Is This the End of Hamas? Civilized Humans Hope So.

“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

-       Golda Meir

 Western Ignorance on Parade

It is most disturbing to witness the rise in blind, rabid anti-Semitism that oozes out of the sewer every time Israel is put in the unfortunate position of having to defend itself in the same way any country would. I had a most unsettling discussion with someone a few weeks back.  Being of part English and part Indian ancestry, she is a sweet and attractive, spunky girl with amazing eyes.  

She is also a dupe in the all too common and predictable propaganda war launched against Israel every time that nation even discusses its own defense. She is daily drinking the pro Palestinian Kool-Aid.

What is most astounding this time, is how the young people are taking to it.  In Europe they are unashamedly shouting things like, “Jews to the ovens!” in their silly, shallow, uninformed demonstrations. It’s like Occupy Wall Street meets the SS.  In Canada, from whence my correspondent hails, one of their social mentors is (get this) Doctor David Duke.  What the hell did he get a degree in, Militant Mouth-Breathing?  

Those under 40 may be forgiven for not knowing this name.  That cohort and the next are not setting the world on fire with their ability to read and understand even recent history.  But those who remember the battle for the right in this country just a few years ago, remember Duke as a rabid racist politician.  A punk of the first order and still the archetype the left conjures when they want to distort what it means to be a thinking conservative in this country.

The irony lost on my debate opponent is that Duke would look on her as being a lower form of life than even his dreaded Jew. Anybody who thinks David Duke gives the least shit about Palestinians or Jordanians or Anglo-Indians almost deserves to be treated as a rube.

Equally disturbing is how gleefully the press dives into the fray, reporting from the Middle East how “terrible” the toll is on the poor Gazans and politicians talk of proportioned response; more on this later.

But at times like this, it is easy to see how a Hitler can rise to power and how a Mussolini was such a darling of the American and European left * in the thirties.  When you are ignorant of facts and are ruled by your emotions, it is easy to be led down rosy paths into the jaws of the dragon.

But there is hope.  As we look upon the excrement that fills the ranks of the organizations fighting in the name of the religion of peace, even Hollywood elites are starting to throw up in their mouths a little bit.  With a few glaring exceptions, even these champions of previous senseless violence are starting to admit that beheadings and human shields are nothing more than cowardly and psychotic.

The Historical Backdrop

Consider first, the history of this silly region.  Broken into pieces by self-important “intellectuals” such as Woodrow Wilson and his League of Nations, the region was supposed to look upon us as their mentors and suddenly become advanced and civilized.  There was nothing wrong with us deciding what area would and would not become a nation.  It was theirs to simply accept the new world order and behave.  Resentments roiled immediately and kept the area in turmoil until the end of World War II.  In 1948, the second League of Nations, the U.N. (just as incompetent as the first) had to consider, among many things, what to do about a declaration dating back to the 1920s, giving the Jews a homeland.  Everyone was holding their breath to see what the US would do.  To his credit, Truman gave it more thought than Clinton gave our recognition of Bosnia, another fuse lit by the intellectual west, recreating pre WWI Europe.

George Marshall, then Secretary of State advised against recognizing Israel at that time, threatening to literally withhold his vote for Truman if the US did so.  In Israel, David Ben-Gurion was practically begging the leaders of the new country NOT to establish a country based on religion, but to make Israel a purely secular nation.  Sadly, the US recognized an Israel that chose to be a Jewish (religiously speaking) state.

[The author, with the advantage of historical hindsight, believes that Marshall was right.  Marshall was a realist and knew that forcing the issue of recognition would morally bind us to the region and not lead to stability.  Further, the author is an atheist who cares nothing for religion on any level.  Ben-Gurion was also right.  He took power with a heavy heart.  He knew that identifying Israel with ancient superstition was no way to enter a hostile world.  It gave enemies just one more bullshit excuse to foster hate based on their own outrageous superstition.]

The simple fact is, we did legitimize Israel.  We did enter into alliances with them.  We are bound, unless those alliances are scrapped, to assist them and we have.  And with one completely legitimate exception, the Six-Day War, 1967, Israel has made it easy for us to help them. After seeing the pointlessness of cross-border hit and runs of the 1950s, they don’t attack first.  If you look at the history of the battles, skirmishes and terrorist attacks that have occurred since the canal crisis, Israel has always responded to attack.  They don't unleash an unprovoked offensives against a neighbor.  

In 1967, with five countries massing on their border, and Nasser stupidly announcing his determination to destroy Israel, Israel knew they were in big trouble.  The decision was made to fire the first shot and try to put an end to the attacks with this the third war since ‘48.  It was then that they took control of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem from Syria and Jordan and the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt.

Here is where the arrogance of the modern West comes into play.  For eons it has always been accepted that territory gained through war, especially through wars where the aggressor was the loser, was the rightful territory of the victor.  It is only in very recent times that Western culture has made a practice of giving territory back to the vanquished.  Israel was and is under no moral obligation to simply relinquish one square inch of the occupied territories.  However, since 1967, they have repeatedly offered to trade land for a sustainable peace with anyone who would take them up on it.

Long before the 1973 war, Israel was back to the don’t-shoot-first policy.  On the morning Yom Kippur, Golda Meir was in consultation with her cabinet.  Moshe Dayan, no daisy he, said that he thought war might not actually be immanent. This despite having five countries poised to attack in huge numbers.  Another cabinet member told her that she should attack immediately.  He surmised, as history was soon to verify, that not striking first would result in the loss of many more lives than necessary.  Meir considered her options.  She decided against pre-emption for fear that if there was a war, they would lose any support they might still have.

What a disgusting matrix this must have been on which to make a military decision.  The whole world knew that the Arabs were poised to attack and knew they probably would.  But if Israel fired the first shot,“friends” might have abandoned Israel.  Kissinger had made this pretty clear later the same morning.  Gaza is the same insanity, writ small.

Sadat and Begin: Pragmatic Heroes 

The first success with land for peace came with the Camp David Accords.  Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin, two old war horses who had last seen each other while shooting across a dining room at each other in the bad old days, had negotiated the return of the Sinai to Egypt.  The treaty that resulted has lasted 40 years.  It was almost ruined during the year that religious **nut bags ran Egypt.  But it still stands.

Israel has also abandoned a part of the West Bank in accordance with the Hebron Agreement and the Wye River Memorandum.  Israel's reward for the latter was Arafat announcing a new intafada.  Sometimes, the liberal view of rich people is correct.  In this case, Arafat, a billionaire from skimming money that belonged to his constituents, behaved very pigheadedly.  You see, in the case of many among the Palestinian leadership, real peace and coexistence is not as profitable as constant conflict and living off foreign aid. But the PA still controls those areas that Israel gave up.

A later land for peace deal also didn’t go well.  In a deal with the Palestinian Authority, Israel gave Gaza back.  Here is where my niece and the western press lose all credibility and all connection to reality.  Who doesn’t remember Israeli troops dragging Israelis (many of them religious nutbags as well), kicking and screaming from the homes they had built in Gaza?  But they did it.  I was among the people scoffing at the idea.  I thought the PA would balk on their deal and Gaza would become a problem again.  I was wrong.  The PA, weak and utterly corrupt, was ousted by Hamas.  Now it was an even bigger problem.

It is important to understand that these terrorists organizations are, to a man, corrupt.  Most of these “freedom fighters” would do a drug deal as quickly as blow up a pizza parlor.  And many have done similarly.  But in Hamas’ case they were more disciplined and cold-blooded than the PA.  Taking over Gaza was easy.  And when they did, kidnappings, tunneling, and rocket firing commenced. 

Israel warned Hamas repeatedly that the rockets must stop.  And they did for a time.  Hamas had made a deal for some better rockets and needed to rearm.  In the latest round of unpleasantness, larger rocket raids started along with some cross border incursions through tunnels.  That was enough.  Israel made a decision to put an end to these attacks.  As is always the case, Israel responded to aggression.  The fact that this aggression was breathtakingly pointless and a danger to every Gazan is beside the point.

Let's Be Honest…

You’ve heard this analogy several times, but imagine if you will, a world where Quebec succeeded in breaking free of Canada.   Picture further, a band of angry members of wehatevermont.com setting up rockets in Montreal.  They place them in hospital basements, schools and malls and fire them into Vermont from the same areas. Some hit fields, some hit cows and some hit people.  The US government would probably issue one extremely stern warning.  With the firing of one more rocket, the drones and fighters would be in the air.  Using laser-guided munitions, they would hit every launcher they could find.  If rockets were spotted in schools and hospitals, there would be a warning for people to leave those areas.  But the warnings would not go on for a week as they did in the case of Israel/Gaza!  With the Montreal example, the whole world, with the exception of nut bags, would agree that the people responsible for collateral deaths were the un-evolved scum that put the rockets in public places.  But not if you are Israeli.  Right now it is fashionable to wax fascist and disparage Israel for correctly disposing of this violent batch of vermin.  Maybe, in their absence, a return of the West Bank becomes a possibility.  Israel has put it on the table several times before. 

So, what of this concept of proportioned response?  The next time you hear this phrase, blow raspberries at anyone saying it.  I will tell you what things like “proportioned response”, “limited war” and “winning of hearts and minds” will get you.  It gets you decades of violence, ever-increasing hatreds and military failure.  Vietnam was a limited war.  Afghanistan was a limited war, Iraq was a limited war. By what twisted logic do you defend yourself by using the same force being applied?  Does it extend morally to personal self-defense?   Should one carry an assortment of weapons to be sure that if attacked, they respond with a weapon of the same caliber and range or blade length as is used by the attacker?

Let’s return to my wehatevermont.com example.  While the rockets are falling on Vermont, is the United States obliged by the International Council of the Unforgivably Stupid (ICUS) to scrounge up some rockets of the same range, explosive weight and accuracy as their attackers?  The rockets would fly virtually forever.  There would be no end to the exchange of fire. 

No, the United States is first obliged to decide on whatever response the United States deems appropriate.  If the decision is to fight, they are morally obliged to use the most powerful weapons possible with considerations for minimizing collateral death as possible, and bring the conflict to an end in as few days as possible. It is beyond immoral to cause these things to drag on for years.  In total, many more people get killed over time than would be killed in an effective, overwhelming response to being attacked.  Israel doesn’t have long wars.  They don’t believe in an endless string of half-measures resulting in an endless string of casualties and no results.  The West, on the other hand, seems enamored with the idea. 

This week, another healthy cease-fire was predictably ended with Hamas firing more rockets.  This is suicide.  I believe that Netanyahu has decided that this will be the end of Hamas in Gaza.  That might create some breathing room for Israel.

But Golda was right. There cannot be peace until the tormentors love their children more than they hate Israel.

* The Forgotten Man, Shlaes, Harper Collins, 2007

** I go on about the "religious nut bags" in the Middle East.  I make no apologies for it.  Muslim punks who (intentionally) blow up civilians and celebrate the act are the lowest form of religious nut bag.  The fanatic Jews who go into the Occupied Territories and say that god had instructed them to build settlements in the exact spot that is sure to cause conflict are also religious nut bags.  But I would be remiss to overlook the wealth of god kooks we have right here at home.  There is a truly distasteful form of nut bag that preaches an end times battle and admonishes his people to pray for the battle so Jesus can return and rule the earth.  (Why would god have to kill a bunch of people to do that?) These same hateful cretins scoff at people who are waiting for the twelfth caliphate.  While laughable, it is no less so than Jesus doing a sequel.   They revel in the possibility that we could create even greater carnage in the Middle East.  Because these lowest of charlatans have a voice in a country as advanced as ours, so do their opposite number who support Jihadis.  Do you see where this is going?  We MUST call out, regardless of whatever creed we claim, call out the bloodthirsty maggots that get a near sexual thrill at the idea of holy war and hold them up to ridicule. 

If things continue apace on a crescent from Afghanistan to Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel and north to Ukraine, you may one day be asked to kill people for Christ (the enemy being godless).  I hope that if such a dark day comes, we will all weigh our duty to our country and make the best decision possible as to how we will serve.  And I hope just as fervently, that we will all, with one voice tell the nut bags to shove the Jesus talk up their asses.  Killing people for god lost its luster a few millennia ago.