Time for Israel to State the Obvious

Once again, Israel has been forced by daily rocket attacks on her citizens to attack Hamas in their Gaza stronghold. Once again, Israel has taken extraordinary measures– far beyond what any other country has done in similar circumstances – to strike — in as surgical a fashion as possible — terrorists, who deliberately launch rocket attacks from, and store munitions within, their civilian population, as surgically as possible.

And, once again, diplomatic hacks are rushing to Israel and urging the Egyptians to broker yet another ceasefire.  As usual, any and every action Israel takes to defend her citizens immediately becomes a cause célèbre for the entire “international community.”

And the literally tens of thousands of innocent Syrians massacred by the murderous Assad regime? Eh… not so much.

How do we account for this glaringly obvious double-standard?  Hat tip to a Twitter member with the handle, “JewishOdysseus,” for providing the obvious answer:

When World Leaders Fly to Mideast To Halt War … YOU CAN BET ISRAEL IS WINNING!!

And I wonder if anyone, in the 60-plus years since the Jewish state’s re-founding, has noted a certain pattern:  that whenever Israel successfully defends herself, turns the tables and finds itself on the verge of decisively defeating her enemies and dictating the terms of surrender, one or more countries (including, disappointingly, ours,) steps in to stop the fighting – and set the stage for another war.

Funny, I don’t remember Britain and France – and us – being so generously disposed to Germany or Japan.

Throw in the equally obvious — and far from unrelated — fact that the only nation the world sees fit to prevent from prevailing decisively over her enemies is also the only Jewish nation, and perhaps the time has come for the Israelis to call the “international community” to account.

Perhaps, the next time Israeli spokesman Mark Regev goes on the BBC or France 24, he should forthrightly charge Israel’s critics – those who urge the kind of “ceasefire” that would leave Hamas (or, for that matter, Hezbollah) in a position to replenish its materiel and attack Israel again at some future date — with supporting the ceasefire precisely because more attacks are what they want.

And if – no, make that,when– the interviewer balks, perhaps that would be a good time for Mark Regev to ask why anyone should not want Israel to disarm Hamas and destroy their war-making capability?  Perhaps he could ask why the “international community” would want to allow the potential for a future rocket barrage, inviting another, perhaps even more devastating, Israeli response and another round of suffering for the Gazan population – that is, if their concern for the people of Gaza (as opposed to, say, their hatred of the people of Israel) is truly genuine.

Perhaps the time has come for Israel to decide, and announce, that this time their objective in Gaza will be not to force Hamas to agree to a ceasefire, but to render Hamas utterly incapable of attacking Israel again.

Perhaps the time has come for Israel to declare, openly, that they understand that a significant number of European, Scandinavian and other gentiles have a problem with Jews who have the audacity not only to fight, but to win.  But these people have to understand that problem is theirs, not Israel’s.

Perhaps the time has come for Israel to call the appropriate parties on their anti-Semitism and state, unequivocally, that Israel no longer cares.

Perhaps, finally, the time has come for Israel to pursue victory 

  1. Robert E. Lee

    Maybe those nations calling for Israel to stop fighting would be willing to deploy it’s own troops in Gaza to ensure the peace.  Or maybe accept the rocketing of their country until Hamas stops rocketing Israel.

  2. WI Con

    In addition to stopping their war making/rocket launching ability, I’d adovate that the Israelis threaten to permanantly annex any land they are forced to pacify and that those living there will be required to leave.

    The Israelis have tried ‘Land for Peace’ in a good faith. The next conflict should result in unconditional surrender and land.

  3. Jim  Ixtian
    Robert E. Lee: Maybe those nations calling for Israel to stop fighting would be willing to deploy it’s own troops in Gaza to ensure the peace.

    Don’t give Obama any ideas. Samantha Power & others have probably been whispering in Obama’s ear about this idea for some time

    POWER: “What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.

  4. Group Captain Mandrake
    Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor: Perhaps the time has come for Israel to decide, and announce, that this time their objective in Gaza will be not to force Hamas to agree to a ceasefire, but to render Hamas utterly incapable of attacking Israel again.

     

    It presents a sort of Goldfingeresque situation.  “We don’t want you to talk Hamas, we want you to die.”

  5. Stuart Creque

    I might point out that the international community has for several DECADES had a UN force in Lebanon precisely to prevent cross-border attacks from Lebanon into Israel, which has been precisely useless. We got proof of its uselessness in a very graphic way in 2006, when it did absolutely nothing to interfere with Hezbollah’s kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers or with Hezbollah’s massive rocket bombardment of Israel’s north. No one will protect Israel except Israelis: the US is happy to help fund Israel’s defense, but the idea of US boots on the ground in Gaza to protect Israelis is absurd in every way, and no one (not even Susan Rice) would propose that. Susan Rice, on the other hand, might well propose US boots on the ground in Gaza to protect Hamas against the Israelis: that would be consistent with the Left’s critique of Western imperialist oppression.

  6. ConservativeWanderer
    Stuart Creque:  Susan Rice, on the other hand, might well propose US boots on the ground in Gaza to protect Hamas against the Israelis: that would be consistent with the Left’s critique of Western imperialist oppression. · 3 minutes ago

    Don’t give ‘em any ideas!

  7. Charles Mark

    Notable by their uncharacteristic absence from the current debate where I live are the “Flotillistas” who so often proclaim that Israel’s marine blockade is evil and unnecessary. If Hamas can get their hands on that kind of weaponry in spite of the blockade, what would they get if they had open doors? One thing is for sure, whatever they have, they’ll use.

  8. Adam Koslin
    And what, precisely, would “victory” be?  What’s your end-game?  Israel completely disarming Hamas?  Fantastic…the IDF is now the proud owner of a few Iranian missiles, a few cheap-as-dirt Kalashnikovs and other assorted small arms, a bunch of TNT, a few motorcycles, and a bunch of home-made souped-up model-rocket kits.  Do you seriously think that Hamas in conjunction with international allies and sympathizers couldn’t replace all of that gear without breaking a sweat? Moreover, are you willing to risk the Israeli casualties and pariah-status that would come with a re-occupation of Gaza?  Oh, so Israel isn’t going to re-occupy Gaza, just wage a blitzkrieg that will wipe out every Palestinian that even thinks about aiming so much as a pea-shooter in the direction of an IDF soldier.  Fine.  What are you going to do when the relatives of all the newly-dead Palestinia-I’m sorry, I mean terrorists *eye-roll* howl for for the blood of Goliath?  Hey! Status Quo Ante! So long as the international community keeps buoying up the Palestinians and the Israelis keep putting square bombs in round diplomatic pouches, nothing’s changing.
  9. Margaret Ball
    Adam Koslin:  Moreover, are you willing to risk the Israeli casualties and pariah-status that would come with a re-occupation of Gaza? 

    Israel already has pariah status, no? As for casualties… what happens if Iron Dome fails to swat just one rocket headed for Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?

    If you keep denouncing a country for defending itself, maybe eventually it’ll decide to be hung for a sheep (retaking Gaza) as for a lamb (desperately trying to avoid Palestinian civil casualties while hitting just enough targets to persuade Hamas to slow down the rocketing until next time).

    Do you think there’s any possibility that Israel could keep the Gaza-Egypt border open long enough to put the entire Palestinian population of Gaza into the Sinai? I suppose not, but I find it an attractive fantasy.

  10. AIG

    I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. The “international community” reacted to Assad as well, and I don’t see it “reacting” any more unusually then they do whenever a conflict occurs in their vicinity. I don’t see anything unusual here. The only difference being that when dealing with Assad, the expectations are already very low. And of course there was Libya. 

    But I don’t see this “singling out” of Israel. The “international community” reacted much more aggressively in Georgia, for example. 

    That being said, what “diplomats” say on this matter is always a storm in a tea cup. So who cares? 

  11. Adam Koslin
    Margaret Ball

    As for casualties… what happens if Iron Dome fails to swat just one rocket headed for Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?

    If you keep denouncing a country for defending itself…

    If a rocket hits a major urban area, there will be a handful of casualties and a lot of property-damage.  I don’t mean to sound callous, but that is no strange thing in that part of the world.  It would be awful, but not catastrophic, and certainly *much* less bloody than a prolonged guerilla war/occupation in Gaza would be.

    I don’t begrudge Israel its ability to defend itself.  I don’t even begrudge it the ability to wage an offensive war against its enemies if it should so choose.  I will criticize bad or stupid policy recommendations.  Israel is small enough and its enemies are large enough that it has very little margin for error.  And an all-out conventional assault into Gaza will not solve anything, other than making the Gazans even more rabidly anti-Israeli, and thus pro-Hamas.  A major incursion will either fail or work and in so doing actually commit all the crimes that the Israelis are always accused of.

  12. Neolibertarian

    Think of these opinions as coming from Mrs. Grundy. She is a force to be reckoned with, and you pay a very heavy price for ignoring her.

    Mrs. Grundy had opinions about the appropriate response from America after 9/11/01, as well. We were to only use special commando units like the SEALs to attack the perpetrators. These kinds of operations are distasteful, but allowable. Retaliating against the nations of Islam was a strategy completely beyond the pale, in Mrs. Grundy’s opinion.

  13. Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor
    C
    Jim Ixtian

    Robert E. Lee: Maybe those nations calling for Israel to stop fighting would be willing to deploy it’s own troops in Gaza to ensure the peace.

    Don’t give Obama any ideas. Samantha Power & others have probably been whispering in Obama’s ear about this idea for some time

    POWER: “What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation.Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.

    5 hours ago

    Right, Samantha, as if Gaza isn’t receving hundreds of millions in aid already.  And we can see what they’ve been spending it on.

  14. Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor
    C
    Stuart Creque: I might point out that the international community has for several DECADES had a UN force in Lebanon precisely to prevent cross-border attacks from Lebanon into Israel, which has been precisely useless. We got proof of its uselessness in a very graphic way in 2006, when it did absolutely nothing to interfere with Hezbollah’s kidnapping and murder of two Israeli soldiers or with Hezbollah’s massive rocket bombardment of Israel’s north. No one will protect Israel except Israelis…

    Exactly right.  Also, if Hamas launches rockets at some future time, when there are international troops in Gaza, who do nothing to stop the rockets, forcing Israel to attack again, Israel runs a very high risk of killing French, British and other soldiers.  As if the Europeans and Scandinavians don’t hate Israel enough already…

  15. Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor
    C
    Adam Koslin: And what, precisely, would “victory” be?  What’s your end-game?  Israel completely disarming Hamas?  Fantastic…the IDF is now the proud owner of a few Iranian missiles…

    I doubt that the Israelis would want Hamas’s arsenal, not nearly as advanced as Israel’s; they would destroy it.  People also need to realize that most of the Arab world hates Palestinians as much as they hate Jews: note that Gaza’s smuggling tunnels originate in Egypt – why does Egypt not just open the border, making the tunnels unnecessary? Ideally, Israel would reoccupy not Gaza, but just the Philadelphi Corridor to stop weapons transfers, but another alternative is simply to let Gaza spend several years replenishing its material – during which time, Israel’s military capabilities will be even more advanced – and if the rockets fall again, Israel destroys them again. And again? So each time, Israel’s capabilities improve, while Hamas repeatedly diverts tens (hundreds?) of millions, just to get back to where they were – and Israel destroys everything, renders all those millions wasted, and Hamas has to start over again. One hopes that Hamas eventually understand that they are fighting a battle they cannot win.

  16. Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor
    C
    AIG: I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. The “international community” reacted to Assad as well, and I don’t see it “reacting” any more unusually then they do whenever a conflict occurs in their vicinity. I don’t see anything unusual here. The only difference being that when dealing with Assad, the expectations are already very low. And of course there was Libya. 

    But I don’t see this “singling out” of Israel. The “international community” reacted much more aggressively in Georgia, for example. 

    That being said, what “diplomats” say on this matter is always a storm in a tea cup. So who cares?  · 2 hours ago

    I don’t watch TV, but on the news media’s Web sites, Israel’s activities vis a vis Gaza have dominated the headlines, while I have seen virtually nothing about Syria, even though the number of Gazans killed is about 100, with 75% of them being combatants, while in Syria, the death toll is close to and may already have surpassed 40,000. To this writer, it would seem that Syria should fill the media and Israel/Gaza should get a few column inches on page A-6.

  17. Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor
    C
    Adam Koslin

    Margaret Ball

     

     

    [A]n all-out conventional assault into Gaza will not solve anything, other than making the Gazans even more rabidly anti-Israeli, and thus pro-Hamas.  A major incursion will either fail or work and in so doing actually commit all the crimes that the Israelis are always accused of. · 2 hours ago

    An all-out assault on Gaza will solve what an all-out assault on Germany solved. The key is for Israel to ignore the bleatings of the “international community” and fight a war the old-fashioned way:  force the enemy to surrender unconditionally or destroy their ability to wage war.

    Surely, Israel does not relish fighting house-to-house to find and destroy all of Hamas’s arsenal and kill its military commanders, but if she does, there is no doubt that she will succeed. Then Israel leaves and Gaza can decide whether they want the Israelis to come back. 

    Those who think this scenario impossible need only look to Judea and Samaria. Abbas has stated, more than once, that they have renounced violence and will pursue their ends exclusively by peaceful means. With sufficient “persuasion,” Hamas can be convinced to do likewise.

  18. Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor
    C
    Margaret Ball

    Adam Koslin:  Moreover, are you willing to risk the Israeli casualties and pariah-status that would come with a re-occupation of Gaza? 

     

    Israel is not going to commit suicide to please the “international community.” At the end of the day, she will do whatever she needs to do to protect her people. The idea, again, is to pursue victory, to “go all the way,” to insure that Israel does not have to do this again.  Since Margaret Thatcher sent troops to the Falklands, Argentine squawks occassionally, but does nothing. Britain has held Gibraltar since 1704. Eventually, Hamas will internalize the reality that Israel is there to stay and will give up the fight. Could take five years, or 500 – no matter.  The Jews are an eternal people; Israel can afford to wait.

    And remember, there is not one Israeli in Gaza. Gaza is not “occupied.” Gaza governs itself.

    And, it so happens, I personally toured Gaza in 1968, decades before the Intifada. Tourists touring Gaza, Gazans working in Israel, and no wall – all the proof I need that all Gaza needs to do to reopen the Gaza-Israel border is to stop fighting.

  19. AIG

    I don’t watch TV, but on the news media’s Web sites, Israel’s activities vis a vis Gaza have dominated the headlines, while I have seen virtually nothing about Syria

    Yeah but Syria has been going on for a year already, there is very little footage coming out, and this is all new so the media does what it always does. You’re taking a cross-sectional sample here, but as with everything else, the media will be talking about something else in a week. Plus, Syria is no longer “interesting” since its still a stalemate. But I just don’t think this is bias against Israel.

  20. Zafar

    The US buys Egyptian compliance with aid.  It’s the second highest recipient of US aid in the world.  This is also how they got Sadat to sign the peace treaty. 

    As for Palestinians – I believe their cause is popular in Egypt, and this is an issue because Egypt now has representative Govt, not Mubarak.

    Gene Schwimmer, Guest Contributor

     

    People also need to realize that most of the Arab world hates Palestinians as much as they hate Jews: note that Gaza’s smuggling tunnels originate in Egypt – why does Egypt not just open the border, making the tunnels unnecessary? 

Want to comment on stories like these? Become a member today!

You'll have access to:

  • All Ricochet articles, posts and podcasts.
  • The conversation amongst our members.
  • The opportunity share your Ricochet experiences.

Join Today!

Already a Member? Sign In