WWW.FRONTPAGEMAG.COM Print Font:

George Soros' Malicious Screed
By: P. David Hornik
Tuesday, April 10, 2007


A Jewish mogul shills for Hamas.
Late in March Hamas released a video for its Al-Aksa TV in the Palestinian Authority that shows young children in military gear, complete with rifles, engaging in military training. The video’s lyrics include: “These are the acts of Martyrdom-Seekers [of] Palestine. . . . Its children carry the knife. . . .  Its children carry machine guns. The land is filled with furious lions.” (See the video here.)

A few days earlier Hamas had released another TV video with a dramatization of Duha Riyashi, four-year-old daughter of the female suicide bomber Reem Riyashi (who killed herself and four Israelis in January 2004). The girl sings to her dead mother: “Duha loves you. My love will not be [merely] words. I am following Mommy in her steps. [Finds explosives that mother left in her drawer, picks up stick of explosives.] Oh Mommy, oh Mommy.

As far as I know, positively portraying a four-year-old-girl as aspiring to blow herself up in acts of mass murder is unprecedented in human history. It marks a level of depravity that the mind has trouble grasping. On the other hand, it is not surprising coming from Hamas, which is officially defined as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Israel, is estimated to have murdered over five hundred Israelis and wounded thousands, and among whose most famous attacks are those on the Dolphinarium Disco in Tel Aviv in June 2001, which killed 21 mostly teenage Israelis, and on the Park Hotel in Netanya on Passover night in March 2002, which killed 30.

Hamas praised the latest suicide bombing in the Israeli town of Eilat last January 29, which killed three, as “a natural response to Israeli policies.” Its charter states: “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.... There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.... Jihad is [our] path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of [our] wishes....”

All this might not seem worth reiterating, but now George Soros has come along to push Hamas as a force for peace. In a New York Review of Books article “On Israel, America and AIPAC,” Soros charges each of those entities—or more specifically, the Olmert government, the Bush administration, and AIPAC—with preventing a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by insisting on viewing Hamas as a terror organization.

In the above, I very sparingly suggested why Hamas is defined that way even by the European Union, not known as a shill for hard-line Israelis; much, much more material could be offered to bear out that (seemingly unnecessary) claim. Presumably, then, someone who maintains that Hamas is not just a terror organization and actually represents an opportunity for peace that is being tragically squandered by the United States and Israel, should offer some evidence for that claim. Here is the “evidence” Soros provides in his article:

Hamas is not monolithic. Its inner structure is little known to outsiders but according to some reports it has a military wing, largely directed from   

Damascus, which is beholden to its Syrian and Iranian sponsors and a political wing which is more responsive to the needs of the Palestinian population that elected it to power. If Israel had accepted the results of the [2006 Palestinian] election, that might have strengthened the more moderate political wing.

Wait a minute—what’s the connection between “more responsive to the needs of the Palestinian population” and “moderate”? Yes, Hamas on the ground in the Palestinian Authority deals directly with the Palestinian population and is more “responsive” to it than Hamas-Damascus. The Iranian and North Korean regimes also have no choice but to be responsive to their populations in certain regards, but I never heard that this makes them moderate.

Actually, responsiveness to the Palestinian population would tend to make one immoderate. “I am not a Zionist, nor am I a practicing Jew,” Soros admits, nor very “engaged in Jewish affairs.” Is he sure, then, that he should write about subjects of which he is ignorant? If Soros was actually interested in subjects like Hamas and the problems faced by the Jewish state, he might have known about a recent poll by Near East Consulting, a Palestinian research institute, which found that 75 percent of Palestinians—and almost 90 percent of Palestinians aged 18-25—deny Israel’s right to exist. I’m looking for that Hamas/Palestinian moderacy that wants to live permanently and peacefully beside the Jewish state of Israel. Soros, can you tell me where it is?  

Soros’s article is full of such sloppy, ill-informed nonsense. “The most potent threat comes from Iran,” he states. “Movement toward a settlement in Palestine would be helpful in confronting that threat.” And again: “if we succeeded in settling the Palestinian problem we would be in a much better position to engage in negotiations with Iran. . . .”

Why, precisely? He seems to be saying the reason Iran is belligerent, including channeling vast resources into building nuclear weapons, is that the “two-state solution” hasn’t yet been implemented. Amid the Iranian regime’s many genocidal threats against Israel, can Soros point to one instance where it said it could actually live with Israel if a Palestinian state was set up beside it? Or are claims of American and Israeli culpability for all problems so axiomatic to him that he can’t imagine anyone would actually expect evidence for such charges?

“[Israel’s] current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation—not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one—has reached a particularly dangerous point.” Thus Soros in an anti-Semitically tinged statement—not because it is “critical of Israel” but because it carries a crude, ignorant imputation of biblical primitivism.

Leave it to Soros, then, to accuse Alvin Rosenfeld in his pamphlet “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” of making “primitive accusations of self-hatred” against “constructive critics of Israel.” Soros asks: “Are the expressions used by the critics really [quoting Rosenfeld] ‘exaggerated and defamatory’?. . . As presented by Rosenfeld, . . . Israel’s actions have to be justified, right or wrong.”

Here Soros adds his voice to a chorus of left-wing Jews who have reacted to Rosenfeld’s pamphlet with remarkable, hysterical claims that it “attacks liberals.” Yet here are some quotations from “constructive critics” offered by the pamphlet Rosenfeld actually wrote as opposed to the one Soros and his friends imagine:

Jacqueline Rose: “the soul of the nation [of Israel] was forfeit from the day of its creation”; “We take Zionism to be a form of collective insanity”; “Israel inscribes at its heart the very version of nationhood from which the Jewish people had to flee.”

Michael Neumann: “Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die…. This is not the bloody mistake of an emerging superpower but an emerging evil”; Tony Judt: “Israel today is bad for the Jews...The time has come to think the unthinkable [and that is to replace the Jewish state with] a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs”; Esther Kaplan: “Israel is a racist state, an imperialist state—it is and should be a pariah state”; Marc Ellis: “What the Nazis had not succeeded in accomplishing...we as Jews have embarked upon.”

Perhaps in his next opus, Soros will explain how these statements constitute “constructive criticism of Israel” and why objecting to them implies that “Israel’s actions have to be justified, right or wrong.”  

But better yet would be for Soros to set down his pen before foisting more ignorant, malicious nonsense on the world.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.


P. David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.