Remembering The Fogels

Israellycool reader Dalia recently created this video to commemorate the first anniversary of the Fogel Family’s murder at the hands of palestinan terrorists.

14 thoughts on “Remembering The Fogels”

  1. Butiful memorial Dalia , thank you .
    I watched a television program on Israeli TV about the family recently , also very moving .
    Our politics may be worlds apart but such a tragedy is felt by us all and words just cannot express my sorrow at such loss of life , and for what ?

  2. This tribute reminds me of what a beautiful family the Fogels were and how tragic their murders were. But I don’t like how this tribute uses this event to promote a political agenda not even fully supported by the Netanyahu government. The continuation of building settlements on disputed land is not the answer. A negotiated peace agreement leading to a two-state solution is the answer.

    1. “But I don’t like how this tribute uses this event to promote a political agenda not even fully supported by the Netanyahu government.”

      It’s not your kind of political agenda, I get it. You prefer appeasement of an imperialist aggressor.

      “The continuation of building settlements on disputed land is not the answer.”

      Then the Arabs should stop building settlements on disputed land.

      “A negotiated peace agreement leading to a two-state solution is the answer.”

      As water rolls off a duck’s back, so have the lessons of more than sixty years done for anyone who still believes the Arabs want yet another state alongside the Jewish one rather than the destruction of the Jewish state, the murder of all its Jewish inhabitants and the taking of the spoils for themselves.

      The Fogels’ murder is no aberration; it is what the Arab/Islamic imperialists want for all the Jews in the Land of Israel.

    2. As long as the Arabs refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state, the building of settlements is irrelevant to the peace process. Indeed, all that this issue does is gives the Arabs more straws to grasp at instead of facing reality, and they are always disappointed when the diplomacy of this issue yields zilch.

      1. Oh, dear comments are disappearing again. Here’s a second try…Building settlements on disputed land gives the Arabs an excuse not to deal with the hard issue of accepting Israel as a permanent presence in the Middle East. This also gives them international support which might otherwise go to Israel. Can you honestly say that the Netanyahu government’s positions on settlement building is either consistent on comprehensible. They say that national borders should proximate the green line of 1967 and yet supports building in a place like Ariel, smack dab in the middle of the West Bank. I think Shy Guy is right when he says that sometimes Netanyahu speaks with forked tongue.

        1. “Building settlements on disputed land gives the Arabs an excuse not to deal with the hard issue of accepting Israel as a permanent presence in the Middle East.”

          Another excuse—an additional excuse to the ones they had all the years before 1967. It would be poor strategy on Israel’s part to set its foreign policy by the Arabs’ clock.

          “This also gives them international support which might otherwise go to Israel.”

          Again, the construction of Jewish population centers in Arab-colonized Judea and Samaria is at best a pretext. Those who are against the Jewish State will be against it even within the pre-1967 borders, and those who are with the Jewish State are, mostly, dismayed to see it failing to stand up to its rights.

          “Can you honestly say that the Netanyahu government’s positions on [Jewish population center] building is either consistent on comprehensible. They say that national borders should proximate the green line of 1967 and yet supports building in a place like Ariel, smack dab in the middle of [Judea and Samaria].”

          No argument here. Few Israeli Jews hold Netanyahu to be the purest paragon of Jewish nationalism. He’s as abject a payer of the Political Correctness tax as you could find, and for many Israeli Jews the best they can hope is he won’t repeat Ariel Sharon’s disastrous mistake.

      2. “As long as the Arabs refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish state, the building of settlements is irrelevant to the peace process.”

        I wouldn’t tie the one to the other. (And I wouldn’t call Jewish population centers on the Land of Israel “settlements” either.) Tying construction to peace with the Arabs makes it look like our land is for sale, carrot for the donkey. It cheapens the Jewish claim.

        What needs to be made clear is that no one has the right to oppose unrestricted Jewish inhabitation of the Land of Israel for any reason. It’s as impertinent as telling the Greeks that certain parts of Hellas are out of bounds for them, even if you brought up the “prospects of peace with Turkey” as a reason. This is our house.

        1. I’ve revealed my biases before so why stop now? I have a bias about caring about Israel and Israelis and not so much for the Palestinians. Is it impertinent to want to help our long-time friend and ally live in peace with its Arab neighbors? Americans have taken a lot of heat over the years defending the state of Israel from a hostile world and in turn get kicked in the groin by Israelis like you for all our trouble. You will continue to do what you do, but I can only tell you that most Americans still want a negotiated settlement and unilaterrally appropriating disputed land will never be accepted by even your closest friends.

          1. “I have a bias about caring about Israel and Israelis and not so much for the Palestinians.”

            Then why persist in telling Israel and the Jews to keep to a failed route? Peace treaties have so far proved to be nothing but shaky truces—even the one with Egypt is now tottering.

            “Is it impertinent to want to help our long-time friend and ally live in peace with its Arab neighbors?”

            Maybe not in and of itself, but it should be done on a factual basis. By this I mean the recognition that land concessions only lessen the chance of peace for Israel with its Arab neighbors, for they signal weakness and prove that terrorism pays.

            “…most Americans still want a negotiated settlement…”

            Um… you realize you’re talking about another country? What right does a third-party state have to seek negotiations between two other states? This is interventionist overreach!

            “…and unilaterrally appropriating disputed land will never be accepted by even your closest friends.”

            Then we’ll do it without acceptance. This is ours, and nobody has the right to dispute it. Whatever is within the bounds of the Land of Israel is ours. If, in the past, Israeli Jews have been willing to trade parts of what’s ours for the sake of peace, then today I can tell you that most Israeli Jews no longer feel like risking another land-for-nothing deal bought with the price of our precious and meager piece of land.

            Stop this interventionism! And if you think America’s “aid” (more like extortion right now) to Israel gives you the right to intervene, then know that a truly Jewish government worthy of the Jewish people will throw this “aid” in your face. Our land is not for sale! Not for any reason!

            1. The idea that politics can be seen as kind of like a circle bending around to meet at opposite ends seems never to be more true. The more I hear your arguments about American interventionism, the more you sound like those Americans who oppose our support for Israel. Politics really do make odd bedfellows, like you and Pat Buchanan or Moshe Feiglin and Ron Paul. Sleep well tonight.

              1. “The idea that politics can be seen as kind of like a circle bending around to meet at opposite ends seems never to be more true.”

                I agree with that idea. Not, however, with your assessment of me being an exemplar of it. In fact, in some ways it’s you who may be such.

                “The more I hear your arguments about American interventionism, the more you sound like those Americans who oppose our support for Israel.”

                Looks like you picked on the word “interventionism” and decided to run away with it in a superficial comparison. But, beyond form and onward to substance, there are some crucial differences:

                The Buchananites criticize American interventionism because they treasonously think it has made people hate America. I think America, like Israel, is hated by the Islamic imperialist for its mere being [a non-Muslim power], not for any of its actions. That’s also why I think America pressuring Israel to concede lands to its enemies would be the height of stupidity (ranking along with aiding the Afghans in the 1980s and bombing the Serbs in the 1990s).

                The Buchananites criticize American interventionism because they’re afraid of the Islamic wolf at the door. I don’t criticize American interventionism in general, only the instance of America pressuring Israel to give up some of its already meager territory.

                The Buchananites are hypocritical, dishonest appeasers; if they were in power, they’d be as interventionist as the Leftists (including you, Jim) for the sake of winning favor with the Muslim world. In contrast, I’m truly against interventionism because I think Israel’s problems with her enemies are hers alone to deal with.

                In that place where the circle bends, it’s you, Jimmy, you and your political side, who meet with Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul in thinking America has the right to achieve an improvement in its relationship with the Muslim world on the backs of the Jewish nation and their one and only tiny state in the world.

                “Sleep well tonight.”

                I will. It’s you who should be worried, about your country taking the same stance toward Israel as Britain and France did toward Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.

        2. I’m trying to be practical here. Israel, after all, did accept UN Resolution 242, withdrawal to secure and recognized boundaries. The 1949 armistice lines were neither secure nor recognized. Should the Arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish state, borders become negotiable under that resolution. However, I don’t expect such recognition in my lifetime, and encroachments by Israelis are just punishment for decades of Arab intransigence. Building contiguously along the old armistice line and along the Jordan valley as a security buffer makes more sense than building within a heavily populated Arab area. Let them feel squeezed enough to ponder cutting their losses.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top