A New Wave of Terrorism Strikes Israel

In the last three weeks Israel has been suffering from another wave of terrorist attacks.  The attacks have occurred in various cities throughout the country - Beersheba, Hadera, Bnei Brak and Tel Aviv.  Fourteen have been killed.  The Sunday New York Times had a half page article discussing the recent terror attacks.  In the first paragraph of that lengthy article we learn that the Palestinians view the attacks as "a logical consequence of the entrenchment of Israel's 55-year occupation of the West Bank, of Israel's control over sensitive religious sites in Jerusalem, and of the dwindling commitment from some key Arab leaders to the creation of a Palestinian state."

For those familiar with the left-wing slant of the Times, it should be no surprise that the article starts out with false justifications for the latest terror attacks.  The "dwindling commitment" from key Arab leaders is because they are tired of the Palestinians having rejected offer after offer to have their own state.  These Arab leaders have greater concerns, such as the rise of the Iranian hegemony over the Middle East - a concern that they share with Israel.  They now see Israel as an ally against Iran, and also want to benefit both from trade with Israel and from Israeli technology.

"Israel's control over sensitive religious sites in Jerusalem?"  Is the Times ignoring the fact that, under Israeli control, all religions have access to their holy sites in Jerusalem?  Which is unlike the period of time when Jordan controlled Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, with Jews being denied access, and Jewish sites being destroyed and desecrated.  This year, with the holidays of Passover, Easter and Ramadan falling contemporaneously, all religions will have access to their holy sites. 

What about the "entrenchment of Israel's 55-year occupation of the West Bank?"  I could argue that the land was promised by G-d to the Jewish people.  But, I'll simply point out that the land was won in the 1967 "Six Day War," when Israel defeated multiple Arab countries that tried to destroy it.  I'll point out that, after withdrawing from Gaza, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used that territory to launch countless missiles and rockets against Israel.  Should Israelis now give up the West Bank, in order to assist in their own annihilation?  If the dispute was simply one over land, the Palestinians would have had their own state long ago - as early as 1947.  But it has never been about land.  It has been about the refusal to accept a Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people.

I noticed something else very interesting in the Times article.  Although I should say, something that was absent from the article.  In discussing "the deadliest wave of violence since 2016," the Times says that there were "five Arab assailants who have killed 14 people, including two Arab police officers and two Ukrainians."  Yet, in this half page article, the Times did not mention the name of a single Israeli who was murdered.  But I recall very well during Israel's last war with Hamas, the Times had no problem dedicating a two page spread with the photos and short bios of dozens of Palestinians who were killed during the fighting.  But, as I have come to expect from the mainstream media, Jewish lives do not mean much.  Also not surprising was that the Times failed to mention the celebrations in Gaza and the West Bank by Palestinians, upon hearing of the deaths of these innocent Israeli civilians.

I am not on Facebook or Instagram or other social media, with the exception of LinkedIn.  Following the latest terrorist attack, in the heart of Jerusalem, I saw a post on LinkedIn by someone from WiX.  The post described Eytan Magini as a "beloved member" of the WiX family, who was killed by the Tel Aviv terrorist.  The post offered condolences to Eytan's family and to his fiancee.  They had been engaged for only one month.  Of course, there were many "likes," and also many comments.

What I found to be particularly disturbing was the Jew hatred and hatred of Israel expressed by many with Arab and/or Muslim names.  Here is part of one comment, by a writer who accused falsely accused Israel of killing tens of thousands of Palestinians:  "Crocodile tears won't serve you as long as you treat Palestinians in a filthy racist manner.  You are colonialists who came from Europe and have no right in the land of Palestine.  Palestinians are the original inhabitants and the ones who are entitled to the land."

I am confident that whoever posted that comment would deny the existence of the ancient Kingdoms of Israel, of King David, of King Solomon, and of the two Holy Temples.  I suspect that their false beliefs are learned in their schools and in the media they are exposed to throughout much of the Arab and Islamic world.  If the writers at the Times, and other like-minded people, want to know why there is no peace between Israel and the Palestinians, one need only read some of the comments I saw on LinkedIn.      

        

When Are Guns Good?

A week ago, there was a shooting in Sacramento, leaving 6 people dead and 12 injured.  Here was President Biden:  "Today, America once again mourns for another community devastated by gun violence...But we must do more than mourn; we must act.  That is why my Administration has taken historic executive action to implement my comprehensive gun crime reduction strategy..."  His strategy includes banning ghost guns (made from a kit or parts), banning "assault" weapons, requiring background checks on all gun sales, and repealing gun manufacturers' immunity from liability.

I wish that Biden was mourning the existence of bad guys, people who all too easily are willing to murder other people.  And it seems to me that removing manufacturers' protections from liability is simply a backdoor way to put manufacturers out of business.  Banning "assault" weapons is another way to ban all guns, because any gun can be considered an "assault" weapon.  As for the AR-15, the AR does not mean "assault rifle."  Rather, it is the manufacturer's name, Armalite, and then the word "rifle."  Furthermore, almost all gun killings are done with a pistol.  Will all pistols be banned?  

I have no objection to background checks, if handled expeditiously.  But, California for example, already requires background checks, with a few exceptions such as private sales and antique guns.  Then there is the concern of what the government will do in terms of having a database of all gun owners.  The biggest concern, it seems to me, are the 3-D printed guns.  While they might be good for only a few firings, anyone with access to such a printer might be able to produce such a gun.  "Ghost" guns may be more problematic to ban, because then the issue becomes one of banning the sale of all gun parts, arguably another way to limit gun ownership.  

Here was California Governor Gavin Newsom:  "Sadly, we once again mourn the lives lost and for those injured in yet another horrendous act of gun violence."  Of course we mourn for the victims and their families and friends.  Newsom:  "The scourge of gun violence continues to be a crisis in our country, and we must resolve to bring an end to this carnage."  Of course I would like to see an end to all murders and senseless killings.  But the left always blames the instrument rather than the perpetrator.  Is mental illness part of the problem?  No doubt.  But what about the scourge of criminality?  What about the lack of decent values instilled in young people?

But here is a different take than that of our left-wing politicians.  Recently, Israel has suffered a series of terrorist attacks.  (See the companion post.)  Fourteen people were killed in four different cities.  Here was the Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett:  "Citizens of Israel, we are currently experiencing a wave of murderous terrorism...What is expected of you, citizens of Israel?  Alertness and responsibility.  Open your eyes.  Whoever has a license to carry a weapon, this is the time to carry it."  

This is the time to carry your weapon.  With good reason.  It is not just the police or members of the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) who are able to kill murderers before even more people are shot dead by the perpetrators.  Civilians have also been able to prevent more deaths by shooting and killing the perpetrator.  Like here, police in Israel will confiscate a gun used by a civilian, for forensic purposes.  Unlike here, there is apparently an expedited procedure to have a new handgun issued to that person.  Also unlike here, there is little chance of a civilian being prosecuted for taking down a terrorist bad guy.

So, which approach is preferable?  Try to eliminate guns, even though we know criminals will always find a way to get a gun.  Use a gun in the US, even in self-defense or the defense of others, and there are any number of left-wing prosecutors who would prosecute the good guy.  Or Israel's approach, all those licensed should carry their guns.  Of course, the politicians and the elite here often have their armed security.  But what about everyone else?