Israel’s Critics and Hollow Lies

In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla incident, we have witnessed a tsunami of virulent, over-the-top criticism of the state of Israel for its actions in interdicting the so-called “peace activists” before they could dock at the port of Gaza.

Reasonable people can argue whether the decision on the methods used to stop the ships was the correct course for the Israeli government to take. Indeed, there is a healthy debate within Israel itself over this very issue, including questions about intelligence, tactics, and whether the propaganda victory handed to pro-Palestinian activists could have been avoided while still maintaining the blockade.

Even the efficacy of the blockade itself is being discussed in Israel, as it has been since the quarantine was intensified nearly 3 years ago. For these internal critics, and those elsewhere who do not wish to see the state of Israel or its people destroyed, it is much too glib to ascribe their opposition as anti-Semitic or even anti-Israeli. But we can certainly put a reasonable question to these critics that never seems to get answered amidst the bombast and posturing from both the Jew haters and genuine “peace” seekers alike.

What is it you would have the Israeli government do to protect itself?

Indeed, what marks the critic of Israeli policy is a disconnect between the perilous reality of Israel’s exposed position vis-a-vis the Palestinians and those nations that support them. They hold a pie-in-the-sky belief that if Israel would only remove the irritants the Palestinians suffer on a daily basis, that the animosity felt by Israel’s enemies would magically disappear.

Consider what these critics have been harping on for years:

The Blockade

Israel justifies its blockade of Gaza under recognized treaties regarding the Laws of the Sea. This includes interdiction of ships in international waters, as anyone who has read anything about the US blockade of Cuba during the missile crisis can attest.

But let’s ignore all of that and grant Israel’s critics their wish and raise the blockade. What would be the probable outcome?

Judging by what happened on Israel’s southern border following their war with Hezbollah, it would be a military calamity and a security nightmare. Without inspecting each and every ship that docked at the Port of Gaza (and if Egypt allowed the free flow of goods and people into Rafah), the likelihood that the Palestinians would be supplied by Iran and Syria with much more sophisticated and deadly arms would be assured.

Why? Because of the spectacular failure of the United Nations International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) whose job after the war was to prevent the resupply of Hezbollah. Their mission was to guard the border with Syria to keep Iran’s puppet Bashar Assad from moving arms into Lebanon to replace (and as it turned out, augment) Hezballah’s arsenal of 40,000 rockets. Not only were the terrorists easily resupplied, but it appears that recent additions to Hezballah’s arsenal include medium range ballistic missiles capable of hitting every major city in Israel.

Given such incompetence on the part of the UN, are Israel’s critics seriously suggesting that, 1) lifting the blockade would not result in an avalanche of sophisticated weapons pouring into Gaza; and 2) any other party would do as good a job as the Israelis themselves in keeping these weapons out?

Israel controls the Port of Gaza as a result of the Oslo accords. They have a legal right to self defense, and a legal justification for the blockade, including the right to interdict shipping in international waters – as the Americans did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Israel’s overwrought critics could assure the Israeli government that lifting the blockade would not result in Hamas improving their capability of murdering a lot of innocent Israeli citizens, I am sure that Prime Minister Netanyahu would be interested in hearing how they would propose doing so.

The Fence

It doesn’t matter to critics what Israel is trying to keep out by building a 450 mile fence largely along what was once known as the “Green Line” that separated the West Bank from Israel. Rarely does one come across criticism of the barrier that gives the Israeli rationale for constructing it in the first place. There have been all sorts of fantastical claims about why Israel is building the Fence, ignoring the most obvious reason; it will save the lives of Israeli citizens.

Again, there appears to be a disconnect on the part of critics who can safely catalog Israeli concerns and shuffle them off to the side somewhere, while railing against the purported effects of the fence on Palestinians.

Most observers would agree that the barrier imposes burdens on the Palestinians. The way the wall is being constructed creates enclaves of Palestinians who will be isolated from their neighbors and the rest of the West Bank. But for critics, military necessity and the security of innocent Israeli citizens just never seems to make much of an impression. Otherwise intelligent, discerning analysts bewail the plight of Palestinians – and, in some cases, it is indeed tragic that families are separated, commerce affected, and property expropriated.

But we come back to the question that critics of Israeli policy refuse to even consider; what is the government supposed to do to protect their citizens from such an implacable, deadly enemy? The fence is a far less draconian and brutal solution than other governments have chosen in the past in a similar situation – namely, mass slaughter of their enemies. If that is Israel’s goal, they are doing a horrible job of achieving it.

Instead, the fence inoculates Israel from most of the terrorist acts that would kill many of its citizens while advancing the least obnoxious alternative that places the smallest possible burden on the Palestinian people. In fact, building the Fence has resulted in far fewer terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis. The three years prior to building the fence saw 117 terrorist attacks resulting in the loss of 477 civilians while wounding thousands of others. In areas where the Fence has been completed, the number of attacks has dropped to near zero.

Critics also rarely mention that some Israeli citizens in the settlements oppose the fence because it separates them from the rest of Israel.

The “Proportionate Response” Canard

Perhaps no complaint of Israel’s critics reveals the massive disconnect between reality and sophistry as much as the idea that because the Palestinians are weak militarily, and fewer in number, that it is the responsibility of Israel to pull its punches and react “proportionately” to Palestinian provocations; or, in the case of the Gaza raid, provocations from anyone.

First, Michael Rubin writing at The Corner demolishes this nonsense:

But why should any democratic government empowered to defend its citizenry accept Europe’s idea of proportion? When attacked, why should not a stronger nation or its representatives try to both protects its own personnel at all costs and, in the wider scheme of things, defeat its adversaries?

Likewise, when terrorists seek to strike at the United States, why should we find ourselves constrained by an artificial notion of proportionality when responding to those terrorists or their state sponsors?

Ultimately, it may be time to recognize that, in the face of growing threats to Western liberalism, strength and disproportionality matter more to security and the protection of democracy than the approval of the chattering class of Europe or the U.N. secretary general.

I have never heard of “proportionality” applied to any other nations except Israel and the United States. I don’t recall such arguments when Russia invaded Georgia, destroying several towns with massive artillery bombardments, ripping up rail centers, and killing wantonly. They may have been criticized for the invasion but the words “disproportionate response” were not used, as far as I can recall, to describe their action. Even if the phrase was used, there would be no comparison with the frequency with which that criticism is directed against Israel.

Neither am I aware of anyone criticizing Pakistan for using tanks and helicopters to engage Taliban fighters armed only with AK-47’s and a few outdated mortars.

But the idea of “proportionality”  in war is very important to people like Andrew Sullivan:

Kudos to Michael Rubin for conceding that the Cheney-Netanyahu approach to terrorism is exactly a question of deliberate disproportion…

Ah, yes. Why not torture, mass murder, and an abandonment of basic principles of the rules of law?

Note the towering straw men set up by Sullivan. Is he accusing Israel of doing all of that? Or is he saying that Israel is capable of doing those things? Or is he positing the notion that commando raids using much restrained force until the “peace” activists put the lives of the soldiers at risk automatically escalates into “torture, mass murder, and an abandonment of basic principles of the rules of law?”

In fact, the reason there were not hundreds killed on that ship was because Israel did, indeed, engage in a proportional response to the violence directed against them. They didn’t have to. They could have rappelled down those ropes armed with automatic rifles instead of paint guns and at the first sign of trouble, blazed away, killing dozens. I daresay that most nations would have taken that route. It is much safer for the attacker, and success is more assured, if the IDF had gone Sullivan’s “mass murder”  route.

But they didn’t. They couldn’t. Israel is a civilized nation engaged with barbarians whose blood-lust against the Jews is so profoundly ingrained that many of the activists fervently sang and chanted about martyrdom prior to their little cruise. Willing to give their lives for a propaganda stunt? What is “proportional”  when engaging people like that?

Did Sullivan and his ilk expect the commandos to rappel down to the deck armed with knives, steel bars, and baseball bats? Would that have been a “proportional response?”  Yes, it’s as silly as that.

It really doesn’t matter to Israel’s critics. Like the blockade and the Fence, the commando raid is beside the point. What matters is finding a way to place Israel in the weakest moral position possible in the eyes of the world. In order to do this, critics will go to astonishing lengths, twisting their arguments into pretzels of logic, salted with half truths, while ignoring the entire issue of Israel’s necessary self defense against those who wish to destroy her and her people. And through all of that virulent, off-balance criticism, not one word about alternatives that they would recommend the Jewish state employ except near total surrender to their enemies.

Perhaps we shouldn’t ask what critics want Israel to do. The answer might very well horrify all of us.

  • Jewish Ideas Daily

    Israeli soldiers put their lives at risk (and indeed, some were injured) in an attempt to avoid a “disproportionate response." Knives and sticks may not be as sophisticated as M-16s but they definitely managed to do a lot of damage!

    • ajnn

      Opposition to the fence is racist:

      1. The fence imposes property damage on the Palestinian Arabs (major material inconvenience)

      2. The purpose and impact of the fence is to save israeli lives.

      3. The critics are privileging a property interest over a human life interest.

      4. the only lives less important than property are israeli lives because israeli lives are less valuable than other human lives. the israeli lives are valued at the level of animals and not people.

      This is racist.

      • CanadConserv

        I'D CALL IT anti-Semitism, rather than racism. And that, it appears, more and more explains all this.

    • Sonne

      well.. it was international waters and the IDF boarded a ship in commando op style at 4 am without any warning.. they dropped in shooting, how can anyone react peacefully to that?

      • Rifleman

        Nonsense, the IDF told them what they were doing by louspeaker, and they were toting paintball guns. Their only firearms were pistols, and they were in their holsters.

        You're right though, the IDF should not have boarded. They should have let the jihadi blockade runners try to swing their sticks and pipes at a 500lb bomb.

      • joelsk44039

        Actually, they didn't fire a shot until they were brutally attacked by the "peace" activists aboard ship. You don't know what you're talking about.

  • david elder

    When excessive critics of Israel complain of 'disproportionate' response, they should be asked how they would evaluate a proportionate one. Would they weigh up what Hamas has done to Israel – or what Hamas would do it if could?

    • Daniel M.

      I think this is the most valid point.

  • Terry

    Excellent commentary. Articulates what I've been saying for years.

  • Raymond in DC

    There was an interesting moment at Brandeis subsequent to the release of the Goldstone Report on Cast Lead when Judge Goldstone was debating Amb. Dore Gold. A student asked Goldstone what he would have considered a "proportionate" response. Momentarily flustered to provide a response, he eventually suggested Israel could have relied on "special forces" – as if the IDF hadn't considered the alternatives. Goldstone, of course, has no military expertise.

    Fast forward to the hit on terrorist al-Mabhouh in Dubai. The operation was so clean the room was hosting new guests long before it was recognized as a hit. Yet Israel (presumed to be behind the operation) was slammed for (wait for it) using foreign passports!

    • Ron Grant

      "was slammed for (wait for it) using foreign passports! "

      Do not minimize the risks to innocent foreign nationals who may be caught up in international intrigue if merely by association (national passport) especially when dealing with third world regimes.These incidents test Israels credibility and demonstrate it's arrogance.And these passports were those of loyal western friends and allies.A bunch of thugs typical of the countries history and policies.Muchiboy

      • ajnn

        You recommend that the israelis should have used non-european passports.

        Very reasonable but there may have been logistical reasons why they needed to use european passports.

        I think the main point is that forging a passport for a 'black bag' operation is not surprising or unusual. It is not outrageous. The uproar is disproportionate.

      • Rifleman

        Who cares, as long as they killed the terrorist. I'll let them use mine, next time.

        • Ron Grant

          "I'll let them use mine, next time."

          That being the case,Rifleman,I suggest you and yours stay clear of any number of countries in any future travel plans,including unscheduled stop overs.Muchiboy

          • Rifleman

            I avoid the sh*tholes anyway.

      • aspacia

        And what about the bloody hands of the bad guy the Israelis neutralized. This good militant may have come after you or your brethren next, as is the plan. Read what Arafat said regarding using our liberalism and demographics to defeat us.

  • ze-ev ben jehudah

    Why play hide and seek any longer! For me it is comletly clear that those,
    so called,excessive critics should be called by their truh name;just simple
    and straight forward antisemites.The greatest blessing for the Jewish people
    is the state of Israel.No one will ever get the change to look the other way while
    the holocaust was in progress wich started some where in the 1933.
    In the Netherlands 90% of the Jewish population was taken away and murdered
    in the camps.The Duch police was in majority colaborating with the nazi's.
    And as soon Jews were taken from their houses their lovely neighbours took
    hold of their possessions and some still have them.Just after the war antise-
    mitism was higher than before the war started.
    No Israel will defend its people even when it takes retalliation with the bomb.
    No more marching to the slaughter houses by so called excessive critics
    who will look the other way and wash their hands in innocence.

    • Ron Grant

      "No Israel will defend its people even when it takes retalliation with the bomb. "

      I said it before and I'll say it again.From the frying pan into the fire.Muchiboy

  • solemnman

    The second intifada resulted in over 1,000 (mostly civilian)men women and children being blown to pieces by suicide bombers .It also resulted in 6,000 badly injured,brain damaged,limbless,deafened and blinded other victims.The people who celebrated these atrocities now winge about the inconveniences caused by the fence.and the world weeps for them. It's a little like killing ones parents then complaining about now being an orphan.What gall!!1

    • ajnn

      Wevforget the large number of 100% diabled and brain-damaged victims of the terrorists.

      The terrorists coat nails with rat poison to act as poisonous shrapnel. Very ugly.

  • logdon

    North Korea torpedo's a South Korean ship in neutral waters, resulting in sinking and loss of life.

    World outcry? A big collective Yawn.

    Israel defends a legal blockade using the ludicrously minimal force of paintguns. Known militant activists attempt to kill the borders and kidnap IDF personnel. IDF responds in self defence, killing nine.

    World outcry? Outrage and condemnation.

    Compare the two and ask why the disparate reaction.

    The west is either running scared of Islam or cosying up.

    We have been infiltrated to such a degree by a fifth column of Muslims who refuse to integrate, insist that our western norms are upended in order to satisfy their 'religious requirements' and amongst that recalcitrent bunch there are those who wish to take the non cooperation to its ultimate stage.

    That stage is killing the kuffar within the dar el harb.

    In order to prevent that, rather than cracking down on subversives we concoct a theory that Israel is somehow to blame and must be declawed.

    That once declawed, that state is ripe for extinction is wiped from the brain cells of these people. We get away with the posture and outrageous canard because we can. Jews will not bomb our towns and cities. Conversely Muslims, as evidenced time after time will.

    We are being blackmailed and browbeaten by people who are using our own liberality and political correctness to back us into the ridiculous corner of rather than applauding our real allies, we reach for phoney condemnation.

    For all the fine words of politicians from Obama, the UN right down to Hague its all spluttering and inane platitude.

    It's classic deflection and projection.

    By allowing massive immigration we have created the ultimate rod for our own backs. Whenever there's trouble we, rather than attacking the cause, throw money at it. Its the same here in Britain as it is in Gaza.

    One way of putting that is 'buying them off'. There's never gratitude, just like the jizya its their right.
    What happens when money is not enough and they demand a state?

    Is Israel a mere bargaining chip? Thats how it looks to me.

  • Steve

    I didn’t hear any of "outcries” against Muslims against Muslims “massacre" today from any of these "righteous" people. Why? Because may be, just may be ALL of these people are Anti-Israel Anti-Semites? I would say: Absolutely!

  • TommyBoy

    Andrew Sullivan is an irrelevant, flaming, poof. He should move to Afghanistan and dress like a young boy. He'll be forever happy.

  • Lawrence Kohn

    UN failure to stop Hizballah arms just one example of many leading to war. Following War of Attrition US arranged Israel to end deep penetration raids into Egypt while Egypt promised to keep new Soviet anti aircraft missiles away from Suez Canal. Egypt violated the accords, Israel complained US did nothing. When Egypt attacked Bar Lev line in 1973 the forwarded anti aircraft undid Israeli air superiority over the Canal Zone; this was as much if not more of the reason for Israel's initial retreat into Sinai and near disaster than the fact that it waited for Egypt to strike first. Also the UN force placed in Sinai in 1957 after the Sinai war was evacuated 24 hours after Nasser demanded its removal in May 1967 allowing him to move troops up to Israel's border to reinforce his closing of Israel's access to the Red Sea. Another war creating event from the failure to enforce a peace agreement. And we all know what happened after the Vietnam/US agreement in 1973 was violated systematically by the North Vietnamese (but added to this was the withdrawal of US arms supplies).

  • Andres de Alamaya

    Rick Moran says: "Perhaps we shouldn’t ask what critics want Israel to do. The answer might very well horrify all of us." Well, the lunatic Helen Thomas, representing all the other critics of Israel, provided the answer. One tires of all the arguments. I, for one, would like to see Israel make a Harry Truman type of decision vis-a-vis Tehran as well as Saudi Arabia which has been funding stealth Jihad in their quest to subjugate the entire world. And I would like to see the citizens of New York blow up the mosque built next to Ground Zero the day it is completed if they actually go that far. The time has come for action, not words.

  • WildJew

    Mr. Moran wrote: "For (those)……who do not wish to see the state of Israel or its people destroyed, it is much too glib to ascribe their opposition as anti-Semitic or even anti-Israeli…"

    They "say" they do not wish to see Israel destroyed, yet one can only wonder. I do ascribe much of what is detailed in this piece to anti-Semitism or at least to callousness to Jewish suffering at the hands of Israel's enemies. President Obama for instance, I believe is motivated by a visceral anti-Semitism not unlike that of those he associated with his entire adult life. A man like George W. Bush may be more complicated. At minimum Bush was and is callous toward Jewish suffering. How many times did Bush, after a horrific suicide bombing in Israel, call for restraint on the part of Israel, while at the same time he or his spokesmen (women) condemned Israel for "excessive and disproportionate" responses to the bloody suicide bombings? This is at minimum callous.

    • ajnn

      George W. Bush was / is a friend of Israel.

      I think problems with the Israeli leadership and other issues made the US support less effective than it could have been, not inadequate empathy and sympathy for Jews and Israel.

      Obama, of course, is another story.

      • WildJew

        A friend does not call for Israel's destruction. A friend does not support the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel. A friend does not support ethnic cleansing of Jews from our land only because they are Jews. A friend does not pressure Israel to allow Hamas to run in any elections. A friend does not lie about Israel, claiming the Israelis (illegally) occupy Muslim land. A friend does not berate Israel for "oppressing and humiliating" potential suicide bombers at check points. A friend does not appoint anti-Semites like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice – who compared Israel's Jews to white racists in the south and the Palestinians to southern blacks – as his Secretary of State. A friend does not sue for peace in the criminal United Nations, thus handing Iran and Hezbollah a victory in August 2006. A friend of Israel does not call a jihadist / Holocaust-denier like Mahmoud Abbas a man of peace; a man of vision. A friend does not call our Saudi enemies friends. You do indeed drink the KOOL-AID.

  • brimp

    If Mexico did not recognize the United States as a legitimate country, and fired missiles into Texas, and killed people in California via kamikazes, and sent armed 'peace' groups to relieve the Mexican population in Arizona, would Americans sit back a do nothing? I don't think so. They would say the only good Mexican is a dead Mexican. The main problem with the Israeli people is that they are unable to communicate the crimes perpetrated against them. It is entirely appropriate for them to cut the water and electricity to Gaza until that population can live in peace.

    • Ron Grant

      "If Mexico did not recognize the United States as a legitimate country, and fired missiles into Texas,"

      An interesting analogy,brimp,given the history of Texas.It was Mexican,until occupied by Americans and ultimately colonized by America.Like father,like son,eh?


      • Rifleman

        Except many Mexicans in Texas rebelled with the Texacans. Do you even know what they rebelled over?

      • brimp

        History? The northern part of Mexico was colonized by Texans. The Republic of Texas was independent until it joined the union. Perhaps it was legitimate for Mexicans to fire missiles into Texas during the conflict. Now, if they did that, Americans would be crying for the blood of all Mexicans.

        As long as the Israelis do not definitively make the point that aggression against them will be returned 1000 times over, they will remain in a constant state of war.

      • MixMike

        Ron, you are making another false analogy. Zionism does not equal colonialism. Israel has had a continuous Jewish presence in Israel and the country was built on legally purchased and tenant-free land. I feel like a broken record but your ignorance of basic facts and history is astounding!

        • CanadConserv

          More than that: Israel is the jewish homeland. Its indigenous people are the Jews, whom the Arabs invaded and displaced. (Yes, the Romans did the major displacement, some 7 centuries earlier, but many jews remained, and many others moved back in the intervening period.)

  • Ron Grant

    "What matters is finding a way to place Israel in the weakest moral position possible in the eyes of the world."

    No.Israel has placed itself in that position.What matters is convincing the world of this.Not an easy thing to do.Good or bad,we do not all share the same moral position on such matters,even though most of us share the same moral universe.We can rant and rave,but all too often,sometimes all we can do is stand by and watch the doors close behind us,much as they must have closed and locked behind the Jews in the death camps and gas chambers.Fortunately,not all such moral issues are as depraved nor incomprehensible as the Holocaust.The crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinians by the Zionist Jews then and Israel now are real enough,and perhaps even comprehensible.But they are both unconscionable crimes,evil in intent in the former,noble in intent in the latter,perhaps.Yet we all know that the road to Hell is paved with such seemingly good intentions.

    "not one word about alternatives that they would recommend the Jewish state employ except near total surrender to their enemies."

    If that's what it takes,FP.

    • ajnn

      Comparing Israel to the Nazis – good one.

      This is the classic Jew-hatred we talk about.

    • AllahuAkbar

      Turning morality into evil is difficult even for micro-anacephalics like yourself. Israel should return the hatred for their people and land into that of which they are accused.

      Israel should simply sink all flotillas that attempt to break their blockades. This may not be praised by the world of immoral nations but Israel would be respected for their strength to do what has been warfare throughout time.

      Israel cannot be nice to their murderers and live on this earth. One thing the Muslims understand is getting to their paradise without murdering all unbelievers in the moon god Allah.

  • Marty

    Exactly what crimes has Israel committed against the palestinians. Perhaps the 5-6% economic growth rate in the west bank, dependent on commerce with Israel, is a crime. Perhaps the 1.5 millions palestinians living as Israeli citizens and enjoying a prosperous middle class life style is a crime. Perhaps the medical services provided by Israel to hundreds of gaza strip arabs is a crime. There certainly is no doubt that Israelis pointed paintball rifles at people who want all Jews dead is really a criminal act.

    • Laura Abraham

      Dear Marty, My name is Laura Abraham and I am a leftwing, pro-"Palestinian" yenta who works with "Peace Cycle", a group of half-witted simpletons dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state. Only if you have seen the horrors of 400 overfed "Palestinian" mamas in burqas to fat to even wipe themselves can you even begin to image the plight of the "Palestininas". I seriously encourage you to educate yourself and fast!

      • kid bertha

        Ha Ha, that is hilarious! Overfed "Palestinian" mamas? Nobody made them eat that much. This is possibly the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

        • Rifleman

          I thought she was being sarcastic

    • ajnn

      Remember: Israeli ambulances that enter Gaza are often targeted with anti-tank missiles. The precautions slow down Israeli humanitarian emergency medical aid to the Palestinian Arabs.

      • Rifleman

        …So they can then blame the Israelis for slow service, and idiots can buy it. Maybe if the 'palis' didn't use their ambulances to transport ordnance, they could be used to pick up sick or injured (another bomb class gone bad) 'palis' to take them to hospitals.

  • joe

    the goal of israel's critics is not a change in israeli tactics but a change in geography to more accurately reflect arabic maps of the area used in all muslim schools…

    • MixMike

      … And if the Saudis had it there way, the maps used in American schools too! Heck, they have already convinced educators in Europe to dispense with Holocaust education!

  • Ron Grant

    > Exactly what crimes has Israel committed against the palestinians

    You could start with the Goldstone Report,Marty.You might even consider the occupation and colonization of Palestine by tens and hundreds of thousands of European Jews.Ethnic cleansing,then and now,comes to mind.

    > Perhaps the 1.5 millions palestinians living as Israeli citizens

    What about the other millions of Palestinians denied their birthright and homeland ,Marty? Right of return for thousands of Black Ethiopian Jews but not for Palestinians borne within Israels borders? Sounds kinda shady to me,Marty.

    > Israelis pointed paintball rifles at people who want all Jews dead

    Most of those people on the relief ships were decent men and women bringing world attention to the immoral and punishing blockade of Gaza City.And thanks to the arrogant ineptness of the IDF they succeeded in spades.


    • kid bertha

      Ron, you may be the most naive person on the planet. You need to study up on the true history of Israel and the Jews. Almost everything you hear or read about in the MSM about the Jews and the hisotry of Israel is total and flat out false.

    • PAthena

      Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel) is NOT the "homeland" of Arabs but of the Jews, going back at least 4000 years. You call Arabs "Palestinians," which they are not. The Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea to "Palestina" in 135 A.D. after defeating the last Jewish uprising under Bar Kochba. From then on, "Palestine" was synonymous with "Land of the Jews" or "the holy Land," and "Palestinian" synonomous with "Jew." That is why the Zionist wanted the Palestine Mandate and Great Britain was awarded the "Palestine Mandate" after World War I, to be "homeland of the Jews."
      The Soviet Union and Gamal Nasser in Cairo in 1964 invented the "Palestine Liberation Organization" and, with Soviet propaganda, "Palestinian" became a name for the Arabs who lived in the old Palestine Mandate. "Palestine" is not a homeland for Arabs but for Jews.

    • MixMike

      "You could start with the Goldstone Report,Marty."

      Is this the same Goldstone report that was put sponsored by the wildly biased UN Human Rights Council (whose members, such as Egypt, China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are clearly paragons of human rights!), denied that Hamas uses human shields and made one nuanced suggestion of Hamas crimes against Israel?

      "You might even consider the occupation and colonization of Palestine by tens and hundreds of thousands of European Jews.Ethnic cleansing,then and now,comes to mind."

      How does one occupy legally purchased land? But you are correct, there was colonization by hundreds of thousands of Jews in Israel… however, they weren't from Europe. After 1948 the Arabs ethnically cleansed over 800,000 Jews from the Arab countries and many of those Jews escaped to Israel.

      "What about the other millions of Palestinians denied their birthright and homeland ,Marty?"

      The Palestinians gave up any right to live in Israel when they chose war and xenophobia over peace. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

      "Most of those people on the relief ships were decent men and women bringing world attention to the immoral and punishing blockade of Gaza City."

      Oh I forgot, the "activists" who are members of the terrorist group IHH and told the Israeli soldiers to "go back to Auschwitz" were "decent" men and women. Well at you least you and Helen Thomas see eye to eye.

      How is the blockade of Gaza "immoral and punishing" when Israelis allowed over a million tons of humanitarian aid into Gaza over the past 18 months? Just last week, The Washington Post reported that Gaza “pharmacies look as well-supplied as a typical Rite Aid.”

      I suppose the blockade is only immoral and punishing because it doesn't allow Hamas to re-arm and murder more Israelis huh?

    • aspacia

      What about the birthright of 650,000 Jews driven from Arab lands? How about the Jewish birthright to Jerusalem and Israel.

      Frankly, I found an ethnic group that uses homicide bombers who target all civilians, regardless of age or gender, as vicious animals, lacking any human morality.

      Israeli Jews are the only ethnic group I know of that sends tons of humanitarian aid to an enemy, Hamas, sworn to destroy it. This fact shouts volumes regarding Jewish morality. Jews absorb their refugee brethren into a land the size of a postage stamp on the world map. The Arabs will not absorb their brethren into their vast land because they want to annihilate Israel.

      Israel should pay compensation and drive every Arab from Gaza, The West Bank and Israel from the land and declare her borders. Those who remain will be annihilated, just as most Arabs want to annihilate Israel.

  • Todd Jackson

    Ron, are you an American?

    If so, my answer to you is – "You first."

    You, and I, live on occupied land. Further, we have much less claim to this land than the Jews have to Israel; after all, no Roman army drove the English, nor the Africans, out of North America 2000 years ago.

    When you have left America, then you can lodge your complaints without being a rank hypocrite. Of course, you'd then be a European, in which case your complaints would only raise different, but more profound hypocrisies.

    • cochavi1

      "Of course, you'd then be a European, in which case your complaints would only raise different, but more profound hypocrisies."

      That's a great line, Todd. Actually, Ron is worse than probably about half of Euros in his attitudes. Let's be fair…

    • Ron Grant

      Ron, are you an American?"

      Close enough for your purposes,Todd.Canadian.

      "You, and I, live on occupied land."

      Sure.The history of mankind can be traced by it's migrations from Africa.The Highland Clearances feature in my ancestral history.And of course only the descendants of the original natives who crossed the Siberian Straits via an ice bridge thousands of years ago can claim to have occupied a virgin N.America,S.America.But if you accept, for the sake of argument ,that Israel is a special case of occupation and colonization by European Jewish immigrants then it is also special in the denial of hundreds of thousands of native inhabitants their birthright and homeland.Few if any European colonizers are guilty of this act or policy.Even in the case of S.Africa,with it's onerous policy of Apartheid and Homelands,the reality was that all ethnic groups lived within common borders.In Rhodesia,Blacks were never denied their birthright nor homeland.They may have been denied basic rights,like the vote,but not their homeland.Israel is exceptional in that history and policy.
      I may not be proud of my countries early actions and policies vis-a-vis native Canadians,but today they are all recognized as fellow citizens of Canada.Furthermore,while I don't believe we can undue all the sins of our fore fathers,I think our country recognizes our responsibilities towards these first Canadians.Likely this is true of America,too,Todd.


      • MixMike

        "They may have been denied basic rights,like the vote,but not their homeland.Israel is exceptional in that history and policy. "

        Israel did not deny the Palestinians their homeland. Arabs have Gaza and the W. Bank and over 1.5 million Arabs live as citizens inside Israel.

        Your argument is built on inaccuracies. Jews legally purchased tenant-free land. When Israel was to be partitioned, the Jews agreed to create a state in the Jewish only areas (which again, were legally purchased). Of course, the Arabs rejected peace and chose war and hate.

      • ivanvivian

        Ron are you ignorant or a born liar? there were not hundreds of thousands of Palestians in the land of Israel before 1948. The land was barren and barely occupied. Most who claim to be from the land are really refugees from other Arab lands, more like outcast Gypsies. Israel has never denied them a right to live in Israel. Ron, you almost lie as much as the Usurper in Chief, blighting the White House.

      • CanadConserv

        You must be a proud member of CUPE.

  • Edisa

    Proportionate response equals fighting to stalemate, which only prolongs violence and encourages its repetition–especially when the stalemate is seen as a PR win for the attacker.

    The civilized nation did not start the violence, and that is important. The start of violence was by the people with the knives and metal bars. Any civilized nation–or the nation on the defensive–has the duty to win DISPROPORTIONATELY when attacked in order to discourage further violence. The degree of disproportionality should be within the range of civilized responses–not barbarism.

    The attempt to shame Israel for disproportionate response is wrong-headed. Disproportionate response is the civilized response.

    "Peace through strength!" –Ronald Reagan was right about that.

    Thanks for the great article.

  • nathan riesel

    How many times have we seen 2 to 3 cop cars when a suspicious motorist is stopped.?Should that also be disproportionate response? Ridiculous. The premise is that you need a stong, overwhelming response to end something quickly, effeciently, and with superior support. We see that at traffic stops certainly the same concept should apply when dealing with dangerous characters who want to kill civilans.

  • Maccabee

    For those who really would like to know the rest of the story, please help yourself and read the following investigative reports on this subject:

  • Sonne

    If Israel has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, then it should return all property, equipment and video footage and recordings made by people on board the flotilla that were confiscated when the flotilla was taken to port. The same goes for the $ and personal belongings of those aboard.

    • Rifleman

      That's not what we (USA) do with boats that don't stop for the Coast Guard, or Fish and Game. The boat and everything in it, along with the personal possessions anyone in the boat, is forfeit and anything valuable gets auctioned off.

      The footage from their 'bon voyage' was enough to show what the jihadi blockade runners were about.

    • MixMike

      Why so the IHH can get its stun grenades, bats and crowbars back? Or perhaps so the world can be denied from seeing the videos of the "activists" chanting Islamic battle cries and calling for the killing of Jews? As for the money, the world already invests billions in the Palestinians – they have enough money… besides you and I both know that money was going to Hamas and not anyone else.

  • Bruce

    Obama is right. The situation in Gaza is unsustainable. For this reason, the Hamas entity in Gaza should be dismantled and the land should be returned to Israel, which is its rightful owner. Israel needs the land and knows best how to develop it. No U.S. taxpayer money should be sent to the Hamas Nazis, which money will only be used to kill jewish men, women, and children. Let the Hamas entity die. The Muslims have 65 other countries where these people can live their miserable lives.

  • Rifleman

    I'm all for 'disproprotionate response.' That's how you get people to leave you be, or at least not let their animosity come to violence. Unfortunately Israel is yet to try that. If they're going to whine anyway, give them something to whine about.

    • MixMike

      I hate to quote Ann Coulter for a variety of reasons, BUT she was right in the Lebanon War of 2006:

      "Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing," – Ann Coulter

  • USMCSniper

    THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that senior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel's behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident. The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

  • ivanvivian

    I am for a proportional response: Israel is to send into Gaza and other Hamas/He[ll]zbellah controlled territory 40 000 missiles, except with Israeli accuracy.

  • CanadConserv

    Good point. And imagine the outcry.