Thousands of ordinary and extraordinary people were going about their day in London, England on July 7, 2005. People at work, tourists on vacation and kids at school had no idea that there were people who hated them so much that they wished them dead.
On that day, Islamic radicals would kill and maim many of them.
Four Muslim British men bombed London’s transportation system, three in the Underground and one bus. They killed 52 people, ranging in age from 20 to 64. All of the victims were UK residents who came from a variety of backgrounds.
The jihadists left behind statements that they did not view anyone from the UK as innocent as “Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.” It continued that the bomber loved “the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today’s heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” a collection of terrorists who killed and maimed thousands of people with western principles.
Another one of the suicide bombers said that non-Muslims deserved to die because they elected a government which “continues to oppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.”
Islamic extremists would continue to attack the people of the United Kingdom.
On May 22, 2013, two Muslim men killed and hacked to death two British soldiers stating that they did so “because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one…. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.“
On the anniversary of that attack, May 22, 2017, 23 people were killed and 800 wounded when a Muslim man bombed an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester. The youngest victim was only 8 years old. That attack was preceded by a March 22 attack by a Muslim extremist who drove his car on Westminster Bridge injuring 50 and killing four. It was followed by an attack on June 3 when three Muslim men ran a car over people on London Bridge and then began stabbing people, killing eight and wounding nearly 50 people.
The people of England felt the effects of Islamic extremism which had been considered a localized US and Israel problem. Over time, as the Islamic State burned even fellow Muslims alive in their quest to establish a new caliphate, it became clear that the Islamic world had begun a “global intifada” which sought to promote the global supremacy of Islam and instill fear in the hearts of infidels.
The global intifada began in 2001 in two parts: the Durban Conference which launched the propaganda war; and the September 11 attacks on the United States which killed thousands while attacking the western world’s financial and military centers. However, it was only on July 7, 2005 that the world began to comprehend that the Islamist war went beyond the “big Satan” and “little Satan” of the United States and Israel, and incorporated all non-Muslim “infidels” who were perceived to challenge Islam.
The January 22, 2021 article (24th in the print edition) in The New York Times “What Zoom Does to Campus Conflicts Over Israel and Free Speech” could have been an interesting discussion about the ongoing role of big media companies and censorship. Remarkably, the Times opted to tackle an easy and extreme case – the dissemination of terrorist propaganda and calls for violence – and decided the answer was sure, if the target is Israel.
The opening sentences of the article made it clear that the author understood the subject to be used as a foil in the discussion:
“Leila Khaled is a two-time hijacker, a member of a Palestinian group on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. So it came as a shock to Javier Cohen, a senior at New York University, to find her speaking on an N.Y.U. webinar last semester.“
From such factual clarity, it is frightening that the Times would follow:
“In a conflict that has divided campuses in recent years, here was a new dimension: A commercial technology company [Zoom], under pressure from pro-Israel groups, was controlling content at a major American university.
“We’re usually not in the position of having campus speech being adjudicated by outside agents,” said [NYU Professor] Mr. Ross, arguing that criticism of Israel was being labeled anti-Semitism. “But Zoom is in the position of doing that right now. ”
This is preposterous and incendiary. Saying that pro-Israel groups are shutting down “content” through the guise of charges of “anti-Semitism” completely misses the mark that the university invited a terrorist who calls for violence onto the college square on the basis of free speech. In no civilized society does free speech cover such activity. To blame the target of the vitriol for shutting down discussion adds to the delusion and reeks of fanning more anti-Semitism.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had written about Leila Khaled a few months ago when she was due to speak at San Francisco State University (SFSU):
“In some anti-Israel circles, PFLP terrorists Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh have drawn particular admiration. Leila Khaled took part in the hijacking of two civilian aircraft in 1969 and 1970. In recentinterviews, she has remainedunrepentant for her role in the hijackings and continues to hold the view that the Palestinian national movement is justified in using all means of resistance, including armed struggle.”
At the same time in September 2020, Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General William Barr outlining the criminal charges that should be brought against SFSU which had invited Khaled and possibly the technology companies like Zoom for hosting such discussions which “appeared to be [for the purpose of] the promotion of the PFLP’s [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] terrorist agenda to a wider audience.“
While the Times did not quote the ADL or Lamborn’s letter, it seemed to acknowledge the issue of promoting terrorism but then it quickly shifted gears back to anti-Israel free speech:
“A spokeswoman for Zoom, Colleen Rodriguez, said Ms. Khaled’s association with a terrorist group violated the company’s terms of service. The company also banned three other colleges’ webinars featuring Ms. Khaled.
“As schools around the country have shifted to virtual learning, the battles over Israel and the Palestinian territories — with opponents accusing one another of anti-Semitism or suppressing free speech — have migrated with the technology, evolving from campus demonstrations and fliers to social media and Zoom.”
It is as though the article was written by Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in acknowledging the problem of promoting terrorism but then excusing it as a matter of “suppressing free speech.” The article would go on for another 37 paragraphs – three pages including large color pictures – about whether criticism of Israel is a matter of free speech.
The 2,000-word article ended with an exchange that suggested the public square deserved to hear from Leila Khaled:
“The history is “messy,” he said, with “justice on both sides, and injustice on both sides.”
“Even without remote learning, students have little incentive to see the other view and strong support for hardening their own side’s.
“Mr. Stern said, mildly, “That makes conversations very difficult.””
One cannot imagine that the Times would go to such lengths to defend a university inviting a member of al-Qaeda onto campus to discuss the evils of the United States and its desire to continue an armed struggle against the western world. Maybe an alt-left university in California or New York would entertain a member of ISIS delivering a lecture under the banner of the university but hopefully law enforcement would shut it down.
The New York Times spent considerable ink over this past week saying that the new Biden Administration will help unify the country. That will only happen if he sends the attorney general and law enforcement after the alt-left universities and media companies like The New York Times which continue to promote terrorism and terrorists.
For people looking to get a quick understanding of terrorist attacks, many turn to the global media companies like CNN’s ”Fast Facts” section. It is there that much of the world gets an alternative view of terrorism, sanitized of the evils of Palestinian anti-Semitism.
CNN has a section called “Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts” devoted to global car ramming attacks. The site leads with a story of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch calling for the use of cars as death machines in 2010 and ISIS doing much the same in September 2014. The website then pivots to a “Timeline” section which recounts 15 terrorist attacks using vehicles since 2006. There is only a single incident in Israel listed and there, CNN quotes the Palestinian terrorist’s family as denying the killer had any involvement with Hamas.
The untold reality is that, like airplane hijackings, Palestinian Arabs are at the forefront of this form of terrorism too.
The paucity of Palestinian terrorism on the site is particularly shocking because there were dozens of Palestinians using cars as weapons against Jews during the media company’s timeframe, along with the active incitement and encouragement of Palestinian leadership.
Fatah, the party of the acting-president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas, posted on its Facebook page several cartoons encouraging Arabs to run over Israeli Jews in November 2014, shortly after a Palestinian Arab ran over and killed a few people at a bus stop.
The cartoon’s language of “Run over, friend, run over the foreign settler!” and “hit the gas at 199 [km/h] for al-Aqsa,” made the murderous motives abundantly clear.
“The song, preformed in Hebrew with Arabic and Hebrew subtitles, says, “Runaway oh you Zionist, Runaway…Minutes, and a car will run over you” and depicts a Jewish man singing about running away from cars. In the part of the video where the Jewish man gets hit by a car at a bus station and thrown into a cemetery, the lyrics are, “A car will attack you from each direction to give you a ride to the grave.” The song closes with “Runaway Zionists because you will be killed by all means.“
Another song circulated online at this time titled “Run-over this settler” was performed by a Palestinian duo with lyrics: “Ran-over a Jewish settler…did it, with his limited resources, for his country.” The song called upon Palestinians to “wait for them at the intersection, let the settler sink in the red blood. Terrify them don’t be merciful.” Jordan-based Al Yarmuk satellite TV station aired the song on its channel as well.
Fatah officials joined the chorus for vehicular homicide with statements like “We will pursue you [Zionists] with car rammings and kill you with rocks.” None of this was covered by CNN.
A thorough review of vehicular terrorism was conducted by the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose University in November 2019 in a study called “Smashing Into Crowds” — An Analysis of Vehicle Ramming Attacks.” It’s an important work designed to review how transportation officials should prepare for acts of terrorism.
According to the report, 22% of global vehicular terrorist attacks on civilians since 2010 were committed by Palestinian Arabs. That figure EXCLUDED attacks on police and military personnel which approached 1,000 incidents according to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It included all attacks by a broad range of individuals such as those suffering from mental health issues (the 22% Palestinian figure would be over 50% if just focused on jihadists). But, again, CNN could only mention a single occurrence by Palestinians and fail to describe any of their incitement.
The Mineta report captures the essence of car-ramming attacks by jihadists, especially for Palestinians:
“The emergence of groups inspired by religion-based ideologies contributed to the escalation of violence. The substitution of God’s will for political constituency eroded self-imposed constraints, such as killing large numbers of innocent civilians, including children. Religious fanatics count only on heavenly approval for their actions. Condemnation by those regarded as unbelievers or infidels matters little, and undiluted commitment guarantees paradise. Among religiously inspired terrorists, suicide attacks became common….
“The change in recruiting methods [using social media and online postings] produced changes in the local terrorist population and also affected tactics. The Internet attracted individuals—it did not create local groups. Terrorist campaigns were replaced by one-off attacks; there was no institutional learning, no improvement in operational skills over time. Instead, jihadists remained mostly unconnected individuals operating alone with limited resources. When they did reach out to join others, they risked being taken in by police undercover operations. Isolated jihadists could not sustain terrorist campaigns or inspire sufficient numbers to create a high volume of violence.
“The use of vehicles as weapons is an ideal tactic for today’s circumstances. Vehicles are a readily available “weapon.” Limited skill is required, and the ability to drive is widespread. Little preparation is required for an attack. Cities filled with people and vehicles provide ample targets which cannot easily be protected, and high body counts are potentially achievable. It is not surprising, then, that the number of car-ramming attacks has increased….
“Ramming attacks did not become a terrorist tactic until the 1990s when Palestinians started carrying out vehicular assaults in Israel. Many of the attacks targeted off-duty soldiers waiting at bus stops—a ubiquitous sight in Israel—but some of the attacks were directed against both soldiers and groups of civilians.
“Car ramming did not become a major feature of the Palestinian terrorist campaign until a decade later. The 2001 bus attack was the only vehicle ramming attack to occur during the Palestinian uprising known as the Second Intifada from 2000 to 2005, during which there were hundreds of bombings, armed assaults, and rocket and mortar attacks. Occasional vehicle ramming attacks occurred during subsequent years, especially in the summer of 2008, but the sharp increase in Palestinian vehicle attacks did not begin until after 2014. Still, HAMAS and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were the only Palestinian groups to call for such attacks. By 2016, vehicle ramming attacks had evolved from a statistically rare event to reportedly become the second most common form of attack in Israel and the second deadliest form of attack carried out by Palestinians, behind only stabbing.
“The increasing difficulty of smuggling explosives into the West Bank after the construction of the West Bank Barrier built in response to the Second Intifada and increased border barriers and controls between Gaza and Egypt is offered as at least a partial explanation for the subsequent increase in car rammings by Palestinians. Car rammings increased as preferred modes of attack became more difficult. Palestinians may also have found inspiration in exhortations from global Jihadist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.”
The report – which was not about Palestinian terrorism – had no difficulty clearly pointing out that the origin of car ramming terrorism came from Palestinians, that Palestinian leadership specifically calls on people to use vehicles to kill Israeli Jews who are treated as less than human, and that Palestinians are the leading users of such terrorist tactics – even more than all other jihadists around the world combined.
Yet CNN would have its readers believe otherwise.
Most people will not look up an 18-page report compiled by transportation experts at an American university to learn what actually happened around the world from jihadist terrorism and rely on readily-available media like CNN which, unbeknownst to viewers, attempts to sanitize the crimes against humanity executed routinely by Palestinian Arabs. Not only does truth die in the hands of mainstream media but innocent victims suffer a second-time from the failures of memory and justice.
The New York Times has continued to use pictures which accompany its articles (read editorials) to frame narratives that are vehemently anti-Zionist.
On November 20, 2020, the paper had a two-page spread on pages A12 and A13 which touched upon the victims of terrorism but handled the stories very differently.
Page A13 had a large color photograph of a victim of a terrorist attack in Toronto. The article’s title “Professed ‘Incel’ Who Killed 10 With Van Stands Trial in Toronto” had a caption under the page’s dominant picture which read “Cathy Riddell, 70, who sustained over 20 injuries, including brain trauma, in a 2018 van attack that killed 10 people and wounded 16.” The large picture gave a personal story of the tragedy that struck so many and left the reader feeling emotionally attached to her and the many victims of this ‘incel’.
The story on page A12 portrayed a very different picture for readers. The story called “Seeking Restart with Biden, Palestinians to Pare Prisoner Payments” also had a picture – but of a very different kind of “victim.”
The picture was of two people walking around rubble. The caption read “The parents of a Palestinian prisoner inspecting her house in the West Bank after it was demolished by the Israeli Defense Forces.” In this rendition of history, the Palestinian terrorist is the victim, by being in jail and having her house demolished. The dead and injured Israelis are nowhere to be found as they are not victims for the Times, as their very presence makes Arabs “resort to violence.”
While the paper could have shown pictures of Israeli victims as it did in the article on the following page, including the Henkins who were shot to death in their car in front of their children, or Tamar Fogel who was 12 years old when she entered her home to see her parents and three siblings stabbed to death by two Arab men, or hundreds of other Israelis, it opted to make the Palestinian Arabs serving in jail the victims.
Perhaps a dose-of-reality bubble could have been placed over this woman’s head as she inspected the demolished home, like Widad Barghouti who had her house demolished after her son Qassam Shibli killed a 17-year old Israeli girl on a hike. The text would read her statement just after her house was demolished: “I say to [my son Qassam], to all of them [the prisoners], that we are proud of you. If we want to talk about our achievements as mothers, then the most important achievement that we have made in our lives is that we gave birth to heroes such as these.” Nah, that would break the Times narrative crafted for its anti-Zionist readership.
The anti-Israel media will tell you explicitly, subtly, directly and indirectly until you’re brain-washed to believe that Palestinian Arabs are always the victims, even – or perhaps especially – those that murder.
The people of France suffered two terrible attacks in a short period of time. On October 16, 2020, a French schoolteacher was beheaded by an 18-year old Muslim refugee from Russia who was offended by the teacher’s display of a cartoon of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. Then on October 29th, another Muslim man stabbed three people to death in a church in Nice.
These were not the first attacks on French soil by Islamic radicals. On July 26, 2016 two Muslim men who affiliated with ISIS attacked people in a church in Normandy, slitting the throat of the priest. Two weeks earlier, during Bastille Day celebrations, a truck driven by a Tunisian Muslim man killed 86 people and injured hundreds.
In response to the attacks, French President Emmanuel Macron announced a decision to expel 231 foreigners who are believed to hold extremist religious beliefs. According to Reuters, France defines extremists as “people who, engaged in a process of radicalisation, are likely to want to go abroad to join terrorist groups or take part in terrorist activities.”
While several Muslim countries condemned the stated intentions and related comments by Macron, most of the world remained silent. UAE’s Minister of Foreign Affairs actually said he agreed with him.
The hypocrisy is a bit rich as France had just protested the planned expulsion by Israel of a French-Palestinian who is an active member a terrorist group.
Salah Hamouri is an active member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist group by Israel, the United States and the European Union. The group has killed scores of people through the decades, including 17-year old Rina Shnerb who was on a peaceful hike with her family in August 2019.
Hamouri had already served time in prison for trying to kill the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Ovadyah Yosef some years before. After being released from prison as part of the prisoner exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit, Hamouri continued his involvement with the PFLP terrorist group. In light of those activities, in early September 2020, Anna Azari, Israel’s Foreign Ministry Deputy Director-General for Europe, told French Ambassador to Israel Eric Danon that Hamuri’s residency was being revoked, adding “Israel is committed to fighting terror[sic] and is acting against the terrorists among us.“
The stench of French hypocrisy now evicting 231 foreigners it views as radicals while simultaneously protesting Israel’s expulsion of a single active member of a terrorist group cannot be masked by fancy perfumes. The true intention must be made clear: France isn’t standing in solidarity with Palestinian Arabs; it doesn’t want to take in another radical Muslim, even a French-Palestinian from Jerusalem.
The beautiful city of Nice, France was the scene of horrible violence on October 29, 2020 as three people were stabbed to death in a church. The attacker was said to have shouted “Allahu Akbhar” as he stabbed church-goers and hacked the head off of a woman.
The media took very different approaches to reporting the incident:
But Qatari-owned Al Jazeera, would not use the word ‘terrorism’ in its headline. In the article, it would not report that the mayor of Nice said that the assailant “repeated endlessly ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is greatest) when he was being treated at the scene.”
The attack comes less than two weeks after a French teacher, Samuel Paty, was beheaded after showing his class caricatures of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in a discussion on free speech. After that event, Al Jazeera pulished a piece titled “After teacher’s killing, French Muslims fear rising Islamophobia,” an interesting inversion of victims. The article stated “Muslims fear Paty’s tragic death is already being weaponised to advance a government policy they worry conflates Islam with ‘terrorism’.“
Al Jazeera is doing its part in fighting ‘Islamophobia’ by making sure that beheadings are not called ‘terrorism’ and the phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’ is not used in its reporting.
When the United States was attacked by radical Islamic jihadists on 9/11/2001, the country was faced with the reality that it was unprepared for how the handle massive attacks on its shores. It turned to an ally who had developed systems to keep its citizens safe from harm.
Israel has long suffered from jihadist terrorists killing civilians.
In July 1968, Palestinian Arabs hijacked an El Al flight from Rome to Tel Aviv. It was the last time an Israeli airline was hijacked as the government began to institute several security measures to protect the flights.
Palestinian terrorists would continue to target airplanes including a massive operation in September 1970 in an attacked called the “Dawson’s Field Hijackings” in which members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked four planes heading to New York and one to London.
Other hijackings by Palestinian Arab terrorists included:
Airplane hijackings continued around the world with as many as dozens every year until Muslim terrorists hijacked four planes on September 11, 2001 in a coordinated attack which killed nearly 3,000 people. It was already the eighth airplane hijacking in the new decade, not two years old. The scale of the attack, casualties and damage made countries and airlines take many new precautions, adopting policies that Israel had been using for decades such as pre-flight interviews and screening luggage and passengers. The 2010’s decade had nine airplane hijackings, down from sixty in the 1970’s.
Response to Mass Casualty Attacks
The sheer scale of the attacks on civilians in the streets and office buildings of U.S. were beyond standard emergency protocols. America had waged wars abroad, but the scale of the terrorism against ordinary people going to work overwhelmed the local emergency response teams.
America turned to Israel for assistance, which had long been forced to respond to Palestinian Arab terrorists killing civilians in the streets.
In early September 2003, two years after the attacks on the United States, New York City hosted a major symposium on the medical response to mass casualty attacks. One of the speakers was Rabbi Dr. David Applebaum who flew to New York City from Jerusalem, Israel to address the audience. Dr. Applebaum was the head of Jerusalem’s Shaare Zedek Medical Center’s Department of Emergency Medicine and was often the first responder at the scene of terrorist attacks. He was well recognized for developing innovative methods for handling emergency situations and tracking patients, introducing time- and life-saving techniques.
Dr. Applebaum flew back to Jerusalem a few days before the end of the symposium for his daughter, Nava’s wedding. The night before the wedding, on September 9, he took his 20-year old daughter out for a late dinner and a father-daughter talk. A Palestinian Arab walked into Cafe Hillel where they sat and blew up the restaurant, killing Dr. Applebaum, his daughter and five other diners ranging in age from 22 to 52. The Palestinian political party and terrorist group Hamas claimed responsibility.
Rabbi Dr. David Applebaum and daughter Nava
Israel and the United States have been the victims of terrorism for decades and continue to come under attack. They will continue to fight the scourge of hatred together.
On April 2, 2020, a Pakistani court overturned the murder conviction of Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national with a history of extremism for the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002.
Daniel Pearl, before his execution in 2002
According to the Wall Street Journal for whom Pearl worked, “the Karachi court, which heard Mr. Sheikh’s appeal last month, overturned convictions for murder and terrorism, the 40-page ruling said Thursday. The third conviction, kidnapping for ransom, was downgraded to simple kidnapping, and Mr. Sheikh’s sentence was reduced to seven years.” In response to the ruling, Dow Jones which owns the Journal stated “we continue to seek justice for the murder of Daniel Pearl.” Reporters Without Borders, an international watchdog group for journalists, called the decision “incoherent” and a “shocking denial of justice.”
Beyond the news services, a senior official at the U.S. State Department said “The overturning of the convictions for Daniel Pearl’s murder is an affront to victims of terrorism everywhere. Those responsible for Daniel’s heinous kidnapping and murder must face the full measure of justice.”
The reaction from the British news service the BBC was seemingly the complete opposite.
The media service wrote that Sheikh’s “arrest and conviction in 2002 came in quick succession, at a time when Pakistan was under severe pressure from the United States to eliminate terror networks operating on its soil,” making the entire arrest of Sheikh seem like a sham witch hunt.
Rather than quote Dow Jones or Reporters Without Borders, the BBC wrote that “a group of US journalists, including former colleagues of Pearl, said in 2011 that they believed Sheikh had not carried out the beheading,” adding fuel to the reader that the conviction of Sheikh was never credible as even reporters and friends of Pearl believed Sheikh to be innocent.
BBC would not mention the reaction from the U.S. State Department, nor the reaction from Pearl’s father who had called it a “mockery of justice.”
In providing background to the case, BBC ran a header “Longstanding questions over Sheikh’s conviction.” The article continued that “The main argument of the defence lawyers was that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond doubt. They may have a point. There have been questions over whether the four [Sheikh and three accomplices] had any direct role in Daniel Pearl’s murder, though there was some evidence to show Sheikh’s involvement in his kidnapping.” Complete editorializing in the middle of a news article does not seem an issue for the BBC editors.
The icing on BBC’s celebratory cake was the concluding paragraph:
“But the Pakistani judiciary has sat on his appeal for nearly two decades, and some observers believe the present ruling has come at a time when the mood in the US and the rest of the world has changed and nobody seems to be worried about the terrorists of the past.“
Congratulations BBC. Your patriot who conspired with colleagues to kidnap and behead a 38-year old journalist and then cut up his body into pieces will soon be set free. He left behind a pregnant wife and the lingering final words “My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am a Jew.” But for the BBC, the true victim in the story is a British Muslim who unjustly lost 18 years of his life due to American-Zionist pressure.
On August 21, 2019, the United Nations marked an International Day of Remembrance of and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism. The global body is making an effort to include the stories of the victims as part of its mission of healing. As part of the commemoration, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said:
“I ask that we all reflect on the lives that have been changed forever as a result of terrorism. Let us commit to showing victims that they are not alone, and that the international community stands in solidarity with them, wherever they may be. In their call for healing and justice, they speak for all of us.”
What was surprising was the limited focus on both massive and recent acts of terror. There was just one picture of a victim from the attack on the US on 9/11/01 and none of the victims of the bombings in Sri Lanka or shootings in New Zealand.
But the 2016 truck attack in Nice, France received three pictures with accompanying stories. It was the only terrorist attack to be featured multiple times.
Why France? Why minimize the US and ignore Israel? There were 86 people killed in the July 2016 attack in Nice, France, a horrific total. But there were 2,977 victims killed on September 11, 2001 in the United States and there have been 1,357 victims of terror in Israel from the start of the Second Intifada until today.
It is pure speculation why the bombings in other European cities like Madrid and London each got a single picture while Nice received three. Is it because Nice is not a capital city but a vacation spot? That it doesn’t represent a power structure the way New York City, Washington, DC or European capitals do?
If that is the reason, it seemingly undermines the definition of terrorism. Were the victims in the Twin Towers who were just going to work less innocent than the people watching fireworks in France?
The UN stated that the rationale for the exhibit was to hear the voices of the victims and incorporate their stories into the narrative. The stories are meant to show “resilience,” “purpose,” “hope” and “peace” as shown in the photo series.
The United States rebuilt Ground Zero. Israelis continue to live and work and transformed a third world environment into a First World country. They showed resilience and moved forward with purpose.
But those stories were minimized relative to the horror in France.
The entire world came out to stand alongside the people of France when terrorists killed journalists at the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Scores of world leaders walked the streets of Paris in a way they never did in London, Madrid, Mali or Nigeria.
Terrorism in France seemingly captures the hearts and minds of people around the world. Is it because of the country’s devout secular nature? That people view the country as non-aggressive?
When I watch the marchers in Charlottesville, VA chant “Jews will not replace us,” I see the marches of Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.
When I hear the president of the United States say “you didn’t build that“, I see the words of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf debasing Jews that they are manipulators who profit off the work of others.
When I watch the United Nations pass resolutions with America’s approval, that Jews living in the eastern part of their homeland is illegal, I think of the ghettos limiting where Jews were allowed to live.
When the world cannot utter a word about Palestinian laws calling for the death penalty for any Arab selling land to a Jew and about the leadership which calls for a Jew-free state, I think of the pogroms throughout the centuries in Russia and Europe, and the concealed mass Jewish graves which fill the forest floors.
When I watch universities in the United States passing resolutions targeting a boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) of the only Jewish State, I think of the Nazis boycotting Jewish stores.
An den Fenstern j¸discher Gesch‰fte werden von Nationalsozialisten Plakate mit der Aufforderung “Deutsche, wehrt euch, kauft nicht bei Juden” angebracht.
When I watch European and United Nations leaders encouraging Hamas and trying to merge it into a Palestinian unity government, I think of British leader Neville Chamberlain meeting with Hitler in 1938.
When I hear the president of the United States call for a member of congress to go back where she came from and then watch as a crowd chants “send her back” to her country which is in shambles, I think of leading White House reporter Helen Thomas telling Jews to “get the hell out of Palestine” to return to the countries which had slaughtered them.
When the United States turns away refugees and asylum seekers, and the press will not discuss the British White Paper which cost over 100,000 European Jews their lives, I note the press’s preference that only certain havens are considered acceptable, and the Jewish homeland isn’t an appropriate one for Jews.
When I watch 58 members of the United States Congress walk out on the address of the Israeli Prime Minister who was alarmed at the advancement of a deal which would enable a country which had called for its destruction to have a legal pathway to nuclear weapons, I see something frighteningly new: I see the active arming of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction by the Israel’s closest ally.
When I hear the echoes of hatred as loud and as clear as the original voices, I see dead people.