Al Durah “lives” in the Palestinian justification for terror

Here’s a fascinating exchange between a Jawwad Muhammad Amawwi, chief legal counsel of the Palestinian Prisoners Affairs Ministry and Ofir Gendelman, spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office on Arabic TV. (HT: Hadar Selah)

In particular, watch from 8:30, how the Palestinian spokesman uses Al Durah to accuse Israel for doing what the Palestinians do, namely, targeting children.

9 Responses to Al Durah “lives” in the Palestinian justification for terror

  1. In particular, watch from 8:30, how the Palestinian spokesman uses Al Durah to accuse Israel for doing what the Palestinians do, namely, targeting children.

    I haven’t seen the whole video yet, but just the fact that the Palestinian spokesman used the Al Durah blood libel as proof that Israel targets children and, implicitly, as a justification for Palestinian terrorism, this shows that the Al Durah hoax is augmenting Palestinian intransigence, it makes Palestinians feel justified in continuing their terrorism and, therefore, it creates psychological obstacles to peace.

    Given that the Al Durah has been disseminated in the West by the MSM in complete violation of proper journalistic standards, every time we want to highlight to the western public the role of the MSM in perpetuating the conflict we should be linking to this video: it is a clear demonstration of how the unthoughtful adoption of Pallywood lethal narratives by our MSM feeds the Jihadi mindset not just with (self-induced, the Arabs tend to ignite easily even on their own over-heated rhetoric) anger but also with false excuses for terrorism – if you noticed, the Palestinian bully made an argument about the whole world (except Israel) recognizing the occupation. The Jihadis are not that stupid as many imagine. They know the power of the western public opinion. If they see that their narrative about justified “resistance” (a euphemism for terrorism) is accepted by the West, they feel invigorated because they sense that they can dupe the West to force Israel into more and more suicidal territorial concessions.

    P.S. as for the “unthoughtful” adoption of lethal narratives by our MSM that i spoke of, here is what this unthoughtfulness consists in:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2013/04/18/principled-dupedom-on-the-moral-imperative-to-be-stupid/

    One explanation is the journalists’ fear due to the moral intimidation they are bound to receive by their peers if they dare to challenge the truthfulness of the Palestinian claims (fear to be called “racists” or something equally disparaging).

    A complementary, but stronger, explanation is that the journalists welcome the moral schadenfreude they experience when they blame Israel. As to why are westerners in general, and journalists in particular, so susceptible to experience such malicious an emotion, here is the definitive analysis:

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2012/11/12/western-appetite-for-lethal-narratives-about-israel-moral-schadenfreude-and-replacement-theology/

    • mika. says:

      ..the unthoughtful adoption of Pallywood lethal narratives by our MSM feeds the Jihadi mindset..
      ==

      There’s NOTHING unthoughtful about it. The Paliwood narrative has been created by the CIA/Vatican and their subsidiaries, already 100 years ago. It is wholly created, owned, and distributed by the CIA. In Israel, it is distributed by the CIA/Israeli propaganda distributors. In Jihadistan, by the CIA/Jihadistani propaganda distributors. And the same in the rest of the world. A matrix of mirrors reflecting a propaganda hologram. This has been very carefully constructed and is very carefully maintained according to a plan that as I said earlier was already carefully constructed 100 years ago. There’s NOTHING unthoughtful about it.

  2. Elise Ronan says:

    The Palestinians, and Arabs for that fact, would create such a narrative no matter what. They did it with Deir Yassin (there is an interesting book out by Uri Milstein that refutes the official story) and the Palestinians did it with Jenin as well, except even the UN backed Israel after that lie was exposed (that of course does not stop the Palestinians from still using the “Jenin massacre” in their propaganda. Truth was never their forte.). Pointing this out does not prevent the need to refute and correct the blatant lies of the al-Durah blood libel, but just to mention that “blood libel” in and of itself, is the guiding force in Palestinian politics and not al-Durah.

    • @ Elise

      The Palestinians, and Arabs for that fact, would create such a narrative no matter what.

      Yes, you are right. I think i remember Dr Landes has said that Pallywood was initially for domestic consumption, to excite the Palestinian passions.

      Pointing this out does not prevent the need to refute and correct the blatant lies of the al-Durah blood libel, but just to mention that “blood libel” in and of itself, is the guiding force in Palestinian politics and not al-Durah.

      I agree that we should refute and correct the MSM blood libels.

      My intention was to draw attention to how the western MSM perpetuate the conflict by taking at face value the lethal narratives that the Palestinians produce. I believe that if the West was not so eagerly duped by the Pal lies, then the Jihadis would have got the message that Pallywood does not pay in the international arena. This might have calmed them down a bit, their morale would not have been equally high with their present morale that feeds on western covert incitement to violence against the Israeli civilians.

      To my mind, Al Durah journalism comes down to precisely that: western covert incitement to terrorism – shall we call it “abetting murder in a good conscience”?

      there is an interesting book out by Uri Milstein that refutes the official story

      Thanks for the reading suggestion.

      Truth was never their [the Palestinians'] forte.

      True, but the Palestinians make up for their own disingenuousness with other virtues characteristic of Arabic culture, such as their respect for women and their tolerance for political or religious dissent. You are just too… racist to admit that they are people like you and me, i’ve heard it all before from right-wingers. :)

      What i don’t understand is why, despite my unsurpassable moral high-mindedness some people, instead of calling me “Liberal Cognitive Egalitarian”, call me “Liberal Cognitive Egocentrist” – and they also say that i am a moral narcissist, would you believe it?

      • Elise Ronan says:

        I believe that people will call you any name in order to validate their own version of reality. You must get under their skin. Take the name calling as a badge of honor I always do.

  3. w.w.wygart says:

    My congratulations for Mr. Gendelman for having managed to have survived that ordeal without loosing his cool – I’m not sure I could have passed so acid a test.

    On screen behavior like Mr. Gendelman’s often doesn’t do well on television, where as Mr. Amawwi’s behavior tends to ‘play’ much better.
    Raw passion can mask a general incoherence of argument and make your opponent’s arguments appear weak. [did I just say that?] Also someone like Mr. Gendelman comes across as stiff, unemotional and inhumane on TV – a Kirk vs Spock situation. As Uncle Marshal said long ago, “The medium IS the message.” If I hadn’t had to ‘read’ all of the subtitles and ‘watch’ the speakers faces separately, it would probably have been much harder for me to tell how completely Mr. Amawwi was trounced by Mr. Gendelman intellectually.

    That said, it seemed unfortunate that Mr. Gendelman’s truthful description of Israel’s administrative detention process seemed to fulfill the paranoia of Mr. Amawwi’s accusations. This is yet another example of the double blind that lawful society faces from terrorism the duplicitous demand for all of the protections that civil society provides, while at the same time reserving to right to violate all of its basic tenets at will – for fabricated reasons at that.

    What was most striking to was which side of the argument, Mr. Amawwi’s, felt it necessary to play the ‘lie card’.

    Was Mr. Gendelman lying? Was Mr. Amawwi incorrectly accusing Mr. Gendelman of lying? Was Mr. Amawwi accusation itself an untruth, a bad rhetorical habit, a malicious lie, or was Mr. Amawwi really lying to himself to deflect his own shame on the issue?

    It is my personal theory, based on observing young children, that humans learn to lie first at an early age to protect their psyches from the damage of being found ‘wrong’, ‘bad’, or being shamed for violating parents’ rules [over which they have no control]. For the young child, say under age five, lying functions as a kind or magical reality mending strategy who’s function is to protect the child’s fragile sense of self. Only later, based on their experience, do children learn that lying also can be used as a tool to fulfill some of their ‘illicit’ desires and gain some measure of control over the situation. At an even more advanced stage the lie can become a conscious strategy to manipulate others and gain even more control over the situation – the Gleiwitz Incident for example.

    So, my [rhetorical] question is at what level of psychological development is Mr. Amawwi, and by extension other Palestinians and Arabs, using the lie?

    Stepping out on a limb here.

    My contention is that for the Palestinians, and certain other people and cultures, lying has become a kind of culturally condoned neoteny, the retention of a juvenile characteristic into adulthood. It seems to me that this is a very juvenile psychology at work here, both individually and culturally, namely an attempt to magically mend reality to avert a personal or cultural sense of shame.

    Stepping WAY out on a limb here.

    So,logically, that leads to the notion that ‘Pallywood’, Jenin, Al Durah, & etc. reflect a primary psychological need for Palestinians to create a reality where they are not evil doers, or ‘the’ evil doers – out of whole cloth if necessary. And, that this a very childish psychology, they simply cannot deal with their own guilt about anything at any level.

    In a blog post of my own back in November 2011:

    http://thecoralinememe.net/2011/11/09/liberal-cognative-egocentrism-on-the-augean-stables-a-day-late-again/

    I came to the very uncomfortable conclusion that Palestinian society had become somehow essentially ‘sociopathic’:

    …incapable of remorse or regret and insensitive to the life of the individual except as an element to be used in the national struggle rather than the point of the struggle, and then enforces this level of behavior on all members of society?

    I wish I could be more positive about Palestinian society, but that’s the position that the observation of nature leads me to – kind of heartbreaking realization. I have compassion for the Palestinian people, but I’m not willing to endanger anyone by lying to myself about the situation.

    W^3

    • @ Wygart

      Wow, good analysis. Here are my off-the-top-of-my-head contributions:

      Raw passion can mask a general incoherence of argument and make your opponent’s arguments appear weak… Also someone like Mr. Gendelman comes across as stiff, unemotional and inhumane on TV – a Kirk vs Spock situation.

      On the other hand, the general demeanor of the Israeli and the Pal spokesman was an accurate picture of the demeanor of the Israelis and the Palestinians as a group: the first rational and temperate, the other irrational and impulsive. If the Israeli had made towards the end of the discussion this point about they way they both conducted themselves, he would have made it clear to the audience – he missed the chance.

      As for Kirk vs Spock, i vote for Dr Jekyll vs Mr Hyde. :)

      That said, it seemed unfortunate that Mr. Gendelman’s truthful description of Israel’s administrative detention process seemed to fulfill the paranoia of Mr. Amawwi’s accusations.

      The funny thing with the Arabic culture is that they don’t need serious incentive to fulfill their paranoia: they are in thrall with any conspiracy theory that implicates the Jews:

      http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/why-is-the-middle-east-still-in-thrall-to-9-11-conspiracy-theories

      In a report on Muslim-Western relations released on July 21 of this year, the Pew Research Center asked Muslim respondents in eight countries — including Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan — whether they thought groups of Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks on the United States. In every country, less than 30 percent of respondents professed their belief for the idea, and in Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey the level of acceptance is lower today than it was in 2006. Indeed, the same revolutionary Arab Street that toppled Mubarak in Egypt also registered the highest level of denial among all the countries surveyed, with a full 75 percent of respondents recording their disbelief.

      As Dr Landes observes, the most aggressive believers in all sorts of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing that attributes to Jews a wish to dominate are the ones who project on Jews their own wish to dominate – and the Arabs are full of such desires for world conquest through sharia expansion.

      This is yet another example of the double blind that lawful society faces from terrorism the duplicitous demand for all of the protections that civil society provides, while at the same time reserving to right to violate all of its basic tenets at will – for fabricated reasons at that.

      Yes, it is the threat that demopaths pose to civil society. But we are losing the cognitive war because we are whimsically blind to the threat – our LCE coupled with our moral narcissism and fear of moral intimidation assure us that everything is ok with the majority of the Muslims, they are “moderates” – at the same time, we are marginalizing the few true moderates.

      The duplicitous demands are met with dazzling dupedom.

      Was Mr. Amawwi accusation itself an untruth, a bad rhetorical habit, a malicious lie, or was Mr. Amawwi really lying to himself to deflect his own shame on the issue?

      I think the Palestinians, even when they know they are lying, at the time they are arguing they truly believe what they say. Sort of psyching up themselves to believe the lie. And, of course, they also believe the lie when they are not fully conscious of the lie.

      Whatever the case, i wouldn’t call it a “bad rhetorical habit”, but rather “the usual “projection of the day” from the Palestinian side.

      Here is a more nuanced analysis by Dr Landes:

      This kind of emotionally-driven dissonance between two different performances is a ubiquitous element of much Arab-West contact. (All of this, of course, analysis forbidden to post-Orientalists.) When Sari Nusseibeh indignantly denounces suicide terror before a Western audience and then praises the mother of a martyr for her son’s sacrifice, he’s sincere both ways. When Islamists deny the Holocaust ever happened and then accuse Israel of being the new Nazis bringing a Holocaust on the Palestinians, they do not see the contradiction. Both statements blacken Israel’s face and strengthen theirs; both offer immense emotional satisfaction and (alas for civil society), a strong resonance with Western infidels who apparently also find such debasing formulas about Jews almost irresistibly attractive.

      The Palestinians are aggressively deluding themselves with anti-Jew mental movies, and westerners just can’t watch enough of them.

      Who would have guessed that the western moral schadenfreude at hearing bad things about the Jews would have turned Pallywood into a global success?

      And, that this a very childish psychology, they simply cannot deal with their own guilt about anything at any level.

      I believe that they (most of them) are incapable of feeling guilt. They are too much concerned with how they are perceived.

      [the Palestinians]…incapable of remorse or regret and insensitive to the life of the individual except as an element to be used in the national struggle rather than the point of the struggle, and then enforces this level of behavior on all members of society?

      Yes, and that is why they keep the (faux) refugees in the west Bank in refugee camps under bad conditions, so that they can use them as both poster boys for Israeli “oppression” and as a pool of terrorists. They treat them not as fellow human beings, but as pawns against Israel.

      For the Palestinians, a murdered Israeli is worth more than many dead Palestinians – the exchange rate, as determined by the Gilad Shalit case, is more than 1/1000.

      They truly love death more than we love life – this must have been one of the few truths they have ever uttered publicly.

      I wish I could be more positive about Palestinian society, but that’s the position that the observation of nature leads me to – kind of heartbreaking realization. I have compassion for the Palestinian people, but I’m not willing to endanger anyone by lying to myself about the situation.

      I don’t hate them, but i only have compassion for the females, the gays, and those males who consciously disapprove of the Palestinian irridentism. The rest can go to stay in the hell which they are allowing their elites to maintain. Since they are not squeamish, why don’t they turn their genocidal bravado against the true culprits, i.e. their own elites? They are almost as guilty as their elites.

      We are told that we should have concern for the “plight” of the Palestinians under Israeli “oppression”. They probably refer to the plight of only 50% of the Pal population, the males, because the other 50%, the females, are directly oppressed by the Palestinian males, not by the Israelis – not that the Palestinian males are truly oppressed by the israelis either, but i just felt like taking the PC’s point of view for the sake of argument, in order to expose the PC supporters’ hypocrisy in utilitarian terms.

  4. Martin J. Malliet says:

    I found the exchange interesting, but for a different reason (that the Palestinian spokesman used Al Durah as proof of Israel being evil cannot really be new, Al Durah after all is called the icon of the Second Intifada for a reason). What struck me is that the Israeli spokesman, by his insistance on terrorism and the targeting of civilians, seems to accept that the war itself, if only it were fought by regular Palestinian fighters against the IDF, is part of the natural order of the world! I don’t watch these things very often, so I don’t know whether this is a position from which Israeli spokesmen argue in general. But it is the wrong position, quite apart from the fact that it is also a position from which Israel can never win: if the Palestinian war against Israel (‘armed resistance’) is part of the natural order of the world, one cannot be surprised that Western sympathy for Palestinian suffering translates into sympathy for Palestinian terrorism as the only weapon of the poor and oppressed. – I said it before: you Jewish people argue far too much, and forget to make the only point that really matters, namely that it is an unjust war waged against Israel since its creation. As long as you don’t make that point, it can be denied without attracting the least bit of attention. I never got an answer to my letter to Angela Merkel: she probably is not willing to agree with me, but she can also not disagree with me without involving herself in an explicit denial of the crime. And as I am just an ordinary citizen, ignoring my letter is an available option. That option would not be available to her anymore if the letter came from the Israeli government.

    • Martin J. Malliet says:

      I also believe more and more that Pope Benedict’s Regensburg lecture in 2006 was a missed opportunity for Israel. The Pope was obviously misunderstood both by Muslims and Westerners. It could have become very interesting if the Jews of Israel had taken up his words and had signalled their understanding of them. Because his lecture, I think, is among the best that has been said about this ‘clash of civilisations’: in developing his central theme of ‘faith and reason’, the Pope clearly identified the problems with islam (absolutism beyond reason justifying violence), but he was also quite critical of Western (christian) positivist and relativist reductionism (dehellenisation). I therefore tend to believe that his Regensburg lecture was a serious attempt to start to talk to Muslims without shying away from the fundamental problem, the disrespect of infidels’ rights written into their prophet’s message, and the violence that goes with it. And to do that from a position that could not be confounded with Western political imperialism (by giving precedence to the rule of law over political democracy). But he was obviously all alone in doing this, surrounded by church bureaucrats who probably didn’t understand any of it. When the foreseeable violent reactions then came from the Muslim world, and the concomitant misunderstandings from Western ideological commentators, what was he to do? Continue all on his own against the advice of the bureaucrats? Because that is what was needed at that time, insistance, not withdrawal. Israel decided to stay out of the controversy. A missed opportunity, in my opinion, to make it clear that Israel is a victim of both Muslim and Western criminal stupidity. One can understand that in the end the Pope simply felt tired and wanted to leave it to someone else. The amount of foolishness and stupidity in this world can look insurmountable, even to a younger man.

      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

      I don’t really know where to post this comment, so I do it here. But it is also a comment on Barack Obama’s speech in Jerusalem:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxfw3ZfBx6I

      30m55s: “Peace is just.” Then this war must be unjust. So why isn’t he talking about justice and peace to the unjust warmongers? He acknowledges the “Palestinian factions that turned to terror, the leaders who missed historic opportunities.” But then he seems to believe that although “that is all true”, it isn’t all that central to “just peace” being so elusive since 1948!

      40m41s: “That’s where peace begins, (…) in the hearts of people.” That’s the ‘yes, we can’ rethoric, and fundamentally he is right. Only, who is ‘we’? If it is not ‘each of us’, and he does not say so, he is giving cover to the political criminals who disrespect the rights and sovereignty of individual people. And he is then led into appealing to these political criminals and unjust warmongers to stop being criminals (“to take steps to normalise their relations with Israel”), which is simply the wrong conclusion: criminals either stop being criminals of their own volition, and then they are no criminals anymore, or they don’t, and that’s exactly what makes them into criminals. And criminals must be confronted as criminals: you don’t ask them politely to take steps to mend their way, you kill them (Democritus).

      The length of Barack Obama’s speech is in itself a sign of weakness and confusion: he needs so many words to hide that he is not making the only simple point that needs to be made: since its creation in 1948, the Jewish State of Israel is the victim of a crime against humanity (of an unjust war waged against it) by all those who simply refused (and continue to refuse) to enter into negotiations for an agreed settlement of the mutual claims to the land of Palestine, basing their refusal of negotiations and waging their war on no other proof of the violation of their right than the quran and the prophet, while simultaneously and on the same basis denying infidels their rights.

      Robert Musil: “Wenn die Dummheit nicht dem Fortschritt, dem Talent, der Hoffnung oder der Verbesserung zum Verwechseln ähnlich sähe, würde niemand dumm sein wollen. Das habe ich 1931 gesagt; und niemand wird zu bezweifeln wagen, daß die Welt auch seither noch Fortschritte und Verbesserungen gesehen hat!”

      My translation: “If stupidity could not so easily be taken for progress, talent, hope of improvement, nobody would want to be stupid. I said that in 1931, and nobody shall dare to doubt that the world has since seen progress and improvements!”

      Not racism, but stupidity is at the bottom of liberal cognitive egocentrism. It has a long and proven past, and nobody should dare to doubt that it has a future as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>