Friday, June 4, 2010

Disarming Israel

Charles Krauthammer maps how the legitimacy of Israel defending itself has been whittled away over the past 20 years or so. The analysis is mostly correct, though the development won't lead where the disarmers think it will. Israel will continue to defend itself, in spite of all the opprobrium: one of the central discussions going on in Israeli society parallel to the the development Krauthammer describes is when we use force in spite of being damned, and when we'd do better to restrain it. No-one in Israel remotely relevant to the making of the decision would dream of refraining from essential military action merely because we'll be condemned for it. The arguments are about the definition of essential.


Anonymous said...

The disarmers don't think their delegitimization of Israel will lead to Israel not defending itself.

They think it will lead, and has already led, to the legitimization of hurting Jews for being Jews. For antisemites, this legitimization is not a means to some evil future objective - even the objective of actually hurting Jews. It is in itself their evil objective.

NormanF said...

There is no good reason for Israel to be more Christian, to have a fake scrupulousness in using maximum force. Since Israel is going to be condemned no matter what, it makes sense to take down all of the enemy - something not done on the Marmara. Israel should not pay the slightest heed to so-called world opinion and do whatever is necessary to defend itself. The world has never appreciated Jewish restraint and niceness towards anti-Semites. Its high time to change that self-defeating mindset for good.

Anonymous said...

on a knee-jerk wishful thinking basis I probably share a lot of your feelings

but as I wish your country well I "campaign" for stuff that history has taught might be feasible.

This Is Hell said...

I read in WaPo today that Burma is on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons. I guess Obama is going to have to hug them extra hard and condemn one of their neighbors now.

Anonymous said...

as to Obama's outreach successes
- he's lost it with my March 14 informant - never read such language from him before this

"The cretinous American obsession with being loved by Arabs and Muslims, expressed through the president’s Ankara and Cairo speeches, has prompted no discernible response. And even international cooperation to contain Iran and its nuclear program has, until now, only bought Tehran more time."

"Barack Obama the much-vaunted visionary is showing himself to be perilously myopic."

Bryan said...

Norman: there was no need to sink the Marmara. No Israelis died, and wounds will heal. The lesson for next time would be to use tear gas and such on the deck to clear the landing area, and to get as many soldiers onto the deck as quickly as possible.

Just because our enemies have no regard for human life does not mean we should be like them.

Anonymous said...

please don't be cavalier about the wounded soldiers, now is not yet the time for it

there are lots and lots of wounds that have a long afterlife and I spend these days waiting for news and hoping it will all turn out to the best. (I grew up with a father with a head wound - it is not only terrible for the man it is terrible for a kid also)

If one could have sunk the Marmara with a reasonable expectation to save all lives is probably doubtful, also one would lack the proof that Turkey, a NATO member state, has been exporting Jihad.

Also I don't know how effective tear gas is against people wearing masks and if there are methods of non-wounding non-lethal control of bent on killing paramilitaries at all. Until I get a lecture somewhere on the subject I believe that what the soldiers first said to be correct: they were out to lynch us ...