"Clearly, the Arab rage in France originates in the lack of independence in Mayotte.
The world must increase its pressure on France for its insistence on denying a state from the Native Mahorais People.
The French occupation of the Mayotte archipelago must end immediately.
It's about time the Sunni Muslims of Mayotte finally join their Comorosi brothers in independence, and choose their destiny with their own hands, like the rest of the free nations here on Earth.
Colonialism isn't cute.
The absence of a political horizon the current French government imposes on the Mahorais tires the nations of the world.
Furthermore, France should open its gates wide to defenseless migrants from The Middle East and Africa.
The EU, The UN and the rest of the free world must issue clear guidelines on the issue of labeling of French products from Mayotte. The world must know what it buys.
It is only natural for the just rage of the Muslims towards France to grow further and further with the years.
Needless to say, we expect France to show restraint and proportionality in its pursuit for the perpetrators.
Large, well-equipped, well-armed police units are obviously disproportionate to the minor, moderate forces of the Arab freedom fighters."
Now, imagine this would actually be the bon ton reaction around the world to the horrifying terror attacks in Paris.The elites, the media, the academia - all compete for the most vile way in which they could attack the victim.
Quite repulsive, isn't it?
Imagine...
Photo taken from: http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.il/
Except they do exactly that.
Even though Israel suffers daily terrorist attacks, when it comes to Israel anything goes.
In fact, Israel is perceived as a target so legitimate, the Swedish FM excelled and outdid all her competitors, suggesting Israel among the causes of global Jihad, thus effectively blaming Israel for the Paris attacks. And she's not alone [1, 2, 3].
The truth of the Anti-Israeli logic is stranger than any fiction.
Don't misunderstand me (or misrepresent me on purpose, for that matter). I've got nothing but sorrow and sympathy for the hundreds of innocent people who perished in terror attacks around the world just this last month. But for the elites I've got a different message:
When you call terror victims in another country "settlers", as to suggest they're somehow somewhat more than just innocent civilians, you mustn't be surprised when terrorists come for you.
When you call terrorists in Israel "freedom fighters", you're welcoming the next terrorist attack in your home town.
When you say that "this terrorist attack had rationale" but "that terror attack was completely senseless", you legitimize terrorism worldwide.
A disgusting fantasy is an apalling reality when it comes to Israel.
It's time for all to stop the double standards. Islamic Arab terrorism is Islamic Arab terrorism!
Stop treating Hamas differently than ISIS! Stop deliberately framing Hamas and ISIS differently in the media!
There's no difference between them. Their goals are the same. Sure, minuscule changes can and should be discussed in the academia, but they bare absolutely no significance for the everyman.
Sure, it's not politically correct.
It's also the truth.
To paraphrase a great thinker:
"First they came for the settlers, and you didn't speak up because you weren't settlers.
Then they came for the Jews, and you didn't speak up because you weren't Jews.
And now they've come for you. What the hell did you expect?!"
Stop rationalizing, understanding and supporting terrorists!
The times in which we're living impose on us certain game rules, whether we want it or not. One of such rules is "the narrative" and the time imposing it on us is postmodernity. Theoretically, it claims that any perspective on the facts that took place, and on the chronology in which they took place, is viable. At first glance, that seems to be a perfectly legitimate observation. However, practically, it too often means for too many that notions such as facts and chronology become outdated and inconsequential altogether. Not the perspective on the facts changes, but rather facts change to fit one's perspective. Questions like - Who's the aggressor? Who attacked who first? Who started the war? Why was it started? What is the actual chronological order of events? What is the cause and consequence? Who's a terrorist and who's a freedom fighter? - All lose significance.
If any point of view is acceptable, then no one is a liar. If everyone has their own truth, then there's no truth altogether. No facts, no truth - no right or wrong. Let's keep that on the conscience of the people responsible for killing Truth as a concept, by introducing postmodernity into our lives - the academia.
The Nakba, the "Palestinian" mourning day, commemorated on the Gregorian calendar day of the proclamation of the establishment of Israel, is the ultimate example of a "narrative" gone wild. "The catastrophe", "the disaster" of the "Palestinian" people has all the main characteristics of the typical postmodern moral and historical "relativism"; ignoring history, flipping cause and consequence, blowing events out of every proportion, throwing any context out of the window, applying replacement theory and, of course, singling out and using double standards.
What have become of the Nakba farce today in a nutshell is the following:
Evil Zionist Jews came from Europe in 1948 to a completely foreign to them Palestine, escaping the Holocaust (which is usually denied as well), occupied it, starting a brutal genocide on the innocent, civilian indigenous Palestinian population (that continues to this day!), and establishing the Zionist Israel on the ruins of Palestine. Those who weren't slaughtered, were brutally kicked out of their homes and are refugees to this day (along with all their descendants!) in an evil act of ethnic cleansing. This is to be regarded as the greatest crime in human history, Israel should be perceived as the last colonial project, Zionism should be seen as racism and as an unprecedented evil.
Terrible, isn't it?
From the point of view of the progressive-liberal-postmodern-relativist all that is as legitimate and as tangible as any other telling. If it was indeed so, then Israel would be an incarnation of Satan and all the boycotts, bias and disproportionate obsession would have been justified.
From the point of view of a normal person? Not quite so.
With the Nakba Day "celebrated" just last week, on May 15th, it's crucial to set the record straight and make a decisive stand: lies are no narrative.
Let's debunk the Nakba farce for the lies it's built of:
Myth #1: "Jews came to Israel in 1948! / Israel was only established because of the Holocaust!"
Putting aside ancient history, religion, the Bible AND the Quran, this lie ignores the building of Israel by European Jews for some fifty years before WWII. It ignores the first and the second "Aliyahs" - waves of Jewish repatriation to Israel in 1882-1902 and 1904-1914 respectively, way before WWII or the Holocaust. It ignores the establishment of the Zionist movement - the national movement of the Jewish people - in the 19th century. It further ignores the original repatriation of Yemenite Jews to Israel in the 19th century at the same time of and unrelated to the First Aliyah.
Myth #2: "Jews occupied "Palestine"!"
Never at any given time in history was there an independent state called "Palestine", the Jews could occupy. "Palestine" was only a name given to a geographic area by foreign occupiers; Romans, Turks, Brits. The name comes from a Hebrew word "Plishtim", that means... "invaders" (oopsie!), and was given to a foreign, ancient Greek tribe that invaded the land from the sea. There never was a political entity called "Palestine". There never was any unique "Palestinian" people, separate from the rest of the Middle Eastern Arabs.
Myth #3: ""Palestinians" are an indigenous people to Israel!"
Why was this unique criteria needed? Clearly because the universal standard didn't apply to the Arabs from British Palestine. While the exact numbers are disputed among scholars, obviously a significant enough chunk of what's referred to today as "Palestinians" are in no way indigenous to Israel. Children of foreign workers brought in by the Ottomans, result of migrating tribes, gangs moved in during the Arab revolt. Their claim is in no way more primal, than that of the first and second Aliyahs. Not to mention the historical claim on Israel, unique to the Jews.
Now, if we look at UNRWA's original number of 711,000 refugees (even though today they brazenly claim "about 750,000" on their official website!), we'll discover a surprise as well. Prof. Karsh's meticulous research proved the max. estimation of "Palestinian" Arab refugees can only stand at 609,000. That means some 100,000 neighboring, non-"Palestinian" Arabs jumped on to suck on the global community's generous tit.
Myth #4: "Zionists kicked "Palestinians" out! They started it! "Palestinian" terrorism is only a response to Zionist aggression!"
Here comes that pesky-little-insignificant-outdated nuisance called "chronology".
Arabs murdered some 300 Jews during the 1936-1939 Arab revolt. Before the Jews "kicked out" anybody or "occupied" anything. To what were they "responding" then?
Arabs slaughtered 18 Jews in Safed and 67 in Hebron in 1929. To what were they "responding" then?
That list goes on.
Still feel like justifying and rationalizing Islamic terrorism?
Now without even getting into the numbers of the (rather substantial) question of how many Arabs were actually physically expelled by Jews, how many fled on their accord and how many left adhering to the plea from Arab generals to leave (ignoring Jewish leadership pleas to stay and build a life together), so that they could wipe out the Jews quickly and allow them to "come back in two weeks", let's remember a few basic facts:
#1: Arabs were the ones who attacked Jews; five foreign armies, as well as local gangs.
#2. Their directly expressed goal was Jewish extinction and genocide.
#3. They started the war. They planned genocide. They lost. Where's the Nazi "Nakba Day"?
Myth #5: "Zionists have comitted genocide of "Palestinians"! / The Nakba is the "Palestinian" holocaust!"
The Holocaust is not a matter of perspective.
A genocide is not an issue of narrative.
You don't get to call your defeat in 1949 a "Holocaust" just because it's "a Holocaust for you".
The lie of the Israeli perpetrated genocide is a lie of monstrous magnitude, bearing a metaphysical purpose. Its purposes are to prove "Jews are evil after all" - thus exempting Western guilt over the Holocaust, and that "what the Nazis have done to them, they're now doing to the Palestinians", turning Zionism into modern day Nazism and all of Israel into a sort of a Freudian complex. The only conceivable reason for this audacity to bear any succeess whatsoever is to assume Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique works: "tell a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
Okay, let's engage in intellectual self abuse: A genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group - courtesy of Wikipedia.
Example #1: During the Armenian genocide, the Turks slaughtered some 1.5 million of the 2 million of Armenians living in the Ottoman empire. That's some 75% of the Armenian population under the Ottoman empire. That's a genocide.
Example #2: During the Holocaust some 6 million of the 9.5 million of European Jews were slaughtered. That's some 63% of the Jewish population. That's a genocide.
Example #3: During the Rwandan Genocide some 500,000 out of the 770,000 Tutsis were slaughtered. That's some 65% of the Tutsi population. That's a genocide.
That list goes on.
Now coming to Israel and the Arabs, out of the 711,000 (UN numbers) displaced "Palestinians" (not out of the entire Arab population of British Palestine, mind you), some 13,000 people were killed. That's some 1.8% of the displaced Arab population. I deliberately used the numbers bearing the seal of the "Palestinian Narrative" approval, even though they're disputed and inflated.
Even their own numbers prove beyond a reasonable doubt there never was a genocide.
Myth #6: "Okay, no genocide, but the Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine! Secret Zionist documents prove that was their intention all along!"
No matter how much certain progressive-liberal-postmodern-relativist "scholars" will try to twist certain phrases or quotes, take them out of context and detach them from historic perspective, there was a wide consensus of opposition to an expulsion of Arabs across the Jewish political map, left and right.
With that being said, let's also understand "ethnic cleansing" is the postmodern historian's way of demonizing population exchange. In the years after WWII (i.e. the years in question) population exchange with the purpose of creating homogeneous nation states was the international norm, approved and encouraged by the global community in general and specifically in Israel (even by some Arab leaders!). Sure, leaving one's home is always a tragedy, but this was, sadly, happening all over the world and in much (much) higher numbers. All of these exchanges were tragically accompanied by major loss of life as well.
Example #1: 14.5 million were exchanged between India and Pakistan. There was no war. On the contrary it was done to prevent one by uniting the Hindus with the Hindus and the Muslims with the Muslims. Yet both countries were unable at the time to take care of the mass population exchange, and massacres occured on both sides. The exact number of the people killed as a result of the transfer is still disputed, with some estimations going as high as a million dead. Most scholars cite around 500,000.
Example #2: Approximately 12 million of ethnic Germans from all over Europe were driven out of their homes after the Nazi defeat by furious local populations. Even though they were indigenous to their homes, and unrelated in any way to the Nazis. Around 550,000 were killed during the expulsions.
Example #3: The end of WWII has left some significant grudge between the Poles and the Ukrainians as well. 1.5 million were expelled from their homes. As many as 100,000 were killed.
That list goes on.
Population exchange cases worldwide compared.
In blue: the total amount of displaced in each case. In red: those killed during the process.
Some 850,000 Jews (that's 100,000 more than even the current inflated numbers of UNRWA) driven out of Arab lands as a result of the establishment of Israel also come to mind. Those actually were indigenous citizens of their origin countries, living there for centuries. They weren't at war with the Arab population of their countries. They didn't invade the Arabs with five hostile Jewish states. They never swore to drive the Arabs into the sea.
You know, small, insignificant, pesky differences.
Out of all of the millions of refugees the world have seen since WWII only one group keeps its refugee status till today and passes it on to its descendants. Only one has turned their displacement to the core of their national identity. Only one whines and moans till this very day of their "great disaster". Guess which.
By the same token, where's the Indian Nakba Day? Where's the Pakistani Nakba Day? Where's the German?..
That list goes on.
Myth #7: "Zionists are committing genocide of "Palestinians" today!"
Even if you know absolutely nothing about history, international law, politics, the Middle East, the Israeli-Arab conflict or anything else about anything, you still have to be brain-dead to take these accusations seriously.
The Jews didn't come to Israel with the flag of Poland, Russia, Morocco or Yemen. They didn't come to abuse the "riches" and "indigenous population" of Israel for some other homeland. They came to settle in Israel, a persecuted people, leaving everything behind to build a new, Jewish life in their new homeland. To work the land, to build the cities, to develop their own independent, Jewish culture. Zionism is not colonialism, nor is it racism. It's the Civil Rights Movement of the Jewish people.
Coming back to the "narrative era", sure, one man's victory is another man's tragedy. Granted. Even if it's entirely self-inflicted. Granted every loss, every displacement is a tragic event for the people involved. Granted had there never been wars in the world, it'd have been a better place. No question about it. Now, say you've turned this loss into a defining moment in your history, into a cornerstone of your national identity (unprecedented, really). Say, you've turned misery into a career. Say, you've perpetuated the suffering of (the descendants) of your refugees. Say, your national idea is a strikingly negative one, in an absolutely unique way compared to the global practice.
Consider the following, Israel's vice ambassador to Norway, George Deek (who happened to be an Israeli Arab), has brought up this question: Why is the Nakba commemorated on the date of Israel's declaration of independence? Why not, say, this expulsion, or that massacre, or this defeat? What is the Palestinian "catastrophe" all about? Their loss? Their expulsion? Their diaspora? Or is it our victory that is their main cause of mourning?
This is what it's all about. The very essence of the entire conflict. The Palestinians' main problem is not a lack of a country, it's the existence of ours. No other nation got the amount of opportunities the Palestinians did to establish their own state. It's not a matter of territory. As long as a Jewish state exists anywhere within historic Israel, the Palestinian "Nakba" won't end.
How many times have you heard the claim that Israel is one of the most violent places on Earth? The source of violence in the world, in fact? The root cause of global Islamic terrorism? How many world polls have put Israel among the biggest threats to world peace [1, 2, 3, 4]? This claim is repeated way too often and absolutely matter-of-factly, as if it was some common knowledge, an undisputed axiom. It is repeated by highly influential individuals; statesmen, scholars [1, 2], media [1, 2, 3]. Many of those individuals are otherwise perfectly sane and quite intelligent.
So how can they be so ignorant in this matter?
Let's try to put emotions aside and look at the facts. Just some cold numbers.
In the entire (entire!) 154 (one hundred and fifty four) years of the Israeli-Arab conflict a total (total!) of 121,879 people (Arabs AND Jews) were killed. During that period of time we had all-encompassing wars, military operations, Intifadas and also many years of relative quiet. Still that's a lot of people. That's a lot of wasted lives. That's something we all wish to put an end to already.
But let's compare that to some of the other current conflicts. Just a few from the top of my head.
In 2006 the then Mexican President Felipe Calderón proclaimed a war on the drug cartels. Since then, according to a leading Mexican newspaper 'La Jornada', and up to 2012 (6 years) more then 136,000 people were killed as a result of this drug war. That's approximately 11.6% more than the casualties of our entire conflict, except they were slaughtered some 29 times faster. Since the drug war isn't over, it's safe to assume these numbers are much higher today.
Now, don't get me wrong, dear Anti-Semites; I'm not saying that the Israeli-Arab conflict is okay, because in many other places in the world the carnage is much worse. I, just like any other Zionist, am not proud of a single dead. I, just like any other Zionist, wish for the violence to stop. But with that said, a certain sense of proportionality must be implied. My point is - Israel is not "the root cause of violence in the world". It's a tiny insignificant speck in the vast oceans of global violence.
And you'll tell me: "But Israel is a democracy! We hold Israel to a higher standard!"
The moment you hold the Israelis to a "higher standard", you automatically hold the Congolese, the Syrian and the Mexican (who, are democratic as well, by the way) to a lower standard.
Besides, it'll be interesting for you to know, that Jerusalem as the capital of, not only Israel, but also the entire Israeli-Arab conflict, with all its religious and national tensions is much safer right now than such "perfectly peaceful" and "fully democratic" cities like: Edinburgh, Reykjavik, Copenhagen, Toronto, Berlin, Amsterdam, Vienna, Helsinki, Madrid, Sydney, Oslo, London, New York, Los Angeles, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Rome and Dublin - just to name a few. Speaking in violence rates, Jerusalem is not even on the same planet as Baltimore, New Orleans and Detroit.
So, you see, wether you "hold it to it" or not, Israel is on a higher standard than the absolute majority of countries.
Former AP correspondent Matti Friedman explains CNN the media bias over Israel.
Despite what the media and the academia tell you, the Israeli-Arab conflict is not one of the main, most significant, highly crucial conflicts in the world. While solving it, is obviously an utmost priority to its direct participants, it bares practically zero impact on the planet. Solving it won't solve the world's problems, won't stop Islamic terrorism and won't prevent a third World War.
So next time you hear your local media pumping "Israel this, Israel that" in your local news, switch to something more relevant to you, something closer to home or, perhaps, something truly crucial to the world's security.
Or just try using your brains. It's simple and pleasant.
Last Saturday Jews in Israel and Worldwide observed Yom Kippur. A day of repentance, forgiveness, fasting, prayer and soul searching.
This is also the anniversary of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a war that is largely remembered in the Israeli consensus as the most traumatic. A coalition of Arab armies led by Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on its holiest day, in what is generally seen by the mainstream Israeli discourse as a "great surprise" and the result of Israeli "complacency". Some scholars put in on par with the greatest military surprises of the 20th century: Operation Barbarossa and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
This year, 41 years later, just like any other, Israeli newspapers, tv shows and internet portals all dealt deeply with that war, providing even more new stories, angles, insights, excuses and apologies. Much is said about a sort of a PTSD the nation still suffers from 41 years later. Interestingly enough, if we look at the results objectively, it's easy to put Yom Kippur War in the same line with The War of Independence and The Six-Day War along with Israel's greatest victories. Just to put things into perspective: the unanimously-agreed "triumphant" Six-Day War lasted (as the name suggests) for 6 days; the generally-considered "disastrous" Yom Kippur War lasted for two weeks and a half. Helplessly outnumbered and surprised in the beginning, the war ended in the outskirts of Cairo and Damascus, not Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem. It was after the Yom Kippur War that the Arab countries' ambition to destroy Israel by force was crushed, (turning instead to propaganda and "indigenous" narratives). And still, perhaps in line with the Yom Kippur traditions, we keep repenting and searching within ourselves, trying to realize how did we go "so wrong"? What lessons can we learn from the mistakes of 1973? How can we make sure we don't repeat them?
IDF accepts surrendering enemy soldiers in Egypt (left) and Syria in 1973.
For some 20 years now Israeli governments, left and right, operated within the paradigm of the two-states solution, "land for peace" formula and the belief that only the establishment of a Palestinian country in the very heart of our own will solve all our problems. This, however, was tried and failed numerously. If there's indeed any science in "political science", then these "experiments" and "observations" must be taken into the most serious of consideration.
1. Israel went through with the Oslo Accords, establishing (and arming) the Palestinian Authority, relinquishing control over Areas A and B in Judea and Samaria, hoping this would end violence and become a step towards peace. Instead we received a rise in violence, terror and bombings. It took Operation "Defensive Shield" and the construction of the Security Barrier to bring bloodshed coming from the PA to a halt.
2. Israel left Lebanon in 2000. Hezbollah took over and started terrorizing the Israeli north with missile fire. Israel had to return and engage Hezbollah in 2006 in what was dubbed the Second Lebanon War.
3. Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005, extracting all military and civilian presence and pulling back to the revered (pre-)67 borders. Instead of establishing a prosperous Palestinian state, Hamas (who took over by force in 2007 after winning the elections by a landslide) invested millions (millions!) of international aid money in its terror industry. Millions that could have went to infrastructure and welfare. Since then three military operations and counting were needed to block Arab aggression against Israel.
Infographic taken from http://www.idfblog.com.
If the main disagreement between PM Benjamin Netanyahu, who is considered to be a right wing conservative and Zehava Gal-on, leader of the far left Meretz party is where the border with the future Palestinian state would be, how many Jewish "settlers" will be evacuated, will Jerusalem be divided or not, then at the end of the day both of them are operating within left-of-center, destructive, proven wrong time and again paradigm. We are trapped once again in a false conception. This conception tells us to ignore the realities on the ground and the historical precedents for the sake of some pre-constructed ideas, and believe the hostilities towards Israel will magically stop with the establishment of a Palestinian state. Lest we want to repeat the mistake of Yom Kippur, we must start thinking outside the box. The excuse of the left used to be "well, what is your alternative?", suggesting there's no choice but the two states. Well, now we have a countless array of classical right wing alternatives. It's time to be original and brave and invest the money, intelligence and think tanks that go into the "peace process" industry towards finding an actual working and lasting solution. Sure, it's not going to be easy and it is going to be very expensive. There are no magical solutions. But all is better than a certain suicide.
