WarSclerotic

Articles: Making Sense of ‘Senseless’ Terror.

( “It is time for us to stop showing restraint and to open our eyes.” Dead on… – JW )

Iron Dome intercepts rocket in barrage over southern Israel – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Three rockets fired towards Ofakim, Iron Dome intercepts one. In Eshkol, soldier lightly wounded by mortar shell shrapnel, following violent night of clashes in Triangle area that saw Jewish drivers in vehicles attacked.

Raanan Ben-Zur

A barrage of rockets and mortar shells were fired on Saturday afternoon towards western Negev communities. Two rockets and a mortar shell exploded in the Eshkol Regional Council and one IDF soldier sustained light injuries from shrapnel. The soldier was evacuated to the hospital for further treatment

A Color Red rocket alert sounded in Ofakim and the Merhavim Regional Council in south Israel, and shortly after a volley of rockets was fired towards Ofakim, a city relatively distant from the Gaza Strip.

The Iron Dome anti-missile defense system shot down one of the incoming rockets, and the other two exploded in open areas. Half an hour later, a Color Red Rocket was sounded in Eshkol and Hof Ashkelon Regional Councils.

However, the IDF or air force has yet to respond to the rocket fire and refrained from attacking the Gaza Strip during the night.

In the last 36 hours, the only attack carried out by the Israeli Air Force took place at 8pm on Friday, when the IDF Spokesperson Lt. Colonel Peter Lerner confirmed that 3 targets had been struck in the south of the Gaza Strip, in response to over 20 rockets fired on Israel from Gaza on Friday.

Following the attack, southern council leaders warned residents to stay within 15 seconds from bomb shelters. The instruction was withdrawn in the morning.

The IDF has increased over the past 24 hours the amount of interceptor missiles of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system in the Gaza envelope, and made changes to their geographical layout due to concern that the rocket fire would continue throughout the weekend.

Towards midnight Friday, after violent clashes broke out in neighborhoods in northern and eastern Jerusalem as Muhammad Hussein Abu Khdeir was laid to rest, riots spread to Arab communities in the Triangle area.

The riots centered in Qalansawe, an Arab town in central Israel, where protestors damaged and set alight cars. The clashes erupted when masked protestors who were standing on the road began asking passing drivers whether they were Jewish or Arab. Jewish drivers who answered in Hebrew were forced out of their vehicles and attacked by the protestors.

One of the injured is a 20-year-old motorcycle rider who was attacked by protestors while travelling on Saturday morning on a road that crosses Qalansawe.

Yarkon Area Magen David Adom team evacuated the man, who sustained light injuries, to the Meir Hospital in Kfar Saba.

In Wadi Ara, protestors threw stones at vehicles travelling on main roads. 12 people were detained following the clashes.

Earlier Saturday morning, Molotov cocktails were thrown towards the community of Mei Ami, located near Wadi Ara. Police forces were dispatched to the area and have launched an investigation into the incident. No injuries were reported.

Large police forces have been deployed to main roads in the area of Wadi Ara and are prepared for disruptions.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that rioters in Qalansawe deserve a “deterrent, unequivocal punishment.” In a Facebook post, the minister wrote: “The police acted correctly in immediately arrested the Arabs that rioted near Qalansawe and the Triangle.

“Now we expect that the Court system will also use an iron fist in their treatment of the issue and impose punishments that will convey a deterrent, unequivocal punishment to those who enjoy an Israeli citizenship and act as terrorists.

These events demonstrate once again that these people do not belong in the State of Israel – and until that is resolved, their place is in jail.”

Meretz Chairwoman Zehava Gal-On responded to Lieberman’s statement, saying “It’s a shame that the Foreign Minister continues to kindle a fire of hate between Jewish and Arab citizens and in that give impetus to racism and nationalism.

“Arab citizens in Israel have a right to demonstrate in their homeland, and that does not depend on the whims of Minister Lieberman. It is no secret that Lieberman has been attempting, for a while, to change the status of the Arab citizens of Israel, revoke their citizenship and transfer them, and he latches on to every opportunity to carry out his proposals.”

Two Thousandth Missile from Mexico Hits El Paso, Texas Area, Dan Miller’s Blog, December 9, 2012

(Posted less than two years ago, this seems relevant to what’s again happening in Israel. — DM)

No end is in sight as the United Nations directs the U.S. to negotiate a peaceful settlement.

Following years of demands by la Raza that the United States relinquish all occupied territories to Mexico, missiles began falling on El Paso, Texas and neighboring areas north of the border between Texas and Mexico during the early morning hours of December 6th. Under the previous administration, the United States had imperiously ignored all such demands and no significant progress toward returning the territories to Mexico had been made even under the current administration. Due to the persistent failure of the imperialist United States to agree to a peaceful negotiated settlement, Amigos de la Raza in Juarez, Mexico understandably found it necessary to take appropriate action. No spokesperson for Amigos was authorized to speak to the press. However, informal off the record remarks made it clear that El Paso had been selected because too many Mexicans could have been injured if the missiles had been directed toward occupied territories in California. It has not yet been possible to calculate the death toll in the El Paso area because the MOP (Missiles of Peace) continue to strike.

Some right wing conspiracy theorists have suggested that the missiles may have been supplied to Amigos de la Raza and affiliated cartels such as the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Organization during Fast and Furious. Attorney General Holder declined to comment beyond observing that he had no information to that effect and that when facts are lacking right wing extremists can be counted upon to spew lies.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, speaking from Tel Aviv, expressed solidarity with the United States while wiping tears from his eyes. (NOTE: Earlier reports had suggested that the tears had been shed during uncontrollable fits of laughter when PM Netanyahu heard the news. However, an aide to the PM brushed off the suggestion: “The PM laughs only at stuff he thinks is really funny.”)

PM Netanyahu did not offer the United States any of Israel’s WMDs (Weapons Minimizing Destruction) because Israel recently had to use some and can’t spare any. Instead he suggested that the United States should halt construction in all occupied territories (including not only in Texas but also in California, Arizona and New Mexico) as the best road map to peace. He noted Israel’s smashing successes in negotiating with her peace partner, Hamas, following Israeli acquiescence in similar demands suggestions from United States and other bastions of freedom, democracy and peace around the world.

The U.N. General Assembly, called into emergency session by Mexico on December 8th, voted almost unanimously, the United States abstaining, in favor of a resolution demanding that the United States refrain from retaliation — including the non-proportional use of warning sirens and construction of bomb shelters in affected areas — and negotiate in good faith with the sovereign nation of Amigos de la Raza Mexico. Should such negotiations appear to be moving in a fruitful direction, the General Assembly will consider sending peace-keeping forces from Egypt and Iran to El Paso and other affected areas within the occupied territories.

President Obama will continue to monitor the situation from time to time as he deals with more important matters of state, including discussions with top economic advisers on how best to blame the Obstructionist Party for fiscal cliff unpleasantness. He was heard to giggle while rejecting a tearful plea from House Speaker Boehner that he please not do that. A statement by the President’s Deputy Assistant Under Secretary for Pest Press Control made it perfectly clear that President Obama often chews gum, walks, talks and monitors important developments simultaneously. Secretary Clinton, busy attending to crucial matters of foreign policy, could not be reached for comment.

However, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., stated that she had abstained from voting because the White House had not told her that there was to be a vote, what it was about or what to do where. She stated that as soon as the necessary information and instructions are provided she will vote on any subsequent resolution as directed by President Obama.

What Does It Mean To Be Reasonable In Unreasonable Circumstances? Israellycool, Ryan Bellerose, July 4, 2014

Is this reasonable?

The reasonable position is that everyone wants peace, whether they are in the Middle East or in Canada right? Nobody other than a few extremists wants more violence. That seems reasonable, and often it’s the point that most of us begin from. But what would you say if I told you that your assumption was wrong? Not incorrect, but actually wrong. So if you start from that place, you will not end up with a reasonable result. When one side wants the other side dead, when they want nothing less than “100% of the land from the river to the sea” (their words) what exactly would be the middle? Is the middle, saying “ Jews can live here, they just have no rights”? Or is the middle “we wont kill you all, just some”?

I find that most of the time in life you can avoid serious issues when you basically stay in the middle. On most issues, the center is really the most “reasonable” place to be, because, by definition, it is in between both positions. You usually look at both sides of a situation, and end up somewhere in the middle, if you are being reasonable. But sometimes being reasonable is anything but.

You see, being reasonable implies that you are thinking, that you are examining something and making a decision based on reasoning. And at some point this means you will find things you do not like, but if you are just “reasonable,” you can find a compromise that you can live with. Nobody walks away truly happy, but, hey, it’s ok because we were being “reasonable”. It’s because we live in a world where “compromise” is exalted as though it’s the only moral position.

Here’s the issue though: what if we begin from a place that is factually incorrect?

The reasonable position is that everyone wants peace, whether they are in the Middle East or in Canada right? Nobody other than a few extremists wants more violence. That seems reasonable, and often it’s the point that most of us begin from. But what would you say if I told you that your assumption was wrong? Not incorrect, but actually wrong. So if you start from that place, you will not end up with a reasonable result. When one side wants the other side dead, when they want nothing less than “100% of the land from the river to the sea” (their words) what exactly would be the middle? Is the middle, saying “ Jews can live here, they just have no rights”? Or is the middle “we wont kill you all, just some”? Seriously, perhaps some of my Jewish friends who have the moral superiority complex can explain it to me (actually none of my actual friends have that). Because all I see is people saying they want to kill Jews, celebrating the death of children, and openly being antisemitic. So where, exactly, is the middle or the reasonable position here? I know it’s hard to believe, but Jews are not responsible for every bad thing in the world, even though it seems like some Jewish people actually believe that.

“We just want peace and justice” was the refrain from the Palestinians for years, during which we saw two intifadas, several hundred terrorist events, and numerous murders. At what point is it no longer “reasonable” to expect the Arab Palestinians to act like human beings? This is a serious question.  If someone says “Ryan, you should let me come over to your house for dinner, I promise nobody will harm you,” and then I go have dinner and get jumped by several people and beaten up, then later find out my guest had a hand in it, how many more times should I invite him to my house? Or better yet, if someone says to me “I want to kill you and your family, but you should invite me to dinner,” is it “reasonable” to invite them? I wonder, is it more reasonable to expect that someone who says they want to harm me, will harm me, or to expect something else?

It’s not racial profiling or racism to suggest that Palestinians in the vast majority either are ok with killing Jews, or actively support it. It’s called actions speak louder than words. While there are more and more Muslims stepping up to speak out, it’s still not where it needs to be. Instead of making statements abrogating responsibility, they should be stepping up and saying “No, we will not accept evil being done in our name.” Sadly this isn’t the case. In point of fact, they are completely refusing to budge at all from their position, which means that any budging by Israel is in fact unreasonable. If you are playing tug of war, and the other guy already holds more rope, do you give up more rope in the hope he will stop pulling?

I just went to a vigil for 3 murdered teenagers, I watched as people cried, sang and prayed, and the whole time I was burning inside, not because innocent lives were taken, but because even now I am seeing people talking about “being reasonable.” I don’t understand why there is such a double standard. I don’t see many people calling out the Palestinians for not doing more to prevent these crimes, I know they are infantilised by the West but come on. I don’t think it’s in any way reasonable to ignore the deaths of innocent kids.

I once wrote, “in a world filled with irrationality, the irrational becomes rational.” I am seeing that constantly, I see Jewish people like Jstreet and JVP advocating the position “that if Israel just compromises a little bit more” there will be peace in the Middle East. Just give a little more, just give up some land, because land for peace has worked out well for everyone I suppose. The moral maximilism is as dangerous as outright Anti-Semitism, as if only Israel and Jews should be held to a high standard. It’s actually racist both ways. It’s literally unreasonable standards for one side and no standards for the other.

I see people saying “yes three innocent kids were murdered in cold blood, but since several terrorists were killed during the investigation, we should call it even.” The people saying this are being reasonable, after all, three murdered kids is the same as six people killed resisting arrest during a criminal investigation right? That seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Forget that three were innocent kids and six were terrorists with known ties to groups trying to kill Jews, who were killed while attacking police forces. If I let this be confusing, it will be, so I’m gonna try boiling it all down.

I remember as a kid, I received a Winchester .22 rifle for my sixth birthday. It was the greatest present I had ever received, and I was incredibly proud of it. I cleaned it every day and kept it in immaculate shape. One day, one of my stepbrothers wanted to go shoot some prairie chickens and asked to borrow my rifle. I said “no it’s mine and you have your own.” The issue was he had left his outside overnight and the scope had condensation and he couldn’t see, so he whined until my stepmother said “Ryan, be reasonable and let him borrow your rifle.” I was only six so I gave in. When he came home the next day, my beautiful, well-kept rifle was scuffed, dirty and wet. He handed it to me and I noticed it was even beaten up on the metal! The lazy bugger didn’t even clean it before giving it back. I showed Merv (my father) and he said, “Why would you lend him your rifle? You know he doesn’t even take care of his own. That was kinda stupid.” I told him “Because Jean said I should be reasonable and share.” Merv just shook his head and said “You don’t share your things with people who do not respect their own things, and it’s never reasonable to expect people to be anything other than what they are.” About a week later, my stepbrother asked to borrow my rifle again, and I said emphatically, “No.” When my stepmother stepped in and said “You will lend your rifle to your stepbrother,” Merv stepped in and said “Nope, it’s Ryan’s rifle, and Victor can’t be bothered to look after his own rifle, so he won’t be borrowing Ryan’s.” I learned at a young age that sometimes you simply have to say NO even if it sounds unreasonable. If I had lent Victor my rifle again, would it have been his fault when he returned it scuffed and dirty and possibly broken, or would it have been mine? A reasonable compromise would have been to lend it to him with the caveat that he clean it and return it in good shape, but he had already demonstrated that was unlikely to happen. So would that really be reasonable?

Ask yourselves a question though. At what point does being reasonable and trying to compromise become appeasement? At what point do you finally stand up and say ENOUGH? I think finding those boys dead, in a shallow grave and watching people celebrate the news was my tipping point. I don’t think I am going to be reasonable anymore. I think from now on I am going to expect people to act like human beings.