Tel Aviv Gay Murders a Provocation for the Sake of False "Peace"

Last night, 1 August 2009, a

black-clad, masked gunman stormed into the Tel Aviv Gay and Lesbian Association building and opened fire in a basement room where gay teenagers were holding a weekly support group.
. . . Witnesses said the gunman entered the center at around 11 P.M. and opened fire in all directions [HaArets, Internet 2 Aug 2009]
The man then holstered his pistol and fled the scene on foot into the busy streets of Tel Aviv, Rosenfeld said. [AP, 2 August 2009]

This murderous shooting was performed by a professional killer. He did not shout slogans or leave any message or any sign of who he was or whom he represented. He did not state a moral or ideological position in regard to homosexuality. He simply came, did his dirty and deadly business and got away. The various witnesses quoted did not mention any ideological, political, moral, or religious message uttered, stated or left behind in written form by the murderer. It appears that the hit man had a job which he did quickly and efficiently. And he got away quickly too. Not being caught was of utmost importance. The crime was executed in a professional manner. It was carefully planned beforehand. How the killer would escape was carefully considered.

The next question is Why. A number of haredi politicians had expressed condemnation of homosexuals and their sexual orientation. Several years ago, a young haredi bought a knife and lightly stabbed 3 participants in a gay parade in Jerusalem. This was the most serious act of anti-gay violence reported by HaArets in its background article for the present attack. The perpetrator in Jerusalem appears to have been a religious fanatic, a hothead, in direct contrast to the murderer who acted last night. Further, in regard to Haredim, their murder rate is low and often those who do the most shouting, who make the most noise, are not at all involved in a crime that seems to result from their agitation. On the other hand, we know that some factions of Haredim readily riot over a number of causes. Recently, we have had Haredi riots in Jerusalem over a public parking lot being kept open on the Sabbath and over a mother from the Toldot Aharon [nearly identical to Neturey Qarta] faction of Haredim being accused and jailed for starving one of her own children. Haredi young men like to riot, it seems, and for many of the same motives that other young men riot: a release of the sexual tension that marks young men, a proof of manhood, a challenge to what they may consider illegitimate authority, etc. Anyhow, how many young men don't like a good fight, especially if there isn't much danger of actually getting killed? Indeed, several years ago Haredi riots took place in Jerusalem over several nights against a planned gay parade. But there is a very great distance between acting out hatred of gays in riots in Jerusalem against the police --or between a hothead's stabbing parade participants-- and sending a trained, professional assassin to Tel Aviv to perform a murder in a club for gay youth. The murderer is most unlikely to have been a Haredi man or to have been sent by any Haredi party or organization.

This conclusion is not based on the official condemnations of the murder by Shas Party spokesmen and officials --which are quoted in the HaArets article linked to here-- but on our knowledge of the past behavior of the Haredi community, and its various and sundry factions, and on our personal acquaintance with many Haredim.

Well, if the deed was not performed by or in behalf of Haredim, then who was behind the crime? Here we fall back on the cui bono principle. This means, who benefitted from the crime or any other act.

The anti-national Israeli journalist, Aluf Benn of HaArets, complained in the NYTimes that Obama was widely perceived as hostile by Israelis.

A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month [June] indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. [Aluf Benn, NYT, 27 July 2009]

In contrast, prime minister Netanyahu is favorably perceived by Israelis.

Netanyahu is the defender of national glory in face of unfair pressure [by the Obama gang]. . . So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. [Aluf Benn, NYTimes, 7-27-2009]

What's worse, even the anti-national so-called "Left" in Israel, usually ready to be manipulated by and do the bidding of Washington and its EuroJudeophobic allies [the EU] were not jumping on Obama's manic "anti-settlement" bandwagon, which Aluf Benn had earlier discussed in an opinion column in HaArets:

Though Mr. Obama has succeeded in prodding Mr. Netanyahu to accept the idea of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, he has failed to induce Israel to impose a freeze on settlements. In fact, he has failed even to stir debate about the merits of one: no Israeli political figure has stood up to Mr. Netanyahu and begged him to support Mr. Obama; not even the Israeli left, desperate for a new agenda, has adopted Mr. Obama as its icon. As a result, Mr. Netanyahu enjoys a virtual domestic consensus over his rejection of the settlement freeze [Aluf Benn, NYTimes 7-27-2009]

So something had to be done to make Israelis, or at least some Israelis, at least the amorphous so-called "Left," so often ready to demonstrate for all sorts of causes, receptive to the Obama administration's racist demand on Israel to "freeze settlements." This demand is itself an assault on freedom, on a value that the gay movement evokes in behalf of tolerance for itself. Maybe some more thougtful gays did perceive the anti-freedom, anti-human rights, nature of the demand. In particular, the Obama Administration seeks to vitiate the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria or even the parts of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, even though Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem since 1853, and that means in the Old City, in "east Jerusalem," which in 1853 was the whole city.

Aluf Benn indicates that for Obama's policy to win over any substantial part of the Israeli public, an effort would have to be made to divide the Israelis. This might be done by creating a divisive issue, even a spurious issue. The murders of last night were indeed a divisive issue. The Meretz member of Knesset Nitsan Horovits, with typical lack of thought, described the murder as a "blind attack," a hate crime. Tsipi Livni, the mentally challenged leader of the Kadima Party ranted about "hatred. . . intolerance, incitement and violence." Labor MK, Sheli Yakhimovich, a former radio journalist, thoughtlessly attributed the crime to "ongoing incitement." [quotes from Horowitz, Livni, & Yakhimovich from HaArets, here]. They were all insinuating that Shas was guilty, because the party had indeed opposed granting certain rights to homosexuals, etc. So if the attack was meant as a provocation, it has succeeded. It has divided public opinion and provoked a militant movement and demonstrations against the unknown perpetrators, sometimes identified with Shas:

Within a couple of hours of Saturday night's attack, hundreds of members of the city's gay and lesbian community gathered with placards and candles to protest the killings, while Shas was accused by some of inciting the attack.

"I warned in a column last year that Israel is a place which, on the one hand has liberal laws, but on the other does not attempt to counter homophobia," Danny Zak, a gay activist and journalist, told the Jerusalem Post during the demonstration. "A murder was waiting to happen," Zak added.

"The Shas party has the blood of two innocent kids on their hands," he said. "Shas has blamed gays for earthquakes and diseases. This is incitement, but no one is put on trial for it," he said. [Jerusalem Post, 2 August 2009][also see here]

So the "gay community" now has a cause and an available hate object, Shas, whom to blame --plausibly for some-- for somehow inciting the murders, although the murderer was obviously a trained, coldblooded professional. Many will forget that --as we said above-- those who make the most noise are unlikely to be the ones who actually carried out the murder. But the gay movement and the "Left" will no doubt demonstrate and raise the issue of the murders on all sorts of occasions.

The official condemnations by the prime minister, other ministers, other officials, and particularly Shas officials will most likely fall on deaf ears, at least among the more simple-minded among the gays and among the hotheaded haters of the present government on the "Left." The division among Israelis thus caused will harm the present government and its attempt to stand up to Obama's pressure. The murders are likely to end up benefitting those who hate Netanyahu and want to soften his resistance to the racist, anti-Jewish winds raging in Washington.

Public Opinion Polls as Propaganda at HaArets

Israel's HaArets daily newspaper fancies itself the Israeli counterpart of The New York Times. I and others would not see such a resemblance as a source of pride. Yet there is something to it, although the NYT commits many more crimes against the trees than the thinner HaArets does. But both pretentiously high-brow rags distort and even falsify the news. HaArets does it through public opinion polls, among other ways. Political scientists and sociologists are well aware that one can usually obtain the answer that best serves one's interests and policy preferences by framing the questions in a suitable manner --or even by eliminating possible choices. That's a good reason to always be wary of public opinion polls. You have to ask, What questions did the poll ask, What alternative choices were supplied, etc. Here's an example from the Israel correspondent of the Economist, not exactly a friend of Israel or of truth.

The correspondent, one Gideon Lichfield, wondered at the apparently contradictory results of two public opinion polls taken in Israel. A poll published in HaArets asserted that most Israelis wanted negotiations with Hamas. A poll by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research at Tel Aviv University showed that a solid majority of Israelis preferred to deal with Hamas by military means. This percentage [circa 64%] is even higher if we look only at the answers of the Israeli Jews.

The pollster for HaArets, one Camil Fuchs, frankly admitted his dishonest, unscientific polling method to Lichfield. His poll presented only two options, Should Israel negotiate with Hamas, Yes or No, plus a Don't Know option. On the other hand, The Steinmetz Center poll contained several operational options, plus Other & Don't Know. Lichfield asked:

So which poll is “right”? What does the Israeli public actually think about talks with Hamas? I [Lichfield] asked Fuchs.
“When you include other options, you’re cognitively giving legitimacy to them,” he [Fuchs] says. “What you’re doing is hinting to the person that there are other people who prefer these options.”

So what Fuchs does is to foreclose certain options from his poll in order to obtain the answers that he wants. Lichfield points out: "When there’s only one option on the table, on the other hand, you’re asking them to choose between doing that and doing nothing." Lichfield concludes:

In short, what the two polls taken together say is that if the people could run the government, and had a range of options for dealing with Gaza, more of them would go with a military option. However, if the government says it’s going to talk to Hamas, 64% of the public would support it (though Fuchs thinks the number now would be a little lower than three weeks ago)

The trick that Fuchs used to skew his poll is common and widespread throughout the world. Before accepting the results of any public opinion poll as genuine or meaningful, you have to know what questions were asked or what options were supplied. If you know the questions asked and the options supplied, then you also know what questions were not asked and what options not supplied. What do you do if you are queried by a poll which supplies several options but not any option that you agree with?? What do you do if you disagree with the premises of a poll's question?? This has often happened to me. It is especially annoying if no Other or Don't Know option is supplied. For an example of disagreeing with the very premises of a question, suppose you are asked, as an Israeli, Should Israel negotiate with "the palestinians"?? I and many others reject the very notion of a "palestinian people" [as do many Arabs]. But the poll does not allow us to assert that disagreement. Furthermore, suppose someone agrees that there is a "palestinian people." Then the issue arises, staying with the same poll question, Which "palestinians" do you think fit or unfit to negotiate with? The answer could be "the palestinians" [Arabs] living in the "West Bank" [Judea-Samaria] and their elected representatives [this answer could have been relevant before the Oslo accords and the subsequent establishment of the "palestinian authority"]. Today, one might choose between Fatah or Hamas or both or "palestinians who are not part of any terrorist group such as Fatah or Hamas." By not allowing disagreement with the premises of a question, the pollster is obtaining agreement to those premises from those who answer the question, even if in fact the questioned person does not accept the premises.

As to Hamas, there are good reasons for not negotiating with it but rather destroying it as an organization. This is because the Hamas charter is genocidally anti-Jewish in character [consider Article 7 in particular, which advocates killing off the Jews as such, albeit not until Judgement Day, which in practice encourages killing Jews at any time and place]. What is there to negotiate with such an organization?? It is ridiculous to claim, as many hypocritical Western politicians do, such as Tony Blair, that negotiating with Hamas would "moderate" its actions and its goals. Neville Chamberlain claimed, after pressuring Czechoslovakia to concede territory to the Nazi Germans, to Hitler, that he had brought to Britain, "peace in our time. . . peace with honor." In fact, he brought neither peace nor honor. Tony seems cut from the same cloth.

Negotiating with a genocidal outfit like Hamas gives it undesirable acceptance and prestige in world public opinion. Indeed, such negotiation gives genocide in principle a certain acceptance and legitimacy.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: English prof who writes for the Nation, lies on Obama's behalf, and looks to the State Dept for authority; more on Jews in Jerusalem & Hebron; archeology in Israel; peace follies; propaganda, etc.