The ink stain on the carpet

The hypocrisy of the US in condemning Israel's treatment of refugees.

Aftrican migrants pack after night in TA park_370 (photo credit: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters)
Aftrican migrants pack after night in TA park_370
(photo credit: Ronen Zvulun/Reuters)
An amusing joke recounts a child who asks his friend the following: "Tell me, is ink an expensive commodity?" His friend answers, "No, why?" To which the first responds, "Oh, I just poured a little of it on the carpet and my mother made such a big fuss!"
This joke comes to mind when one considers that the entire Israeli population has been up to its neck in a heated debate surrounding the illegal African immigrants’ human rights; Israel’s overwhelming "racism;" the "helplessness of the government in the face of unceasing waves of illegal immigrants entering the country’s borders; and finally, the government's neglect in protecting the lives, security and safety of Israeli citizenry.
It is always easier to be critical than to be correct. If it was left up to them, many critics would see to it that Israel becomes flooded with more of these refugees regardless of the consequences. According to them, the Israeli government has a duty to provide asylum for these people, if only because “we too, were a refugee nation.” They are not attentive to the fact that many of the refugees are not actually refugees in the first place.
The general populace reacted—at times arrogantly and intolerantly—following a string of violent acts from the immigrant population, including robberies, rape and even murder. No country can tolerate abandoning its own citizens and causing them to be afraid of venturing out in their own neighborhoods lest they come under the threat of attack.
However, the outcry in Israel only touches upon the ink spot, that is, it is concerned about how to treat those refugees. But what about the carpet itself, its constitution and the threat it poses to Israeli society? Of much more crucial concern is the fact that the majority of these refugees and/or infiltrators are of the Muslim faith, a belief-system which has been part-and-parcel of our state of war for the past century.
A tsunami of “the return of Islam” has been garnering speed in the entire Muslim world, and is often accompanied by hostile declarations or even violent acts. In light of this, we must ask ourselves: Is this the right time to allow our country to be invaded by potentially inimical Muslims, in addition to those we host domestically and those we are attempting to keep at bay in the countries surrounding us? Certainly, we cannot accuse or suspect all of them of hostile sentiments towards us. But can anyone guarantee to us that none anchor that enmity in their hearts?
The US State Department has again condemned Israel for "mistreating" those refugees and infringing on their human rights. Let us remind the Americans of their mistreatment of the Japanese in their midst during World War II - the latter of which had been American citizens long before the war broke out and could never potentially threaten the security of the US. That demarche was justified by the American Supreme Court which determined that it was concomitant with "the perceived threat" by the American authorities.
No one can teach us about human rights. We have been more generous to alien refugees than the Americans or the British ever were.