"The Israelis just struck back hard at Hamas in Gaza. In response, the United Nations, the European Union and the Arab world (at least publicly) expressed their anger at the killing of over 300 Palestinians, most of whom were terrorists and Hamas officials. ... Watching both this week's war and the world's predictable reaction to it, we can recall the Gaza rules. Most are reflections of our postmodern age, and completely at odds with the past protocols of war. First is the now-familiar Middle East doctrine of proportionality. Legitimate military action is strangely defined by the relative strength of the combatants. World opinion more vehemently condemns Israel's countermeasures, apparently because its rockets are far more accurate and deadly than previous Hamas barrages that are poorly targeted and thus not so lethal. If America had accepted such rules in, say, World War II, then by late 1944, we, not the Axis, would have been the culpable party, since by then once-aggressive German, Italian and Japanese forces were increasingly on the defensive and far less lethal than the Allies. Second, intent in this war no longer matters. ... Third, culpability is irrelevant. The 'truce' between Israel and Hamas was broken once Hamas got its hands on new stockpiles of longer-range mobile rockets--weapons that are intended to go over Israel's border walls. Yet, according to the Gaza rules, both sides always deserve equal blame. Indeed, this weird war mimics the politically correct, zero-tolerance policies of our public schools, where both the bully and his victim are suspended once physical violence occurs. According to such morally equivalent reasoning, World War II was only a tragedy, not a result of German aggression. ... But when the payback comes, suddenly warriors are transmogrified into weeping victims, posing teary-eyed for the news camera as they deplore 'genocide' and the 'Palestinian Holocaust.' At least the Japanese militarists did not cry out to the League of Nations for help once mean Marines landed on Iwo Jima. By now, these Gaza asymmetrical rules are old hat. We know why they persist--worldwide fear of Islamic terrorism, easy anti-Westernism, the old anti-Semitism, and global strategic calculations about Middle East oil--but is still doesn't make them right", my emphasis, Victor David Hanson, 1 January 2009, at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/the_gazarules.html.
"Maybe this column would get a better reception if it were titled, 'No Endgame for Israel.' Because the quantity of commentary cannot possibly achieve any kind of successful outcome in Gaza is already approaching pre-surge levels of Iraq defeatism. ... Is Mahmoud Abbas's hand strengthened by the mockery Hamas makes of his claims to presidential authority? And, speaking of Palestinian moderates, shouldn't the test of their moderation be a willingness to stand up to Hamas, if only rhetorically? ... Critics of military action point to this damned-if-Israel-does, damned-if-it-doesn't scenario as evidence of the folly of the war. ... Israel will have to practice a more consistent policy of deterrence than it has so far done. One option: for every single rocket that falls randomly on Israeli soil, an Israeli missile will hit a carefully selected target in Gaza", Bret Stephens at the WSJ, 6 January 2009.
"The world-wide protests against Israel's ground incursion into Gaza are so full of hatred that they leave me with the terrible feeling that these protests have little to do with the so-called disproportionality of the Israeli response to Hamas rockets, or the resulting civilian casualties. My fear is that the rage we see in the protestors marching in the streets is far more profound and dangerous than we would like to believe. There are a great many people in the world who, even after Auschwitz, just can't bear the Jewish state having the same rights they so readily grant to other nations. These voices insist that Israel must take risks they would never dare ask of any other nation-state--risks that threaten its very survival--because they don't believe Israel should exist in the first place", Marvin Heir at the WSJ, 8 January 2009.
Quoted without comment.
Quoted without comment.
What does our professoriate not understand? To end terrorism we must kill terrorists and their supporters. In economic terms, raise terrorism's "price" until it no longer pays. If we must sit and watch millions stave to death, so be it. Machiavelli and Caligula would laugh at our "War on Terrorism". Martin Feldstein, my 6 January 2009 post, please read this. Absent cruelty to enemies, the West will not survive. As Michael Savage has said many times, "Only a more savage nation will survive". So it has been and so it is. I read drivel about the Middle East and wonder if the writers read the Koran and Hadith and know anything of the history of Arabia? Either they don't or they're traitors.
I don't care what Europe or the UN thinks. Paraphrasing a statement attributed to Hitler and Stalin, "How many divisions has the UN and how many has Europe it would use"? What do Westerners not understand about "waqf", "hudna" and "takiwa"? Genocide? What happened in East Pakistan in 1971? Or Armenia in 1915? How many Christians were victims of pogroms in what was once Yugoslavia while UN "blue helmets" watched? For that matter, how many Christians were driven out of Iraq since we deposed Saddam? How many chairs of Islamic studies did the Saudis endow at: Columbia, Harvard, Georgetown and who knows where else? Does anyone remember 2002's Jenin massacre? The PLO said 10,000 died. The Israelis, 52. Then the PLO said: thousands, 500 and hundreds. Now the body count. Drumroll please, 55! I have no sympathy for the Palestinians. They're Arabs. By Western standards they are pathological liars. War story time. Before the 1967 war I listened to radio Damascus on an old Hallicrafters S-38B tube shortwave radio, made in about 1950. Every day for three months Damascus said Syria will drive the Israelis into the sea. All of them. The war came. Syria lost. Now Syria's ambassador to the UN appears on Barry Farber's (BF) WOR 710 AM radio show. The Syrian says nothing Syrians say should be taken seriously. Syrians are Arabs. Arabs are very emotional and exaggerate when they speak. We never intended to kill all the Jews. Oh, by the way, return the Golan Heights and control of Lebanon. BF listens politely for a while, then asks the Syrian about current Syrian radio broadcasts. The Syrian temporizes. The BF says something in Arabic, tells the Syrian stop lying, that BF is fluent in Arabic! The Syrian doesn't know what to say. He leaves. Then BF's show ended. If you hold Lenin's concept of "truth", all is accceptable to further the cause of the Ummah.
Israel left Gaza in 2005. What do the Gazans want now? What they always wanted: the death of all Jewish Isrealis. What's so difficult to understand? I would make one change in Stephens "tit-for-tat" program. I sugggest Israel launch one rocket or artillery strike for the first Hamas rocket launched in a day. Two for the second, four for the third, eight for the fourth and so on. Israel should also release footage to the absurdly pro-Palestinian BBC and the US's own NPR, National Palestinan Radio, of each rocket landing site's location. It should leave the rocket there until both organzations have had a chance to inspect it or 24 hours have passed when Israel posts the photos and a map of the site on the Internet with this comment, "At XXXXX on XXX January we notified BBC and NPR of this rocket landing site. At XXXXX on XXX+1 January, BBC and NPR having sent no 'inspectors' to the site we posted this video. This being the second rocket which landed in Israel on XXX January, we fired two artillery shells at Gaza at XXXXX + 30 minutes and XXXXX + 60 minutes". Will the world's bleaters then say, "The second shell was disproportionate. Bad Israel"? The conduct of BBC. NPR and the rest of the world's bleaters reminds me of Walter Duranty's in the 1930s, see my 29 April 2008 post: http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2008/04/bushs-walter-durantys.html.
Heir is a Rabbi in Los Angeles. I await the world's bleaters to attack Pakistan's legitimacy. Many people know Pakistan was carved out of India in 1947 to give the Moslems their own state. I have no problem with the existence of Pakistan. Why is it legitimate and not Israel? Study sharia to find out. Whenever I hear of the "two-state solution", I cringe. Why? Because creating a Palestinian state would make a "three-state solution". Whaaaat? Jordan, once known as Trans-Jordan, was created in 1946. Why did the British create Jordan in 1946 and not settle the Palestine Mandate partition? Because there is no partition that has ever been acceptable to Moslems. It's that simple. As Hamas has said it will not rest "as long as Israel controls one square meter of the land between the river and the sea".