Crisis Averted . . .
- 02.25.2008 - 12:23 PMAll I can say is: what a relief — the Israel-Gaza border is calm today. Last night, at almost 10 PM, expecting the worst, the Israeli embassy in Washington took the unusual step of issuing a preemptive statement on what was believed to be an impending public-relations disaster:
Hamas is behind an intentional action that yet again places Palestinian civilians on the front lines. Israel does not interfere in demonstrations taking place inside the Gaza Strip, but Israel will protect its borders and will prevent any violations of its sovereign territory. Israel is acting to prevent any deterioration of the situation but wishes to unequivocally clarify that if this does happen, the sole responsibility lies directly on Hamas’ shoulders.
An Israeli government contact who I spoke with last night was anxious, saying that the IDF and police were anticipating a horrible turn of events: a massive attempt, orchestrated by Hamas, to push civilians by the thousands into Israel. The Israelis would be forced to choose between two terrible options: either contain the incursion through force of arms, or let it through — there would really be no middle choice. Would the IDF and police send rubber bullets and tear gas into a crowd that included women and children? Would they have any other choice, short of simply permitting a Hamas invasion of Israel?
All of this was intended by Hamas and its Iranian patron to take the fight to Israel in the most reliable arena that exists for them today: the media. Put images of tear-gassed Palestinian children on the front pages of the world’s newspapers, and enjoy, for a few blissful days, watching Israel get engulfed by paroxysms of false moral outrage. It would have been a brilliant strategy — if only the crowds had shown up. Perhaps today the people of Gaza feel that they don’t owe so much to Hamas, after all.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
February 25th, 2008 at 12:52 PM
“Perhaps today the people of Gaza feel that they don’t owe so much to Hamas, after all.”
Noah: I must disagree with your last conjecture. If Hamas threw an invasion and nobody came, it was likely because of a sense of swift, sure, and bloody opposition by Israel. For relatively bloodless commitments, Hamas may continue to rely on its constituents.
Once again, this demonstrates the force multiplier effect of a bad reputation: having one often obviates the use of force. If anything, Hamas may be a victim of its own propaganda: blood drinking, mass murdering Zionists, the descendants of apes and pigs, would likely kill every Palestinian that crossed the border.
Remember what Voltaire said about the England’s execution of Admiral Bing: “Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.”
February 25th, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Such an invasion by Hamas would justify a simultaneous invasion by Israel that could
capture and kill Hamas leaders, as well as look for Israel’s missing soldier. How could
Hamas object credibly, even with its press allies helping?
February 25th, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Richard: astute comments, as always. It will be interesting to see in the coming days if any credible information emerges as to why so few Gazans showed up. I’m a bit skeptical of the idea that the low turnout was due to a fear of the mythical Zionist killing machine, though; I suspect it has more to do with Hamas’ inability, right now, to be an effective political organizer.
Joel, Hamas has never worried about credibility in its objections. It has framed the issue, quite smartly I think, in terms of a Israeli-imposed humanitarian crisis. The nice thing about humanitarian crises is that they absolve their victims of moral restrictions in retaliation, which is precisely the point.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Do you remember what the Egyptians said when all the Pali showed up? “My God, how can these people have so much more money than we do?”
I wonder if the Gazans have realized they don’t have it that badly after all, if they are wealthy relative to Egyptians despite all of the rhetoric about how oppressed they are.
February 25th, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Ah, yes, yet another piece of false moral outrage from Noah Pollak who writes:
That is a false moral outrage if ever I saw one.
The real moral outrage is that over the last four decades the Israeli government has pushed civilians by the hundreds of thousands into the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The 250,000 Israeli citizens who have been transferred to the Occupied Palestinian Territories are war criminals - yet not a peep of complaint from Noah Pollak about them. In transferring civilians into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel has shown itself to be a nation of war criminals.
The most prevalent and pernicious form of anti-semitism in America today is Zionist anti-semitism which seeks to absolve Israel from all guilt for the war crimes it commits merely BECAUSE Israel is a Jewish state. Noah Pollak has here given us yet another example of this vile ideology.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I think you need to look up how “war criminal” is actually defined by international law. This word, it does not mean what you think it means.
Deliberately killing civilians, and making war out of uniform, are war crimes. When you condemn Hamas et al for those, come back and specify what war crimes Israel is committing.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:05 PM
No the real outrage ndm is people like you that only see the crimes of Israel but fail always fail to hold the Arab side to the same standards you hold the Jews. Day after day the Arabs of Gaza fire rockets into population centers when they could be spending that time and money on building a country. You seem to think the Israelis owe the Arabs a country, but what was Gaza if not a running entity and a chance that was handed over and then destroyed by those that call themselves Palestinians. Why not try and earn a country instead of murdering the Jews so you can live in the abject poverty that the rest of the region lives in.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
yehudit -
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explicitly specifies the following to be a war crime:
Any Israeli citizen who moves into the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a war criminal. Something like 5% of the Israeli population are war criminals and they are war criminals regardless of what Israel and its friends think. Their denials of their criminality has no more meaning than that of any other war criminal - they all deny their guilt.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:34 PM
jweaver -
The Israelis owe the Palestinians their own country - the land which for four decades has been occupied by Israel in an occupation which has subjugated the Palestinian people and colonized their land. The facts unequivocally demonstrate that the Israelis have murdered far more Palestinian civilians than the other way round. Israeli suffering has been trivial in comparison with that of the Palestinian people. You are right in suggesting that Israel should try to earn a country instead of stealing one from the Palestinian people. They should do so in a way that does not betray their religion by using it to justify their evil - they are anti-semitic to do so.
February 25th, 2008 at 2:44 PM
ndm - you can only get there by assuming that in any dispute about right of settlement that Israel is wrong. The clear sense of the Rome statute - regardless of what weight you attach to it - is to prevent the millennia-old practice of conquerors pacifying an area by diluting the resident population with its own citizens. (See Assyria, Dacia, 18th C N. Ireland)
The key for readers, ndm, is your absolutism, seeing the issue in black and white. That’s a tip-off to us that discussion is likely pointless.