Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Few will be thinking about this today....
But I will. I especially love the line about that most prominent sufferer of BDS: "...even this pales in light of the actions of the New York Times, which on its downhill road to becoming a weekly shopper giveaway for the Upper West Side..."
Monday, January 5, 2009
Israel v Hamas
I'm just not getting the logic of the ambivalent responses to the situation.
Thought experiment: Mexico's Zapatista rebels claim a territory and declare it autonomous from Mexican government rule. They declare that NAFTA and the border fence along the Rio Grande are profoundly damaging to their economic opportunities. They begin shooting low-grade, but lethal, rockets into Tuscon, El Paso, and other border cities. Dozens of American civilians are killed and hundreds are injured.
Everyone who thinks the sensible US response would be "proportional"--i.e., that we would forgo the use of our most sophisticated military options in favor of a militarily level playing field--raise your hand.
Why have a defensive military capacity at all if you're unwilling to use it for that most basic of national priorities, protecting the lives of your citizens?
I am genuinely confused by commentators who seemingly share, generally, my liberal/western values but simultaneously support "proportionality," "dialogue," and even "sympathy" for the terrorist organization that targets innocent, non-combatant civilians. And not merely enemy (Israeli) civilians, but their own civilian citizens, whom they deploy as human shields by positioning combat personnel and materiel in their densely populated midst. The actions of Hamas in this respect are essentially akin to cannibalism.
Thought experiment: Mexico's Zapatista rebels claim a territory and declare it autonomous from Mexican government rule. They declare that NAFTA and the border fence along the Rio Grande are profoundly damaging to their economic opportunities. They begin shooting low-grade, but lethal, rockets into Tuscon, El Paso, and other border cities. Dozens of American civilians are killed and hundreds are injured.
Everyone who thinks the sensible US response would be "proportional"--i.e., that we would forgo the use of our most sophisticated military options in favor of a militarily level playing field--raise your hand.
Why have a defensive military capacity at all if you're unwilling to use it for that most basic of national priorities, protecting the lives of your citizens?
I am genuinely confused by commentators who seemingly share, generally, my liberal/western values but simultaneously support "proportionality," "dialogue," and even "sympathy" for the terrorist organization that targets innocent, non-combatant civilians. And not merely enemy (Israeli) civilians, but their own civilian citizens, whom they deploy as human shields by positioning combat personnel and materiel in their densely populated midst. The actions of Hamas in this respect are essentially akin to cannibalism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
