The ICC attacks, J Street demands capitulation, others call for escalation dominance

Just over a hundred years ago, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, in The Ethics of the Iron Wall, wrote:

It is incredible what political simpletons Jews are. They shut their eyes to one of the most elementary rules of life, that you must not "meet halfway" those who do not want to meet you.

The point of the jihad against Israel is to exterminate the Jews, yet Jews are forever talking about discussions, negotiations, agreements, deals, etc., as if somehow, a middle ground can be found between being alive and being dead. Note that this Jew sought-after condition requires only the Jews to concede half of life. The same Jews do not demand of those who want them dead to concede anything. Jabotinsky again:

There was a typical example in old Russia, when one of the oppressed nations, with one accord, launched a crusade against the Jews, boycotting them and pogroming them. At the same time, this nation was fighting to gain its own autonomy, without any attempt to conceal it means to use its autonomy for the purpose of oppressing the Jews. Worse than before. And yet, Jewish politicians and writers, (even Jewish nationalists) considered it their duty to support the autonomist efforts of their enemy, on the ground that autonomy is a sacred cause. ...This sort of thing is not morality, it is twaddle. ...Each man who passes my window in the street has a right to live only in so far as he recognises my right to live; but if he is determined to kill me, I cannot admit that he has any right to live.

And for over a hundred years, those determined to kill all Jews have been repeating their intention without end, and at every possible opportunity have tried again and again to do exactly that, each time adding another weapon to their arsenal, and recruiting more “political simpletons”—what we today call useful idiots—to their cause. And each time they wield a new weapon, the Jewish useful idiots form a chorus, take a deep breath and sing loudly in praise of the killers, and curse their Jewish targets.

So it was that when, on 21 November 2024, the jihad-usurped International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes, an American Jewish capitulatory organisation, J Street, found it “unbearably painful” that the leader of Israel in the middle of a war against the most serious Jew-killers of our time, should have fallen foul of this cabal of Berias. The J Street press statement of the same day said:

This deeply distressing ruling is one more clear sign of the lasting damage this extreme right-wing government is doing to the State of Israel, its place in the world and its long-term security.

Given that “this extreme right-wing government” was elected by the overwhelming majority of the people of Israel, the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews are, according to these diaspora Jews, doing “lasting damage” to Israel by having the affront to go after their killers. According to this “the pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy movement,” it is the fate of the Jew to forever cower in submission before those who oppress them, and find it “unbearably painful” when Jews do otherwise. So “deeply distressed” are they that they are "sending an unmistakable signal: You have gone too far,” in responding to “the barbaric terrorist attack of October 7, 2023.” On the same day as that fateful attack, J Street issued the following press statement, updated on 8 October as more details came through:

J Street is shocked, outraged and horrified by the surprise, ongoing terrorist onslaught launched by Hamas against Israel on Shabbat and Simchat Torah/Shemini Atzeret.

At least 700 Israelis have been reported killed and at least 2,000 wounded in an unprecedented infiltration of dozens of terrorist gunmen into communities near the Gaza border and a barrage of indiscriminate rocket fire against Israeli cities. Terrifyingly, dozens of Israelis have been kidnapped and taken hostage. Many have been trapped in their homes waiting desperately to be saved, as live combat in border communities is ongoing. This is a time of profound anguish and horror. Israel is in a state of war and national emergency.

J Street stands in solidarity with the Israeli people in this hour of terrible danger, fear and worry. We stand with the Israeli armed forces working furiously to repel this assault, protect Israelis and defeat the terrorist onslaught. Our thoughts and our hearts are with all of the victims and their loved ones, and in particular with the many communities facing bombardments of rocket fire, infiltrator attacks and the kidnapping of family members

Hamas’ murderous actions must be met with unequivocal condemnation from the entire international community. We hope for their swift and decisive defeat, and urge the US government to do everything possible to assist the State of Israel in confronting this threat, defending its citizens, and preventing a slide into even further conflagration and suffering for Israelis and Palestinians.” (J Street press release, 7 October 2023. My emphasis)

Palestinians carried out the “terrorist onslaught”, and Palestinians took Israelis captive. Yet, even as the full horror of the Palestinian onslaught was still emerging, J Street made sure that its primary concern was not lost sight of, namely, the suffering of the Palestinians. It was their statement’s last word. The J Street press release also gives a clue to what they mean by “You have gone too far,” in their rebuke of the Israeli government yesterday:

“We hope for their [Hamas’s] swift and decisive defeat, and urge the US government to do everything possible to assist the State of Israel in confronting this threat, defending its citizens, and preventing a slide into even further conflagration and suffering for Israelis and Palestinians.”

What did they mean by “swift and decisive defeat”?

What did they mean by “assist the State of Israel in confronting this threat and defending its citizens”?

What did they mean by “preventing a slide into even further conflagration and suffering”?

What did they mean by “Israelis and Palestinians”?

Are we to understand that a “swift and decisive defeat” of Hamas is meant to be achieved without “a slide into even further conflagration and suffering for Israelis and Palestinians”? Of course, it is eminently reasonable to not want a slide into even further conflagration and suffering for Israelis, the victims of the “terrorist onslaught”. But what suffering have the Palestinians endured on 7 October, if they were the ones perpetrating the onslaught, terrorists and “innocent civilians” alike, and celebrating and rejoicing, in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria alike?

J Street has no sense at all of just how offensive they have been by tagging “the Palestinians” onto their concern for “a slide into even further conflagration and suffering for Israelis,” even if they did, as do many political simpletons within Israel, blame Hamas but absolve the Palestinians.

Dhimmis are prohibited, on pain of death, from in any way resisting whatever abuse is lavished on them. Over generations, they become accustomed to their abuse, and the care they must take to minimise that abuse, as integral to their condition. Jews who stand up for themselves terrify the Jews of J Street because when the punishment comes, as it surely will, they might get it, too. We see this in how J Street quivers at the current array of onslaughts on the Jews. The abuser is always right and must always be cowered to. According to the J Street statement of 21 November 2024.:

The warrants come on the heels of a landmark vote in the United States Senate in which a record 19 Democratic Senators publicly sent a message of disapproval of the conduct of the Gaza war by this government and of yet another 14-1 vote in the United Nations Security Council calling on Israel to stop its military campaign in Gaza.

So if, “in the wake of the barbaric terrorist attack of October 7, 2023,” and the Palestinians (terrorists and civilians alike) continue to hold 101 Israeli captives, the Israeli government continues fighting a war in Gaza, then it has “gone too far.” The perpetrators of “the barbaric terrorist attack” have provided all the data J Street needs to conclude:

As justified as the military response may have been to the initial attack, the humanitarian catastrophe, the level of death and destruction and the denial of assistance to civilians are not only unacceptable, they violate international norms and rules. The world sees and hears the many Israeli government leaders who are expressing their intent to forge ahead with further illegality: Annexation of occupied territory, expansion of civilian settlements and potential movement and expulsion of civilian populations – not just in the West Bank but Gaza too.

Shock! Horror! Palestinians might no longer be able to perpetrate barbaric terrorist attacks on Jews! “J Street is deeply saddened that we have reached this moment.” The lament continues:

We want nothing more than for it to be secure, democratic, prosperous and at peace with its neighbours. A homeland not only for the Jewish people, but for our Jewish values as well.

We have reached a point where none of that will be possible because of leaders who have chosen to take the country down a path of never-ending war, annexation and actions outside the bounds of international law.

“Outside the bounds of international law,” says J Street. Israel has not only stayed scrupulously within the bounds of international law in observing the rules of war, but has damaged herself and lost valuable young soldiers by conducting a war according to the rules of peace. Israel was never going to get credit for this gratuitous concession, yet persisted with it. All of Israel’s enemies, including J Street, were going to heap opprobrium on Israel for “going too far,” no matter what she did or did not do. J Street ends their lament with:

Calls to penalize or intimidate court officials undermine our values and do not serve the American interest in a stable world order rooted in the rule of law.

One wonders whether J Street would have said the same to anyone thinking of penalising Soviet NKVD chief, Lavrentiy Beria. For their own dhimmi consciousness, J Street must scrupulously observe the law, even if the law is intended to oppress them, even if the law is abused to deny them, even when the law wielded against them does not exist.

Paradoxically, J Street's concerns about the poor, hard-done-by Palestinians have nothing to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with themselves. Such Jews feel guilty that they have a homeland and, to assuage their guilt, must share their homeland with someone, so that at least they can convince themselves that they have not stolen it, even if the someone in question is a nation that did not exist at the time, and was so contrived as to find national fulfilment only in the extermination of all the Jews and destruction of the Jewish homeland. Hence we read of this obsession with what “the world sees and hears” and with the "illegality [of] annexation of occupied territory.”

The world sees and hears the many Israeli government leaders who are expressing their intent to forge ahead with further illegality: Annexation of occupied territory, expansion of civilian settlements and potential movement and expulsion of civilian populations – not just in the West Bank but Gaza too.

As far as Muslims are concerned, occupation, annexation and settlements are a religious matter: the seizure of "Muslim land" that their covenant with their Allah requires them to constantly expand by jihad, not lose back to the unbelievers. As far as everyone else was concerned, it is a matter of nation states vying for balance (what a quaint idea).

Apart from Israel having the complete right to annex territory conquered from an aggressor in defensive war, the so-called “occupied [Palestinian] territory” was conquered from Egypt and Jordan, Muslim Arabs who themselves had rushed in to occupy as much as they could of Mandatory Palestine territory, i.e., what remained of the Jewish national home after the British had excised Transjordan from it, and returned it to the Muslims. Muslims never speak of either Jordanian or Egyptian occupation, for Muslims cannot occupy Muslim land. The "Palestinians", so-called, were invented later, so that all land at that point held by Jews could eventually be forced back into Muslim hands. From 1967 onwards, they focussed on those territories that more recently came under "Jewish occupation" and that might more easily be prised away from them.

Successive Israeli governments have been complicit in this jihad by indulging the notion of land for the “Palestinians”. The problem only festered, and kept political simpletons like J Street in business.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky recalls that the Talmud quotes “a very instructive legal action – which has a direct bearing on this matter.”

Two people walking along the road find a piece of cloth. One of them says: " I found it. It is mine:" But the other says: " No: that is not true: I found the cloth, and it is mine: " The judge to whom they appeal cuts the cloth in two, and each of these obstinate folk gets half. But there is another version of this action. It is only one of the two claimants who is obstinate: the other, on the contrary, has determined to make the world wonder at this magnanimity. So he says: "We both found the cloth, and therefore I ask only a half of it, because the second belongs to B. But B. insists that he found it, and that he alone is entitled to it. In this case, the Talmud recommends a wise Judgment, that is, how very disappointing to our magnanimous gentleman. The judge says: "There is agreement about one half of the cloth. A. admits that it belongs to B. So it is only the second half that is in dispute. We shall, therefore divide this into two halves: And the obstinate claimant gets three-quarters of the cloth, while the ”gentleman" has only one quarter, and serve him right. It is a very fine thing to be a gentleman, but it is no reason for being an idiot. Our ancestors knew that. But we have forgotten it.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky goes on to warn: “We should bear it in mind. Particularly, since we are very badly situated in this matter of concessions.” The great Jabotinsky would be pleased to learn that not every Jew is so craven before the law. Dr Aaron Lerner of Independent Media Review Analysis, right on the heels of J Street urged exactly the opposite course of action: escalation dominance in the form of a snap annexation of Judea and Samaria.

There are politicians calling for the extension of Israeli law to areas of Judea and Samaria (aka annexation) as a response to the ICC arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and former DM Gallant.

Thus Dr Lerner's introduction. He goes on to lay out two legal avenues towards achieving inserting the ancient heartland of the Jewish people, Judea and Samaria, back into the body of Israel: one, by Government decision; and two, by legislation. Whereas J Street six times mentions law, such as: "the bounds of international law"; "the laws the international community has established"; "the very laws that this government’s leaders today so brazenly violate"; and "the rule of law" (three times), not once do they mention any specific law, let alone how it is violated.

Dr Lerner, on the contrary, not only mentions the law he has in mind, but lays out the relevant provisions of the law in detail. Weighing the relative efficacy of these alternatives, Dr Lerner cuts right to the chase:

Going the legislation route opens a huge window of opportunity for massive pressure to come to bear before the third and final vote is cast to approve the action.

While going the legislative route would clearly be legal, in the middle of a war with his own top brass and security echelon desperate to take him down as soon as possible, the Stalinist legal establishment, both locally and internationally, bulldozing the rule of law to impede his prosecution of the war, and chihuahuas like J Street and Peace Now snapping at his heels, the Government decision route "makes a lot more sense," Dr Lerner says.

In the case of a Government decision, in the worst case it is published as being on the agenda forty-eight hours (including the Sabbath) before the vote. But forty-eight hours, or for that matter, any amount of time before the ministers sit in a room without their mobile phones, is too much time.

"All it takes is a map and a vote of the Cabinet," Dr Lerner highlights.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has the option, as Prime Minister, to introduce the move to a vote without its having been on the agenda, and to dismiss, on the spot, any minister who objects to the snap vote taking place.

And this is what the law says:

Ordinance Law and Administration, 1948

11B The law, jurisdiction and administration of the State shall apply to any area of the Land of Israel that the Government sets in an order.

Instead of the old hasbara approach of explaining why the Prime Minister is not guilty of war crimes, Dr Lerner and several politicians urge for the exact opposite approach: using the ICC's move to dominate its escalation. For the present writer, who has for years advocated for exactly this approach to replace hasbara, Dr Lerner's intervention is enormously encouraging.

It [extending Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria in direct response to the ICC's arrest warrants] would leverage the ICC action today into a blessing.

What about the Saudis and others?

Even if we were to annex all of Area C plus Jericho, the rest of the Jordan Valley and Kalkilya to smooth out the line, the Saudis and the others could argue that they are progressing with relations with the Jewish State to prevent us from annexing even more territory!

Pure genius!

Picture credits:

Tamar Hayardeni (Tamarah) - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=23024414

https://jstreet.org/

Greater_Jerusalem_May_2006_CIA_remote-sensing_map_.jpg: CIAderivative work: Timeshifter (talk) - Greater_Jerusalem_May_2006_CIA_remote-sensing_map_.jpgThis is a 3500-pixel-wide version of the above-linked original map that is 8,264 × 10,696 pixels, with a file size of 53.3 MB. This 3500-pixel-wide version is 5.54 MB., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11665838

Comments:

On 23 November 2024 at 13:06, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar

Thank you for posting this essay about our own useful idiots.

Regretfully there's no lack of them sadly, throughout our history.

How the Israeli Left Lost It - Algemeiner.com

"On May Day, 1936 the Labor Zionist leader Berl Katznelson angrily asked:

“Is there another people on earth whose sons are so emotionally and mentally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape and robbery committed by their enemies fills their hearts with admiration and awe?”

Nisan locates this perversion on the Israeli Left, and especially its professoriat.

The heart sinks, the mind reels to learn that the odious doctrines of “diversity” and multiculturalism (a euphemism for cultural deprivation) have spread from American universities to Israel, where the institution whose very name means “out of many, one” pursues its opposite: race-thinking. Nisan cites a notorious recent example, much beloved of feminist Israel-haters:"

https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/06/23/how-the-israeli-left-lost-it/

Best Regards
Ben Dor A.