A key to the problem of Western comprehension of international realities is admirably summarized by a New York Times editorial on the subject:
No country should have to endure the rocket attacks that Israel has endured from militants in Gaza, most recently over the past four days. The question is how to stop them permanently.
The answer to that question is simple to understand, if not easy to implement. The attacks can only be stopped if Hamas is removed from power and replaced, given contemporary circumstances, by the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA is certainly no prize, but that’s a reasonable goal for what is often referred to as the international community.
Yes, Hamas won an election in 2007, but then it staged a violent coup and threw out the opposition, and has thus governed as an unelected dictatorship. It has no legal basis, since Hamas never accepted the Oslo Accords agreements. Hamas is also a terrorist group. And it daily voices not only its opposition to Israel’s existence but also advocates — and teaches the children of Gaza to carry out some day — the commission of genocide against all Jews.
So the answer to the Times’ question is a no-brainer, right? Of course, this response is not what the Timeshas in mind. Instead, the newspaper and like-minded people present the following list:
– Israel should negotiate with Hamas.
Great idea but an impossible one because of a factor Western leaders, academics, and journalists often do not take seriously nowadays: ideology. Hamas means what it says, intends to continue the violence for years in the belief it can win total victory, and is indifferent to the sacrifice of its own people. So in this case, negotiations are not an option.
– If there is a comprehensive Israel-Palestinian peace there would be no more war.
Actually, even if such an agreement were to be reached — which is impossible because the PA won’t make one — Hamas would step up attacks in an attempt to destroy the agreement.
The PA could not make a deal that would include the 40 percent of the Palestinians who live in Gaza. And Hamas would try to overthrow the PA in the West Bank, and might even succeed. Then Hamas, perhaps with the Fatah people who allied with it, would have a fully sovereign state to use as a platform for an intended war of genocide against Israel.
Part of the problem is that the West is not psychologically prepared to deal with fanatics, people who don’t measure the balance of forces before entering a war and are indifferent to the suffering of their own civilians. Westerners tend to use a materialistic yardstick: holding elections, having to govern themselves, a higher living standard, and more education will make people moderate. The problem is that this has been tried out in the Middle East — as it is being tried now — and it doesn’t work.
– Israel should just shut up and let Hamas attack it whenever that group so chooses or at most respond with only minimal force.
This concept is often implicit in coverage of the issue, as in the one prestigious newspaper whose main article explained that Israel’s killing of the military chief of Hamas, whose main job was to plan terrorist attacks on Israelis, threatened to create a regional crisis.
An acquaintance of mine bragged that nobody in her European country supported Israel. That means, of course, that they all supported Hamas. But what if they say that they actually just supported the people of Gaza? That would be like saying during World War Two bombing raids that one opposed them out of support for the people of Germany. The sympathy for civilians is understandable; the violence and casualties are a tragedy. Yet the root cause is a regime that both oppresses the people and sets off a war.
So given the fact that it does not want to reoccupy and govern Gaza (though one of the accusations thrown against Israel is that it still occupies Gaza!), Israel has limited choices. The best of the lot is to limit any material that gets into Gaza that can be used for war, and to retaliate as necessary to obtain several years of relative peace. That means, in the Times’ euphemism, that Hamas often observes a ceasefire — that is, in the minutes between rocket, mortar, and cross-border attacks by itself or the small groups it uses as an excuse for aggression.
Another part of the problem is the external situation. Egypt is ruled by a Muslim Brotherhood regime. The Gaza Strip is governed by a Muslim Brotherhood regime. See any pattern here? What saves the situation for the present is that the Egyptian government doesn’t want an all-out confrontation right now.
Just hours before the war began, Egypt received a pledge of $6 billion in aid from the European Union. This is, of course, a noble endeavor to help Egypt’s people, though it also puts billions of dollars in the hands of anti-Western, anti-Semitic extremists. Maybe it will moderate them; it is certain that the money will strengthen them.
As for the United States, it supports Egypt but it also supports Israel. So it will encourage a ceasefire, and probably after a few days there will be a ceasefire. Hamas will “partly” observe it until the next time it chooses to attack Israel. Perhaps by that point the Salafists in Egypt will be ready for a fight, and the Brotherhood regime will need to stir up some hysteria to help it fundamentally transform the country and to distract attention from its domestic dictatorship and failures.
So the lesson of this new Gaza war is that terrorist regimes must be removed from power. Otherwise, they will keep provoking war, terrorism, and instability. Having ruled out that option, the only alternative is periodic conflicts like the one going on now in the Gaza Strip.
Can Israel sustain this situation? Of course, that is basically the framework in which it has been living and prospering for 64 years. Is it preferable? Of course not. What is the world going to do to make it better? Nothing.
And what does Hamas’ behavior tell us about that of other Islamists in power? A great deal, once one factors in patience and subtlety on the part of such regimes as those in Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, and, perhaps soon Syria.
I said above that the lesson of the Gaza Strip is that terrorist, radical regimes should be removed from power. It goes without saying that they should not be helped into power by the West in the first place. Unfortunately, that is a lesson that the Obama administration still doesn’t understand.
Update 1: A few sirens went off in Tel Aviv around 6:30 PM, November 15 — not the whole system or the one outside my window but those a few blocks away — and didn’t stay on very long. Then there were two loud but short booms, the sound of anti-rocket missiles being fired. Rumors followed.
This being the age of social media, people insisted that something must have happened because somebody in California said so. Some people said with certainty that a rocket hit in this or that place; one claimed he saw the smoke from a building that had been struck. In the end, it was announced that a rocket from the Gaza Strip had been shot down far to the south. The atmosphere was reminiscent of 1991 when three dozen Iraqi rockets did hit Israel, one of them a few blocks from my home, and anti-missile batteries could be heard nightly firing at incoming missiles from Iraq.
Of course, there’s nothing funny about a war. Less than an hour’s drive to the south people are under fire. There are casualties on both sides, including civilians. This is a serious matter, made no less so by its relative familiarity. Yet there is a difference between the horrors of war and imagining away a conflict, an inescapable situation, because one wants to do so. Only by confronting the reality can there be the best possible response to a crisis. Wishful thinking or ignoring real conflicts makes things worse.
Update 2: Perhaps Hamas was hoping for a spectacular provocation. After Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil arrived for a visit to the Gaza Strip, November 15, Hamas launched a barrage of rockets and mortars at Israel, perhaps trying to provoke an Israeli counterattack that might shake up or even injure the Egyptian leader and get Cairo to escalate its involvement in the war.
@ Bernard Ross:
Yeah I read it. If only it could be printed in frontline Western media.
for the western euro elites, your fate:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3459/denmark-muslim-country
Israel should tell the Europeans to go to hell. They’ll always condemn Israel for its existence. The politicans pander to the huge Muslim vote. The Left feels more comfortable with “The Jew” as victim rather than victor. As for the older generation, the Crucifixion still gets in the way. The next time any European government complains about Israel defending itself, the Israeli government should simply say, “Where were you in 1933?”
Looks like the US is trying to extract concessions from IL!!!
Even without Nukes, the status quo benefits dramatically the Mullahs.
I thought during Cast Lead Israel should open the entrances to Egypt, allow the population to leave and beat the hell out of Hamas.
See comments above for reply in detail. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. That is what Israel is doing in response to Hamas’s aggression – and that is nuts!
I agree with Israel’s right to Gaza. However Israel refuses to claim that right and is only seeking a truce until Gaza can eventually obtain more effective weapons and win the war. Meanwhile Gaza is draining Israel and denying that it is responsible (Hamas supposedly has no control over the organizations that shell Israel continually). If Egypt had responsibilty there would be no question of responsibility and the enemy would be clearly identifiable and it would be Egypt – not terrorists, or militants or Islamists etc. Egypt could also control the Gazan media hatred – if it wanted to. Of course it would be better if Israel annexed Gaza or if Gaza suddenly became peaceful – but neither is going to happen. The next best choice for peace is to hand control to a government that takes responsiblity with it. If that means war with an Egypt that includes Gaza then at least at the end of the war, as part of a real truce – not a hudna – Israel will be able to reclaim both Gaza and the Sinai.
@ Allen Z. Hertz:
Thank you, Allen, for clarifying your comments. You express yourself very well. Chazak V’Amatz!
WB Said:
In a word that’s nuts.(I know it’s not your idea) Why pipeline the Jihadists freely? Right now they at least have to go through the tunnels. And of course the tanks, artillery,radar stations,jets and helicopters will roll in.
Dumb and dumber.
Jonathan Usher Said:
I can’t go along with the notion that it’s somehow reasonable to allow Egypt to annex or control Gaza. I understand why you think this is a solution, but to me it’s just a continuation of a mistake we’ve been making over and over again since 1947. If the Oslo pattern continues (and there’s no indication it will stop), Egypt won’t need to annex Gaza. From my admittedly amateur perspective, our biggest problem is (and always has been) allowing our enemies to frame the context of discussion. Even in 1947 those who were making and enforcing policy were willing to ignore the only thing that really matters… the 1922 Partition that set Israel’s legal borders. As many respected experts have shown over the years, Israel has an unimpeachable legal claim to all the land from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. Shmuel Katz wrote extensively about this, with his book “Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in the Holy Land” providing more facts and resources than has ever been given by Israeli “Hasbara”. Attorney Howard Grief has provided reams of scholarly legal research supporting our legal claim to this land. Eli Hertz created one of the most useful (and widely ignored) resources on the subject – a rather small pamphlet titled “This Land Is My Land”. Professor Paul Eidelberg has also given us extensive, invaluable analysis and laid out specific instructions for changing the idiotic political system that prevents us from making progress. Ted Belman has also contributed significantly to the discussion. And let’s not forget Rabbi Meir Kahane HY”D, whose insight and remarkable rhetorical skills left a set of documents that only a few have dared to study. “They Must Go” and “The Jewish Idea” are gold mines, but outside a small circle of scholars, who has read them? We don’t need any new ideas. All the men mentioned above (and there are many others not mentioned) have addressed every issue we face today. Not only addressed – they’ve provided solid solutions. Yet all these astounding men are ignored or ridiculed by just about everyone. Returning to the historical and legal basis of the Jewish State (with more emphasis on the legal aspects) is what we need. We need to repeat a few key points like a broken record, and be relentless in our efforts. It’s great to have a mighty, technologically awesome army – but if the ideas in the minds of the military and political echelons are stuck in the framework of our enemies (as they are), we’ll keep playing the part of Sisyphus and Tantalus… endlessly rolling the rock up the hill, and eternally reaching down for the water that’s at our feet, yet never able to complete the task or quench our thirst for a truly sovereign Jewish State.
WB, permit me to clarify my thinking in relation to what you have just written. Whether the topics are linked or entirely separate, nuclear weapons and Jews are two subjects that deserve to be approached with some degree of caution. I was merely reacting to a remark by “Eric R.” that referred to the bizarre possibility of Israel nuking Europe, which is total nonsense. In these military matters, there is the question of “capacity,” but also the issue of “intention.” Just as France has no intention of using nuclear weapons against Great Britain, so clearly Israel has no intention of nuking Europe. The very suggestion is mischievous and, from where I stand, just trash talk. However, nothing in my remarks should have been understood as applying to a sober discussion of the possible scenarios in which the Israel government might be compelled to use nuclear weapons against hostile countries in the Middle East. For example, consider a situation in which it is necessary to take out an array of centrifuges critical to Iran’s race to nuclear weapons. For purposes of argument, let us imagine that the centrifuges are buried very deep under a mountain that can only be penetrated by a tactical nuclear weapon. Would it be acceptable for the Israel government to use such a tactical nuclear weapon, if that were the only way for Israel to stop Iran’s race to nuclear weapons or at least to delay Iran for a number of years? I am inclined to say “go for it!” And in this regard, I am partly influenced by the likelihood that Israel would in any event be generally accused of having used a nuclear weapon to destroy the underground facility, whether or not that was really the case. So, I suppose that I am with you in placing Israel’s security as the highest value, above and beyond the less important matter of whether or not the Israel government might under some circumstances decide to use a nuclear weapon. And well and good for Israel’s many enemies to conjure with the horrific possibility that Israel might be compelled to use a nuclear weapon in some dire situations. Far better for Israel’s enemies to rethink their bitter antisemitism than for Israel to give them comfort that nuclear weapons could not possibly ever be used by Israel to fight against those waging the never-ending war against the Jews. Which country has a better moral justification to possess nuclear weapons than Israel? A small country inhabited by a tiny aboriginal People that is repeatedly threatened by hostile neighbors. Who better to have nuclear weapons than Israel? And half the value of having nuclear weapons is your enemies’ continuing belief that you really have the courage and cruelty to actually use them!
Gazans have Egyptians names which means they are not the original Palestinians but the descendants of 20th century Egyptian laborers who came to Israel seeking work. Gaza was part of Egypt until the 1967 war. Egypt and Gaza are both governed by the Muslim brotherhood. Accordingly it makes sense for Egypt to re-annex Gaza. No one would object as it would be an internal matter and it would bring peace to the middle east. It is not enough for Israel to brag about the kindness of its soldiers. In peace kindness is a good attribute but in war it is simply considered a weakness. The only way to win a war is to win, not to achieve a ceasefire until the enemy gets more powerful weapons. It is a mistake for Israel to accept any peace short of Egypt annexing or fully controlling Gaza.
SHmuel HaLevi Said:
I think we have a Torah-mandated responsibility to provide most of the things you mention (those things that human beings need for basic survival). But we aren’t required to keep propping up an Islamic dictatorship. Our government helped put Hamas in power, and in spite of all the ballyhoo we read and hear in the media, our government keeps Hamas in power. It’s a business relationship, with the benefits going to approximately 300 companies (this figure comes from an unexpected source… http://www.whoprofits.org). “The Conflict” is quite profitable for many key Israeli industries. Why this subject isn’t addressed by Israeli journalists, and is hardly ever mentioned by the so-called “Right Wing”, is an interesting phenomenon.
Allen Z. Hertz Said:
I can’t follow your chain of reasoning. From what I can tell, you don’t want Israel to use nuclear weapons against our enemies; but you seem to understand that these enemies won’t hesitate to use them against us or against Europe. I’m especially intrigued by this statement: “Human rights methodologies encourage us to avoid wild and irresponsible talk about Judaism, Jews, the Jewish People and Israel. Trash talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons pollutes rational discourse and distracts from real political issues.” This is something of a rhetorical Rorschach ink blot, allowing an almost unlimited number of interpretations depending on the reader’s state of mind and level of awareness. Please don’t get me wrong… I think you might have something important to say and would appreciate some help unpacking the meaning. USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS: I disagree that we shouldn’t be talking about using nuclear weapons. More than talking, we should be getting ready to use them, and getting prepared for them being used against us. Here in Israel, only the government and their dependents are prepared for a nuclear (or chemical/biological) attack. The civilian population has no protection whatsoever. It’s more likely that a Muslim-dominated country will initiate a nuclear exchange. The dominant theme in Islam worldwide provides the motive, and I suspect that more Islamic countries than is being reported have the means. What remains is the opportunity. There are plenty of reasons to think that the Saudis will use nuclear weapons when they get the opportunity. But we shouldn’t rule out a tactical nuclear strike by NATO when they move to the “final stage” of their plan to establish a Muslim state in Israel’s historical heartland. NATO’s actions over the years lend credence to the notion that the organization is an instrument of the global powers who intend to establish an Islamic Caliphate. Focusing on more local political concerns (the dominant themes in Israeli media-politics theatre): It’s a strategic mistake to focus only on the Iranians and treat them like an Orwellian “Goldstein” while ignoring the Saudis’ role in the terror operations against us.
@ Eric R.:
Nobody should be talking about using nuclear weapons against anybody! There is no context in which it would be reasonable to imagine that France would use nuclear weapons against Britain. In the same way, there is no reasonable context in which the Israel government would conceivably use nuclear weapons against any European State. Human rights methodologies encourage us to avoid wild and irresponsible talk about Judaism, Jews, the Jewish People and Israel. Trash talk about Israel’s nuclear weapons pollutes rational discourse and distracts from real political issues. No European government fears Israel’s nuclear weapons. However, many Europeans governments are already quaking at the prospect of an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
I would like to know why we still provide services to the Gazans such as electricity, water, medicines, food, medical service telecom access, even our monetary ites such as SEKELS? We even provide customs tax levies and money trasfers.
Are we completely gone nuts?
If that is what Europeans think then Israel should nuke Europe in addition to nuking the Arabs.
oops…I meant to say massive loss to we who remain….dammit!
@ Laura:
Not all of us Laura…..I am not at all proud of the moral degeneracy of our political elites – especially in the UK. I too hope Europe’s Jews flee before it is too late….but it will be a massive we who remain
The Euro trash are proud of being moral degenerates, proud of supporting jihadists bent on Jewish genocide. No surprise coming from a continent with a long history of rabid, murderous Jew-hatred. It is poetic justice that European civilization is undergoing a deserved rapid demise from the very islamic forces they have supported. I just hope the continent’s Jews flee before its too late.
The Hamas narrative and liberal Jew-haters:
A hamas spokesman insists:
1. Israel is occupying Gaza (there are no Israelis in Gaza).
2. Israel is completely blockading Gaza (the southern border of Gaza is controlled only by Egypt, with no Israeli input).
3. Israel is starving the Gazans (every single Gazan shown on TV is overweight: the men all have pot bellies hanging over their belts, and man-boobs sticking out of their shirts. Their babushka-wearing women all look like beach balls. In contrast, when Gilad Shalit was released from five years of hamas captivity, he was so emaciated that he looked like a concentration camp survivor).
4. Hamas is a legitimate government (but refuses to accept any responsibility for acts of war originating from its territory).
5. Although there are no Israelis in Gaza, hamas is legitimately fighting, in the name of allah, to liberate, first the west bank, and finally, all of “palestine” from Jewish occupation and Jewish presence, so that all Israeli Jews are regarded as legitimate targets.
More and more, the atheist liberals in the West, along with neo-czarist orthodox christian Russia, both driven by a fanatic Jew-hatred resembling that of muslims and christian hitler, accept this delusional hamas narrative, and use it to demonize Jewish Israel, so that Jewish Israel, in fighting for its life, is “guilty of international war crimes, extra-judicial assassinations, disproportionate responses, and deliberately targeting innocent civilians”.
I love the crime of “disproportionate responses”. What do liberals consider a “reasonable proportionate response” when hamas murders a 27 year old Jewish woman, who is seven months pregnant, while she is hiding in her apartment, and the muslims rejoice with shouts of allahu akbar when they hear the news? Apparently, the Jew-hating liberals think that the most Jewish Israel should do is ask hamas to say it is sorry, and promise not to do it again.