Horribly Wrong

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Yossi (Joe) Izrael says:

    This “exchange” was long in the making. all Jewish organizations should have united to oppose and protest this. And all share the guilt for it. We’ve got into the habit of apathy and whining after the fact.

    Oppps – Jews? Unite? I forgot, that only happens in fairy tales. Or to dead Jews.

  2. Bob Miller says:

    Let’s review the salient points and questions:

    1. Arab terrorists are butchers generally supported by the will of the Arab people.

    2. The New York Times and others like them condone true atrocities by enemies of America or Israel, while accepting or creating false stories of atrocities by America or Israel.

    3. The organization that should be most active and vocal in fighting terrorists and rebutting apologists for terrorism is the government of Israel. Evidently, that government believes it has some higher priority these days. If that priority is to remove threats coming from Iran, the patron of Hezbollah and Hamas, why does Israel fail to deal appropriately with Hezbollah and Hamas? Does tomorrow’s US support for, or acquiescence in, Israeli actions against Iran somehow depend on today’s Israeli concessions to proxies of Iran? Is the Israeli government indifferent to its responsibility to its citizens? Somebody, please explain all this.

  3. TheOtherView says:

    That the NY Times are a bunch of anti-semites is no chiddush, however, what we as Jews have to realize is that other people have a different view. The land was populated before 1948. Israel was involved in ethnic cleansing. Although most Jews in the holocaust would not have murdered an innocent German (non-Nazi) child, and a Palestinian has no problem, murdering an innocent Jewish child, the rest of the world still thinks “listen, this is one Jewish child, what about the Palestinian children that for decades have been unable to live normally b/c of the Zionist regime”.

    Two wrongs do not make a right and Kuntar should have his peace in this world so he can suffer in the next, but we (most Jews) have a difficult time recognizing that there are others who view things differently.

    Any thoughts?

  4. Bob Miller says:

    The main cause for the plight of Palestinian Arab children is the past and present behavior of the Palestinian parents and Arab leaders—including those leaders who told their own people to evacuate in 1948 while the Arab armies invaded Israel.

    The many Jewish children driven out of Arab countries along with their parents from 1948 on did amazingly better because Israel and other host countries did not seek to keep them isolated as permanent victims.

    Relevant facts are shown in the pamphlet “Big Lies: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel” by David Meir-Levi, available at http://frontpagemag.com

  5. Garnel Ironheart says:

    Thoughts? Sure. In a few sentences, you have presented a biased, propaganda-based view of history completely unsupported by fact.
    Fact – it was the Arab leadership in Israel that fled following the 1947 UN vote to parition Israel, leaving their followers confused and unable to take advantage of the historic opportunity the UN had just handed them
    Fact – it was the Arab leadership that rejected the partition vote and invaded Israel in order to prevent the plan from being carried out. It was this same leadership that encouraged the local Arab populations to “temporarily” evacuate from Israel so as not to get caught in the crossfire between the Jewish and Arab forces.
    Fact – it was the Arab leadership that made the decision to keep the displaced Arabs (many of whom had moved to Israel within the previous 30 years to take advantage of the growing Jewish community’s need for manual labourers and who had no real roots in Israel) in refugee camps so that they could be used as propaganda weapons against Israel. These numbers were subsequently swelled by other Arabs who found the lure of free food and board, meagre as it was, superior to the lifestyle afforded them by that same Arab leadership.

    Rav Shafran point seems to be quite simple: When an Arab terrorist murders a Jew in cold blood because of a polital-religious agenda, it is present in the news as: Guerilla/freedom fighter kills Israeli citizen but it was probably the Israel’s fault in the first place.

    And that is unacceptable.

  6. Toby Katz says:

    I think when the NY Times said “the raid went horribly wrong” they meant that the terrorist murderer was captured before he could get away. Had the raid gone as planned, he would have made a clean escape and would not have had to spend so many years in an Israeli prison.

  7. lacosta says:

    i agree with all the above. as to our opinion of the exchange right or wrong, i think that ultimately that only those with soldiers on the line really get a say. ie we all have strong opinions on this, but in the end those of us in Chu’l , and those of us in Israel who do not participate in the Tzahal enterprise [ ie 100% of the arabs, 95+% of the charedim, and a smaller % of the dati leumi community] really shouldnt get a vote on the issue….

  8. ClooJew says:

    Words are indeed, lulei demistafina, potent weapons. I was shocked, shocked that several articles mentioning this horrible exchange referred to the “return” of two Israeli “soldiers” without mentioning that they were “dead.” Hashem Yeracheim.


  9. zalman says:

    Yeah, but…
    The first sentence of the very same NYT article refers to Kuntar as “Perhaps Israel’s most reviled prisoner,” and another NYT article (6/30/08 also first sentence) referred to him as “one of the most notorious convicts in its prisons, a Lebanese murderer”.
    “Horribly wrong” may still be horribly wrong but your readers are entitled to more complete information.

  10. SM says:

    I think ‘horribly wrong’ referred to the fact that a kidnap turned into an horrific murder. Kidnapping is plainly wrong, but it is still possible to discriminate between two wrongs without being an anti-semite. I think we need to be careful not to be too sensitive to this. The overall tone of the article simply doesn’t support the reading being given to the one phrase quoted.

  11. Tal Benschar says:

    Putting aside the bias of the NY Times, one wonders after the Samir Kuntar incident if anyone still believes in making peace with the Arab nations — peace in the sense that one believes the end result will be Arab acceptance of Israel as a normal neighbor. Here is a man who should be reviled — after shooting the father, he bashed in the head of a 4 year old girl with a rifle butt. Yet the Arab world views him as a hero. Anyone can believe there will be peace with such people needs to explain this episode.

    (Of course there are other reasons one might engage in a “peace process” — strategic considerations, mollifying the U.S., etc. I am simply addressing those who believe that the Arab world, with just a few more concessions, will accept Israel the way, say, the U.S. and Canada accept each other.)

  12. L Oberstein says:

    Moment Magazine’s most recent issue had a symposium on prospects for peace and nobody thought it was on the horizon. Even most leftists see that there is no partner on the other side with the desire and the ability to make a deal for a two state solution that will be the dawn of a new day. Now what? If Meir Kahane was correct, as so many think in their innermost hearts, is that a policy that is even possible? I think the solution is to find alternative energy sources and for Israel to develope solar power and get fresh water from salt water. Then the whole Arab world will become much less of a threat to all of civilization.As long as the USA buys most of its fuel from Arabs and Iran can develope to its heart’s content an atom bomb, Israel is in trouble. Solve the enery and water problems and we will have a new Middle East. Until then, we have to deal with our neighbors and both sides are stuck. It isn’t the greatest situation but it is a lot better than 1939.

Pin It on Pinterest