Since when are children and babies considered a threat to anyone

Since the muslims have started to train them to be a potential bomb at the age of 10, 12, 14 etc...

Wa’d:

I hold no brief for this rabbi or anyone supporting his opinions, but I do object to a single sentence taken from an article completely out of context (and in this case, even the source is questionable—whenever there is an anti-religious article in Ha’Aretz, it’s a good idea to check other sources—the paper has a record for anti-religious bias).

Now for a little bit of history: it’s a documented fact that children as young as 6 or 7 were used by the Viet Cong to plant bombs in restaurants, bars and hotels where US soldiers congregated in Saigon, and even inside US bases where they were allowed entrance as shoe-shine boys. Children can be combatants, if they are brainwashed from an early enough age, just as the Viet Cong did—and just as the Palestinian Authority does.

It’s also a documented fact that Palestinian children have been used by Hamas, the PLO et al to attempt to bomb Israeli checkpoints and settlements. The fact that fooling or coercing these children to do this is a war crime doesn’t seem to impress those who do this to their own people’s children.

Here’s an example of Palestinian “education”…
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Education.pps#256,1,Slide 1

No Israeli I know approves of the indiscriminate killing of children, whether they be Arab or Jewish children. I also know of no Israeli who approves of violence committed by children.

Golda Meir once said, “Until they love their children more than they hate us, there can never be peace.” So far, the Palestinians have consistently shown that they hate us more than they love their children. You can see it in their children’s TV shows, the summer camps for “young warriors” and the official textbooks in Palestinian schools… yet you take offense at the ravings of a single Jew, unsupported by the Israeli government.

Where is your offense at the Palestinians for subverting entire generations of children to sacrifice themselves? If they all sacrifice themselves, who will be left to build a future for Palestine?

There will be no one.

Wouldn’t that be just as absurd as Hamas ”justifying” the killing of Israeli babies because ”one day they will become IDF soldiers”?

I happen to agree that supporting what the rabbi said is absurd–but so is supporting Hamas on the same grounds.

Wa’d:

It’s sad to see people who think fall into the same trap that ignorant people do… the photo you linked to was discredited long ago (not by me, but by sources that did the research). It seems that some photographers with no story manufactured one by supplying the children with markers and encouraging them to write on the shells. In short, it was a staged photograph.

The fact that it remains on some web sites as absolute truth is no surprise. It would be hard to call your source objective under the best of circumstances.

I make no call for killing babies, no matter who their parents are and detest what this rabbi says just as much as I detest the Hamas claims that “there are no innocents” and try to justify their killing of Israeli babies by saying “one day they will become IDF soldiers, so they are legitimate targets.”

If you insist that this rabbi is wrong, then you’ll have to insist that Hamas is wrong as well. The ball’s in your court, dear…

You disappoint me, Wa’d... Your cop-out here, condemning one side and refusing to condemn the other for the same behavior is exactly the root cause of the conflict.

It started when the first Jewish farmer demanded the return of a cow stolen by an Arab or he would take it back by force... and force was deemed OK for Arabs to use on Jews, but not OK for Jews to use on Arabs. This was back in the 1880s and has continued ever since...

Wa’d, either both are wrong or neither are wrong. Double standards won’t work and can’t be acceptable.

Your consistent refusal to avoid this issue and take a stand one way or the other is one of the criteria for deciding whether you’re part of the solution or part of the problem.

Fence-sitters who condemn one side and not the other for the same practice are part of the problem.

Wa’d: “There’s no double standards here Michael, there’s someone who refuses to divert the subject to prove something.”

The only “proof” required is CONSISTENCY. When you take a statement, such as this rabbi’s, and say “That’s wrong”, but ignore the implications of what you say, that’s a double standard. You take one instance and try to implicate an entire people with its injustice, yet ignore the fact that parties on the “other side” of the same conflict have said things much worse—and backed up their words with deliberate actions.

Why should it be considered a “diversion”? I consider it open discussion, not diversion. By implication, you could also agree that a person robbing a bank for greed is guilty of a crime, while a person robbing a bank to get the money for treating a family member for a disease is not. That’s a fallacy—and under the eyes of the law, both are guilty of the same crime, although the motives are different.

Wa’d: “ I DON’T NEED TO PROVE ANYTHING TO U. what this guy wrote in his book is wrong. period. end of story... The minute u agree to this without saying ”but what u did in (***) was wrong as well”, YOU will be part of the solution...

“Why can’t u just admit it without any BUTs? I’ll tell u why, bcz down deep u don’t see it as REALLY wrong, and u wish to justify it... well there’s no justification here... sorry, but even if u try to do so, there’s just NONE... “

Unless and until decent people on BOTH sides can point to parties on both sides and say “this is wrong” without the distinction of who said it, there will be no progress and there can be no peace. The only solution is for both sides to accept that their actions are not 100% “lily-white” and justifiable.

At this point, Palestinian reaction seems almost always to be, “you’re wrong to do this, but we’re justified in doing the same thing, because you did it to me”. The same goes for many Israelis—and they are both wrong. This is the kind of thinking that leads to an impasse, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

When an addict seeks treatment, the first thing they have to do is admit that they have an addiction. I once took a relative of mine to his first Alcoholics Anonymous meeting—the first thing they have to do when they tell their story is stand up and say, “Hi, my name’s XXX and I’m an alcoholic”.

Indiscriminate violence is a sickness just like alcoholism or drug addiction, and those addicted to violence have to stand up under their own power and admit that they have that addiction. Without that, there can be no progress towards a cure.

Why is it easy for you to say “A Jew killing an Arab baby is wrong” and so hard for you to say that “An Arab killing a Jewish baby is wrong”? If killing a baby is wrong, it’s wrong no matter who the baby is and who the killer is. Is that so hard to digest?

I'm not surprised; how conveniently you all ignored my point behind the comment. I am not in favor of killing children, but muslims should stop training them as suicide bombers. And after the training, they are no more innocent children, they are potential bombs.

Wa’d:

A general statement isn’t enough—when you start talking about specific events, you have to give specific answers, generic answers are not enough to convince. Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas showed great expertise in this kind of obfuscation and so do you.

When you protest to a rabbi saying “it’s all right to kill Palestinian children”, I respect your opinion (and in this case happen to agree with you—children should not be killed deliberately).

What bothers me is your refusal to respond specifically to a counter-charge that’s already been documented far too well to deny. This is right in line with many Arab spokespeople who refer to Israel as “the Zionist entity” or “the Jewish state” but can never bring themselves to use the name Israel.

You talk at length about the de-humanization of Palestinians by Israelis, but ignore the de-humanization of Israel and its population by the Arab/Muslim world (take a look at any of Mahmoud Achmedinejad’s speeches against Israel to see what I mean).

Talking about only one side of a problem that exists on both sides of a conflict is willful ignorance—and denial will solve absolutely nothing. Only when decent people on both sides of the conflict can honestly say, “You did things that were wrong, but so did we”, can there be any real progress towards settling the conflict.

If a particular action is reprehensible when committed by one side in a conflict, then it is reprehensible when committed by the other side, as well. THIS is what you are studiously avoiding.

When you avoid condemning the same actions on the side you approve of in a conflict while condemning the same action on the side you disapprove of, THAT is a double standard, and it’s exactly what you do here.

I have already written letters of protest about several similar statements made by IDF rabbis to the IDF Inspector-General—what have you done?

If and when you can say, in one of your blogs that “Israel is wrong for killing Palestinian children and Hamas and Fatah are wrong for killing Israeli children” without reservation, you will have overcome the primary obstacle to understanding that there is right and wrong on both sides.

The only question remaining is: Do you want to live alongside Israel in peace or want to live in a Palestine without Israel? Consider your answer and its implications carefully…

Wa’d: “When I said that killing kids is wrong, that is because I’d like to think of myself as a humanitarian; I don’t care whether those kids are Palestinians or Israelis, it is wrong, end of story... and I do condemn anyone who thinks it is right to kill a child, be it a Palestinian or an Israeli... and I really wish that one day people would start thinking this way, without referring to the nationality of the person in concern, cz it just doesn’t seem correct to me,(and not bcz I’m trying to sound like Arafat or anyone else, these are my own values and beliefs) but I guess that’s not our subject here, so I’ll move on to ur next question with the hope that u got me correctly this time...”

Actually, that’s exactly the subject… it’s all very well to say “we want peace”, but unless that also means that BOTH sides can say “there’s been enough killing, let’s stop it”, it becomes meaningless rhetoric. Politicians on both sides have spouted enough of that kind of hot air.

Wa’d: “Do I want to live alongside Israelis? with all honesty Michael, I’ll be more than happy to have u as my neighbor, but will I ever be allowed back? I really don’t think so...”

Now we come to the real divergence in opinions—how can you “be allowed back” to a place you’ve never been before? Your father or grandfather made a decision in 1948, and thanks to the actions of the Arab League countries, you and generations like you have suffered for it. Those Arabs who decided to stay in 1948 lost nothing—they still have, in spite of the inequalities still existing, more freedom to learn, more access to healthcare, professions, voting, employment and a higher average standard of living than any Arab country. Why do you think they disputed Barak’s 2000 offer at Camp David to rearrange the border to include the Triangle in Palestine so that Gush Etzion could remain in Israel? Those who decided to leave in 1948, for whatever reason, gained nothing and lost everything.

While the Arab states were forcing Arabs from Palestine to live in refugee camps, an equal or greater number (over 600,000 of the 900,000) of Jews expelled from the Arab states were absorbed by Israel, almost doubling its population within a few short years and almost breaking the country’s economy, because those Jewish refugees were expelled with little more than the clothes on their backs (in most instances, one suitcase per person and the equivalent of $50-$100), and needed support to start over, while many of the Palestinian Arabs, like Mahmoud Abbas’ family, left with their private possessions and money long before Ben-Gurion’s declaration of statehood on May 14, 1948. No UN support was given and no organization ever administered relief for those Jewish refugees, who, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, had a UN agency, UNWRA, dedicated to serve only them—to this day. The Jewish refugees were also victims of the policies of the Arab League, but have never received international assistance, compensation or even acknowledgement.

Wa’d: “I’ve said it before, and I will say it now; I am more than happy to share, but I just refuse to be controlled... I think u’d feel the same way too...”

Sharing was offered back in 1948, but the Arab League refused. So did the majority of Palestinian Arabs at the time. It would be hard to go back 60-plus years…

We’re often controlled by events beyond our control, each and every one of us, all over the world. Anyone who can’t understand and accept that is fated to live a very unhappy life. There’s a Christian prayer that says, “God grant me the strength to change the things I can change, the serenity to accept those things I cannot change and the wisdom to tell the difference.” No one can change the past, although revisionist history seems to be trying to do just that… But we can change the future, if we are willing to negotiate honestly and without inflexible demands that we know the other party can not and will not accept.

Peace be unto you…

Wa’d: My last comment was directed at your last comment to me and has nothing to do with Ann T.’s comment.

Let me put a “hypothetical” to you, the way they do in law schools:

If a gambler puts up his house as collateral for a bet, then loses the bet, does he have a right to demand that he keep the house?

I’ll develop on this after you answer.