Monday, August 05, 2013

Rock Throwing Sleazeballs Prove Palestinian "Manhood"

This excellent video can serve as an antidote to today's horrible NYTimes article glorifying young rock throwing terrorists and devaluing Israeli citizen victims.  For a critique of the New York Times article, click HERE and/or HERE
A Palestinian Culture of Violence - Jonathan S. Tobin 
  • Violence directed at Jews isn't just a troubling trend, it is something that has become more or less the national Palestinian sport. Children, adolescents, and even adults treat flinging lethal rocks at any passing car with Israeli license plates as acceptable behavior.
  • What this tells us about contemporary Palestinian culture and its glorification of violence, as well as the rejection of alternate means of dealing with the Jewish presence in their midst, speaks volumes about how difficult it will be to ever achieve peace.
  • Flinging a large rock at an individual or a moving vehicle is not a game. It is a form of terrorism. Such actions are felonious assaults by any definition of the law. The purpose of the stone throwing is not making a political statement but to inflict injury and even death.
  • The longer Palestinians condone routine violence and train new generations of children to take part in this mayhem, the longer they are putting off the day when peace will arrive.


LHwrites said...

This is well stated. However, the NY Times article was not glorifying. It laid out the situation form their point of view and I think it was illuminating. Sure, those predisposed to the side of the Palestinians disregarding everything known about the situation might come away with it as a positive, but it was filled with plenty to fuel an understanding of their own prejudice and hatred towards the Israelis such as:
"He was 14. Israeli soldiers had installed a plaque on his school saying it had been built under their supervision. He took the coins his mother had given him for food and bought black spray paint to cover the Hebrew letters. 'When I saw their language, it is not easy to stay and do nothing,' Mr. Sabarna recalled. 'When they came on the second day, we have nothing except stones. You revenge for yourself.' ”
This illustrates anger and hatred and can only be seen in a positive light if you choose to view it that way. Sadly, I think what this article showed best was the hopelessness of the situation. Nowhere do they speak of improving, working out or living their lives. They talk only of small victories, vengeance, anger. They bring their children up with hatred, anger and revenge and that is why things are no better today than 2 generations ago.

Bruce said...

Hi LHwrites:

Of course, i cannot agree about the NYTimes article. Here's why...see this link:

Bruce :}

LHwrites said...

I just read the story, thank you for the link. However, that story does not change the thrust of this article, and still I do not believe the claim that it glorifies the violence is justified. You can argue that the NY Times should write a balanced article portraying the other side, and maybe someone should write such an editorial in the meantime. However, this article does not really refute anything in the original article or the points I was trying to make. The article you linked mentions that the times talked about some historical roots in the area but left out the ancient Jewish roots. In truth, neither roots matter and history is not a justification for anything. The indigenous population of the United States is almost extinct. The ancient countries now making up the MiddleEast are there because in the interim, the colonial powers that ruled them reestablished them. History is full of empires and beloved lands that no longer exist or exist in a way little resembling their past. The nations of the world give legitimacy now and they claim Israel is legitimate but they do not back it up by forcing the Middle East to recognize Israel and its right to exist. The rest of the world needs to show courage and strength in these areas before the Palestinians ever feel pressured to do so. Nevertheless, I do not think there was anything that in the original article that glorified the pathetic way of life that was documented. I do think a balancing article written about the other side, as was slightly touched on in the article you mentioned, would be both fair and appropriate. Let us see how that is handled by the NY Times.

Bruce said...


I'm less than confident in the NYTimes when it comes to the MidEast, but here's hoping! I am somewhat allergic to the MidEast editorial policies of the NYTimes. I feel like i need an anti-hystamine when i read it.

Bruce :}