But if you think about it, all the loony Left's basis for their hypothesis that with the right gifts from Israel, the neighboring Arabs will become peaceful is based on the same misunderstanding of human nature.
I consider myself a very rooted in reality pragmatist.
Arab Terrorists don't suffer "emotional" problems curable by the right tender loving care and fun creative therapies. As the Palestine Media Watch documents, they are raised, indoctrinated with hatred their entire lives. Children's games train them to kill Jews and Israelis. This is reinforced by family pressure, because it has been going on for generations.
Before there was a State of Israel, Jews were attacked in the HolyLand. When the State was declared, the Arabs immediately declared war on it. And, yes, all of this predated the 1967 Six Days War when Israel liberated, Judea, Samaria, Sinai, Golan and the rest of Jerusalem.
Finger paint and paper mache` won't make the terrorists peaceful and tolerant human beings. And no matter what Israel gives to the Arabs, they won't let us live in peace!
12 comments:
I have a picture they can draw: My fist dead centre in their face ...How's that for artwork?
What a farce. The art therapist in the Left will teach Arabs how to make salt maps, and give them gold stars when they make the maps with Israeli blotted out.
There's a lot of hype about Arabs becoming terrorists out of anger and poverty yet the movers and shakers among terrorists are wealthy, well-educated and come from families that aren't dysfunctional.
If they really wanted peace there's no doubt in my mind Israel would be an Arab nation's best friend in the world. That's probably the most perplexing thing about terrorism directed at Israel.
It just doesn't make sense at all.
I can't tell which picture is photoshopped: the one you're showing from the NY Post or this one.
(Batya, read this article and consider not "hotlinking" on your blog. Meant as friendly advice).
What's hotlinking?
im with you, more or less.
I checked your links Shy and now I'm confused about the linking. I thought is was more polite to link to source. re:photoshopping, maybe both, but for sure yours.
Batya, maybe this definition will help:
Urban Dictionary: hotlink
Essentially, linking TO another site is perfectly fine (I just did that above).
Linking something (like a photo) FROM another site to be displayed on yours is not.
I was taught the lesson about 10 years ago.
BTW, I know site that when they found out that external sites were hotlinking to their photos, the original site would upload a vulgar photo in place of the original, so as to embarrass the hotlinker. Heads up!
shy, It never occured to me. Generally in the blogging world hot linking is good. We don't pay for services on the whole. When I learned how to do this I thought it better, because copying the picture and then posting without giving source seemed much worse.
I've never heard of hotlinking. I hope I haven't inadvertently done that using pictures obtained in an image search online.
It's when you use the link to the picture, rather than copying the picture and making your own.
I do it all the time.
I don't think "art therapy" is what they did. They did send cleric to try to un-indoctrinate them. But what they don't like to say is that their principle argument was - this is the Saudi state remember! - is that Jihad is not permissible in Islam unless it is at the direction of a established government. They didn't argue anything else.
In other words, what you did is OK if and when King Abdullah of saudi Arabia orders it. The problem was that you acted on your own. When WE declare a holy war then you can do it but you should follow our orders.
Sammy, If you take out the specific labels, you realize that it's a common philosphical-political issue.
Everyone wants to be the one to judge the accepted time to shoot. here in Israel Ehud Barak's war against the hesder yeshivot is connected.
Post a Comment