After my recent post about bleeding hearts, a lively debate took place in the comments section. A card-carrying bleeding heart stepped forward and offered all the tired, worn arguments those of his ilk use, employing slogans and buzzwords, and accusing me and others of being unable to see the other side, reality, the truth. Among his warnings was the following:
One must also be aware that any occupation brings a resistance and sometimes terrorism. In one word – violence.
Weeellll, sometimes. I don’t see any Tibetans engaging in terrorism. There wasn’t any violence in the Sudetenland before World War II. And no one ever tried to liberate the American Southwest after the Mexican War ended in 1848.
But this commenter’s point went well beyond pointing out what he saw as a political fact. In discussing the Middle East, his comment was tantamount to approval.
This brings me to one further point about bleeding hearts: Whereas interpersonal violence (rape, assault and battery, stabbing) is unjustified, the slaughter of innocents for political purposes is acceptable. At least by some people, and against some others.
Here’s how it is: Arabs killing Jews is okay. The slaughter of men, women, children, and the elderly is all right, whether they be shopping in the shuk, riding a bus, learning in yeshiva, on a school trip, or sitting in their cars at an intersection. Because those Arabs want a country, have a right to a country, and it’s every Israeli’s fault they don’t have one. It’s not the fault of the Arabs themselves who have refused numerous offers of a state from 1948 to the present day. It’s not the fault of Israel’s Arab neighbors who went to war in 1948, 1967, and 1973 in the hope of grabbing what little land Israel was able to salvage for its own state and annihilating the Jews in the process. It’s not the fault of the UN which has funded and maintained the Arab refugee camps rather than resettling the refugees permanently, making it the longest unresolved refugee situation in world history. No, it’s Israel’s fault merely for existing, and for holding onto land that no one else will take.
And here is how it also is: Jews may not kill anyone. They may not kill terrorists, because terrorists are freedom fighters. They may not kill civilians, because that is barbaric and a violation of “international law” (whatever that means). They may kill convicted Nazis, but we all know what a rare breed that is these days. And the poor things are in such ill health, they can’t make the journey to stand trial anyway.
Still don’t get it? Let me sum up: The Jews deserve to die. Period.
Don’t believe me? Try this one out: Talk to a bleeding heart and present him or her with the following scenarios: If peace could only be achieved by either all the Jews or all the Palestinian Arabs being transferred, whom do you think should be transferred? Or this one: If peace could only be achieved by all the Jews or all the Palestinian Arabs committing mass suicide, who do you think should do it?
I’ll bet you a pound to a penny that in either situation, it’s the Jews who should cave. Why? You got me. Because we succeeded here, and they did not? Because we have built a thriving state while they’re still stuck in refugee camps and refuse to get on with their lives and build a state? Because we have an economy, industry, and a government that (sometimes) serves our interests while they still subsist on Israel’s economy, Israel’s power grid, foreign donations, and still scream for more? Because we are a tiny minority, in the Middle East and in the world, and it’s just not worth the trouble of taking our side since the rest of the world faces unabating oil dependency, fear of terrorism, and the expansion of Islam (including fundamentalist Islam) in their own countries, and they’re afraid of what will happen to them if they don’t pander to their own Muslim populations?
Guess what, Mr. Commenter. September 11, 2001 had nothing to do with occupation. Neither did Madrid, or London, or Bali, or Mumbai. Terrorism is not only “resistance.” Sometimes it’s religious fanaticism, and the insistence that everyone share your twisted view of God. Sometimes it’s jealousy of the success of non-Muslims. And sometimes it’s the sheer pleasure of the sight of blood, the terrified screams, and the rush you get when you end other people’s lives in an instant.
Now, what’s the difference between terrorism and that person-to-person crime you dislike so much?
Shimshonit 
I suppose you meant me, right? In that case, I can easily answer to those questions and try to explain some other issues if you want me to.