The New York Times covers the "Israeli aggression" in Gaza last week.
I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:
“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”
You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.
If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.
In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment