« President's Daily Brief after Benghazi called the attack 'terrorism' |
| More Liberal Intolerance »
November 17, 2012
Toward Hamas, Appeasement is the New York Times Way
The Israelis need to get with it, writes Ethan Bronner, a New York Times reporter. Hamas needs to be accommodated, not attacked. Unnamed analysts and diplomats "outside Israel" say so. And we should always trust unnamed sources.
Here's what Bronner claims all those very smart experts - anonymous, of course - are saying about the disposition of the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel:
When hasn't the Israelis been for peace with its neighbors? Only the most jaundice observers could assert that Hamas and others in the Arab world want peace. Israel was able to secure peace with the Egyptians and Jordanians for a while because leaders of both countries wanted durable settlements based on mutual respect and abidance of terms. Such is obtainable, but it takes two sides to make peace work. And it's not the Israelis who are unwilling.
Bronner quotes an Arab academic, who evinces the spirit of fraternity and peace that Arabs hold for the Jews:
No hate, bile, or condescension from Professor Khouri. No, sir. Nothing that Khouri says reflects in any way the feelings of anti-Semite Arabs. Khouri's a voice of compassion and reason, isn't he? Well, compared to Hamas and other Muslim militants blasting rockets into Israel to indiscriminately murder Israelis, perhaps Khouri is.
More from Bronner's report:
Of course, there are no grounds for what Eliyahu says or what most Israelis believe. No stepped-up rabid anti-Semitism in the Middle East. No threats of annihilation against the Jewish people by Muslim militants and governments (Iran come to mind?).
Yes, as Bronner's report states, the Middle East is different today. Circumstances have altered and require new responses from the Israelis. Muslim militancy is ascendant across the Arab world (and has been red hot in Iran for decades). The Arab Spring is turning into nothing more than the rise of a new order, committed to some degree of Muslim theocracy and with a reinvigorated intolerance and hate of infidels (that would include Christians and Jews).
The Israeli response - military, primarily - to Hamas and the other radical Muslim groups now operating in Gaza is quite appropriate. The Israelis, whose very survival is at stake, have taken a fully realistic measure of the shifts among its Arab neighbors and are moving to safeguard themselves through military action. Bully for the Israelis.
This, finally, from Bronner:
So, what should the Israelis do? Not take military action to delay the Iranian nuclear weapons program two years, per the estimate? There's no security value to the Israelis in buying time? There's no point in going after Hamas in Gaza if it significantly reduces rocket attacks on Israel (which Bronner's report acknowledges)?
The danger in the Middle East - for Israelis and Americans - is to misapprehend the intentions, determination, and militancy of the Muslims. There's an historic, religion-based hate for the Jews by Muslims. Christians are despised.
Its radical Muslims - not Jews - who need to change in order to ever bring peace to the troubled Middle East.
FOLLOW US ON