The Palestinians and the jihadi motive: being clear

The New Neo Posted on by

In a post from last Friday, I wrote on the attitude of many people about the Palestine/Israel conflict and the prospects for peace. The people I’m describing are not the rabid, vicious demonstrators who chant “from the river to the sea.” Nor am I talking about people who live in Israel; the vast majority there have disabused themselves of the notion that there can be a negotiated 2-state solution without a significant war, destruction of the jihadi elements in Palestinian society, and re-education of the Palestinian citizenry. When I wrote the following, I was thinking of the majority of the people I know, who believe in the “cycle of violence” which labels both sides as equally culpable and equally unwilling to give up anything. Such people believe that with goodwill it could and can all be settled peacefully:

Much better to believe that we all want peace and that there is some sort of negotiated solution possible without so much violence. But it is crystal clear that it is a fantasy, even if it wasn’t quite as clear many decades ago.

So, why am I writing about this topic again? I realize that I need to explain what is now so clear and why it wasn’t so easy to see it before.

In my perception of the situation there were several turning points. One was the 1972 Munich massacre. It’s hard to convey to those who are younger and don’t remember those times how shocking that event was. The Olympics were off-limits, athletes were immune from politics and violence – and if this seems hopelessly naive well, it was. The massacre was an eye-opener. And one of the most horrific things about it was that much of the world seemed to shrug, and another was that afterwards Arafat’s stock and that of the Palestinians seemed to rise in the world.

But I bought – as did most people – the idea that the Palestinians really did want a state and that under some set of circumstances they would be willing to live alongside Israel in peace or relative peace. Should I have believed that back then? Probably not. But coverage of Arafat’s rhetoric when speaking in Arabic was in its infancy, and the way the MSM and the government were talking about the situation it was easy to believe that a settlement was possible. Oslo and Camp David and their disappointments and failures were in the future, and it was more possible to see that some sort of negotiated 2-state solution could be achieved and that this was the goal of the Palestinians.

I distinctly recall when I started to think this was not the case. It was some time during the 1990s, and I was reading a lengthy article about the education of Palestinian children. I’ve never been able to find this article again, so I can’t quote it. I don’t even remember where it appeared, although I have a vague recollection that it might have been The New Yorker, to which I had a subscription. But I remember the content. It described in detail how the Palestinians were being taught to hate Israelis and Jews and consider it the highest honor to kill them. And I realized, with a sinking heart, that the situation was far worse than I had ever thought. Simply put, if the article was true – and it turned out that it was – peace through negotiation was unrealistic.

Later developments in my thinking stemmed from the failure of Camp David, discovering how much lying the Palestinians did (see my pieces on the al Durah incident, for example), and watching the Second Intifada develop. So it was that by the early years of the twenty-first century I had largely given up the notion that mere negotiations would ever work.

With 9/11 we also had become aware of the seriousness of the worldwide jihadi threat. But still – at least in my mind – the Palestinian terrorists were somewhat different. Although they were connected to the jihadis it seemed their goals were more localized and focused on eliminating Israel and that it was primarily the land they wanted. It wasn’t just a land dispute about borders, but that seemed to be the strongest motive.

However, what 10/7 finally made clear was that the Palestinians have been merely playing to the western left in using the rhetoric of national liberation and/or nationalism. What they want is for Israel to be obliterated and for the Jews to be wiped off the face of the earth – and then the Christians – and/or converted to Islam. In other words, they are jihadis first, Palestinians second. And this is one of the reasons they have wreaked havoc in the Arab countries that made the error of giving them refuge – an error those countries are not likely to repeat. Why are they trying to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy? Because Jordan, although a Muslim country, is not jihadi enough. Why the same in Egypt? Because Egypt, although a Muslim country, is not jihadi enough.

What percentage of the Palestinian people are onboard with this? Unfortunately, it seems to be the vast majority.

Leftists in the west have chosen to ally with this group. They have bought the nationalistic rhetoric and deny the jihadi motive, which is why they scream that it’s the Israelis who are committing genocide against the poor victimized Palestinians. It fits the leftist worldview quite neatly, and the Palestinians and other jihadi propagandists are well aware of that and exploit it. If the jihadis ever win, modern-day leftists will be just as surprised as the Iranian leftists were when Khomeini took power and massacred them. I wonder how many of today’s young leftists are aware of that history.

Khomeini also said this after taking power:

Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?…Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

That’s the jihadi creed.

Growing up in a big family

The New Neo Posted on by

I recently read this essay by Jay Neugeboren about growing up in a very large family with 35 first cousins. Neugeboren is somewhat older than I am, and so the era he describes was earlier but not all that much earlier. But the type of family he describes is nothing like my family was.

My family was very very small. I had parents and an older brother. But I had only one aunt and uncle and one first cousin, and my aunt and cousin both died when I was six years old, within a few weeks of each other of completely different causes. Two of my grandparents died before I was born, and my other grandfather was very very ill until he died when I was eight. My remaining grandmother played a huge part in my life and lived nearby, but she died when I was nineteen.

And so there was none of the sort of casual family get-together stuff with all the cousins playing together, the thing described in Neugeboren’s article. My uncle did remarry, and he had two stepchildren, but one was considerably older and the other was very difficult.

However, I also lived in the kind of community where it was common to call the friends of one’s parents by the honorifics “aunt” and “uncle” even though we weren’t related. So there was that.

But it was nevertheless a very different universe from the one that Neugeboren inhabited, and very different from the one in which my own grandmother was raised. She was an only child, it’s true, but she had 36 first cousins and they all lived in New York City. Interestingly enough, I married a man who had (I write in the past tense because many are now deceased) something like 26 first cousins, so many he really lost count.

What about you? Are you still in touch with your cousins? As it turns out, as an adult, I reconnected with one of my cousins-by-marriage (the older one) and we are very good friends now. I also found out, through DNA testing and by chance, that we are actually very distantly related. I’m also very distantly related to my ex-husband.

Go figure.

The Trump “Unified Reich” hoax

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday one of my Democrat friends told me she was worried that Trump had now openly praised Hitler and the Nazis. Initially I didn’t know what she was talking about, but it didn’t take more than a moment to find this:

Here’s a piece on it.

When I – or you – hear someone claim that Trump is praising Nazis and plans to start a Reich, I know from previous experience that this is some sort of distortion (otherwise known as a lie). All I have to do is check it out and that will become clear.

But I also know that many many people are already convinced that Trump is a Hitlerian white-supremacist megalomaniac, and it therefore doesn’t occur to them to check it out. Why would they want to waste their time, when they already know it’s the case? The fact that their perception of Trump as Hitler is based on a series of such lies is unknown to them, and toppling that edifice would require going through the lies one by one and proving each one to be a lie.

At a certain point, it might or might not dawn on the person that the entire perception is incorrect and needs radical revision. But at what point? Who is going to undertake the task of refuting the lies one by one, and how many people would be patient enough to listen? How much proof does it take? And of course some people will never change, no matter what facts are brought to bear.

Time and again it has been brought home to me that this is the situation with most of my friends. No, they are not evil, nor are they stupid. They simply are steeped in lies that are fed them in order to influence them politically, and they are surrounded by like-minded people so the lies are rarely if ever challenged. They are busy with their lives. They would have to actively seek out and read the press on the right to ever hear counter-arguments, and there is little motivation for that because (a) they’ve been told over and over again that the press on the right lies constantly (and it does lie sometimes, although with nothing like the frequency of the left); and (b) it is difficult and rather frightening to change one’s political viewpoint, and risks alienating friends and family.

When I have written in the past about my own experience of political change, I’ve emphasized that it was under some special circumstances: I was reading online and unaware of the right vs. left sources of my information, so I was judging it only on how logical it was and what sense it made to me. It was only about a year later that I discovered that the sources I found most reliable were on the right. This was a shock at the time, but I could not deny it and anyway it had already happened. I also had no idea that moving to the right on my part would cause much of a rift or even discomfort socially. At the time, I wasn’t in the habit of having political discussions with friends or family and was naive about the social polarization that could occur.

Both of these things facilited my change, but very few people are naive about either thing these days.

International law redux

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I wrote this post on international law back in 2006. I think it’s time for a re-post (slightly edited). And please note the 2006 event that sparked the post. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.]

The International Red Cross has said that Israel’s response in Lebanon violates the “proportionality” principle of the Geneva Conventions (see this for my views on proportionality). The group has also issued the following statement about the terrorist group Hezbollah:

Hezbollah fighters too are bound by the rules of international humanitarian law, and they must not target civilian areas.

I’m sorry, but what’s the International Red Cross been smoking?

Earth to International Red Cross: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. They exist to target civilians.

Furthermore, there’s a general principle involved, one that should be readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of sense:

To be “bound” by a certain law, one (or both) of two things need to be true: (1) the “bound” entity has to agree to the authority of those administering the law; (2) the authority has to have the power of enforcement over that entity.

The International Red Cross has neither over Hezbollah at this point. The only way it would get that power–and it could never obtain #1, only #2–is by a military defeat of Hezbollah, a capture of its leaders, and the act of subsequently bringing them before an international tribunal.

And, of course, to defeat Hezbollah would require a response the International Red Cross already has already condemned as violating the principles of proportionality, since Hezbollah is well aware of the value of hiding behind civilians, and does so purposely and frequently. So, how in heaven’s name would any international court ever get authority over Hezbollah, except to try them in absentia? And a fat lot of good that would do, except as meaningless theater.

The remark by the International Red Cross about Hezbollah being “bound” by the Conventions made me think of a popular comeback when I was a kid. When someone would say, I’m gonna make you do it, the usual retort was Oh yeah? You and what army?

Somehow I think that’s exactly what Hezbollah would say.

Germany reduces penalties for child porn possession

The New Neo Posted on by

Not a good sign. Germany has downgraded possession of child porn to a misdemeanor:

German lawmakers justified their action by arguing that decriminalization gave “necessary flexibility” to deal with the “large proportion of juvenile offenders,” and would also protect parents and teachers who discover child porn on the devices of young people and pass them on to the relevant authorities.

There are ways to make exceptions for those things, without downgrading possession as a whole. Young people sharing naked pictures of each other with other young people is a different thing than adult consumption of child porn, and can be treated differently. But that’s not what happened in Germany. And of course, the pro-pedophilia groups are very encouraged by this, as well they should be.

Children are children, and limits must always be placed on the adult use of children for sex. Children cannot give such consent, period. I have written about this many times before.

From the article:

According to this corrupted way of thinking, nothing more than consent is required for a sexual relationship to have legitimacy. The logic goes like this: Because minors are autonomous persons with human rights, any restriction on activities to which they consent is unjust.

Child porn is child exploitation, and while its makers are obviously exploiting children, its makers also depend on child porn consumers to make their money. What of child porn that involves cartoons – in other words, no living children were harmed in making it? Not as clear-cut. But that’s not what this law is about.

The article points out that one of the goals is to undermine the family and parental authority. True; we’ve seen that in so many ways.

This is depraved and Orwellian:

“The taboo of pedophilia must finally be broken at all levels of society,” Gieseking [an offender and pedophile activist] once said. “If a pedophile can come out without fear of exclusion or even demonization, then this is the best prevention against child abuse.”

Rewarding the terrorists: Why do many people believe in the 2-state solution at this point, and want to reward Hamas with a state?

The New Neo Posted on by

There are so many answers: leftism, Jew-hatred, neo-Marxism, ignorance of history, and plenty more.

But in this post I want to focus on one part of the answer, which can be summed up in this way: the alternative is too terrible to contemplate. Like the Gorgon, the actual face of evil and a situation so stark is a difficult thing to look at directly and contemplate deeply. The Go-Pro videos, the statements about wanting to kill Jews and commit the atrocities of October 7 over and over, the jihadi desire to take over the world, the tremendous brutality, and the approval of much of the Palestinian population for such barbaric violence not only is acutely painful to observe, but all the possible solutions are awful.

Much better to believe that we all want peace and that there is some sort of negotiated solution possible without so much violence. But it is crystal clear that it is a fantasy, even if it wasn’t quite as clear many decades ago.

This is the cold-eyed face of evil:

The 47-year-old Hamas terrorist Jamal Radi, accompanied by his 18-year-old son Abdallah, confessed to raping and killing several women as they wreaked havoc through the southern Israeli Kibbutz of Nir Oz, video footage of the Israeli interrogation obtained by the UK newspaper Daily Mail shows.

Jamal, the father of seven captured by the IDF inside Gaza, showed no remorse during the interrogation. “She was screaming, she was crying, I did what I did, I raped her,” he told Israeli interrogators, confessing to one of many rapes and murders he committed on October 7 with the help of his son and other Hamas attackers. …

These crimes committed by Hamas, much like those previously by the Islamic State, were in accordance with the doctrine of jihad warfare. Mass rape, beheadings, mutilation of corpses, and taking of hostages on October 7 were part of Hamas’s meticulously planned attack. Hamas ordered the terrorist intruders to ‘kill, behead, rape,’ a captured attacker told Israeli interrogators in late October.

The disturbing confessions come to light a day after a new video surfaced showing Hamas terrorists kidnapping five Israeli soldiers on October 7. The footage shows captured women with their faces smeared with blood and terrorists boasting of raping them once in Gaza. The clip also shows armed Hamas terrorists offering Islamic prayers with the female captives tied up behind them.

The Daily Mail article calls this father-son pair “evil,” and they certainly are that. But they are not isolated sociopaths like Ariel Castro (remember him, the Ohio man who kidnapped teenagers and kept them as his tortured sexual slaves for many years?). They may indeed be sociopaths or psychopaths (the difference has never been totally clear to me), but they are certainly not isolated. Their violence has been carefully nurtured by a government and a society that encourages and rewards it. They are adherents of a branch of Islam that allows this for infidel women; thus, the Islamic prayers.

And there are very many people like them in Palestinian society. This is a huge problem, and 2 states will not solve it. The Palestinians plan to use their state to destroy Israel, and any government that recognizes that state is rewarding this sort of rape, torture, and murder – even as they mouth words of “peace.”

For example, we have the governments of Norway, Spain, and Ireland:

Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris told a Wednesday news conference in Dublin: “Today, Ireland, Norway and Spain are announcing that we recognize the state of Palestine. Each of us will now undertake whatever national steps are necessary to give effect to that decision.”

“There is never a wrong time to do the right thing,” Harris later said, speaking to CNN’s Christiana Amanpour on Thursday.

In what universe is this “the right thing?” In the universe of what Ayn Rand referred to as “altruism,” which can be loosely summarized by the old Jewish saying: “He who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate.”

The people in this video are part of the Ayn Rand Center, and they discuss the Objectivist approach. I don’t always agree with Rand, but I certainly agree with these excerpts – and they don’t pull their punches. I’ve cued up a 14-minute segment and a 4-minute one (again, if you’re impatient, you can speed the video up by going to “settings”):

Three more bodies rescued from the ghouls of Gaza

The New Neo Posted on by

With the assistance of Shin Bet, the IDF has found the bodies of three more October 7 victims and brought them back to Israel. They’ve been dead all that time, a situation I discussed previously in this post titled “The ghouls of Gaza.”

The three people whose bodies were most recently found are Hanan Yablonka (aged 42), Michel Nisenbaum (aged 59), and Orion Hernandez (aged 32):

Yablonka and Radoux were kidnapped from the Nova music festival. Nisenbaum, a resident of the southern Israeli town of Sderot, fell into the hands of Hamas as he was out to save his 4-year-old granddaughter during the terrorist attack. Her granddaughter, protected by her father, miraculously survived the attack.

The Hamas terrorists murdered all three them on Israeli soil and took their bodies to Gaza, news reports suggest.

Orion Hernandez was the boyfriend of Shani Louk, the woman whose dead and broken body was paraded to jeering, spitting crowds in Gaza.

RIP.

I strongly suspect the location of the bodies was obtained through the interrogation of captured terrorists.

I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat that, although I think a great many hostages are dead (and many were from the start, October 7), I think a certain number (probably under 50) are still alive. Most of them are probably young women being kept as both bargaining chips and sex slaves.

May they be rescued soon. Alive.

Bill Maher’s abysmal ignorance about J6

The New Neo Posted on by

I highlight this not because of Maher, who doesn’t especially interest me. I think the clip is worth watching because of what it says about the way we get information and form our opinions these days. Maher isn’t exactly on the left, although he’s a Democrat and he repeats all sorts of Democrat talking points. But now and then he says sensible things, and he tends to be very much against “wokeness” and is also a free speech advocate. He’s been speaking on political and newsworthy events in the world for umpteen years, and has a relatively large number of viewers.

So you might think he’d know the basic facts of the biggest events of the past few years. But if you thought that, you’d be wrong. In this clip he’s stupendously ignorant, and although perhaps he’s lying and really does know the truth, my gut feeling is that he’s more fool than knave about this although he partakes of both.

This is what I’m talking about. It’s very short:

Note how arrogantly Maher assumes he’s right and Kelly is wrong; his voice drips with sarcasm and condescension, and he gives that little laughing snort. Then when he realizes that she actually may know more than he does about what happened – at least she knows Officer Sicknick’s name, for example – Maher acts as though it’s of no import that he thought police were killed that day and that actually they were not. He pivots to the fact that they were attacked rather than killed, as though those two things are the same.

Again, one might think that a person might show a bit of surprise at having a long-held assumption – an important one on which that person had based some of his belief that J6 was an insurrection by a highly dangerous group of people – demolished. But Maher doesn’t miss a beat. His moving of the goalposts is seamless and doesn’t give him a moment’s pause.

And this isn’t just Bill Maher. This is so many people: their knowledge is shallow, but pointing out errors doesn’t change their belief system, which has been constructed on a huge edifice of such errors.

A mind is indeed a difficult thing to change.

The Bronx ♥ Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

Some people there do, anyway. There was an overflow crowd for Trump’s rally yesterday:

Former President Donald Trump promised Thursday evening to “make New York City great again” during a raucous rally in the South Bronx, his first major campaign event in the state of his birth since 2016.

“This is some turnout,” Trump told a rowdy crowd in Crotona Park. “We have thousands of people outside the gate.”

The event was permitted to host up to 3,500 people, but thousands more gathered outside security checkpoints in the 127.5-acre public park in the hope of catching a glimpse of the 45th president or a sample of his remarks.

“Make New York City great again” – and Trump remembers the days when it was indeed pretty great.

You can’t argue with this:

“Joe Biden is the worst president in the history of our country,” the former president added later in his remarks. “He has no sense — doesn’t know what he’s doing, is grossly incompetent.”

The crowd looks pretty diverse, too.

Look, I don’t think Trump has a chance of taking New York. But it’s nice to dream. And where does Trump get his energy? The contrast with Biden is phenomenal.