But he was mostly unarmed
But he was mostly unarmed

Stephen M. Flatow, an attorney in New Jersey, is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in a Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

The constant refrain heard in the American news media about the Gaza firebomb-throwing mobs is that they have been “mostly unarmed.”

Nobody ever gets to ask journalists about their choice of language. They demand the right to ask questions, but we seldom have the opportunity to question them, so it’s hard to know precisely how they justify that term. 

My perception is that what they are saying is that since there are thousands of “demonstrators,” and only a few hundred of them throw the Molotov cocktails, that means that “most” of them are “unarmed.” 

Obviously that distinction is absurd and irrelevant, because Israeli soldiers don’t aim at the unarmed ones—so who cares whether or not there are a lot of unarmed ones in the vicinity of the armed ones?

But, of course, this is all a game of semantics, the purpose of which is to make Israel look bad. So, no matter how illogical or unreasonable, journalists will say that the “protesters” are “mostly unarmed” because then Israel seems cruel.

All of which leads me to a thought. In the news today, we learned that two Arab terrorists tried to break through the Gaza fence. One escaped, one was shot dead. The dead one was carrying a large axe.

So here we go. Only one of the two was definitively proven to have an axe, so for starters, 50% of these “protesters” were “unarmed.”

But let’s take it a step further. The axe-wielder wasn’t carrying the axe around all day. When he woke up in the morning, he wasn’t carrying it. He wasn’t holding the axe when he brushed his teeth, said his prayers, or ate breakfast. In other words, for most of the morning, he was “unarmed.”

You can see from the photos that the Israeli Army released that it was quite a large axe. We can assume he didn’t pick it up—he didn’t “arm” himself—until shortly before he met his terrorist buddy and set out for the border with Israel.

In other words, it’s a reasonable calculation that for the majority of the day, he was “unarmed.” By the logic of the journalists who cover Israel, then, they should report that that the axe-wielder was another “mostly unarmed” civilian, a “protester” or “demonstrator” who had harmed nobody.

I also expect journalists to try to cast doubt on whether he was even carrying the axe. They will probably write that the Israelis “claimed” or “alleged” he was carrying it, but there’s no proof. After all, since when do Palestinian terrorists carry axes?

I would bet that the residents of nearby Kibbutz Nirim, who were right in the path of the axe terrorist, have some sense of what lay in store for them if the Israeli soldiers had not shot him.

I doubt anybody at the kibbutz has forgotten about the terrorists who used an axe to butcher the five rabbis in the Har Nof (Jerusalem) synagogue, or Michael Nadler, the young man from Miami Beach whom axe-wielding terrorists butchered on the Golan Heights. They haven’t forgotten the Bat Ayin axe attack or the Ma’ale Adumim axe attack, the axe attacks in Afula and in the Old City of Jerusalem, and all the rest, far too numerous to list here.

But the journalists won’t mention any of that in their articles. Not because they don’t believe Palestinian terrorists have used axes. But because hiding that fact advances the Palestinian agenda. Most journalists want to see Israel forced to accept the creation of a Palestinian state along Israel’s nine-miles-wide border.

Anything that would cast doubt on the Palestinians’ nature or intentions could strengthen opposition to creating such a state.

And that’s why the media pretend that Palestinian terrorists are “mostly unarmed”—even when they are armed with the same deadly weapons that have been used by so many terrorists before them.