Opinion Forum

Israeli Attacks in Gaza

December 28th, 2008

Palestinian terrorists, members of Hamas, fired about 300 rockets into Israel in little more than a week. Israeli citizens in the areas being attacked have been forced to live under constant threat. Israel did what any other country would have done. They defended themselves.

Israeli ground attack fighters and attack helicopters struck targets in Gaza associated with Hamas personnel and infrastructure. So far, about 300 people have been killed, and hundreds more have been wounded. Of those killed almost all were reported to be members of Hamas. Unfortunately, about 20 civilians were killed, some of them children.

There’s a familiar pattern here. Palestinian terrorists attack Israel repeatedly, and finally Israel reacts in defense. Suddenly there’s international outrage, journalists report sympathetically from Gaza, Arab and other Muslim countries urge the destruction of Israel, the UN calls for both sides to stop the violence, and specious arguments of moral equivalence abound. Reality is reversed–terrorists are victims of aggression, and victims of terrorism who defend themselves are aggressors.

Muslims, especially Arabs, hate the state of Israel and Jews in general. They’re sworn to the destruction of Israel and the removal of all Jews from the Middle East, preferably by killing them. This is a fact beyond debate; all one has to do is watch Muslims cheer when someone attacks Israel and listen to statements made by national leaders, religious leaders, and Arab media.

Israel has one steadfast friend in the world–the United States. Britain and a few other countries are often there to help them, too, but sometimes that support is a bit wobbly. Some other countries try to be neutral. Most of the rest of the world is anti-Israel, as evident in the huge number of anti-Israel resolutions passed by the UN General Assembly.

Regardless of mistakes Israel has made in the past and may make in the future, a simple fact remains. The state of Israel and its people are engaged in a seemingly perpetual struggle for their very survival. They are surrounded by hostile countries and hugely outnumbered. Without outside support, they will be destroyed.

Israel is a close ally of the United States for important political, cultural, and historical reasons. They can be criticized and even opposed on specific issues, but ultimately the U.S. must support Israel. Attempting to be neutral or somehow even-handed is not an option; that would result in the destruction of Israel and most likely the deaths of millions of people.

It’s easy enough to say “never again,” but we have to mean it.

(Go to Preemptive Karma and MaxedOutMama for other opinions.)

Articles written by Tom Carter
Tags: Israel, terrorism
Categories: Media, Military, Politics | Comments (15) | Home

15 Responses to “Israeli Attacks in Gaza”

Lillie | December 28th, 2008 at 11:49 pm

I agree 100%.

Kevin | December 29th, 2008 at 1:06 am

At what point do we seriously consider just getting rid of Palestinians once and for all?

I’m completely serious. Genocide is nothing more than accepting a higher percentage of collateral damage.

Wouldn’t Israel be a more secure state without the Palestinian problem?

Tom | December 29th, 2008 at 4:29 am

Kevin, no one, including Israel, is seriously advocating “getting rid of Palestinians once and for all.” Unfortunately, “getting rid of Israel once and for all” is exactly what Arabs and some other Muslims want. That’s representative of the difference between the two sides.

What Arab leaders have wanted since all this began before 1948 is to keep the Palestinians where they are and doing what they’re doing to further the goal of eliminating Israel. If the Palestinians are victims of anyone, it’s the Arab world itself.

Genocide is the intentional destruction of all or a significant part of an identifiable group of people. This is what’s intended for the Jews of Israel. Collateral damage is unintended and secondary to a main purpose.

doris | December 29th, 2008 at 8:40 am

Sad to see even one person advocating Genocide.This is disturbing,Kevin. All people deserve to live,even the ones who disagree with us or Israel. This problem in the middle east will always be there,as predicted in the Bible,if you agree with that book,you know this. We cannot solve this problem,but assuridly can escalate it as we are famous for ,the world over.I know we must back Israel,but I think it will be a nasty and ugly ordeal,forever.

Tom | December 29th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Well, Kevin isn’t advocating genocide. His point, as I see it, is that if the logic is carried to its extreme, unlimited support for Israel could theoretically mean elimination of the Palestinian people. No one wants that.

What the U.S. (as stated by President Bush) and Israel both want is two states, Palestine and Israel, living side-by-side in peace. Israel is ready for that; when will the Palestinians and the countries/factions that support them be ready?

Kevin | December 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am

The “state” Palestinians are being offered is a patchwork quilt joke. Even as I type this comment new illegal/legal Jewish settlements are being created or existing ones are illegally/legally being enlarged. By definition that involves taking land from unwilling Palestinians. Also, the definition of legal/illegal settlement is controlled 100% by Israel and always has been. Palestinians have no meaningful say in the taking of their own lands, their own homes, their own orchards and agricultural fields. It has been thus for 60 years.

That is the status quo that you are suggesting that Palestinians ought to reasonably be receptive towards.

I seriously doubt that you would be receptive towards it if it were your lot to accept/reject.

And Tom, you really need to get out more if you honestly believe that no one wants the elimination of the Palestinian people. That very thing has very openly been called for by some Israelis and continues to be advocated in certain factions of Israeli society.

As I said in the post you kindly linked to, there simply is no excuse for lobbing bombs indescriminately into Israel. Period. But whitewashing the sins of one side is fundamentally unjust.

TABBI | December 30th, 2008 at 11:06 am

I happen to know from a relevant source that ALL muslims do not hate Jews or Christians, in fact, they don’t HATE anyone at all. Just as there are Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests, Agnostics..on and on, who do not HATE anyone, there are Muslims who do not hate. I don’t hate anyone, but I find it very offensive that there are persons in this world that still generalize and type cast persons that are not like them.

Tom | December 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am

It’s obviously true that all Arabs and other Muslims don’t hate Jews and wish for the destruction of Israel. I didn’t say that all of them do. But listening to average people in those countries, watching/reading their media, considering what a huge number of their political and religious leaders say and do–it’s equally obvious that a very large number, most likely a majority, feel that hatred. Knowing one Muslim or 50 who feel otherwise, or at least say they do, isn’t sufficient to make the opposite case.

I’d also maintain that I don’t whitewash the sins of one side. Israel makes mistakes and does the wrong thing sometimes, like any other country. When that happens, the U.S. criticizes them and tries to move them in the right direction. My point is that ultimately, the U.S. must always support Israel. To do otherwise will result in the destruction of the country and possibly the deaths of millions. We can’t let that happen.

MaxedOutMama | December 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Kevin – but during the conflicts leading up to the creation of the state of Israel, at times Arabs told the Palestinians to leave and attacked Jews, saying that they would eliminate them from the land.

This conflict has a long history, and in fairness, one cannot simply say that Israel stole the land from Palestinians without looking at how Israel emerged. I’m not saying that either side is perfect – of course they are not.

The roots of this conflict reach way back before WWII. Read, for example, this story of the Safed attacks in 1929. Not much has really changed since the Peel Commission report in 1937.

Kevin | December 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

MOM, that is what keeps the blood flowing. Both sides can reach back into the past and dredge up wrongs – both real and imagined – done to them. And there is no limit to how far in the past either side will reach to justify the bloodshed of today, as your comment illustrates.

Citing the past wrongs of one side to justify the present bloodletting is, in my view, fundamentally unjust. Both sides have very, very bloody hands. But more importantly, it guarantees that the blood will keep flowing… forever.

Which gets me back to my initial question here: At what point do we seriously contemplate the genocide of one side or the other and be done with it once and for all?

Genocide is nothing more than an expansion of the present bloodshed. If what is happening now is not only acceptable but also justifiable (particularly in the historical context) then I’m at an utter loss as to why genocide ought to be off the table… other than that we apparently cherish our self-indulgent illusion as a civilized people too much to be intellectually honest with ourselves about it.

Tom | December 30th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Kevin, I just don’t understand your references to genocide, in terms of both the definition of the term and the intentions of both sides. Genocide requires a specific intent that the Israeli side does not have. The evidence is clear and voluminous as to the intent of the Palestinians and their Arab supporters.

Kevin | December 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Tom, with all due respect, TABBI already tried to point out the problem with sweeping generalities.

Kevin | December 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

BTW, a while ago I read a news report quoting an Israeli stating that “As far as I’m concerned, all of Gaza can be erased.” That’s what… 1.5 – 1.6 million Gazans he’s talking about erasing?

That, my friend, meets both the definition and intent, n’est pas?

Now, you can hang your hat on his circumstances, which I readily agree have been onerous. But I would just point you back to my comment to MOM.

Both sides have legit claims to onerous circumstances and use those to rationalize treating the hated “other” as less-than-human.

TABBI | December 31st, 2008 at 1:30 am

Some of us are actually sitting at computers in a country that was stolen from a group of people which were basically obliterated from the face of the earth. Then as a peace offering we gave them a little land and told them, if they stayed on it, they would be allowed to live. Doesn’t make it right, or very civilized.

doris | January 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Maybe genocide would be betterthan that?Who’s to say which side is really wrong,as we all get our information from our Government,and the infamous,never lying press?Maybe it would be nice if just for once we m.y.o.b., and let them decide their own fate,naaah,we can’t possibly do that ,it’s not the American way,we are nothing if not controlling,interfering and oppressive.In the end, we will back the winning side and reap the glory,whoohoo.