.jpg)
On Tuesday, the US Department of State issued a statement
regarding the Jews who were murdered for filling their gas tanks while Jewish:
"The United States condemns the terrorist attack
against Israelis near Eli in the West Bank today. We express our deepest
condolences to the families of those killed and wish the injured a speedy
recovery," said Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller.
So far, so good, right? I had been gritting my teeth waiting
to hear the White House do the usual both-siding of the issue: “We ask both
sides to refrain from violence at this difficult time.”
I call this “both-siding it.” When you both-side a
situation, you’re not pointing a finger or assigning blame, because terrorist
and victim are the same. Or rather, in drawing a moral equivalence between the
two, you whitewash the actions of the terrorist. The effect of this is to
appease the Muslim world and its sympathizers, because of course, that world
thinks that murdering Israelis is a mitzvah (l’havdil). So the terrorists are
good, because they’re killing ZIONISTS.
 |
| Lucy, Maia, and Rina Dee, HY"D. |
It is tragic to report this here how despite the fact that Israel and the US are allies, the US so often draws a moral equivalence between Israeli citizens and soldiers with the people who brutally murder them. This in spite of the fact that the US claims to be committed to the safety and security of Israeli citizens and says that Israel has right to defend itself.
Why does
the US tell the world that there is no difference between Israelis and the people
who brutally murder them? It’s simple: Because it can. US officials know that
the Jews will understand and take it on the chin. We don’t REALLY mean it, they
probably tell Israeli leaders behind the scenes, but hey, you know. Diplomacy.
Realpolitik.
Yet Miller’s statement had thus far been free of all that
crap this sort of rhetoric. I was rather pleased with that White House
statement.
But I shouldn’t have been. I should have known there’d be
more, and that it would not be nice at all—not nice to US ally Israel, and not
nice to the Jews. Not respectful. Painful to hear and read. A betrayal. We wish
we could leave our children forever innocent of such things, forever in love with wonderful America.
We would give anything not to have our Jewish children, whether Israeli or
American, or any children at all, including those who reside in Gaza and in the
Occupied Jewish Territories (OJT), hear such things as Matthew Miller would now
say as an official representative of the United States of America:
"We are also concerned about the continuation of violence in Israel and the West Bank in recent
weeks that has killed and injured
Palestinian and Israeli civilians. We will continue to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to
promote steps towards de-escalation."
This is a very problematic statement. There is a vague mention of “violence” but not one word about terror. There is an allusion to a nonexistent “Palestinian” state “in Israel and the West Bank,” as if Israel’s Jewish heartland, Judea and Samaria, had already been swallowed whole by this nonentity, a done deal.
I take it personally. To me this is the US spitting in
my face because I make my home in Judea.
 |
| Efrat |
Miller speaks of violence in “recent weeks” equating the terror attack on Jewish civilians getting gas, with soldiers on missions in Jenin for the specific purpose of routing out terrorists so that they may be brought to justice, and of course, in order to protect Israeli citizens. It is not easy to be a soldier in that situation and having to enter a hostile terrorist enclave like Jenin. The violent (!) locals, bred to hate Jews, lie in wait for Jewish soldiers and drop concrete blocks on their heads, which is how Ronen Lubarsky (HY”D) was killed. And that’s the least of it.
This was not two equal warring parties, but the IDF doing the right thing—the morally correct thing—by apprehending terrorists so that they can no longer injure or murder Jews. Yet the State Department speaks of violence “that has killed and injured Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” saying “Palestinian” first, to show evenhandedness. Or rather, to say to the terrorists, “We close our eyes to what you are, because to do otherwise would not be the popular thing to do and anyway, nobody cares about the Jews.”
This is not, in actual fact, both-siding it, but one-siding
it, by dint of lumping terrorists in with their victims. No matter how neutral
they seem, they’re taking a side, and it ain’t the side of the Jews. Miller’s prepared
remarks speak of violence as a spontaneous eruption that has no source, “violence”
that kills, similar to saying that guns kill when guns don’t generally shoot
themselves.
Violence doesn’t kill. Guns don’t kill. Terrorists kill. Those
who murder people at a gas station are terrorists. Violent protestors who impede
an IDF mission are not “civilians” but enemy combatants. Even when they are 17,
rather than 26. Perhaps especially so. (Why aren’t they kept away from the “violence”
by the adults?)
In not holding them guilty, you take their side. You take
the side of terror. What is wrong with the United States that it excuses
terror? And what is wrong with the people of Jenin?
 |
| Jenin |
What is wrong with the residents of Jenin is that they see
nothing wrong with killing Jews. So much so that town is now an Iranian stronghold.
The US, on the other hand has no good excuse for equating victim with
perpetrator, thus excusing terror, because all things being equal, it’s just
violence, right?
No one’s responsible. “Palestinian” casualties are mentioned
before Israeli casualties to identify for us the guilty party, as if that hadn’t
already been made perfectly clear: Israel started it, because the “Palestinian”
dead were mentioned first.
Miller winds up his canned remarks by stating that the US
will “continue to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to promote
steps towards de-escalation,” as if the latter two parties were equal partners,
as if the PA were not sworn to murder Jews and steal their land, as if Israel
had no reasonable motive for being in Jenin in the first place—and as if Jews
had no right to be at a gas station near Eli.
What does it mean to speak of de-escalating when you won’t
say the T word? It means, “Israel, knock it off. Back off these terrorists. We
can’t and won’t take your side on this. Diplomacy. Realpolitik. (Black gold,
Texas tea.)
 |
| Wait, whut?? |
This is, incredibly, the official position of the White House, and it is as abhorrent as it is antisemitic. But then it’s not just official US that officially hates the Jews. It’s the done thing the world over. The EU, UK, UN (here and here, for example), Canada. They all do it. Such examples are too numerous to mention. It’s certainly not the first time a spokesperson for the Biden White House has expressed this same antisemitic sentiment.
Thanks to all of these world powers, and many, many others,
the “de-escalation” of “violence” will not be occurring any time soon. How can
you de-escalate violence when you can’t name its source? How can you sue for
peace when you excuse terror BECAUSE of the identity of the victims: “it’s only
the Jews again”?
In effect, this is the world blaming Jews for all that
happens to them by making them responsible for being Jewish in the first place.
(Jews, ya know. Everyone hates ‘em. Totally disposable. Easy to exploit. For
centuries.)
For that is the
way of the world. The US et al. don’t want de-escalation. If they did, they’d support
Israel in its efforts to eliminate terror, by eliminating terrorists such as
those stowed away in Jenin—terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands.
Innocent blood. But Jewish blood. Specifically.
Israelis are meant to take it on the chin, like good Jews.
We can almost feel the pat on the head.
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
