somewhere legally. And even then he is wrong - people moving voluntarily to the territories do not violate any laws. The people who attack them, do.
This also means that according to this moral arbiter, Jewish parents who live across the Green Line in Jerusalem are also irresponsible. That visiting the Kotel is a violation of international law. The rebuilding the Hurva synagogue in the Old City was an act of illegal settlement. Jews should remain in Tel Aviv and Haifa, and all Jewish holy places properly belong to those who would ban Jews from visiting.
Schocken, sensing that his main argument has no merit, then tries to change the subject and says that anyone who thinks that Jews should be allowed to live across the Green Line supports apartheid. He adds that all of Israel is an apartheid state anyway, guaranteeing adulation from the Israel haters.
And then Schocken claims that he is the real Zionist, he who is willing to give away everything Jewish about Israel. Jews who want to ensure access to historic Jewish sites are criminals who support racism and apartheid.
He's so Zionist that he is proudly parroting the "apartheid" arguments that were created by those who want to destroy Israel.
This is the immorality of the Left.
