Looking Occupation Full in the Face

Sarah Tuttle-Singer wrote a longish status about the word “occupation” yesterday. Except none of what she wrote has anything to do with occupation, the concept. Rather, she created a new definition for a word that already has a perfectly good definition as well as a well-defined legal meaning, as put forth by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

This is a predictable tactic, one favored by the left. They throw tons of ordure at the fan knowing some of it is bound to stick. And when I say ordure, I mean lies. They shoot out so much of it all at once that you cannot unpack it all without looking like a pedant. And their followers drink it in and regurgitate it back into the world like the sheeple they are, even though none of it makes any sense.

Here is a screenshot of the status:

The text:

After a break-out session at #ZionismV3 at the Oshman Family JCC, where I said the “O word” — Occupation — a woman came up to me and told me she prefers the term “Disputed Territories.”

Maybe some of you do, too, and since we know words are important, I’ll explain why the word “Occupation” is important:

When I use the term “Occupation” I’m not talking about land. I’m talking about people.

Specifically, over 2 million Palestinians living in Areas A, B, and C who are the mercy of our Minister of Defense.

And what does that mean?

It means that if the IDF is ordered to raze someone’s house because their brother’s kid stabbed someone, then an entire family is homeless.

It means that the IDF can kick down their doors in the middle of the night – because maybe someone has a brother who was planning a terror attack.

It means that freedom of movement is restricted and that you can’t get from point A to point B without a check point.

It means that water can be redirected away from Palestinian villages and toward the settlements if there’s a water shortage.

It means that there are children living 30 minutes from the beach who have never seen the sea.

It means that just because things are quiet in Israel does not mean they’re well, because over the Green Line there are a lot of people who are living under the control of our government – a government they had no say in choosing.

This is occupation. And that is not in dispute.

And I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know that all of us living in Israel and dealing with all the various complexities of what that means — from sleeping in bomb shelters with our babies to sipping cappuccinos on Shenken to wailing over the open grave of our friend killed in a terror attack to swimming in warm sea water at midnight — need to look this full in the face without turning away.

Definition of Occupation

For the record, let us take a look at the first sentence of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which defines “occupation.”

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

What we are speaking about here is a belligerent nation that invades another country and forcibly transfers people to the area in an effort to create facts on the ground in order to strengthen its claim to the territory.

This does not in any way shape or form describe Israel’s relationship to Judea and Samaria. For one thing, Jews lived in Judea and Samaria before there was an Arab people and before Mohammed was a gleam in his mama’s eye. Use archaeological artifacts, Josephus, or the bible. You’re still going to happen on that unassailable truth.

The Real Occupation

In fact, it was the Muslims who occupied Judea and Samaria, expelling the Jews and installing Muslims in their stead. Of course, they weren’t the only people to occupy Judea and Samaria. The territory was occupied time after time in history by the following empires: Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and British.

But the Jews never lost hope that they would return. They prayed for rain in Israel during Israel’s rainy season. They prayed they’d have next year’s Passover Seder in Jerusalem. They said to themselves, “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning.”

The Quran calls the Jews, “Yahud,” meaning the people of Judea. Which is also what “Jew” means, by the way. The Quran refers to the Jews as Bani Isra’il, the sons of Israel, or Bnei Yisrael, as we say in Hebrew. The Quran makes no claim to these territories, but rather describes the ingathering of the Jewish exiles:

To Moses We did give Nine Clear Signs:

As the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him:

“O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery! Moses said,

“Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none,

But the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence:

And I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!”

So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth:

But We did drown him and all who were with him.

And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel,

“Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”:

But when the second of the warnings came to pass,

We gather you together in a mingled crowd. (2314)

surah 17:101-104 Al Isra’ (The Night Journey)

But back to the Geneva Convention and Article 49. The language is clear. It describes a forced population exchange. Nothing of the sort happened in Judea and Samaria. Jews are not alien to the land. No one forced settlers to move there. No one was living in the areas settled at the time the settlements were created. The Arabs live in the valleys, the Jews live on the hills. It’s the way it is. Look at a topographical map and know this as fact.

Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan held Judea and Samaria. Only two UN member states saw this as a legal occupation: Great Britain and Pakistan. When Israel took possession of Judea and Samaria in 1967, it was no invasion, Habibi. She was fighting off FOUR Arab armies. She was fighting for her life.

Not Occupation: Let Me Count The Ways

So, to sum up, let’s list the way Israel is not an occupier. Israel:

• Is not an invader, but rather, was forced to fight a defensive war against four armies
• Didn’t force people to move to Judea and Samaria, they volunteered
• Didn’t kick Arabs out of their homes to create settlements, but built on barren hilltops
• Didn’t transfer a non-native population into Judea and Samaria, rather the Jews are the indigenous people of the territory with their presence in Judea and Samaria actually predating the Arab people.

Now Tuttle-Singer thinks she can get around all that by prefacing her remarks with this statement:

When I use the term “Occupation” I’m not talking about land. I’m talking about people.

But that doesn’t mean anything. It’s nonsense. It’s like someone saying, “When I say ‘car’ I’m not talking about a vehicle, I’m talking about people who drive,” or, “When I say ‘butter’ I’m not talking about a dairy product but about people who dine.”

It’s a meaningless construct. And rather than explain the logic behind this assertion that even she can’t see, she mounts a soapbox and spouts several anti-Israel lies. Beginning with this:

Specifically, over 2 million Palestinians living in Areas A, B, and C who are the mercy of our Minister of Defense.

Tuttle-Singer does two things with this statement:

1) She gets in a dig at Avigdor Liberman, Israel’s Minister of Defense,  because to her he’s über right when actually he’s no different than any other politician and waffles like the best of them when necessary. He has no compunction ordering the demolition of a Jewish home just because.

2) She lies about Area A being under Israel’s thumb. Area A has had full Palestinian Authority autonomy in Arab villages and towns since the year 2000. Arab villages and towns in Area B are also under the PA, but Israel and the PA do joint patrols here. Finally, Area C remains to be negotiated and well, that’s up to the Arabs. Israel (unfortunately, in my opinion) remains open to negotiate at any time, with no preconditions.

Really, the Arabs could have just about anything they want, if they’d just stop acting like behemoths, stop the terror, and behave like human beings.  But back to Tuttle-Singer.

It means that if the IDF is ordered to raze someone’s house because their brother’s kid stabbed someone, then an entire family is homeless.

Seriously? So teach your children not to stab people. Teach them that knives are for eating steak, and not for murdering peace activists taking bus rides—peace activists like Richard Lakin, for instance.

Don’t blame the reaction to terror, the defense. Blame the CAUSE.   Blame TERROR.

And anyway, these relatives of terrorists aren’t so homeless. They get a warning. They take their stuff out. They cry to the EU, or to their neighbors and someone builds them a newer, nicer house. Also, they get a monthly stipend for being related to someone who murdered a Jew.  And they’re lauded as heroes.

When a Jew’s home is demolished, on the other hand, he’s not allowed to rebuild, no one gives him money to buy a new home, and rather than receive a monetary reward, he’s out a couple of hundred thousand shekels with no new home on the horizon. And that’s by his JEWISH government, regarding a home that sits in Jewish indigenous territory!!

A Case Study: Israeli Demolitions

After Mohammad Nasser Tra’ayra, 17, of Bani Naim, murdered 13 year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel in her sleep, stabbing her multiple times, his parents’ home was slated for demolition as a deterrent measure against terrorism.  The IDF Spokesman’s office released this film clip of the demolition.

However, this doesn’t tell the real story.

What really happened was this: the IDF knocked down just a few walls and this only after the family received advanced warning and were able to remove their furnishings and belongings. The family also managed to carefully remove and preserve the windows and faucets for future restoration of the home.

Arab youth pretending sorrow for the camera

They took down just a few walls, leaving the house mostly intact, and easily restored.

In the inimitable words of Allen Sherman: “And they knocked a hole in the wall. That’s all. No wall.”

Contrast and compare to these before and after photos of the demolition of the home of Jewish settler, Choni Kaniel of Maale Rahavam, on May 7, 2014.

Before

One day, the Israeli courts decided to redraw the blue line and rule his home illegal. The home was demolished.

After

But this was not a symbolic demolition as in the case of the family home of the Arab terrorist who murdered a 13 year-old girl in her sleep. It was not a show for the public.

Large machinery was brought.

The home was smashed to smithereens.

No walls were left intact.

Choni now lives in a tent on the spot where his home once stood.

Choni's new "home."

Choni created this meme to illustrate the disparity between the demolition of a terrorist’s family home and that of a Jewish home.

Un. Fricking. Real.

Tuttle-Singer writes:

It means that the IDF can kick down their doors in the middle of the night – because maybe someone has a brother who was planning a terror attack.

Well, again. Whose fault is that? Israel remains in a permanent state of war from 1948, when it declared statehood. The Arabs refuse to end the state of war, no matter how much land we give them, no matter what we do. And they murder us. They murder young girls sleeping in their beds. They murder whole families on quiet Shabbat evenings. They murder us on buses and in the streets. They murder us wherever they find us. Wherever and whenever we fail to stop them, fail to defend ourselves. We expelled roughly 10,000 of our own people from their homes in the name of peace, and still, they hunt us down and murder us. They did it before 1948, such as in Hebron in 1929 and 1936. And they’re still doing it now.

We have every right to follow the leads that may prevent the murder of someone’s mother, someone’s sister, someone’s son. That is what war means: the war they force on us by refusing to make peace, by refusing to be peaceful, by their nonstop terror. If they won’t sign a treaty, then we damned well WILL kick down the doors of potential terrorists to stop them from doing their horrible, ugly, violent deeds.

That Tuttle-Singer sings her song of woe on behalf of the violent and against her own people betrays the blackest of souls.

She writes:

It means that freedom of movement is restricted and that you can’t get from point A to point B without a check point.

This too, is the result of constant Arab terror against the Jews since way before the British Mandate. Don’t like having your freedom of movement restricted? Don’t. Murder. Jews.

Don’t like checkpoints? Don’t. Murder. Jews.

Why is her concern for the murderers and not for their victims and potential victims? Because she hates us.

Tuttle-Singer writes:

It means that water can be redirected away from Palestinian villages and toward the settlements if there’s a water shortage.

This is just a lie. One that’s been debunked.Over and over again. A burst water pipe is not a water “redirected” and has nothing to do with any water shortage. Israel has actually increased the water supply to Arab villages and towns.

Some footage of the bursted water line that is now repaired by #COGAT Civil Administration. pic.twitter.com/nclwCaOwBR

— COGAT (@cogatonline) June 15, 2016

Tuttle-Singer writes:

It means that there are children living 30 minutes from the beach who have never seen the sea.

This has nothing to do with Israel, but everything to do with democratically elected terrorist Arab leaders who keep their people imprisoned in camps and refuse to make peace with Israel. Does she really want to say this has anything at all to do with Israel?? Okay, yeah. It’s Israel’s fault because Israel EXISTS.

Since Israel exists, these people remain political pawns, held in place by their democratically elected terrorist leaders. So clearly Tuttle-Singer is working toward the eradication of the Jewish State because instead of doing anything meaningful to fight against the injustice, she blames the injustice on the wrong party, and backs those responsible for the injustice, instead. And those who are responsible for the injustice have vowed not to do justice, not to let their people out of the prison camps, until Israel is Judenfrei, with the Jews in the sea, the same one Arab children apparently are so desperate to see.

Which begs the question: why is Tuttle-Singer here in Israel with her children? By her/their presence, they perpetuate the refugee status of the Arab people who remain behind barbed wire, unable to see the sea. She could actually make a difference if she’d just get on a plane and LEAVE. (I know plenty of people who’d be happy to buy her a one-way ticket back to LA.)

Tuttle-Singer writes:

It means that just because things are quiet in Israel does not mean they’re well, because over the Green Line there are a lot of people who are living under the control of our government – a government they had no say in choosing.

But things are not quiet in Israel. We are right now experiencing an uptick in terror. And if it’s not quiet, it’s because the Arabs are not quiet. So as the “new media director” of the Times of Israel, someone who works for a NEWS OUTLET, what the Hell is she talking about?

What she is trying to say (but doing a poor job of it) is that Arabs are ruled by a Jewish government but don’t get to vote for that government. But this too, is a lie.

Israelis Arabs can vote. And there are Arabs in the Knesset.

The Arabs who don’t have Israeli citizenship are welcome to apply for Israeli citizenship if they live in areas under Israeli autonomy. Once granted citizenship, they can vote in Israeli elections.

Arabs who don’t live under Israeli autonomy can vote in PA or Hamas elections, depending on where they live. And if Abbas wants to serve way past his term, and not hold new elections, that’s not on the Jews, that’s on the Arabs who voted for him.

Tuttle-Singer writes:

This is occupation. And that is not in dispute.

“This” whatever “this” means, is NOT occupation. And that is absolutely no longer in dispute, seeing as I have now unpacked and refuted her every word on the subject.

Occupation is not anything but what it actually is, and there is no Israeli occupation of Arab land. Arabs who don’t have freedom of movement, don’t have it because of Arab terror, and because they vote for terrorists to lead them: terrorists who will never negotiate peace with Israel.

Tuttle-Singer writes

And I don’t know what the solution is, but I do know that all of us living in Israel and dealing with all the various complexities of what that means — from sleeping in bomb shelters with our babies to sipping cappuccinos on Shenken to wailing over the open grave of our friend killed in a terror attack to swimming in warm sea water at midnight — need to look this full in the face without turning away.

I do know what the solution is. Everyone does. It’s simple: stop the murder machine. Stop the terror. Accept that Jews have a state on their indigenous territory. Accept that the Jews expelled their own people to give you land. Accept that Israel gives you arms (the better to shoot you with, my dear), autonomy, and citizenship. Accept that Israel offered you housing, gives you money, free electricity, tons of aid, medical care, places in the government, and on our Supreme Court.

Deal with it. Compromise! Lay down your arms, your knives, your car rammings, rocks, and firebombs. Live and love in peace. Give your children a better future.

This is not at all complex. This is what Tuttle-Singer needs to look full in the face, without turning away.

This is the solution.

And only this.

Crossing Lines

ast night I was checking my email when I heard the escalating voices of my 16 year-old and 13 year-old in yet another sibling squabble. Before I could find out what was going on between them, I heard the 13 year-old cry in the wounded sort of way that let me know he'd been hurt. "What happened?" I asked in the weary tone of a mother who has seen too many battles erupt between her children and who has learned that such battles are a fact of family life.

Moshe, the 16 year-old came right out with it: "I hurt him and I know it's wrong, but you need to know why I hurt him."

Um. No I don't. Which is what I have been telling Moshe for years.

There is no excuse for physical violence between brothers. Period. There is a relevant passage in the bible, Exodus 2:13: "Lamah Takeh Rayecha," "Why do you smite your friend?"

Moshe was punished with the loss of the computer for two days. That's pretty harsh, considering he's as much a media addict as any normal 16 year-old today. But punishment aside, I continue to puzzle over how I can get the concept across to him that violence in any form against a brother is unacceptable. No excuses. Ever.

This morning, a relevant thought came to me. In all the various cop shows I like to watch with my husband: Cold Case, The Closer, Castle, Lie to Me, and The Mentalist, there is always a point where the criminal breaks down and confesses the murder. The murderer's invariable response is to try to persuade the interviewer that the murder was justified. At the end of the heartfelt confession, the murderer is always surprised when he is handcuffed and his rights read to him.


He'd thought it was working: he'd thought he'd made the case for justifiable homicide and earned a get out of jail free card.

But no. The criminal is never right. While we may even sympathize with the murderer's claim of, "He done me wrong," we can never give ultimate approval to the ultimate act that crosses the line that must not be crossed. Even so, the murderer always gives it a good college try. He tries to cajole us into taking his side.

Moshe loves cop shows every bit as much as his parents do, so I thought telling him this thought I'd had might help him view his behavior in a different light. I'm still thinking over how I will broach the subject with him for maximum impact. But I think he will know exactly what I mean when I talk about the invariable denouement of all those cop shows and get the point I am trying to make. Murder/violence, has no ultimate justification except in self-defense.

Now, speaking of violence and crossing lines, I don't know why this happens, but it sometimes seems as though everything I read within a certain time period is interrelated. And that's what happened today. I came across an article by Alan Dershowitz about Gilad Atzmon, a self-professed self-hating Jew putting in an appearance at the Friends Seminary.

I was appalled. I assumed Friends Seminary to be a Quaker institution. How could a Quaker institution be hosting someone like Atzmon whose entire being is dedicated toward the elimination of Jews and the Jewish State? To my mind, Quakers were gentle, non-violent people. How could they actively ally themselves with someone so filled with hate?

I googled Friends Seminary and found a link to a statement by the principal of the institution explaining that Atzmon had only been invited to the school in his capacity as a musician. The statement was persuasive and I was relieved. Until a few moments later when I came across this item on the subject posted by CAMERA. I realized then that the principal's statement was a whitewash. Hosting a person like Atzmon, no matter in what capacity, had to be seen as a statement against Jews and the State of Israel. There was simply no other light in which to see this event: Atzmon is just too controversial a figure.

"Friends," thought I, thinking of the placid face that appears on every package of Quaker oats. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

I had posted all three links to Facebook: the Dershowitz article, the principal's statement, and the CAMERA blog piece. What I was really hoping was that my friend Rivkah Moriah would weigh in and shed some light on the Quaker response to doings in the Middle East. Rivkah was raised a Quaker but today is an Orthodox Jew whose son Avraham David Moses (May Hashem Avenge his Blood) was gunned down by a terrorist as the 16 year-old studied Talmud in the library of Mercaz HaRav, the seminary adjacent to his high school.

Avraham David Moses H"YD

Rivkah did see my Dershowitz posting and my half-formed thoughts on the subject. She responded:

"Quakers, as a group, have become very anti-Israel. They have bought the, 'Palestinians as victims, Israelis as aggressors,' propaganda, and many of them have stopped even paying attention to facts. It really does go against their heritage.

According to Quaker dogma, they should be pro-peace, anti-violence, but much of the community has taken on a Goldstone approach to the conflict. Not all of them, my mother for example. She loves Israel, is not against Palestinians, and is against violence. She tries to be open to hearing news and opinions that she didn't expect. She knows a surprising amount of Israeli history, knows how biased the Brittish were while 'implementing' the mandate, and she is aware that some Arabs are committed to destroying Israel.
 
But she is careful about what she says in certain circles, because she has sometimes been attacked for voicing a perspective like this. People who purport to be peace-loving and anti-violence, but who attack my mother for having her own, informed, opinion, should be ashamed of themselves. It's bad enough her grandson was murdered. She shouldn't have to see him turned into the aggressor.

... there is a surprising amount of flux between Quakers and Jews, but there is this aspect, as well. It is good you are paying attention, Varda, because the cultured intellectuals who advocate for ruthless killers should be condemned when there is carnage.

It also [Quaker philosophy] to a degree, has affected my hard-wiring. Nevertheless, I choose the Jewish approach that, when someone comes to kill you (and is thereby a rodef) kill him first. David Shapira is a hero."

I googled the phrase "Quaker Palestine" and was flooded with hit after hit of strong Quaker anti-Israel feeling. How had I not realized the depth of Quaker hatred toward Israel? I found, for instance, this long list of articles under the heading "Perspectives" on a website called, "Quakers With a Concern for Palestine-Israel Working for a Just and Lasting Peace." Every single article in this section was from an anti-Israel source. They might as well have labeled the page in the singular, since only a single perspective was offered: the anti-Israel perspective.

I had a vague memory I must have pushed away of Richard M. Nixon's Quaker background and his ardent anti-Semitism. I guess I knew all along that the Friends were only posturing in their stance of non-violence. The friendly face on the oatmeal package belied a creed bent on supporting suicide bombers, terrorists, and jihad.

I found Quaker website after Quaker website that blamed the victims of terror for their own deaths because of some supposed occupation that even the so-called Palestinian Arabs state does not exist. As recently as January 4th, 2012, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar said that Gaza is not under occupation. But our "friends" the Quakers, apparently know better and tell us that suicide bombings and Avraham David Moses' killing, for instance, is due to a root cause which must be addressed to restore peace to the area: occupation. 

So what if the Arabs themselves say there is no occupation? The Quakers are still going to stick to their narrative.


Which makes me wonder what the heck Dershowitz was doing, sending his daughter to study at Friends Seminary in the first place. 


But back to Moshe and his sibling squabble: the terrorist always justifies his terror, whether it is an older sibling terrorizing his younger sibling, the confessed murderer on a fictional television cop show, or the Quakers talking about getting to the root of the problem when they look the other way in response to Arab terrorism of Jews. 


But in every case, a line has been crossed that puts a person squarely into the realm of evil. My son is still young and I still have a chance to impart an important lesson to him about crossing lines and choosing good. I pray that he will learn the strength to always choose the right side of that line.