For a couple of weeks now we’ve been hearing about “bipartisan” support for Israel’s right of self-defense. But, upon closer inspection, that’s very misleading—especially when you consider the reaction to the Qana bombing.
There are those who are unconditional in their support of Israel’s hypothetical right of self-defense.
But as soon as Israel exercises her right of self-defense in the face of mortal provocation, then support for Israel evaporates—to be replaced by hand-wringing condemnations.
So what bipartisan support for Israel’s right of self-defense really means as that Israel has a right to defend herself as long as she never defends herself. But whenever she dares to actually defend herself, then she forfeits her right of self-defense.
For many, Israel’s right of self-defense is purely theoretical. The moment someone is injured or killed when Israel is forced to fight back, then she instantly loses her right of self-defense.
I’d also note that those who deplore warfare between Israel and her enemies only oppose one side of the war. They oppose the war when Muslims are killed. But when Jews are killed, well—that’s just par for the course.
So the peaceniks are demipeaceniks. Theirs is a one-sided pacifism. Their pacifism begins at ends at the Israeli border.
Have you ever noticed the ubiquitous phenomenon of statesmen who never met a problem they were prepared to solve? Their guiding philosophy is that for every problem there is no solution.
Their mission in life is to perpetuate problems. They oppose a problem-solver at every turn.
Their calling in life is to leave the world no better off than when they were born. They lie awake at night over the bone-chilling prospect that someone, somewhere might actually take decisive action to solve a problem once and for all.
They labor tirelessly to erect bureaucracies, enact international laws, and establish media outlets which will block every avenue towards the resolution of a problem. No solution is too important or too trivial not to be resisted.
I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteIt is, I think, a sad fact that all people do is blame Israel when they should be blaming those who started all this in the first place- the Islamic terrorists.
Discussing the matter with a friend, he declared that one of Israel's problems was that it was: 'too close to America.' Maybe, he suggested, Israel could have looked to Europe?
ReplyDeleteYes, I replied, maybe Israel could have done so. I'm sure the Europeans would have deplored the destruction of the state of Israel in the 1960s or 1970s and passed a nasty-sounding UN resolution. Maybe the Israelis would now be living in squalid refugee camps?
He became a lot less dogmatic after that. Truth to tell, had Egypt, Jordan and Syria not attempted to destroy Israel, we would not be where we are today. It was their greed, their opportunism that created this mess.Unless one can blame Israel for beating them.