A guest post by AKUS
According to strict sharia law, when a woman is raped, she must pay with her life for the crime of inciting the rapist or rapist to attack her, due to her immodesty. Clearly, if the woman did not exist, or did not venture out alone in public, the men would not have been tempted to rape her. In fact, the thinking behind this rather unusual, to Western eyes, view of rape is that they were forced by their very manly nature to rape the woman.
In other words, it is the victim who is to blame, and who should not have ventured out without the protection of a male, since men cannot overcome their desire to rape a woman walking alone.
What has this to do with light rail?
Well, in Harriet Sherwood’s recent excursion into the murky waters of the endless recitations of Israel’s sins – this time, God help us, establishing an ecologically – and community-friendly light rail system – she hastened to interview a solid sample of three or four Israelis opposed to the project for ideological and aesthetic reasons (plus Mustafa Barghouti, the hypocrite who studies at Tel Aviv University while denying Israel’s right to exist).
From the Israeli perspective she mentioned skeptical residents who do not believe it will ever move (how many Israelis do you know who are not skeptics after 60 years of war?). There was Gerard Heumann, an architect, town planner and a vocal critic of the project and just about anything that ever happens in Jerusalem. He spends his days fulminating in Ha’aretz about anything and everything that might replace a picturesque Arab hovel or overcrowded street with a modern building or a pedestrian walk way. He specially hates a light rail system that might alleviate traffic congestion and wants more buses on the already overcrowded streets. He is astonished that there were cost overruns and in his provincial way seems to assume this only happens to urban construction projects in Israel. Possibly he is a little bitter that no-one seems to take him seriously except Ha’aretz and the Guardian.
Of course, “critics from a Palestinian perspective” are concerned as well, writes Sherwood. After all, the light rail will go through their neighborhoods, and they might be tempted to use it.
This is simply an extrapolation of the logic behind sharia law regarding rape – if the rail system did not go through their neighborhoods, the temptation would not exist to cooperate with those devilish Jews by using the system they have provided to whisk them speedily, safely, and in comfort to the Temple Mount to pray at Al Aksa, rather than battling the crowded streets.
Sherwood hunts out a Daniel Seieman, a left-wing lawyer in Jerusalem unreconciled to Jerusalem’s unification after 40 years who apparently believes that Jews should stay in one place and Arabs in another, and never the twain should meet thanks to the convenience of a modern light rail system. No doubt he would be appalled if he realized the racist connotations of his views. Barghouti, of course, claims the whole project is illegal “under international law” , a field in which, like every other critic of Israel, he believes he is an authority despite all findings to the contrary by actual experts in international law.
Then there are the ultra-Orthodox, appalled that both men and women might be forced to share a carriage. Of course, there are many who would argue that this is the best aspect of the whole system. It might actually yank these welfare reprobates, unable to control their lusty feelings, into the 21st century as they surrender to its convenience, rather than promoting separation of the sexes.
But of all the objections to the system, the most bizarre one was the claim that Sherwood noted at the top of her column. The new system would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks and therefore should not have been built.
You see, this is how things work in the Middle East. Building a light rail system in Jerusalem is such a magnet for the Arab terrorists’ propensity to commit acts of terror against Israel that it should not have been built in the first place. Terrorists simply cannot help themselves – they see a tempting, vulnerable light rail system, rather like a woman walking alone, and their manly impulses simply take over – then, boom!
Yes – a possible attack on the Jerusalem Light Rail system is another example of the sharia logic regarding rape. It cannot be helped. It is the nature of things. Blowing it up is the nature of things, and the only way to prevent it is not to build the system in the first place.
In fact, I would claim, critics of the Light Rail System are thinking too small. They should follow their opinions to their logical conclusion. It would have been better not to create Israel at all. Perhaps it’s not too late to simply erase Israel from the map to save it from further victimization for the sin of existing. Think how many terrorist bomb attacks could have been avoided if the temptation had not been there, and how many can be avoided in the future by simply removing the Jewish State from the map of the world. The sharia doctrine of rape prevention would suggest that this is really the best and perhaps only solution to the whole Middle East problem.
I hope Daniel Seieman has taken out his EU passport …