I Will Take My Red Herring Pickled With Some Onions, Thank You

I think that Vox got a little over confident in his post on Friday.  In his glee to try to make me look ridiculous, he brought up his failure to dispute the Moon landing, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The superiority of the Green Bay Packers, and the Palestinian right of return.... as if it were proof of something.  Or more accurately, as if I had made even a single passing reference regarding any of those topics.  (So, maybe it was a joke and moderately funny at that...)  In response, I will only note that given a second opportunity to dispute my characterization of the alt-right as dangerous, (here and here) Vox declined to do so.  Given the fact that he admitted he is not sure how "European Openness" about the Jews (his mode of speech) would be perceived in the US... I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

The more important point that I want to write about today, is Vox's characterization of one of my main arguments as a red herring.  He has missed the point and has made a big mistake.

I had taken issue with the Vox's characterization of the expulsion of Jews in Europe as non-violent.  The expulsion orders were carried out under penalty of death... which is not exactly non-violent.  Interestingly, one of the commenters on Vox's site was paying attention and got it right.

Nate: Wonder if Chlem realizes that ALL laws carry the threat of violence?

This was precisely my point.  It was one that I thought would be obvious to Vox, because of his libertarian tendencies.   Then Vox goes off the rails with this statement:

...if all deportations are intrinsically violent, then obviously the Israeli deportations of the Africans are violent as well and there is no point in getting into the issue as it proves my assertion of equivalence.

Really?  It proves your assertion of equivalence?  Does Vox actually believe that the level of violence determines the legitimacy of the action?  I will present these two scenarios:

First, an armed man is walking through a park at night.  He is attacked by an unarmed assailant.  The armed man tries to escape his attacker, but can not and then shoots the unarmed man dead.  The armed man calls 911.

Second, a masked, armed man walks into a convenience store, shoots the unarmed store clerk and steals the money from the cash register and safe.  Then the armed man flees, the store clerk dies.

Are these two scenarios equivalent?  Can one be said to provide a justification for the other?  ...or is it possible that one of these shootings is justified and the other is not?  I will note that in both scenarios the level of violence is exactly the same.  An armed man shoots an unarmed man and kills him.  It is only the circumstances surrounding the shootings that make them different.  It is the motives of the shooters and the actions of the deceased that provide the critical points that allow us to distinguish between them.

This is the mistake that so many with bias against the Jews make.  Any violent action taken by any Jew is immediately equated with and used to justify the historical persecution of the Jews in Christian Europe.  For the first time in roughly 2000 years, the Jews have a state... all states necessarily use violence to accomplish their goals.  Sometimes states (all of them) use their violent authority legitimately and sometimes they don't.  It is perfectly legitimate to ask if any particular action of the Jewish State is justified, but to try to draw equivalence with unrelated incidents from history... that is totally unwarranted and just goes to show bias against Jews by the person making the comparison.

In order to prove that the deportation of 60,000 immigrants from Israel prove justification for the expulsion of the Jews from Europe in the middle ages Vox will have to provide more evidence than... both groups were told to leave... and a bogus assertion that some Jews were illegal immigrants.

Vox closes with this quote (which is not linked to a source):

"An apartment housing 10 Eritreans has been firebombed in Jerusalem, against the backdrop of rising anti-migrant sentiment in Israel. Four of the occupants were taken to hospital suffering burns and smoke inhalation. Graffiti sprayed on the walls of the building said: "Get out of the neighbourhood." During a tour of the fence on Sunday, a member of the Israeli parliament said that troops should fire on anyone attempting to cross the border illegally. "Anyone that penetrates Israel's border should be shot, a Swedish tourist, Sudanese from Eritrea, Eritreans from Sudan, Asians from Sinai. Whoever touches Israel's border – shot," said Aryeh Eldad."

 Presumably he means to equate these actions with the violent anti-Jewish riots of historical Europe.  While I have not delved into it deeply and can not verify the accuracy of this report, if it is true, the questions that need to be answered from the first half of the quote are:  What actions has the Israeli government taken to bring the perpetrators to justice?  Were the victims treated medically after the incident?  What steps will the government take to make certain this does not happen again?  As to the second half of the quote.. a random Member of Knesset does not have the authority to enforce such a policy and this statement is only juxtaposed to the first to create the impression of blood thirsty Jews terrorizing immigrants.  Since this quote is not sourced, I will assume it is from a media outlet with a history of bias against Israel... rather than from an Israeli news source.