International Negligence and other Anti-Israel Absurdities
Obama Commends Terrorist Regime for Condoning Terrorism and Condemning Israel.
That’s a mouthful. Let’s break it down.
According to Reuters, Friday evening President Obama called Egypt’s President Morsi to commend his country on its efforts to bring “stability” to the region in a visit to Gaza earlier that day. “Shortly before dawn” Morsi was quoted as saying, “I called President Obama and we discussed the need to put an end to this (Israeli) aggression and to ensure it does not happen again.” Later that day, Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil visited the Gaza strip ostensibly to broker a ceasefire with their Hamas wing, but immediately the visit turned into what is was designed to be: an Israel bashing event. Like the many which spontaneously arise out of the Liberal arts buildings around campus, this Israel bashing event had all the elements: “Israeli War Machine”, “Zionist aggressor”, “Occupation,” ad naseaum.
Before the Egyptian delegation arrived in the Gaza strip, Morsi’s spokesperson said Hesham Kandil “will travel to Gaza to express our support for the Palestinian people and to see what they need.” It became clear that this little excursion was never meant to be a trip in which a negotiated ceasefire was to be achieved. In fact, it was the opposite, and gave the Egyptian regime a chance to condemn Israel in front of doting western media. That is always what “the Palestinians need” and want.
The Israelis said they would cease their operations for the duration of the delegation’s three hour visit as a measure of good faith. Hamas agreed likewise. But faith in Islam means deception, and as soon as the delegation crossed the border, rockets began and continued to rain down on Israeli civilians. Israel did not respond. Kandil then proceeded to pose for New York Times and BBC reporters while denouncing Israeli aggression. Commendations were shared equally by all.
In a sane world — one not run by a law professor — the President of the United States would call Morsi to condemn the condemnation of Israel and then would call the Israeli PM and commend the Jewish State for, even in the face of such provocations and willful terror, doing everything logistically possible to reduce civilian casualties, including dropping leaflets, sending text messages about impending strikes, and making phone calls to warn residents to stay away from military targets. No army in the history of earth has gone to such lengths to protect an enemy civilian population from falling victim to the very terror they elected into power. But this doesn’t matter because, tacitly, while explicitly condemning Israeli defensive measure, the world knows the Jewish army is more civilized than their enemies and most western militaries. So to commend Jews for being better than themselves, westerners feel both oddly redundant and unwontedly convicted.
Turkey’s Edrogan sounded off his trumpet of provocation as well, saying in a speech delivered at Cairo University, where Obama spoke in 2009, “Israel is using disproportionate force. Netanyahu proceeds with these kinds of actions thanks to the international negligence.”
The proportionality refrain is a rhetorical gift that never stops distributing its beneficence. It is a mellifluous rhythm echoed and chanted by Muslim terrorist, the left wing press and diplomats, all equally repugnant malefactors. But under scrutiny it gives way to common sense and reason as well as a sound definition of self defense. Today, the EU said that Israel has a right to “defend itself proportionately” and should practice “restraint.” If we take the fact that this is first and foremost a war of self defense and not a self defense class, then Israel has just been neutered from defending itself. The idea of a war of self defense is very clear: overpower your enemy such that he can no longer continue his operations against you. The idea of self defense immediately rules out any proportional action by definition. Thus far, Israel has conducted roughly 1,100 strikes against a hamas which has fired roughly 700 rockets at civilian targets. If looking at the figures presents us with a slightly disproportionate scenario, it means that Israel is showing that it is defending itself and showing restraint, for if so inclined, the Jewish state could turn the entire Gaza strip into a sheen of glass in less than two hours.
And this brings us to the next point. If we are going to talk about proportionality, then we must talk about what each side is capable of doing. The Israelis have enough firepower to render the Gaza strip a regional candidate for the construction of the biggest solar panel in the world — there is an argument to be made that the world would be better served by such an action —- nevertheless, Israel does not engage this enticing economic incentive. Hamas, however, can only fire inaccurate rockets at civilian targets. Many a commentator has made the trite observation that these rockets are not very effective in causing civilian casualties. And then the arguments forthcoming: Israel should just deal with it and not respond. The stupidity of this ubiquitous argument is most easily understood in the form of an accessible analogy.
Imagine for a moment that your neighbor tried to kill you, but was inept and failed, and then the court set them free and allowed them to continue residing in their adjacent, dilapidated, domicile to further plan your death by any means they could. That is the juice of this argument. And to think that if they get their hands on anything more deadly, they will not use it is, as Netanyahu said, “a new level of human stupidity.”
Further still, it is often overlooked that the charter of Hamas calls for the complete eradication of not merely the state of Israel, but any Jewish presence in the region as per the dictates of Islam. Should it not then follow that Israel, in keeping with a “proportional” right to self defense against such an entity, include tactics leading to the eradication of not merely the means of attack, but the very commanders that enact it and the very population that elected it? No one ever argues that one should forgo treatment of liver cancer because it has yet to metastasize to the brain.
That Israel is demanded to show restraint when, by any reasonable definition of self defense, it should not, reveals the world’s Ministry of Weights and Measurement scales are disproportionate to Israel’s detriment, and not its benefit. The proportionality argument always brandishes a scenario that, in fact, is disproportionate against Israel and wildly in favor of Hamas, or whatever terror they are forced to battle.
The International Negligence
Recalling Edrogan’s above comment, we can attribute the addition of the definite article “the” squarely and firmly in front of “International negligence” to the Turkish Prime Minister’s fainéant English skills, a translator’s incompetence, or a linguistic sign that a new metaphysics of “international negligence” needs further study and legitimization. In keeping with my robust and sardonic attitude towards any social science, I believe that the third possibility is the best explanation.
“The International Negligence,” incarnate in the EU, alongside calls for proportionality, demanded that a return to “the peace process”, another metaphysical Hegelian dream, could allow us to make “progress”, code word for “meaningless”, away from the “cycle of violence,” code phrase for a tacit condemnation of Israel and a leveling of evil with normality.
The problem with the entire recipe is that the peace process assumes that each party is morally equivalent, that the Palestinians, in any of their radicalized, manufactured and weaponized varieties, seek peace as vociferously as the Israelis. However, before there even existed an Israel, the Arabs were killing Jews. Upon the creation of Israel, Arabs killed Jews, and they will continue to kill Jews as long as there is an Islam to demand it or Jews still left to be killed.
To suggest that there isn’t a cultural inculcation in the Islamic world to hate Jews is the height of ignorance. The Hadith and Koran respectively lionize their spiritual guide Mohammed for personally executing 700 Jews, and refers to the Jews as apes and pigs worthy of only servitude and humiliation. This is not modern Islamized anti-Israel propaganda, but a fourteen hundred year campaign against Jews and everything they stand for. Conversely, anti-Israel propaganda, whether in Arabic or Oxford English, is modernized Islamic ethics.
In spite of claims to the contrary, the current conflagration is directly correlated to the reification of the peace process, not it’s abandonment. Israel unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza strip, as some say they should do in the west bank, and they got not peace but rockets. Instead of mollifying Arabs in Gaza, this appeasement by Israel radicalized Arabs even further, as the Gazan population elected Hamas and then killed each other en mass over the rights to kill the Jews. The empirical facts do not correspond to the faithful devotion to a peace process that European diplomats devised under the illusion that peace was the ends that terrorism seeks. This, if not international negligence, is certainly international oversight.
There is only one explanation that can account for this serial obsession with a peace process that has so abysmally failed. The fact is that foreign heads of state, during this particular engagement, demand that Israel reduce civilian causalities to only then warn Israel against a ground operation that would perform precisely that function, revealing that if diplomats ever solved anything then they would be out of job. Apart from the various inanities and fuzzies churned out by “peace studies” departments— yes they have those— the “peace process” lends itself more to a Marxist interpretation of material acquisitiveness of diplomatic socialites in 1000 dollar suits and peace activists with a Huffington Post or Democracy Now column, than an actual process aimed at peace. There’s a good living in packaging attrition and moral stagnation as peace. Edrogan is correct when he says that the actions of Netanyahu, severely restrained, are a result of “the International Negligence.”
Back to ‘66
While I am no expert of Middle East history, the conditions on the ground resemble, to my mind, those of the year prior to the 67 war: a belligerent and bellicose Egypt, in lieu of a pliant Mubarak, with a de facto contiguous border plunging into Israel via Gaza — the only crossing that the 700 rockets fired on Israel could have come through is via Egypt — a Syria soon to be Islamized and then reconciled with an already Islamized Egypt, and a de facto mini terror state in the west bank seeking legitimacy and sovereignty over territory once controlled by Jordan in 66. While it is true that the standing armies of Nasser and Abdullah are today no match for Israel, the continued pressure of “the international negligence” upon Israel to restrain itself in the face of such monsters is a defensive force multiplier for the Arabs that they didn’t have in 66. Add to this a possibility of an Iranian bomb in less than a year, and Israel may be forced to take drastic action to prevent the masses that scream “Itbach al yahood” – kill the Jews — from carrying out there intentions for a second holocaust. I will back any move the Jews make.