“The moral chasm that separates Jews from their enemies”

January 26, 2009

* “It would be difficult nearly to the point of impossibility, to find Israeli or other Jews who celebrate the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Jews both within and outside of Israel cringe when they see pictures of dead Palestinian men, women, and children in Gaza. The opposite is the case with the large majority of Palestinians, whether in Palestinian media, schools, mosques or streets”

* If during World War II, Western news media had reported German and Japanese civilian casualties in the same detail and with the same sympathy they report Palestinian civilian casualties, it is doubtful that the Nazis and the Japanese militarists would have lost that war”

* “Israel is more interested in living with world condemnation than in dying with world sympathy”

* “This war was supposed to re-establish Israel’s deterrence. That was supposed to be the lesson. Instead, the lesson is that Israel quits before the rockets do”

 

CONTENTS

1. Hamas executes former B’tselem field worker
2. Is President Obama a war criminal too?
3. “We decided we’re not going to spend 5 years in Gaza like the 5 years Americans spent in Iraq”
4. “In truth, Israel surrendered to Hamas and its supporters at the UN”
5. “The moral chasm that separates Jews from their enemies”
6. “Israel scored only a tactical victory” (By Bret Stephens, WSJ, Jan. 20, 2009)
7. “Why doesn’t anybody dare say it? Israel didn’t leave, it lost” (By Jonathan Mark, Jan. 22, 2009)
8. “Guess who cares about dead Palestinians? Jews!” (By Dennis Prager, Jan. 13, 2009)


HAMAS EXECUTES FORMER B’TSELEM FIELD WORKER

[Note by Tom Gross]

I attach a number of articles on the outcome of this month’s “mini-war” between Israel and Hamas.

I have split this dispatch in two for space reasons. There are three articles below. I have prepared extracts first for those who don’t have time to read them in full, but it you do have time I would suggest you read the full version.

The first article provides some glimmers of hope for a lasting ceasefire. The other two take a sober look at reality of the kind that it is almost impossible to find in the mainstream media for all their countless hours of broadcasts and hundreds of thousands of words written on Gaza.

First, here are three other items you may have missed in the news:

(1) Hamas has now regained control of all the remaining Gaza arms-smuggling tunnels (i.e. those not destroyed before the international community forced Israel into a premature ceasefire) and as a result, cash-rich Hamas has been moving additional arms into Gaza in recent days, according to Israeli news reports.

The Jerusalem Post adds: “Some of the tunnels were not destroyed – like the one that was filmed by foreign media on Wednesday – out of humanitarian considerations. Several tunnels have pipes that transfer fuel [for rocket launchers] from Sinai to Gaza. The concern in the IDF was that if it bombed such a tunnel, a huge explosion would result – possibly also on the Egyptian side – and there would be many civilian casualties.”

(2) A Palestinian human rights activist who used to work for the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has been executed by Hamas on charges of “collaboration” with Israel, Palestinians in Gaza said over the weekend.

They identified the man as Haidar Ghanem, 46, of Rafah. Ghanem, a father of two, had dared to tell Israeli human rights groups about some of the executions and torture perpetrated by Hamas and also by Fatah.

IS PRESIDENT OBAMA A WAR CRIMINAL TOO?

(3) Already under President Barack Obama, who has been in office only five days, the U.S. has reportedly killed a dozen children in airstrikes on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border (airstrikes which also killed Taliban militants) and yet this news has (with only a very few exceptions) been reduced to small paragraphs buried here and there inside newspapers, without any sensational headlines, without any angry editorials or letters, without any gut-wrenching photos. Nor has there been rioting on the streets of European capitals as there has been over Gaza – rioting accompanied in some case by vicious attacks on European Jews. Nor have there been calls to prosecute Barack Obama for “war crimes.”

Some papers didn’t even mention the children’s deaths. The New York Times, for example, just wrote: “Two remote U.S. missile strikes that killed at least 20 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in northwestern Pakistan yesterday offered the first tangible sign of President Obama’s commitment to sustained military pressure on the terrorist groups there, even though Pakistanis broadly oppose such unilateral U.S. actions.”

At the same time, The Times of London – to take one example of a supposedly centrist and moderate paper – has been running huge banner headlines every day this month on its front page and in its news section, such as “Israeli troops reveal ruthless Gaza tactics” and “Israel’s ‘iron fist’ strike at Hamas” and “Israel prepares a devastating ‘third phase’.”

Meanwhile 250,000 Tamil civilians remain trapped, penned in by a Sri Lankan military that shows little regard for their lives in its end game as it crushes Tamil hopes for independence. So far 60,000 have died in the Tamil-Sri Lankan conflict. Do any of those who pontificate about Israel even know what a Tamil is? How many of the dozens of deadly ongoing conflicts in Africa, Asia and elsewhere could they even name?

-- Tom Gross


ARTICLE EXTRACTS

“WE DECIDED WE’RE NOT GOING TO SPEND FIVE YEARS IN GAZA LIKE THE FIVE YEARS AMERICANS SPENT IN IRAQ”

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens says Israel scored a tactical victory but missed a chance to finish off Hamas.

Speaking to Israeli army officers on the Gaza border, he points to the positive aspects of the war from Israel’s point of view:

They think that Israel has re-established a reputation for invincibility tarnished in the 2006 war with Hizbullah; that they bloodied and humiliated Hamas while taking few casualties; that they called overdue international attention to the tunnels Hamas uses to smuggle its arsenal; and, with the unilateral cease-fire, that they put the onus to end the violence squarely back on Hamas’s shoulders.

… In a wide-ranging interview, a senior military official offers perhaps the most authoritative explanation of his government’s war aims and his interpretation of its effects. “We have no desire to go back into Gaza,” he says. “We decided we’re not going to spend five years [in Gaza] like the five years Americans spent in Iraq.”

On the contrary: Far from seeking regime change in Gaza, the official seems at ease that the Palestinians will remain bifurcated between Hamastan and Fatahland for many years more, the way Germany was divided during the Cold War. The idea is that a Hamas state in Gaza – somehow deterred from mischief – could become a kind of useful negative example to the Palestinians of the West Bank, somewhat in the way East Germany served West Germany as a monument to everything that was wrong with communism.

… Then there is Egypt. For years, it took an ambivalent view of Hamas: partly worried by the threat it poses to its own secular regime, partly delighted by the trouble it causes Israel. Now the Mubarak government at last understands that Hamas is also a strategic threat to Egypt. “An Iranian base can play against Egypt the same way it played against Israel,” says the official. Almost as an aside, he adds that the timing of Israel’s operation in Gaza was dictated in part by the assessment that Hamas was just months away from obtaining longer-range missiles that could reach Cairo as easily as Tel Aviv. Now the Israeli government is prepared to believe that the Egyptians will finally clamp down on the smuggling.

But Bret Stephens concludes by saying that although Israel has scored an impressive tactical victory, it has missed the strategic opportunity to rid itself of the menace on its doorstep. “In the Middle East, opportunities don’t always knock twice,” he says.

 

“IN TRUTH, ISRAEL SURRENDERED TO HAMAS AND ITS SUPPORTERS AT THE UN”

In the second article below, Jonathan Mark writes:

The first rule of pride is this: When they run you out of town, walk like you’re leading the parade.

I’ll give Israel this: When international pressure got to be too much, Israel left Gaza as if it was Israel’s bright idea, “a unilateral ceasefire.”

In truth, Israel surrendered. It is “surrender” if you leave with Hamas rockets still flying into Israel, and with Gilad Shalit remaining in his private Auschwitz. Imagine how Shalit was tortured these past three weeks. Imagine being his parents. If this Gaza operation even resembled a success, Israel could have said, OK Hamas, we’ll stop devastating your neighborhoods and killing your so-called civilians in exchange for two things: The rockets have to stop, and Shalit comes home.

What we see is that Hamas wasn’t all that devastated; if they were, they’d have taken the deal.

Instead, Israel quit, like Roberto Duran not coming out for the next round, “no mas,” throwing in the towel.

We know that Israel lost because Hamas set the terms: The rockets do not stop; Shalit stays where he is.

What would we be saying about Roosevelt and Churchill if they settled for a cease fire on Jan. 18, 1945, with the excuse that, hey, Hitler’s supply lines have been damaged, but yes, he can still bomb London, and yes, the Jews are still in the camps. Even if it’s only one Jew.

This war was supposed to re-establish Israel’s deterrence. That was supposed to be the lesson. Instead, the lesson is that Israel quits before the rockets do…

 

“THE MORAL CHASM THAT SEPARATES JEWS FROM THEIR ENEMIES”

In the third article below, Dennis Prager writes:

For those individuals – such as nearly all members of the world news media – who, in light of Israel’s invasion of Gaza – see moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, here are some clarifying thoughts.

First, it would be difficult nearly to the point of impossibility, to find Israeli or other Jews who celebrate the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Jews both within and outside of Israel cringe when they see pictures of dead Palestinian men, women, and children in Gaza. For thousands of years at their Passover seders, Jews have removed wine from their cups to ceremonially weep for the Egyptians – their erstwhile slave owners for 400 years – who died during the Jews exodus. Jews have never stopped weeping for enemies.”

The opposite is the case with the large majority of Palestinians. It would be quite difficult to find many Palestinians who do not celebrate the deaths of Israeli Jews or non-Israeli Jews. This is not only reflected in Palestinian polls that show majority support for terrorism – and terrorism means killing innocent Jews – it is also reflected in Palestinian media, Palestinian schools, and Palestinian mosques that routinely glorify murderers of Jews, and refer to all Jews as monkeys and the like.

Take for example, Palestinian reaction to the 2001 Palestinian terror bombing of a Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria in which 15 Jews, five of whom were two sets of parents and their children, were murdered and an additional 130 people were injured, some permanently maimed. *

As reported by the Associated Press, a month later, Palestinian university students opened an exhibition that included a grisly re-enactment of that mass murder. The students built a replica of the Sbarro pizzeria, with fake blood, splattered pizza, a plastic hand dangling from the ceiling, and a fake severed leg wearing jeans and a bloody black sneaker.

… Here’s the question: Can anyone even imagine Jews, in Israel or anywhere else on earth – no matter how right-wing they are politically or religiously – doing something analogous to celebrate the death of Palestinian civilians?

… The second point to be raised is about perspective.

If during World War II, Western news media had reported German and Japanese civilian casualties in the same detail and with the same sympathy they report Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza, it is doubtful that the Nazis and the Japanese militarists would have lost that war. Certainly, at the very least, the anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist war effort would have been severely compromised.

[For more on the Sbarro pizza bomb victims please see here.]


FULL ARTICLES

“IN THE MIDDLE EAST, OPPORTUNITIES DON’T ALWAYS KNOCK TWICE”

Israel scored a tactical victory. But it missed a chance to finish off Hamas
By Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal
January 20, 2009

[Reporting from the Gaza border]

Atop a little hill near the beleaguered Israeli town of Sderot, a gaggle of TV crews train their cameras on the Gaza Strip, sentinels to a unilateral Israeli cease-fire that’s barely 12 hours old. Earlier the same day, Sunday, Hamas fired 20 rockets into Israel, raising questions about its intentions but causing little serious damage. Later, a pair of Israeli F-15s streak over Gaza City, releasing bursts of chaff but dropping no bombs.

And then comes word that Hamas has declared its own conditional, week-long cease-fire. The TV people clear out. All wars eventually end. The question most Israelis are asking is whether this one has merely gone on vacation.

So why are the top echelons of Israel’s political and military establishment delighted by the war’s result? Long answer: They think that Israel has re-established a reputation for invincibility tarnished in the 2006 war with Hizbullah; that they bloodied and humiliated Hamas while taking few casualties; that they called overdue international attention to the tunnels Hamas uses to smuggle its arsenal; and, with the unilateral cease-fire, that they put the onus to end the violence squarely back on Hamas’s shoulders.

Short answer: They think the war may be a regional game changer.

In a wide-ranging interview, a senior military official offers perhaps the most authoritative explanation of his government’s war aims and his interpretation of its effects. “We have no desire to go back into Gaza,” he says. “We decided we’re not going to spend five years [in Gaza] like the five years Americans spent in Iraq.”

On the contrary: Far from seeking regime change in Gaza, the official seems at ease that the Palestinians will remain bifurcated between Hamastan and Fatahland for many years more, the way Germany was divided during the Cold War. The idea is that a Hamas state in Gaza – somehow deterred from mischief – could become a kind of useful negative example to the Palestinians of the West Bank, somewhat in the way East Germany served West Germany as a monument to everything that was wrong with communism.

This leads the official to his second remarkable comment, after I ask whether Israel deliberately chose not to kill Ismail Haniyeh, the elected Palestinian prime minister and Hamas’s political leader in Gaza. “Israel tried to target people from the security apparatus and military wing,” he answers. “At this moment, we prefer that the less-radical wing will take over.”

The current divisions within Hamas are not the only ones the official sees as a consequence of the war. Palestinians, he says, no longer look to Hamas as the party of clean and competent government. Instead, they see a group whose leaders needlessly provoked a ruinous war they didn’t have the courage to fight themselves. No wonder the third intifada in the West Bank, on which Hamas had counted, never materialized.

Elsewhere, Hamas’s former patrons in the Arab world have split with the group ever since it became a client of Tehran. A dozen Arab states, along with the Palestinian Authority, boycotted an emergency summit of the Arab League, which had been intended as a show of support for Hamas supremo Khaled Mashal.

Then there is Egypt. For years, it took an ambivalent view of Hamas: partly worried by the threat it poses to its own secular regime, partly delighted by the trouble it causes Israel. Now the Mubarak government at last understands that Hamas is also a strategic threat to Egypt. “An Iranian base can play against Egypt the same way it played against Israel,” says the official. Almost as an aside, he adds that the timing of Israel’s operation in Gaza was dictated in part by the assessment that Hamas was just months away from obtaining longer-range missiles that could reach Cairo as easily as Tel Aviv.

Now the Israeli government is prepared to believe that the Egyptians will finally clamp down on the smuggling. Israel might even allow Egypt to deploy its army in greater force in the Sinai, despite the provisions against it in the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.

Finally there is Iran. “They have drawn a lesson,” says the official. “Once again, they saw that Israel has a good air force and good intelligence, and that the combination of the two can be deadly. Unlike in 2006, they saw a well-trained ground force. They found that asymmetrical warfare does not always play for them; that we can use asymmetrical approaches to overpower an asymmetrical threat.”

All this, of course, could be overturned the moment Iran goes nuclear and attempts to thwart Israel’s freedom of action. Nor is it foreordained that Israel will enjoy the relatively favorable international circumstances that facilitated the past three weeks of war, or that Hamas will perform poorly the next time. “Usually, the one who loses does his homework better,” observes the official.

Bottom line: Israel has scored an impressive tactical victory. But it has missed the strategic opportunity to rid itself of the menace on its doorstep. In the Middle East, opportunities don’t always knock twice.

 

WHY DOESN’T ANYBODY DARE SAY IT? ISRAEL DIDN’T LEAVE, IT LOST

Why doesn’t anybody dare say it? Israel didn’t leave, it lost
By Jonathan Mark
January 22, 2009

The first rule of pride is this: When they run you out of town, walk like you’re leading the parade.

I’ll give Israel this: When international pressure got to be too much, Israel left Gaza as if it was Israel’s bright idea, “a unilateral ceasefire.”

In truth, Israel surrendered. It is “surrender” if you leave with Hamas rockets still flying into Israel, and with Gilad Shalit remaining in his private Auschwitz. Imagine how Shalit was tortured these past three weeks. Imagine being his parents. If this Gaza operation even resembled a success, Israel could have said, OK Hamas, we’ll stop devastating your neighborhoods and killing your so-called civilians in exchange for two things: The rockets have to stop, and Shalit comes home.

What we see is that Hamas wasn’t all that devastated; if they were, they’d have taken the deal.

Instead, Israel quit, like Roberto Duran not coming out for the next round, “no mas,” throwing in the towel.

We know that Israel lost because Hamas set the terms: The rockets do not stop; Shalit stays where he is.

What would we be saying about Roosevelt and Churchill if they settled for a cease fire on Jan. 18, 1945, with the excuse that, hey, Hitler’s supply lines have been damaged, but yes, he can still bomb London, and yes, the Jews are still in the camps. Even if it’s only one Jew.

This war was supposed to re-establish Israel’s deterrence. That was supposed to be the lesson. Instead, the lesson is that Israel quits before the rockets do.

Israel has established in Gaza exactly what it established in the Hizbullah war: That Israel can go three weeks and only three weeks, and then Israel looks at its watch (or at the European Union’s watch) and goes home, job incomplete.

Hamas, like Hizbullah, is an Iranian satellite, a stand-in. This, like the 2006 war, is a harbinger of a worse war to come.

What if Iran is prepared to fight for four weeks? Is Israel prepared to go four? If Israel is so flustered by charges that it killed a stray civilian, be prepared that when Israel fights Iran we’ll be told that every Israeli bomb falling on Iran is landing on nothing and no one but women and children, innocent babies and maternity wards. If Israel attacks Iran, you can bet that Iran’s nuclear operation will suddenly be declared “peaceful,” generating only nuclear energy to help Iranian orphans and United Nations relief facilities. The so-called “international community” will then help rebuild Iran’s peaceful nuclear facility and they’ll call it humanitarian aid. Israel will then send Iran medical supplies and halvah. With that scenario, already played out by Israel with Hamas, I don’t see how Iran is deterred at all.

Israel should not be answering those who accuse Israel of war crimes by begging the cynics to believe that “we love life.” That’s embarrassing. It sounds like Mister Rogers.

If cynics accuse Jews of deliberately targeting civilians, don’t answer like that doomed drama queen in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” Blanche DuBoise: “Deliberate cruelty is unforgivable, and the one thing of which I have never, ever been guilty of.”

Jews should be very, very worried when their leaders sound exactly like Blanche DuBoise.

Instead, Jews should answer that the premise of war is that cruelty is indeed forgivable, some things are worth dying for; better yet, some things are worth YOU dying for – you, Hamas. Disproportionate? As Gen. Patton said, the purpose of war is not to die for your country, it’s to make the other son of a bitch die for his country. And that’s what Israel did, making Hamas killers and their civilian supporters die in a war that Hamas started and Israel should have finished.

“A Streetcar Named Desire”? Better another Brando movie, “The Godfather.” When charged with war crimes, Jews should answer unemotionally, but with total confidence, like Don Corleone: “I don’t apologize for taking care of my family.”

Israel had no business fighting this war in the first place, and risking the lives of Jewish soldiers, if Israel had no intention of going the distance. Why did any Israeli soldier have to die, leaving family, friends and lovers to mourn for the next 60 years? To set Hamas back six weeks? Israel didn’t set Hamas back six hours. Rockets were flying the day that Israel left Gaza.

And Israel continues to send “humanitarian aid” into Gaza, aid that Israel admits is being hijacked by Hamas. What parent would give their child’s kidnappers “humanitarian aid” without even demanding a phone call, a chance to hear their son’s voice, even a Red Cross visit to the kidnapped child? No, Israel is facilitating the flow of food, cash and supplies to Shalit’s kidnappers in exchange for nothing.

And if, God forbid, Shalit is already dead, then Israel ought to withhold aid to Hamas at least until Shalit gets a decent burial, if not long after, if Israel has any dignity left. There have been over two dozen instances in recent years in which the Palestinian Authority has suspended talks with Israel to protest one Israeli policy or another but Israel won’t suspend the sending of tons of supplies to Hamas to protest the torture and imprisonment of Shalit that is in total violation of the supposedly sacred Geneva guidelines for a prisoner of war.

That’s right, the very same Geneva guidelines for P.O.W.’s that so inflamed politicians, academics, clergy, editors and, ethicists from around the world to demand that Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo be closed, and that its Al Qaeda prisoners not be “tortured,” have never sparked a similar international campaign to close the Hamas dungeon where Shalit is tortured, a dungeon where war crimes are never tabulated. Odd, how concern for Shalit eludes the humanitarians. Pity him in his lonely war, the last Jewish soldier in Gaza.

In the end, like all Israeli wars, these past weeks were somehow inspirational if only for the courage and holiness of the soldiers. They are the best of us, and “us” is the key word. The goodness and passion of young Israelis – who were winning this war but who will suffer its consequences – may not deter Iran but it’s a reason to believe, and to fall in love with the Jewish people, all over again.

 

“ISRAEL IS MORE INTERESTED IN LIVING WITH WORLD CONDEMNATION THAN IN DYING WITH WORLD SYMPATHY”

Guess who cares about dead Palestinians? Jews!
By Dennis Prager
January 13, 2009

For those individuals – such as nearly all members of the world news media – who, in light of Israel’s invasion of Gaza – see moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, here are some clarifying thoughts.

First, it would be difficult nearly to the point of impossibility, to find Israeli or other Jews who celebrate the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Jews both within and outside of Israel cringe when they see pictures of dead Palestinian men, women, and children in Gaza. For thousands of years at their Passover seders, Jews have removed wine from their cups to ceremonially weep for the Egyptians – their erstwhile slave owners for 400 years – who died during the Jews exodus. Jews have never stopped weeping for enemies.

The opposite is the case with the large majority of Palestinians. It would be quite difficult to find many Palestinians who do not celebrate the deaths of Israeli Jews or non-Israeli Jews. This is not only reflected in Palestinian polls that show majority support for terrorism – and terrorism means killing innocent Jews – it is also reflected in Palestinian media, Palestinian schools, and Palestinian mosques that routinely glorify murderers of Jews, and refer to all Jews as monkeys and the like.

Take for example, Palestinian reaction to the 2001 Palestinian terror bombing of a Jerusalem Sbarro pizzeria in which 15 Jews, five of whom were two sets of parents and their children, were murdered and an additional 130 people were injured, some permanently maimed.

As reported by the Associated Press, a month later, Palestinian university students opened an exhibition that included a grisly re-enactment of that mass murder. The students built a replica of the Sbarro pizzeria, with fake blood, splattered pizza, a plastic hand dangling from the ceiling, and a fake severed leg wearing jeans and a bloody black sneaker.

The exhibit also includes a large rock in front of a mannequin wearing the black hat, black jacket and black trousers typically worn by fervently-Orthodox Jews. A recording from inside the rock calls out: O believer, there is a Jewish man behind me. Come and kill him, paraphrasing a verse in the Koran. It became a popular tourist attraction for Palestinians, to which Palestinian parents took their little children.

Here’s the question: Can anyone even imagine Jews, in Israel or anywhere else on earth – no matter how right-wing they are politically or religiously – doing something analogous to celebrate the death of Palestinian civilians? I have spoken to Jewish groups on both U.S. coasts since the Israeli invasion of Gaza, and when the subject of Palestinian civilian deaths is mentioned, all I hear is regret and sadness.

This moral chasm that separates Israel from its enemies, and separates the Jews from their enemies, merely confirms what Hamas repeatedly says about itself: We love death more than the Jews love life. This motto is so true that Hamas not only doesn’t weep for dead Israelis, it doesn’t weep for dead Palestinians. It uses living Palestinians as human shields and uses dead Palestinians as propaganda. The moral disequilibrium is such that Jews weep for dead Palestinian far more than Hamas does.

The second point to be raised is about perspective.

If during World War II, Western news media had reported German and Japanese civilian casualties in the same detail and with the same sympathy they report Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza, it is doubtful that the Nazis and the Japanese militarists would have lost that war. Certainly, at the very least, the anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist war effort would have been severely compromised.

The analogy is entirely apt. Hamas is on the same moral level as the two World War II enemies. Do those who condemn Israel for its attacks on Hamas fighters that have tragically resulted in hundreds of civilian Palestinian deaths also condemn the Allied bombings of German and Japanese military targets that resulted in far more civilian deaths? I suspect not since most critics of Israel still regard World War II as a moral war. The overriding issue, therefore, is whether fighting Hamas is moral. If it is, then the unintended death of Palestinian civilians is a tragedy, not an evil (except on the part of Hamas, because it situates its fighters and its missiles among civilians, including schools).

Third, if Hamas had the same ability to bomb Israel as Israel has to bomb Gaza, would the number of Jewish civilians be in the hundreds? Or would there be the Holocaust in Israel that Hamas and its Iranian sponsors dream of?

The answer is so obvious that this consideration alone renders moral Israel’s war to destroy Hamas. In a short period of time Hamas will have more accurate missiles and longer-range ones. One of them could kill a thousand or more. Another one could destroy passenger planes coming into Ben-Gurion Airport, thereby causing foreign airlines to stop flying into Israel. It is that inevitability that Israel is fighting to prevent. But in the morally confused world we live in, only with thousands of Israelis dead, would Israel’s invasion of Gaza be proportional, and therefore acceptable. But Israel is more interested in living with world condemnation than in dying with world sympathy.


All notes and summaries copyright © Tom Gross. All rights reserved.