Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Persistance of Blindness
Again, lefty journalists (sorry so wordy) pretend that Gaza, from which the Israelis entirely decamped nearly 9 years ago, is occupied. This is a strange new use of the word 'occupy' with which I am unfamiliar. Here is the latest in self-delusion from the far left Guardian, this time by Owen Jones. Second paragraph:
Let's skip to the last paragraph, which contains the cognitive dissonance which is the result of pretending non-occupation is occupation.
I am willing to bet a mortgage payment Jones doesn't realize how history and this last paragraph thoroughly guts his entire argument, if not his peculiar Weltanshauung.
A few days earlier, photographs emerged of young residents relaxing on folding chairs as they watched the bombing. Some smoked water pipes; others had brought popcorn. On one level, the “Sderot cinema” sums up the asymmetry of this so-called conflict: of Gazans huddled in terror as a military superpower pounds their overcrowded, besieged open-air prison camp; while on the other side of the border, Israelis joyously celebrate their country’s military might, whatever fear they have of Hamas rockets eclipsed by the thrill of bombs detonating in the near distance. It is also illustrative of how occupations corrupt the occupier. “What a misfortune it is for one nation to subjugate another,” Friedrich Engels wrote in 1864, referring to Britain’s oppression of Ireland. “All English abominations have their origin in the Irish pale.” And so it goes with Israel and Gaza.The "open air prison camp" of Gaza once was occupied by Ottoman Turks for centuries then by WWI winners, then by Egypt, from 1948 until 1967, that is, from the first attempt of the Arabs to destroy Israel to the second. And when I use the word 'occupy' I use it in its plain, everyday meaning, which is, actually to have troops of the occupying country in the occupied country. Israel occupied Gaza through the third attempt to destroy Israel in 1973, when Israel captured all of the Sinai while defeating Egypt et al. decisively. There was finally a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979 and Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt. They offered to return Gaza too, but the Egyptians didn't want it back. The Israelis left Gaza in 2005. That's actual history.
Let's skip to the last paragraph, which contains the cognitive dissonance which is the result of pretending non-occupation is occupation.
For those who want peace – including an end to the occupation and the dismantling of every settlement – it is tempting to demonise Israeli supporters of this latest offensive. But it is futile and self-defeating. The occupation will not end until the rationales that sustain it are understood. As Palestinian children are killed, that may seem like a lot to stomach, but it is no less necessary.Mr. Jones says that those who want peace in the area want an end to the occupation and the dismantling of every settlement, among other things. But that is exactly what Israel did with Gaza in 2005. They ended the occupation and dismantled and removed every Israeli settlement. Did they get peace? Or did they get thousands of rockets and mortar rounds launched into Israel?
I am willing to bet a mortgage payment Jones doesn't realize how history and this last paragraph thoroughly guts his entire argument, if not his peculiar Weltanshauung.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front, Owen Jones
Monday, June 07, 2010
The Key is What Was Left Out
Every so often I read something from the left. It's usually unsatisfying as what is written almost always conflicts with what I believe and/or facts I am morally certain of. Often the lefty screed is heavy on emotion and light on logic. Those are very unsatisfying indeed. Then there are things like this Nation op-ed piece, Free Gaza, which are not only bad for the reasons above, but actively dishonest, usually by omission. Behold:
The title has a bit of the time warp about it, Free Gaza? Didn't the Israelis unilaterally depart from the Gaza back in 2005, violently uprooting over 8500 Jewish settlers and making the Gaza completely Judenrein, as the Nazi like Palestinians insist? Why yes they did--Gaza is already free. The article never actually comes out and states that obvious history. It's not the worst omission. Here is a representative paragraph.
The "attack" was from the radical Islamacists on the one ship on the IDF soldiers whose primary weapons were non-lethal. What the lefties call a "siege" is in fact a method of preventing re-armament of a hostile neighbor. It is an entirely legal method about as far from a siege as you can get. It is a just blockade. Of course, to the left, legitimate and successful self defense is always wrong, always is a failure, always undercuts true security. The left seems to know a way to true security which does not involve any actual security measures, like guns or a border fence. Here's another.
Now this is just delusional. Occupation? The Israelis left Gaza completely half a decade ago. If we were to actually enforce our border with Mexico, would we then occupy Mexico? Occupation by guarding the border and insisting on customs like inspections of humanitarian aid. This is prime lefty logic. And, given the point of this posting, which I'm getting to, don't rush me, it is rich to hear the lefties complain about the American media's so called 'refusal to report the basic facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict.' Rich!
And my point? Well the article leaves out a few things, a few thousand things, that is, the thousands of Kassam rockets and thousands of mortar rounds which the Gazans were firing into Israel for years and years. That little fact is left out of the article. It is an important and telling omission. The whole reason there is a sea blockade, by both Egypt and Israel, and both nations enforce their border with all the seriousness with which we fail to enforce ours, is to prevent Hamas from rearming and beginning the deadly barrage again. Everything this silly, dishonest editorial complains of is a direct result of the deadly, war crime barrage the Gazans started shortly after the IDF left. Why the lefties don't mention it is patently obvious. That little fact of naked Gazan assault undercuts every word of the lefty screed. It is an inconvenient fact the editors of the execrable Nation choose merely to ignore.
Delusion, projection, lying outright, lying by omission. Fairly typical lefty article, actually.
The title has a bit of the time warp about it, Free Gaza? Didn't the Israelis unilaterally depart from the Gaza back in 2005, violently uprooting over 8500 Jewish settlers and making the Gaza completely Judenrein, as the Nazi like Palestinians insist? Why yes they did--Gaza is already free. The article never actually comes out and states that obvious history. It's not the worst omission. Here is a representative paragraph.
The attack on the Freedom Flotilla is the culmination of more than four years of failed policy, in which a siege has been imposed on the entire population of Gaza in an attempt to weaken and isolate Hamas after its victory in the 2006 parliamentary elections. Israel does not bear sole responsibility for an unjust blockade that also undermines its own long-term security; indeed, the policy was jointly crafted and executed with the United States and has enjoyed the collusion of the European Union, Egypt and even the Fatah wing of the Palestinian Authority.
The "attack" was from the radical Islamacists on the one ship on the IDF soldiers whose primary weapons were non-lethal. What the lefties call a "siege" is in fact a method of preventing re-armament of a hostile neighbor. It is an entirely legal method about as far from a siege as you can get. It is a just blockade. Of course, to the left, legitimate and successful self defense is always wrong, always is a failure, always undercuts true security. The left seems to know a way to true security which does not involve any actual security measures, like guns or a border fence. Here's another.
The effects of this policy on the people of Gaza have been devastating. According to various UN agencies, the formal economy has collapsed. More than 60 percent of the people are food insecure, and nearly 80 percent depend on the UN for sustenance, with rising levels of malnutrition. The destruction of Gaza's infrastructure has been comprehensive, with the reduction in electricity supply damaging food production and storage and dangerously limiting access to safe drinking water. The blockade has prevented all but minimal repair of the damage from Israel's 2008–09 military assault; thousands are still displaced from their homes.In other words the shiftless Gazans rely entirely on international largess which Israel allows into Gaza, several hundred thousand tons a day. Some siege. Oh, and the destruction of the infrastructure, the Gazans did a whole lot of that in looting and vandalism of efficient Israeli farms and greenhouses shortly after the IDF left. That operation 'cast lead,' the Israeli defense from continual Gazan attack, caused further destruction is also solely the result of Gazan malfeasance. Oh, the power cuts, where does the power come from? Israel. Some siege. One of the items not allowed into Gaza is concrete, so that Hamas can't use it to build bunkers and defense points. The Gazans smuggle in so much through the hundred tunnels into Egypt, that lately the price of it has dropped. Some siege. Ready for some more?
Israel's occupation would not have been possible without tens of billions in US military aid, without dozens of UN vetoes cast by Washington, without the State Department's back-room strong-arming of other nations. It would not have been possible without the dishonesty of a US media establishment that habitually twists or simply refuses to report basic facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict—and is often less critical than the media in Israel.
Now this is just delusional. Occupation? The Israelis left Gaza completely half a decade ago. If we were to actually enforce our border with Mexico, would we then occupy Mexico? Occupation by guarding the border and insisting on customs like inspections of humanitarian aid. This is prime lefty logic. And, given the point of this posting, which I'm getting to, don't rush me, it is rich to hear the lefties complain about the American media's so called 'refusal to report the basic facts about the Israel-Palestine conflict.' Rich!
And my point? Well the article leaves out a few things, a few thousand things, that is, the thousands of Kassam rockets and thousands of mortar rounds which the Gazans were firing into Israel for years and years. That little fact is left out of the article. It is an important and telling omission. The whole reason there is a sea blockade, by both Egypt and Israel, and both nations enforce their border with all the seriousness with which we fail to enforce ours, is to prevent Hamas from rearming and beginning the deadly barrage again. Everything this silly, dishonest editorial complains of is a direct result of the deadly, war crime barrage the Gazans started shortly after the IDF left. Why the lefties don't mention it is patently obvious. That little fact of naked Gazan assault undercuts every word of the lefty screed. It is an inconvenient fact the editors of the execrable Nation choose merely to ignore.
Delusion, projection, lying outright, lying by omission. Fairly typical lefty article, actually.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front, Nation magazine; omission of key facts; psychological projection
Friday, January 30, 2009
Ever Slimming Time Magazine Becomes Propaganda Arm of Hamas
This report in Time is one of the myriad examples of recent airing in our media of unfiltered, unchecked stories from Gaza residents of how wantonly terrible the IDF was. I don't believe that IDF soldiers shot and murdered these women and children just as the article claims. The first thing I want to know is whether the wound trails in the dead are 5.56mm or 7.62mm in diameter. Until Time establishes that fact, this story is suspect.
The moral of the story, in any event, is when the IDF tells you to leave an area where Hamas is firing rockets into Israel, maybe you should.
The collateral damage in Gaza, and there had to be some--war really sucks for civilians in a war zone--is almost exclusively the result of where Hamas chooses to put its war crime rocket launchers and where and how it chooses to fight. As this Dershowitz analogy makes clear, when a criminal takes a hostage to shield him while he is killing others, if the police sharpshooter kills the shielding hostage while trying to kill the criminal in order to protect others, the hostage's death is the criminal's fault, not the police's. Not everyone is Carlos Hathcock.
I hope that my unwillingness to believe this story is not a result of prejudice; indeed, I usually am willing to believe first hand accounts of things I don't want to believe, unless the source has lied to me before. And the Palestinians have lied before to the world, and therefore to me too, about their casualties. Mona Charon talks about some of those lies here. So the Palestinians in this story start out in the hole because of other Palestinian liars.
The moral of the story, in any event, is when the IDF tells you to leave an area where Hamas is firing rockets into Israel, maybe you should.
The collateral damage in Gaza, and there had to be some--war really sucks for civilians in a war zone--is almost exclusively the result of where Hamas chooses to put its war crime rocket launchers and where and how it chooses to fight. As this Dershowitz analogy makes clear, when a criminal takes a hostage to shield him while he is killing others, if the police sharpshooter kills the shielding hostage while trying to kill the criminal in order to protect others, the hostage's death is the criminal's fault, not the police's. Not everyone is Carlos Hathcock.
I hope that my unwillingness to believe this story is not a result of prejudice; indeed, I usually am willing to believe first hand accounts of things I don't want to believe, unless the source has lied to me before. And the Palestinians have lied before to the world, and therefore to me too, about their casualties. Mona Charon talks about some of those lies here. So the Palestinians in this story start out in the hole because of other Palestinian liars.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Ingress and Egress Regarding Gaza
It appears that when the last Israeli left the Gaza on September 12, 2005, the border crossings at Erez, Karni, Kissufim, and Sufa were closed to Palestinians seeking to get out of the Gaza strip. Rafah, in between Gaza and Egypt was left to the Egyptians and the Palestinians so it appears that it was open to traffic both ways. Karni may or may not have been open to humanitarian aid entering into Gaza, but humanitarian aid was getting into Gaza somewhere and not just through Egypt. Then the mists of time swirl and the picture is hazier. Then in November, 2005, Secretary of State Condi Rice made the Israelis, Egyptians and Palestinians agree to open Rafah and Karni was going to be open to truck and then bus traffic, in convoys, between Gaza and the West Bank. The EU ran the crossing at Rafah for about a year but then began to close it from time to time.
How it is that the Europeans and Egyptians don't let much travel between Gaza and the rest of the world via Egypt (at least above ground) is lost in time as well. Does anyone make the case that the Egyptians have closed the border at Rafah because the Israeli's asked them to? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?
How it is that the Europeans and Egyptians don't let much travel between Gaza and the rest of the world via Egypt (at least above ground) is lost in time as well. Does anyone make the case that the Egyptians have closed the border at Rafah because the Israeli's asked them to? Anyone, anyone? Bueller?
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Cross Complaints
Alan Dershowitz, writing in the LA Times, accuses Hamas of war crimes in Gaza and Bay Area law professor George Bisharart, writing in the Wall Street Journal, accuses Israel of war crimes there. Dershowitz is right, but let's look at some details of the opposing view. Here is the first head scratcher:
So Israel was bombarded by thousands of rockets and mortar shells, and each of these attacks is a war crime, but Israel was not attacked immediately before it launched a counterattack to stop the bombardment. Does the attack need to be immediately before a response to matter? It took us months to get back at Japan for Pearl Harbor. I guess we were in the wrong for bombing Tokyo in April, 1942, when we had not been attacked immediately prior to Doolittle's raid. Complete bull, utter idiocy from Mr. Bisharart. But is the first sentence of this paragraph even true? Here is what the California law professor writes:
More on the "suffocating seige" below. OK, so there were rockets fired from Gaza into Israel, sporadically, during the so called truce. Is that keeping the truce? Isn't rocket fire from Gaza into Israel just what the Israelis are trying to shut down now? The truth is that Hamas did not keep the truce and Israel was fully justified to attack rocket caches or other proper targets after the first post June 19, 2008 rocket flew, which appears to be just what the IDF did in November.
So the November 4 attack on a tunnel is Israel breaking the truce, which the professor just admitted Hamas broke, sporadically, throughout the period. I didn't know international law was so complicated. If the Arabs in Gaza break the truce it doesn't count as breaking the truce, but if Israel responds to breaking-the-truce rocket fire from Hamas et al., then it's Israel who has broken the truce. I guess if you keep in mind that no matter what happens, it's Israel's fault, it's less complicated. There's more:
Wait. You actually have to kill someone with your rocket fire to have it count as an attack? Oh, so if Hamas shoots several thousand missiles and shells, each and every one a war crime, but they all, or mostly all, miss, no harm, no foul--not an attack? Israel, on the other hand, acts in self defense to stop the war crime attacks and is precise in its targeting of proper non-civilian targets, which kill bad guys, and Israel is the bad guy. OK, getting clearer.
OK, so each and every attack out of Gaza by rocket and mortar shell is part of Hamas' war of aggression because it is not justified by self-defense? No, not to Mr. Bisharart--it is the IDF and IAF which are the war criminals, because they are trying to hit proper targets to stop the war crime Hamas attacks. I think we have achieved full Tweedldum logic here, emphasis on the 'dum.'
I have to ask: Did the Israelis make Hamas put its forces in among of the civilian throngs? Did Israel make Hamas use civilians as shields for the Hamas 'fighters'? No, it was Hamas which chose to put the rocket launchers, et al., right in among the civilians of Gaza, which siting is a war crime in itself. So, because of Hamas' siting war crime, the very fact that Israel attacks the rocket and mortar shell launchers, at all, is proof of Israel's war crime. Ah, ever clearer. Then there's this historical nugget:
Wait, wasn't it Israel which was attacked in 1948 within hours of its UN creation? And didn't the bulk of Arabs leaving the newly formed Israel do so based on the requests of the governments providing the 5 invading Arab armies? Yes, and the Arabs left their homes in the near certain hope that they would soon return to them after the conquering Arab armies converged on Jerusalem in triumph. Alas, for the Arab refugees, the conquest has been somewhat delayed. There are hundreds of thousands of Arabs living in Israel as full citizens and in safety (except from other Muslims) but Israel does try to keep out the Arabs who want nothing more than to kill Jews. The Israelis strangely find it safer that way. But no, the clear self defense, in which Israel is now fighting in Gaza, is merely another in the long line of "Jewish terrorist attacks" since 1948. Of course, I was blind not to notice.
What? Israel is an occupying power regarding Gaza even though it does not occupy Gaza, and has not since 2005? Wow, you really have to admire the intellect that can call a nation an occupier when it does not occupy--any fool, of course, can do the opposite. So if we protect our own border and try to prevent our neighbors from attacking from the air or sea nearby, we're an occupying power as well? I did not know that. I thought that was merely, well, acting like a normal sovereign nation in, you know, self defense.
Wait, wasn't the closing of the border 18 months ago in retaliation for the thousands and thousands of rockets and mortar shells since 2002, each of which is a war crime? Wasn't the closing of the borders an act to protect Israel from attack by preventing rearmament of the Arabs in Gaza, a relatively humanitarian act as opposed to air-strikes or invasion?
The blame for the condition in Gaza is 100% on Hamas, and upon the citizens of Gaza who voted overwhelmingly for Hamas to rule them. Elections, as we are fond of saying here in America, have consequences, and not all of them are good ones.
Israel had not suffered an "armed attack" immediately prior to its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Since firing the first Kassam rocket into Israel in 2002, Hamas and other Palestinian groups have loosed thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israel, causing about two dozen Israeli deaths and widespread fear. As indiscriminate attacks on civilians, these were war crimes.
So Israel was bombarded by thousands of rockets and mortar shells, and each of these attacks is a war crime, but Israel was not attacked immediately before it launched a counterattack to stop the bombardment. Does the attack need to be immediately before a response to matter? It took us months to get back at Japan for Pearl Harbor. I guess we were in the wrong for bombing Tokyo in April, 1942, when we had not been attacked immediately prior to Doolittle's raid. Complete bull, utter idiocy from Mr. Bisharart. But is the first sentence of this paragraph even true? Here is what the California law professor writes:
But on June 19, 2008, Hamas and Israel commenced a six-month truce. Neither side complied perfectly. Israel refused to substantially ease the suffocating siege of Gaza imposed in June 2007. Hamas permitted sporadic rocket fire -- typically after Israel killed or seized Hamas members in the West Bank, where the truce did not apply.
More on the "suffocating seige" below. OK, so there were rockets fired from Gaza into Israel, sporadically, during the so called truce. Is that keeping the truce? Isn't rocket fire from Gaza into Israel just what the Israelis are trying to shut down now? The truth is that Hamas did not keep the truce and Israel was fully justified to attack rocket caches or other proper targets after the first post June 19, 2008 rocket flew, which appears to be just what the IDF did in November.
Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian.
So the November 4 attack on a tunnel is Israel breaking the truce, which the professor just admitted Hamas broke, sporadically, throughout the period. I didn't know international law was so complicated. If the Arabs in Gaza break the truce it doesn't count as breaking the truce, but if Israel responds to breaking-the-truce rocket fire from Hamas et al., then it's Israel who has broken the truce. I guess if you keep in mind that no matter what happens, it's Israel's fault, it's less complicated. There's more:
Hamas retaliated with rocket fire; Israel then killed five more Palestinians. In the following days, Hamas continued rocket fire -- yet still no Israelis died. Israel cannot claim self-defense against this escalation, because it was provoked by Israel's own violation.
Wait. You actually have to kill someone with your rocket fire to have it count as an attack? Oh, so if Hamas shoots several thousand missiles and shells, each and every one a war crime, but they all, or mostly all, miss, no harm, no foul--not an attack? Israel, on the other hand, acts in self defense to stop the war crime attacks and is precise in its targeting of proper non-civilian targets, which kill bad guys, and Israel is the bad guy. OK, getting clearer.
An armed attack that is not justified by self-defense is a war of aggression.
OK, so each and every attack out of Gaza by rocket and mortar shell is part of Hamas' war of aggression because it is not justified by self-defense? No, not to Mr. Bisharart--it is the IDF and IAF which are the war criminals, because they are trying to hit proper targets to stop the war crime Hamas attacks. I think we have achieved full Tweedldum logic here, emphasis on the 'dum.'
Israel has also failed to adequately discriminate between military and nonmilitary targets.
I have to ask: Did the Israelis make Hamas put its forces in among of the civilian throngs? Did Israel make Hamas use civilians as shields for the Hamas 'fighters'? No, it was Hamas which chose to put the rocket launchers, et al., right in among the civilians of Gaza, which siting is a war crime in itself. So, because of Hamas' siting war crime, the very fact that Israel attacks the rocket and mortar shell launchers, at all, is proof of Israel's war crime. Ah, ever clearer. Then there's this historical nugget:
Eighty percent of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are Palestinian refugees who were forced from their homes or fled in fear of Jewish terrorist attacks in 1948.
Wait, wasn't it Israel which was attacked in 1948 within hours of its UN creation? And didn't the bulk of Arabs leaving the newly formed Israel do so based on the requests of the governments providing the 5 invading Arab armies? Yes, and the Arabs left their homes in the near certain hope that they would soon return to them after the conquering Arab armies converged on Jerusalem in triumph. Alas, for the Arab refugees, the conquest has been somewhat delayed. There are hundreds of thousands of Arabs living in Israel as full citizens and in safety (except from other Muslims) but Israel does try to keep out the Arabs who want nothing more than to kill Jews. The Israelis strangely find it safer that way. But no, the clear self defense, in which Israel is now fighting in Gaza, is merely another in the long line of "Jewish terrorist attacks" since 1948. Of course, I was blind not to notice.
Although Israel withdrew its settlers and soldiers from Gaza in 2005, it continues to tightly regulate Gaza's coast, airspace and borders. Thus, Israel remains an occupying power with a legal duty to protect Gaza's civilian population.
What? Israel is an occupying power regarding Gaza even though it does not occupy Gaza, and has not since 2005? Wow, you really have to admire the intellect that can call a nation an occupier when it does not occupy--any fool, of course, can do the opposite. So if we protect our own border and try to prevent our neighbors from attacking from the air or sea nearby, we're an occupying power as well? I did not know that. I thought that was merely, well, acting like a normal sovereign nation in, you know, self defense.
But Israel's 18-month siege of the Gaza Strip preceding the current crisis violated this obligation egregiously. It brought economic activity to a near standstill, left children hungry and malnourished, and denied Palestinian students opportunities to study abroad.
Wait, wasn't the closing of the border 18 months ago in retaliation for the thousands and thousands of rockets and mortar shells since 2002, each of which is a war crime? Wasn't the closing of the borders an act to protect Israel from attack by preventing rearmament of the Arabs in Gaza, a relatively humanitarian act as opposed to air-strikes or invasion?
The blame for the condition in Gaza is 100% on Hamas, and upon the citizens of Gaza who voted overwhelmingly for Hamas to rule them. Elections, as we are fond of saying here in America, have consequences, and not all of them are good ones.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Steyn on Point and on Line
Mark Steyn has a lot of bad to say about the state of the World vis a vis the Juice, for whom there is the oldest hatred. One sure way of looking at the fairness of the situation is to switch the parties around, as Mark does here:
Absolutely chilling to the supporters of Israel.
Just last month terrorists attacked Bombay, seized hostages, tortured them, killed, and mutilated their bodies. The police intercepts of the phone conversations between the terrorists and their controllers make for lively reading:
“Pakistan caller 1: ‘Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims. Keep your phone switched on so that we can hear the gunfire.’
“Mumbai terrorist 2: ‘We have three foreigners, including women. From Singapore and China.’
“Pakistan caller 1: ‘Kill them.’
“(Voices of gunmen can be heard directing hostages to stand in a line, and telling two Muslims to stand aside. Sound of gunfire. Sound of cheering voices.)”
“Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims.” Tough for those Singaporean women. Yet no mosques in Singapore have been attacked. The large Hindu populations in London, Toronto, and Fort Lauderdale have not shouted “Muslims must die!” or firebombed Halal butchers or attacked hijab-clad schoolgirls. CAIR and other Muslim lobby groups’ eternal bleating about “Islamophobia” is in inverse proportion to any examples of it. Meanwhile, “moderate Muslims” in London warn the government: “I’m a peaceful fellow myself, but I can’t speak for my excitable friends. Nice little G7 advanced western democracy you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.”
But why worry about European Muslims? The European political and media class essentially shares the same view of the situation — to the point where state TV stations are broadcasting fake Israeli “war crimes.” As I always say, the “oldest hatred” didn’t get that way without an ability to adapt:...
Absolutely chilling to the supporters of Israel.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Friday, January 09, 2009
Good Sense From a Good Student (and Steny Hoyer)
Here is a clear eyed view of the Gaza conflict from the House Minority Whip, Eric Cantor, whom I taught English in 1988-89. I'm glad he listened to me regarding grammar and that he joined the right team politically. The only disturbing thing is the ahistoric anti-Semitism rife in the comments following the article. Sheesh.
Here are my favorite parts:
[...]
[...]
Good work, Eric, and you too Steny, if that really is your name.
Here are my favorite parts:
Our 2005 visit to Israel took place during the "disengagement" period, when Israel painfully uprooted its military and all Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip. Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made the decision to leave in spite of significant domestic opposition. We remember how divided Israeli society was, with critics defiantly brandishing orange protest ribbons from their cars. Mr. Sharon's goal, however, was an international show of good faith to kick-start a moribund peace process by giving the Palestinians what they asked for: full control of Gaza.
The plan collapsed. Israel's good intentions were never reciprocated. Instead of building roads, bridges, schools and industry, Hamas and other terrorists wasted millions turning Gaza into an armory. The already flimsy notion that Palestinian terrorism was a consequence of Israeli occupation -- an article of faith among those currently decrying Israel's "aggression" -- blew up along with the 7,000 indiscriminate rockets Palestinian terrorists began to launch into Israel.
[...]
Prior to military action, Israel tried a number of other options to stop the rockets, all to no avail. Israel pleaded with Palestinian terror groups to stop their attacks. Israel raised numerous complaints at the United Nations that fell on deaf ears. Israel imposed a blockade of Gaza to deprive Hamas terrorists of the rockets and weapons being used to attack Israel. Israel pressed Egypt to cut down on smuggling tunnels used to deliver rockets and weapons to terrorists. And most recently, Israel worked with Egypt to broker a six-month cease-fire with Hamas.
As Israel negotiated for peace, Hamas built up its weapons supply, acquiring longer-range, more powerful rockets, which are now paralyzing almost 1 million Israelis. Israel's decision to go to war came late last month when Hamas declared that it would not renew the Egyptian-brokered, six-month cease-fire (a cease-fire, it should be noted, that Hamas frequently violated and was urged by Egypt to restore).
[...]
America would never sit still if terrorists were lobbing missiles across our border into Texas or Montana; and just as we assert our right to defend ourselves, Israel has every right to protect its own citizens from the implacable foes on its borders. Support for Israel in her time of need, from both Democrats and Republicans, is not just the logical choice. It is both a strategic and moral imperative.
Good work, Eric, and you too Steny, if that really is your name.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Yet Another Democrat Leader Sides With the Palestinian War Criminals
But it's just Jimmy Carter.
He starts out OK, ("After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism.") but then he distorts a little history. Behold:
So the cease fire was broken by Israel? No rockets were fired between June 20 and Nov. 3? Is that right, Mr. President? That's not what the New York Times said in December. The post June 20 count seems to be in the several score area.
What the heck is a defensive tunnel? If the defensive tunnel is used to import serious sized rockets into Gaza, is it still defensive? How do you tell the purpose of a tunnel from the outside?
The wall around Gaza is, I believe, an actual defensive wall, used to keep Palestinians from murdering Jewish citizens by using vest bombs.
Anyway, more duplicitous coverage of the situation from a leading Democrat. American Democrat Jewish persons, are you sure you're in the right party? Dennis Prager has real doubts.
He starts out OK, ("After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism.") but then he distorts a little history. Behold:
[June 19 cease fire was unacknowledged by Israel] but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.
So the cease fire was broken by Israel? No rockets were fired between June 20 and Nov. 3? Is that right, Mr. President? That's not what the New York Times said in December. The post June 20 count seems to be in the several score area.
What the heck is a defensive tunnel? If the defensive tunnel is used to import serious sized rockets into Gaza, is it still defensive? How do you tell the purpose of a tunnel from the outside?
The wall around Gaza is, I believe, an actual defensive wall, used to keep Palestinians from murdering Jewish citizens by using vest bombs.
Anyway, more duplicitous coverage of the situation from a leading Democrat. American Democrat Jewish persons, are you sure you're in the right party? Dennis Prager has real doubts.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
More on Glen Greenwald
I half listened yesterday to Hugh Hewitt interview Glen Greenwald about the Israeli bombardment and armed incursion into Gaza; and Greenwald sounded much more reasonable than he did in his recent writing, about which I have commented. However, then I read the transcript, and Greenwald is again proven, by Hugh's careful questioning, to be basically ignorant of the essential nature of Hamas and a groundless Pollyanna about the likelihood of a successful diplomatic solution to the incessant, illegal bombardment by Palestinians in Gaza of Israel by rocket and mortar.
Here are the two central problems with Greenwald's Weltanshaung.
1. He thinks that the United States, sneak attacked and declared war on by Japan and then declared war on by Germany in December, 1941, waged a disproportional war against those two nations. (Or perhaps he doesn't as he immediately retracted, but then said WWII was fundamentally different from the long Israeli-Arab conflict, so that different rules applied).
2. He thinks that Hamas in particular and the Palestinians in general can be counted on to respond well to appeasement and poorly to having war waged back against them.
He kept conflating Gaza with the West Bank but it is not the West Bank which has sent thousands of rockets and mortar rounds into Israel. He said, as all lefty armchair generals say, that there is no military solution and worse, bombing Hamas leaders, fighters, infrastructure and weapons caches will be counterproductive.
So because the missiles and mortar rounds used by Palestinians in Gaza to bombard Israel over the past few years are limited in number and range, Israel is not able to respond morally and legally. They just have to take it and give additional appeasement. (That total withdrawal from Gaza unilaterally was not a sufficient appeasement to produce peace in Gaza is wholly ignored by Greenwald). What action Israel could take against Iran armed with nuclear tipped missiles which could reach Prague, for example, is apparently part of that different matter. I would fully expect Greenwald to condemn without reservation an IDF airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. We'll find out soon.
As a final issue:
Israel, when it withdrew completely from what I guess is Egyptian territory, the Gaza strip, did not open the border crossing between Gaza and Israel to export from Gaza, for sound security reasons. The Israelis allowed imports of humanitarian aid into Gaza, as they continue to do (just as Israel supplies about 3/4 of the electrical power in Gaza). The sole egress from the strip was to be through Egypt. Here is what was proposed. Here is how the Palestinians, and especially Hamas, screwed up that proposed (and, for a while, actual open) border crossing. That Egypt continues to close that border crossing is hardly I think Israel's fault. Right thinking people know whom to blame.
Brilliant Andy McCarthy has some very good thoughts on the general subject. Neither Israel nor the U.S. have agreed to be bound by so called international law touted by the left and clueless, toothless old Europe. Who knew?
Here are the two central problems with Greenwald's Weltanshaung.
1. He thinks that the United States, sneak attacked and declared war on by Japan and then declared war on by Germany in December, 1941, waged a disproportional war against those two nations. (Or perhaps he doesn't as he immediately retracted, but then said WWII was fundamentally different from the long Israeli-Arab conflict, so that different rules applied).
2. He thinks that Hamas in particular and the Palestinians in general can be counted on to respond well to appeasement and poorly to having war waged back against them.
He kept conflating Gaza with the West Bank but it is not the West Bank which has sent thousands of rockets and mortar rounds into Israel. He said, as all lefty armchair generals say, that there is no military solution and worse, bombing Hamas leaders, fighters, infrastructure and weapons caches will be counterproductive.
HH: Well, that brings me back, then, to the actual concrete steps that you think Israel ought to be doing, because should they negotiate despite the fact that 7,200 missiles have fallen on their land over five years?
GG: Well, I mean I think you know, those are a lot of missiles, the damage that has been done relative to the damage inflicted on the Palestinians over the course of that time period, of course, is something like 1/100th of the number of Palestinians who have been killed during that same time. So the rockets are definitely a problem. The government can’t allow rockets to be shot into their civilian populations. There’s no question about that. The question is what is the more effective course for ending terrorism? Is it to find a diplomatic solution, to offer concessions, even if they’re unilateral concessions, that diffuse the anger in the population? You know, we’re going to dismantle these settlements in the West Bank, we’re going to give you the right to control your own airspace, we’re going to let you have an airport, we’re going to stop blockading medicine that your children need. If you start doing that, isn’t that more likely to diffuse the extremism that feeds terrorism?
When Hugh pointed out that such appeasement was similar to the West's appeasement of Hitler in the 30s, Greenwald had this to say:
Would [military force] have been justifiable after only Austria and not before Czechoslovakia or Poland? You know, that’s hard to say. But certainly once a country starts indicating that they are a threat to their neighbors and to world security, and have the ability to carry that out, then force becomes something that is a lot more justifiable. (Emphasis added).
So because the missiles and mortar rounds used by Palestinians in Gaza to bombard Israel over the past few years are limited in number and range, Israel is not able to respond morally and legally. They just have to take it and give additional appeasement. (That total withdrawal from Gaza unilaterally was not a sufficient appeasement to produce peace in Gaza is wholly ignored by Greenwald). What action Israel could take against Iran armed with nuclear tipped missiles which could reach Prague, for example, is apparently part of that different matter. I would fully expect Greenwald to condemn without reservation an IDF airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. We'll find out soon.
As a final issue:
Israel, when it withdrew completely from what I guess is Egyptian territory, the Gaza strip, did not open the border crossing between Gaza and Israel to export from Gaza, for sound security reasons. The Israelis allowed imports of humanitarian aid into Gaza, as they continue to do (just as Israel supplies about 3/4 of the electrical power in Gaza). The sole egress from the strip was to be through Egypt. Here is what was proposed. Here is how the Palestinians, and especially Hamas, screwed up that proposed (and, for a while, actual open) border crossing. That Egypt continues to close that border crossing is hardly I think Israel's fault. Right thinking people know whom to blame.
Brilliant Andy McCarthy has some very good thoughts on the general subject. Neither Israel nor the U.S. have agreed to be bound by so called international law touted by the left and clueless, toothless old Europe. Who knew?
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Our Miss Brooks and the Myth of Military Victory
Law Professor and LA Times columnist, Rosa Brooks, comes through again with the quintessential, a-historic, lefty take on Israel's recent self defense. Let's review the concept of morally and legally justified war first, starting with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's forces crossed a well established (since 1845) border with neighbor Kuwait nearly 20 years ago. We spearheaded a coalition with UN approval to kick his invading forces out of Kuwait. And we did, rather easily. The war Saddam started, however, did not end in a treaty, but in a cease fire (like the Korean War) with several requirements of Iraq's government. Iraq did not keep up many of these requirements, none over the long haul. Thus, any resumption of fighting against Iraq and the government of Saddam Hussein was both perfectly legal and morally justified. We didn't need any one's permission. The original causus belli survived through the cease fire promises broken. Our president asked for and received an authorization from Congress to use military force against Saddam (it had been established in 1998, under the previous administration, that regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the United States) which Congressional authorization satisfied the requirement in the Constitution that Congress declare war. We don't actually declare war any longer--haven't since 1941. So defense of another, in this example a sovereign nation invaded by a foreign power with no justification, is legal and moral justification for war, and it allows other nations to wage full, even total, war against the invader. It is even more justifiable to wage war against another nation who has attacked you without justification, that is, in self defense, say like when its citizens lob thousands and thousands of rockets and mortar shells over the border into the other nation. OK, background established.
What I call the lefty position on Israel is the idea that Israel cannot morally defend itself. That's it. I call it the lefty position because of all the lefties out there calling the Israeli Defense Force's actions reprehensible and wrong. That is opposed to the right wingers calling the same actions perfectly justified, and there are lots and lots of these opinions out there, even some from lefties. As final support, there is polling from Rasmussen. Nearly two thirds of right wingers support Israel's actions, while less than one third of lefties do. Indeed, only about half of Democrats polled consider Israel an ally. Could any difference between right and left be so clear?
So, what did Professor Brooks say? This:
You see what's being set up there? There's no discussion of Hamas' war crimes (targeting civilians), it barely gets mentioned in passing. It is the difference in ability of the two political entities, the competent and civilized Israelis versus the blundering, criminal Hamas, which is the focus of the article. You could almost think that it wasn't fair for Israel to fight back and kill so many of Hamas illegal combatants (which the overwhelming bulk of the 390 are--Ms. Brooks fails to mention that somewhat important fact). To her credit, she did not actually misapply the proportionality argument, as so many of her ilk do. No, she skips over that to the "it's just so pointless" argument. Behold:
Oh, I get the picture. Not only is the bombing of Hamas fighters and rocket caches merely temporary but it is counterproductive as well, by rallying the Palestinians around the "destroy Israel" flag. Unremarked on is the reason the bombs are falling on densely populated areas. Hamas is committing another war crime in stationing its combatants and war materiel among civilians. The leaders of Hamas counted on Israel acting like the good nation it is and avoiding civilian casualties by not attacking at all. It worked for a long time. No longer. Although Charles Krauthammer lets us know the IDF soldiers still call up to warn the Arabs that bombs are coming to the apartment in which they dwell. Are the Israelis mensch or what? Yet of course Israel gets the bad press for killing a few unavoidably, which bad press should go to Hamas for its criminal act of putting its forces and rockets, etc, in the heart of a dense civilian population. (And Hamas seems to have avoided most of the bad press it deserved for the thousands of rockets it has sent to kill Israeli civilians. I guess we expect them to be criminal, evil. They certainly are).
But here is the sine qua non of the lefty view here:
There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace.
What I call the lefty position on Israel is the idea that Israel cannot morally defend itself. That's it. I call it the lefty position because of all the lefties out there calling the Israeli Defense Force's actions reprehensible and wrong. That is opposed to the right wingers calling the same actions perfectly justified, and there are lots and lots of these opinions out there, even some from lefties. As final support, there is polling from Rasmussen. Nearly two thirds of right wingers support Israel's actions, while less than one third of lefties do. Indeed, only about half of Democrats polled consider Israel an ally. Could any difference between right and left be so clear?
So, what did Professor Brooks say? This:
In a strictly military sense, Israel will "win" this battle against Hamas. For all its threats and bravado, Hamas is weak, and its weapons -- terrorism, homemade rockets -- are the weapons of the weak. Since 2001, Hamas has fired thousands of unguided Kassam rockets at Israel, but the rockets have killed only a handful of Israelis.
Israel's military, in contrast, is one of the most modern and effective in the world (thanks in part to an annual $3 billion in U.S. aid). Israel can easily bottle up the tiny Gaza Strip and its 1.5 million people. On Saturday, the first day of the offensive, Israeli bombs killed at least 180 Palestinians. By Wednesday, the Palestinian death toll exceeded 390.
You see what's being set up there? There's no discussion of Hamas' war crimes (targeting civilians), it barely gets mentioned in passing. It is the difference in ability of the two political entities, the competent and civilized Israelis versus the blundering, criminal Hamas, which is the focus of the article. You could almost think that it wasn't fair for Israel to fight back and kill so many of Hamas illegal combatants (which the overwhelming bulk of the 390 are--Ms. Brooks fails to mention that somewhat important fact). To her credit, she did not actually misapply the proportionality argument, as so many of her ilk do. No, she skips over that to the "it's just so pointless" argument. Behold:
But if there is no reason to doubt Israel's ability to pulverize Gaza, there's also no reason to think this offensive will improve Israeli security. Destruction of Hamas' infrastructure may temporarily slow Hamas rocket attacks, but sooner or later they'll resume.
The Israeli assault may even strengthen Hamas in the longer run and weaken its more moderate secular rival, Fatah. As Israel should know by now (as we all should know), dropping bombs in densely populated areas is a surefire way to radicalize civilians and get them to rally around the home team, however flawed.
Oh, I get the picture. Not only is the bombing of Hamas fighters and rocket caches merely temporary but it is counterproductive as well, by rallying the Palestinians around the "destroy Israel" flag. Unremarked on is the reason the bombs are falling on densely populated areas. Hamas is committing another war crime in stationing its combatants and war materiel among civilians. The leaders of Hamas counted on Israel acting like the good nation it is and avoiding civilian casualties by not attacking at all. It worked for a long time. No longer. Although Charles Krauthammer lets us know the IDF soldiers still call up to warn the Arabs that bombs are coming to the apartment in which they dwell. Are the Israelis mensch or what? Yet of course Israel gets the bad press for killing a few unavoidably, which bad press should go to Hamas for its criminal act of putting its forces and rockets, etc, in the heart of a dense civilian population. (And Hamas seems to have avoided most of the bad press it deserved for the thousands of rockets it has sent to kill Israeli civilians. I guess we expect them to be criminal, evil. They certainly are).
But here is the sine qua non of the lefty view here:
There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace.
Huh? While it is true that the bombardment of Germany and Japan 65 years ago did not 'break' the fighting spirit of the civilians and cause a collapse of their will to fight on, it did have a serious effect on their ability to fight. Indeed, in both theaters of the war the fighting ended about the time we ran out of targets to bomb. The destruction, from the air, of the means with which to produce and move about war materiel was essential to our rather swift victories in WWII. If history is any guide, you can achieve victory and a very sustainable peace through bombardment, and in Japan's case, through bombardment alone. Look at the former Yugoslavia, bombed into submission (of a kind) when President Clinton, without any UN or Congressional authorization, attempted to stop genocide from 20,000 feet.
Ms. Brooks and the other Hamas apologists, don't appear to know this central military fact of history, which ignorance makes their opinions rather worthless.
Labels: Arab Israeli Conflict; Gaza front
