Ruth King

A few weeks ago, a man, motivated by racial hatred, killed a woman in the White Plains, N.Y. mall. His comments were chilling: he awoke that morning determined to find a female victim, and his dispassionate account of the random way in which he chose her and stabbed her, evoked media outrage. The tabloids called him a “heartless monster” while more sedate papers called him a “brutal and remorseless criminal.” We were spared blather about the "hopelessness and despair" that must have engendered such barbaric behavior.

This leads me to wonder why the same wanton murder committed out of hatred in the same random way, but with more victims, is attributed to “insurgents” or “militants” with exquisite regard for the “grievances” which supposedly occasion their barbaric conduct. How many do you have to kill before you are branded a terrorist? If the setting is Israel, forget about it.

Case in point: England’s Prime Dhimmister reeled off a long list of nations afflicted by terrorism in his statement to Parliament in the wake of London bombings. Said Blair: “It seems probable that the attack was carried out by Islamist extremist terrorists, of the kind who over recent years have been responsible for so many innocent deaths in Madrid, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Egypt and Morocco, of course in New York on September 11 but in many other countries too.”

Note: Israel is not even included. Neither was Israel on the London Sun’s list: the paper subsequently apologized, saying it was because so many attacks took place in Israel [apparently disqualifying it]. Speaking of terrorism without including Israel is like talking about the Holocaust and mentioning only the gypsies and homosexuals killed by the Nazis but omitting the Jews.

Only days after the London bombings two horrendous events took place….in Israel, a suicide bomb in a mall in Netanya, which killed five people and injured dozens. The carnage in Netanya could have been worse than that in London had not enhanced security intimidated the killer who detonated his bombs outside the mall. Why were not the Israelis praised as lavishly as the British were for their stoic and civilized reaction? Why did the mainline media virtually ignore this event? Ah yes, they were too busy calling the brave citizens of Israel opposed to the destruction of Jewish communities in Gaza “fanatics” and “extremists.”

The other horrible murder was committed in Iraq (also not on Blair’s list). A suicide bomber in a car plowed into an American GI distributing candy to Iraqi children, killing the soldier and many of the children. Americans were properly incensed, but the hallmarks of both attacks are the same. Same ideology, same methods, same killers, same Arabs, same jihadist goals.

In our own country, where our President once reacted so strongly to the events of 9/11, we now conduct parallel and hypocritical policies on terrorism. Pundits write about “connecting the dots” as they trace terrorism, but the only time Israel is included is when the “dots” focus on the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli “occupation.” Condoleeza Rice appeases Mahmoud Abbas, a terrorist mastermind, referring obsequiously to 'The Palestinian Authority and its elected president Mr. Abbas.” She dismisses with proper disdain and revulsion the Arabs who create havoc in Afghanistan and Iraq, but continues to press Israel for concessions each time the Arabs ratchet up their demands. Why talk tough about Korea but tiptoe around the murderous intent of the Arabs aligned against Israel?

There is serious moral mischief here. It has no benign explanation.