Well the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is flaring up again as militants continue to fire rockets into Israel from Gaza, an area that Israeli troops occupied for 38 years until pulling out in 2005. The area is now largely controlled by the radical Islamic terrorist group Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel. Not surprisingly, Israel is considering an invasion of Gaza. Although such an invasion would inevitably result in the loss of innocent lives (both Israeli soldiers who are obligated to serve in the military to defend their country from people in groups like Hamas and Palestinian civilians who will be stuck in the crossfire) it seems to be the necessary course of action for Israel to take. Let us draw a simple analogy: people in International Falls, Minnesota and Burlington, Vermont are being bombarded by rockets and mortars by a bunch of "peace loving," "tolerant" Canadian socialists who hate Americans for being a bunch of capitalist pigs (fortunately Canadian socialists are just a bunch of well meaning stoned, harmless idiots who do not use violence to spread their vulgar ideas). Obviously Americans would be outraged and demand an immediate invasion to squash those floppy headed bomb throwing Canadian terrorists. The international community (with the exceptions of say Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and France) would likely support America in acting in its self defense. Now, is the situation in Israel really that different from this hypothetical?
Now I am not going to use this blog entry to go into the arcane details of the age old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides have legitimate claims. But the world is as it is, Israel exists as a sovereign nation and an ally to the United States and this sovereign nation and ally has been under constant attack and threat of attack since it was created after World War II. Has Israel responded unduly harshly at times? Absolutely. An obvious example of undue harshness would be Israel's response to the kidnapping of two of its soldiers by Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists a couple years ago. Israel responding by essentially destroying Lebanon's entire infrastructure. The only result was a human rights disaster and terrible international PR for Israel. Obviously a response was necessary but Israel responded too harshly.
Israel must learn from its mistake in that conflict by responding to the current threat from Hamas in Gaza in a measured, practical way that targets the terrorists while leaving intact the necessary civilian infrastructure. The United States must stand by its ally and continue its support of Isrrael. I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for the Israeli people who live under constant threat from their neighbors, many of whom do not recognize the right of their nation to exist. I sympathize equally with the Palestinian people who have suffered incalculably from the conflict. The left would have you believe that the suffering of the Palestinians is entirely due to the cruelty and injustices committed by Israeli troops and the Americans who provide them with financial and technological support. However, instead of placing the blame on the Israeli's, who are doing what they can to defend their country that is constantly under threat, why not blame the terrorists who refuse to peacefully coexist with Israel? If Hamas thugs were not shooting rockets at civilians and Hezbollah scumbags weren't kidnapping the soldiers of a foreign nation, Israel would have no justification in launching military campaigns against its neighbors. However, until the blind anti-semitism and hatred of Israel in the Middle East subsides, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself. Unfortunately, this will result in the loss of innocent lives. But don't let liberals get away with blaming the plight of the Palestinian people on Israel. Blame the terrorists targeting innocent Israeli civilians.
6 comments:
First let me say you are right to a certain extent. Palestinians should not only be outraged at the circumstances surrounding their conflict with Israel, but also with the actions of Hamas. It is true that without the violent actions of terrorist organizations, Israel would most likely pursue a radically different foreign policy.
That said, I also believe you're mistaking causalities here. You say Palestinians should blame Hamas for their problems, because without them there would be no troubles with Israel. This is only partially correct. In essence you are failing to consider exactly WHY Hamas takes radical actions, why it was formed as a terrorist group, and why it continues to exist.
Hamas takes violent actions against innocent civilians because Israel was the first mover of the conflict. It was Israel (and the West at large) who cut out a slice of the Middle East and dropped a country there. Without this impetus, and subsequent human rights violations, Hamas would not exist as it does today.
Furthermore, you fail to note or even begin to talk about the origins of this specific flare up. Instead you seem content with pointing the finger at Hamas for shooting rockets around, again, without asking why.
"BBC: 22 Dec 08
Hamas blamed Israel for the end of the ceasefire on Friday, saying it had not respected its terms, including the lifting of the blockade under which little more than humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza."
I agree that intentionally attacking innocent civilians is despicable regardless of circumstance. But I also think your post as failed to acknowledge the origins of this spat of violence, and in failing to do so, you paint a largely one-sided portrait of this conflict.
Interesting enough, however, I believe your coverage of Israel's previous actions were extremely balanced. Must admit I was surprised when I read it.
Cheers.
Alex,
It is not at all factually accurate to label Israel as the "first mover of the conflict" as you do. True, Israel was cut out of the Middle East after World War II but the dispute over this land is centuries old. I cannot imagine any division of that land that would truly satisfy all parties. You can blame the west for putting Israel there, it's a complicated issue given the post WW II circumstances, and frankly, I don't have a firm opinion on it. I do, however, believe that the United States has a responsibility to support the country that it and its allies placed in the middle of a hostile Middle East. Let us keep in mind that Israel was invaded several times by coalitions of Arab countries after its creation. How can you call Israel the aggressor? You can cite the West for instigating hostilities but the Arab countries proved the aggressor against Israel. And you talk about Israel violating the temrs of Hamas. Hamas is a despicable terrorist organization and although I realize the left loves sitting down and having coffee and discussing foreign policy with these types I for one do not. The Hamas agenda has always consisted of funding suicide bombings and rocket attacks that target innocent Israelis. Whatever their cause, I have no sympathy for them nor would I negotiate with them. Kill them and ask questions later. It's a fair rule when it comes to people in a murderous organiztion such as Hamas.
sorry about the horrible spelling on that reply... i'm feelin mighty fine hehehe (can't say why on my conservative blog)
Well no, Arab countries were not the aggressors because the West partitioned their land. Therefore it is logically fitting they would attack such a state... I don't really understand how you can label them the aggressors when an outside agent was the one who arbitrarily cut up land in the Middle East for the West's purposes.
Additionally, if you want to disregard Hamas as an organization, perhaps Israel should reconsider dealing politically with them in treaties and cease-fire agreements. The fact of the matter is Israel did deal with Hamas diplomatically. Your disregard of their political status is at odds with Israel's stance.
So yes, Israel did indeed make agreements with Hamas. What this boils down to is who to believe. Do we believe Israel who say Hamas has violated their terms, or do we believe Hamas who says Israel has violated its terms? This is difficult to answer, as both parties have long histories of human rights violations and ridiculous conduct.
It's not really fair to say that the west partitioned "their land." That land has been a big mess ever since the Ottoman Empire split up and the West drew all kinds of arbitrary borders after WW I. After WW II the West simply amended those borders by including a Jewish state after the Jews suffered so terribly in that war. And unfortunately, it is somewhat necessary for Israel to negotiate with Hamas because the Palestinians continuously elect leaders from its political wing. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time distinguishing the political wing and the terrorist wing of Hamas, when its stated goal is the destruction of Israel. Meanwhile, Israel has started bombing Gaza.... Bombs away!
dropp bombssss
Post a Comment