Photo Credit: Ir Amim
Arabs in East Jerusalem. The idea that Arab violence will end if Israel withdraws to the 1949 armistice lines is willful blindness of the worst kind.

From +972, quoting Daniel Seidemann, founder of Ir Amim:

This afternoon, I paid a working visit to a friend in the Palestinian neighborhood of Sur Bahir, barely a kilometer from my home. When we took leave of one another, I headed home in my car. I had the misfortune of ending up in a traffic jam in the center of the village, just as school was getting out.

I didn’t see it coming, but should have: I was a sitting duck. The rock was probably thrown at point blank range; it smashed the side window with enough force to leave a deep gash in the back of my head. I was fortunate: I did not lose consciousness, nor my sense of orientation. Thankfully, the traffic jam loosened up a bit. Within a minute or so I was out of danger and on my way to get treatment.

This ended with a few stitches and no serious damage (confirmed by a CT).

…I don’t romanticize the prick that cracked my head open. But I don’t find it particularly important if he is or is not apprehended. (OK – I do fear that he might have just been practicing on me, and that more deadly violence can be expected of him in the future).

But this ends not when Palestinians behave better, or when our Shin Bet becomes more efficient. It ends when occupation ends. Until then, I remain a symbol of that occupation, and not without reason. And no good deeds, as it were, will redeem me or protect me.

Seidemann is not a stupid man. But the idea that Arab violence will end if Israel withdraws to the 1949 armistice lines is willful blindness of the worst kind.

He knows that before “occupation” there were Palestinian Arab attacks on Israel – and not on Jordan, which occupied the West Bank at the time. He knows that before the state of Israel was reborn the Arabs (not called Palestinians then) would routinely attack Jews (not called Israelis then.)

“Occupation” is not the cause of violence, but a trendy excuse for violence. Nothing proves that more than the rocket attacks that not only didn’t end after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, but that increased.

Yet he is willing to ignore all of that, and even his now first-hand knowledge of the dangers of the “non-violent resistance” that Mahmoud Abbas encourages that includes stone throwing. No, he is – like so many in the Israeli Left – so singlemindedly obsessed with “occupation” that simple facts have no meaning to him anymore.

It would behoove him to read this article from earlier this year from a former member of his religion of Leftism:

I participated in the Dialogue for Peace Project for young Israelis and Palestinians who are politically involved in various frameworks. The project’s objective was to identify tomorrow’s leaders and bring them closer today, with the aim of bringing peace at some future time. … The Israeli side, which included representatives from right and left, tried to understand the Palestinians’ vision of the end of the strife– “Let’s talk business.” The Israelis delved to understand how we can end the age-old, painful conflict. What red lines are they willing to be flexible on? What resolution will satisfy their aspirations? Where do they envision the future borders of the Palestinian State which they so crave?

We were shocked to discover that not a single one of them spoke of a Palestinian State, or to be more precise, of a two-state solution.

They spoke of one state – their state. They spoke of ruling Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Akko, Haifa, and the pain of the Nakba [lit. the tragedy – the establishment of the State of Israel]. There was no future for them. Only the past. “There is no legitimacy for Jews to live next to us” – this was their main message. “First, let them pay for what they perpetrated.”

In the course of a dialogue which escalated to shouts, the Palestinians asked us not to refer to suicide bombers as “terrorists” because they don’t consider them so. “So how do you call someone who dons a vest and blows himself up in a Tel Aviv shopping mall with the stated purpose of killing innocent civilians,” I asked one of the participants.

Advertisement

7 COMMENTS

  1. Some people prefer pretend answers (wishful thinking) when questions have no easy answers.

    Typical leftist question is okay if no two state solution what then is the answer to peace? When you tell them that the two state solution will not bring peace but war they sometimes still cling to the two state solution because their are no easy answers to the conflict.

  2. This is one of the reasons why I dislike labels so much – I am a liberal, but I shudder in horror at being lumped in with people who are this ragingly self-deluded. The hope is for a peace that everyone can accept, but they need to accept that reality rarely accomodates ones hopes. Sigh.

  3. Did Ishmael ever make peace with Isaac, did he not also make Isaac's life miserable as Isaac is the son of the promise and the legitimate heir, see why they want to do away with Israel. as G-d said the son of the bond woman shall not inherit with the son of the promise. Isaac and his descendants.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...