More Moral Confusion over Israel

Published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

imagesAfter Charles Krauthammer wrote so articulately about the moral clarity in Gaza (July 18), it is astonishing that there remains such profound moral confusion.

Exactly why are Arielle Klagsbrun, Hedy Epstein and Maya Harris (“The American Jewish community must value all life,” July 22) so eager to misrepresent the history of Israel, and to condemn their fellow Jews for the unspeakable crimes of self-defense and survival? They denounce the “illegal occupation” of captured territories. Why are they not equally concerned about the Jewish-owned land appropriated by Arab governments — all 38,625 square miles of it (compared to Israel’s total area of 7,992 square miles)? Why do they condemn Israel as oppressors when it was the Palestinian Authority that rejected Ehud Barak’s offer — after the Camp David Accords of 2000 — to return an equivalent amount of territory to that captured in the defensive 1967 war?

Have they forgotten that Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza and handed it over to the Palestinians, who promptly destroyed much of the infrastructure the Israelis left behind and embarked on a campaign of terrorism against Israel?

Most important, by what twisted logic do they suggest that Israel is guilty of murdering the Palestinian civilians used by Hamas as human shields to protect the rockets targeting Israeli civilians in an unprovoked rain of terror? It should be obvious that there would be peace tomorrow if the Palestinian leadership would stop seeking Israel’s destruction today.

Even the Washington Post editorial staff has reached the inevitable conclusion that the leaders of Hamas have no motive other than to sacrifice their own people on the altar of public opinion in hope of inciting world condemnation against Israel for defending itself. If they read the letter written by Ms. Klagsbrun, Ms. Epstein and Ms. Harris, the Hamas terrorists will rejoice, as their people die, knowing that their stratagem has not been completely in vain.


, , ,

  1. #1 by Greg Sean Maclean on May 19, 2016 - 5:35 pm

    To use scent is a basic term in which to describe the finite air-like quality about external and internal discernment. Nothing special to behold though special in the sense that it was given from a greater source of power to make correct certain things in this world that are not so. When I approach an individual I am in immediate judgement, in other words I am seeking flaws within their essence and their demeanour to determine their source and to determine their intent based on knowledge of their source. My dynamic traits are for testing people to gather precise details regarding their character so to speak. The way in which I approach a person, how I act, what questions I pose all become very vauable in learning about the world and people in order to create a database of high-knowledge. This smell allows me to challenge spirits, call them out, and help an individual gain a greater sense of control over their life to bring people back to God which is of a pure and undefined source. People seldom question their intent being that they do not have an understanding of their spiritual make-up. A feeling is a feeling thus administered to the spirit becomes the truth. The cloak of reign and power has been established on the backs of our people who are in a complete sense ignorant in innocence. Let your veil be lifted and the evil the encased you be surrounded by the will of God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: