A Study in Contrasts
First, she abrogates any responsibility by Palestinians for their own atrocities by assigning blame to Jews who have "forced them to become animals." Yet somehow the Jews managed to avoid becoming animals, despite 6 million of them being butchered by the Nazis. Somehow the Armenians did not become animals after the brutality they suffered at the hands of the Turks. Somehow the Kurds of northern Iraq did not become animals after Saddam murdered them by the tens of thousands. And on and on.
Given her own brand of logic, would not the Jews be justified in anything they do to Arabs, because Arabs have been attacking (and even enslaving) them for many hundreds of years? If loss and suffering is adequate justification for barbaric reprisals, how could this woman find fault with any Israeli response to the thousands of rockets that have been fired into her towns, the suicide bombers in her markets, movie theaters, and pizza parlors, or the Jewish men, women, and children who have been victimized and brutalized by Palestinian Arabs since long before the state of Israel was ever formed?
In the same breath, she justifies committing genocide against the Jewish people by her use of the word "eradicating"… because in her eyes, eradicating Jews is a reasonable response to political discontent; however, "occupation" in her mind is a greater evil than genocidal eradication. We’ll leave aside for the moment the historical inaccuracy of referring to Jews as occupiers in Judea and Samaria, their ancestral homeland for millennia.
She then goes on to say she believes in a two state solution -- while lauding her own qualities of reason and realism -- yet she overlooks the fact that there is but one Jewish state, Israel, while Palestinians already have two, Gaza and Jordan. She overlooks the fact that at Camp David, the Palestinians were handed 95% of what they demanded on a silver platter, yet Arafat walked away and launched the second Intifada rather than recognize Israel’s right to exist. She ignores the reality that the Palestinians could have their own state at any time, but they refuse anything less than all of Israel, “from the river to the sea.”
But she believes in a two state solution -- because she is "reasonable and realistic."
She then crowns her commentary with brilliant moral equivalence: In her mind, there is no difference between slaughtering a Jewish infant, asleep in its crib, and defending against a ship full of armed terrorists and activists, intent on running a naval blockade. In this, she echoes the Palestinian mentality perfectly and tacitly condones the targeting of civilians, even infants, by acts of unspeakable terrorism. In her mind, there is no difference between a sleeping baby and a terrorist attacking you with a dagger.
How can reason possibly triumph over such a mentality? We must find a way, because this cancerous mentality has metastasized, and may ultimately prevail.