Ethan Bronner of the NYT reports opines at the end of his recent report (via memeorandum):
There is palpable satisfaction at the moment in the Israeli government and the military because the operation so far is seen as a success. Few have focused on the fact that at this stage in the 2006 Lebanon war, there was the same satisfaction — before things turned disastrous.
True, it could backfire, but let’s go over a couple of things. For one, the current war against Hamas is being run by an actual general not a self-important political appointee. And Israel aware of the role the media plays in handing victories to terror organizations is being more careful in cultivating the media this time. Taken together with apparently careful planning, things are less likely to go wrong this time. Why it almost seems if Bronner is rooting for Israel to fail.
If he were, he wouldn’t be alone.
When you read leftists writing about Israel’s attacks against Hamas there is really only one conclusion you can reach: They support Hamas. Plain and simple.
In a withering attack on J-Street, Mere Rhetoric observes:
So I’m wondering: if you’re objectively more anti-Israel than countries that officially want to wipe out Israel – to the extent that you go out of your way to condemn the Israeli government and the Israeli electorate when they won’t – does that mean that you can’t call yourself a “pro-Israel organization”?
But it’s not just J-Street. Here’s Ezra Klein (via memeoarandum).
There is nothing proportionate in this response. No way to fit it into a larger strategy that leads towards eventual peace. No way to fool ourselves into believing that it will reduce bloodshed and stop terrorist attacks. It is simple vengeance. There’s a saying in the Jewish community: “Israel, right or wrong.” But sometimes Israel is simply wrong.
This isn’t about Israel being wrong, it’s about whether Israel has the right accorded every other nation in the world to defend its citizens. If you don’t believe Israel has that right, you are not just wrong: you support Hamas. That’s it Mr. Klein. Don’t pretend that you mourn for Jews being killed by terrorists. You are using your perch to defend those terrorists. You are wrong and you are anti-Israel. You also hold a view that is morally indefensible.
Q and O follows Klein’s logic to its absurd, immoral conclusion.
Of course the fact that Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel and certainly weren’t lobbing those missiles into Israel as an act of harassment, but as an earnest attempt to kill Israelis, isn’t factored into the condemnation. Somehow, because Hamas has lousy killing machines, Israel must be constrained in their destruction of them and their capability until, I guess, they show marked improvement in killing Israelis. Then, perhaps, Klein and other would find Israel’s reaction “proportional”.
Similarly The Other McCain rips apart Glenn Greenwald and his ilk:
Are there no innocent Israelis, no “numerous children” imperiled by the haphazard Hamas rocket and mortar attacks of recent days? Did not Israel warn Hamas that a continuation of the attacks would not be tolerated? It seems to me that one must either justify the Hamas attacks or else admit Israel’s right to act in self-defense. Greenwald and other critics might argue that Israel had a right to act, but has overreacted. However, in doing so they seek to make themselves arbiters of Israeli defense policy.
Noah Pollak administers the same treatment to Daniel Levy.
Let’s be clear, if you feel that Israel is wrong to defend its citizens, you support Hamas. And at least as Mere Rhetoric suggests, have the common courtesy not to call yourself pro-Israel if you do.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
How does putting 1.5 million people under siege and denying them food and medical supplies constitute defense?
If you’ve read my comments on Richard Silverstein’s blog, you’ll see that I soundly condemn Hamas. Which I do. But I condemn Israel as well.
jsilverheels
Funny, how you have conveniently omitted that Israel is permitting humanitarian aid into the strip, and you have stated just the opposite. Guess you think that ‘aid’ should be letting in weapons and the supplies to manufacture them to kill more Jews.Good stuff.
Truth is, that hamas themselves are 100% responsible for the mess they are in.
Israel needs the fortitude to crush them once and for all.
I forgot to mention the Israel double standard time you libs suffer from, where it’s ok to have the hamas terrorist thugs holding all of Israel under siege, firing rockets at innocent civilians but G_D forbid the fact that Israel should actually defend itself.
IMHO Israel would be fully justified in having a policy that *every* rocket attack results in a fairly large crater at the launch site. Then they could calibrate the crater diameter on up as a “proportionate response.”
Enjoy your work on SNN.
Tonto? Your handle is the name of the actor who played Tonto on The Lone Ranger TV series, and we’re not supposed to giggle at that?
Say, Tonto, Israel is supplying food and medical supplies, and has been doing so from the beginning—when Hamas isn’t shelling the crossings, that is.
“Funny, how you have conveniently omitted that Israel is permitting humanitarian aid into the strip, and you have stated just the opposite”
Yeah, they opened it temporarily, after sealing off the population for over a year.
“Tonto? Your handle is the name of the actor who played Tonto on The Lone Ranger TV series, and we’re not supposed to giggle at that?”
This, from someone who calls himself “passingthru”?
Smart guys you have here, Meryl. Ciao. Have a nice little dream world. The tide is changing. As that anti-Zionist Martin Indyk has said, “the era of the blank check is over.”
jsilverheels
Yep, typical misdirection from you libs.Prove your point.I only see your accusations straight from the pali ‘I’m a victim’ handbook, not actual facts.And you still have not addressed my second response.Are you a troll?
I think you guys scared him off.
I’m still trying to figure out how his comments got approved. I don’t recall getting any in the moderation queue.
Well, he’s pushed the boundaries of the No Israel-Bashing rule, but not broken it. So he can stay. But let us try to be civil.
Apparently to the Europeans, the UN, and a alrge part of the American left, the opposite of “proportionate” is “effective.”
The key passage in Klein’s posting is this: “The [Palestinian] response will not come today, of course. It will come in months, or even in years, when an angry orphan detonates a belt filled with shrapnel, killing himself and 25 Israelis.” He’s not saying the Israelis have no right to defend themselves, he’s saying that the current war is counterproductive because it will ultimately get more Israelis killed by terrorists than would have been killed by Kassams. This opinion is hardly anti-Israel.
So the conclusion drawn by Q and O, though written sarcastically, may actually be true. Since the missile strikes were fairly inaccurate, sitting and taking it might have been Israel’s least bad option. A comparison might be drawn to the days when Syria was shelling Israeli ciivlians from the Golan Heights. As awful as these attacks were, the Israelis did not try to capture the Golan Heights before 1967, judging the costs to outweigh the benefits.
So Klein can legitimately argue that Israel is making a terrible mistake. Such an argument doesn’t make him anti-Israel or pro-Hamas. Whether he’s right is another subject….
Since that suicide bomber is likely to come whether Israel strikes back at Hamas today or does not, I do not see what the argument is for doing nothing. The Muslim war against Israel will continue until the Palestinian Arabs conclude that they would rather not be killed by Israelis. Israel has not yet killed enough of them for them to come to that conclusion. When Palis are sufficiently frightened of the consequences of attacking Israel and killing Israelis to forgo their favorite sport then there will be peace between Israel and the Palis, and not before.
War means fighting and fighting means killing. The Arabs wanted war, now they are getting it. In future they should be more careful what they wish for.