Washington Post: Hamas Launched A War, But Israel Needs To Do Better Or Something

The Washington Post Editorial Board goes through some serious mental gymnastics here. First off, they start off really well, noting that it is Hamas that started the violence, which is the norm. Then, it degenerates badly, as you can see from the headline (which has changed at least twice between when it was published and now)

Hamas has launched another war. Israel needs a better response.

Last night, when I first saw it, it said “Israel needs to do better.” Then, it looks like it went to “Israel must avoid a moral and political defeat.” OK, moving on

ISRAEL AND Hamas have fought three wars in the Gaza Strip over the past decade, and though it may not look like the others, a fourth one is now underway. Having tried and failed to defeat Israel with rockets and armed cross-border attacks, Hamas this spring deployed a new strategy: assembling thousands of nominal civilians to march on and attempt to breach the border fence, in the calculation that many would be killed. The result would be a moral and political defeat for Israel — and perhaps some relief for a regime that is literally besieged from all sides.

The only reason it would be a moral and political defeat is because the Israel/Jew hating (sometimes one, sometimes both) media, governments, the United Nations, and Leftists refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to defend themselves, and rarely condemn the way in which groups like Hamas act. In this case, using human shields. Seriously, does the above, the first paragraph in the editorial, really seem to be condemning Hamas? Or just telling facts? If they’d stop excusing groups like Hamas, Israel wouldn’t have to defend themselves.

On Monday, this cruel and cynical tactic paid off, albeit at enormous human cost. By the Israeli account, Hamas assembled some 40,000 people at 13 points along the border, then sent groups of them toward the fence, armed with wire cutters, slingshots, knives and, in a couple of cases, firearms. They were met with clouds of tear gas, but when that failed to disperse them, Israeli snipers opened fire. At least 60  Palestinians were killed. On Tuesday, Israeli officials said two dozen had been identified as militants of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad.

They forgot the flaming bottles, tires, and kites, along with lots and lots of rocks.

On cue, condemnations of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu poured in. Israel was accused of carrying out a “bloodbath” by Human Rights Watch, while Amnesty International said its soldiers may have committed war crimes. European governments summoned Israeli ambassadors and called for an investigation; at Poland’s urging, the U.N. Security Council observed a moment of silence for the victims. Only opposition from the Trump administration likely prevented a Security Council condemnation of the Jewish state.

This same UN can barely find it in themselves to condemn Hamas and the violent Palestinians.

With the White House’s strong support, Mr. Netanyahu will likely shrug off the international onslaught. He shouldn’t. As the Palestinians well understand, Israel can ill afford further damage to its standing. Sympathy for it is dangerously eroding on U.S. campuses and among Democratic voters — not to speak of in other Western countries. President Trump’s embrace of controversial pro-Israel initiatives, such as the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, may in time produce its own backlash.

First, if people would stop taking the side of terrorists, Israel wouldn’t have a problem. Second, being pro-Israel is apparently considered “controversial” at the Washington Post. Which leads back to the first point.

The question for Israelis is why their government, with weeks of warning about what Hamas would attempt, did not develop a strategy to defeat the operation by minimizing the loss of life. Clearly the government must defend its borders; if it had allowed thousands of Palestinians to pour across toward nearby Israeli communities, the bloodshed could have been much greater. But it seems likely such a breach could have been stopped without such extensive use of lethal force. That impression is only strengthened by the stridency with which senior Israeli officials defended the killings and even called for more. Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan on Tuesday proposed the assassination of Hamas’s leaders.

See? It’s all Israel’s fault. If only they had done something else, which the WPEB fails to offer as an idea, they wouldn’t have had to shoot violent Palestinians who elected a State Department designated terrorist group to be their government.

In fact, Israel can ill afford to escalate, given the low-grade war it is already fighting with Iran in Syria. Most likely it will watch as Hamas reaps the gains of its strategy: Egypt already has responded by relaxing its own closure of the Gaza border. Unbothered by the death toll, Hamas leaders say the marches will continue — which means Israel needs to find a way to stop them without being defeated by them.

Israel made it quite clear that the terrorist disciples should not approach the border, and has said this for weeks. What else are the supposed to do? But, notice, again, that Palestinians under Hamas getting violent is blamed on Israel. And it’s no wonder

Few elected Democrats offered positive words for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Chuck Schumer was one of the only ones. Most either failed to mention it or decried it. Similarly, few elected Dems are slamming Hamas and the Palestinians. Most seem to be taking the anti-Israel side. Which is the norm.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Washington Post: Hamas Launched A War, But Israel Needs To Do Better Or Something”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host characterized it:

    the Israel/Jew hating (sometimes one, sometimes both) media

    You know, it is intellectually possible to be opposed to Israeli policy and Zionism without being an anti-Semite, but I have yet to see anyone accomplish that in real life. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging, but eventually you’ll find the anti-Jewish remark or aside or qualification.

    • Jeffery says:

      Nonsense. One can criticize the anti-Palestinian, Zionist movement without hating Jews.

      One can condemn Islamist thugs without hating all Muslims.

      One can criticize right-wing extremism/violence without hating real conservatives.

      One can condemn illegal aliens without hating immigrants.

      Perhaps it’s YOU with the problem if you can’t differentiate the differences.

      • david7134 says:

        It is clear from your comments that you have Jews, as well as many others. Now on Muslims. You have no idea about the subject. Muslims are taught from birth that they are forcefully take over the world. All religions have some reference to some concept of being the best of number one. But Islam is the only religion that approved violence. Read the Koran.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Nonsense, one can criticize the Loose Shoes reign of corruption without being a racist.

        Right, oh nignorant one?

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Nonsense, one can proudly display their support for the President without being harassed and called a nigger.
        Right, little nignorant one?


      • Dana says:

        Jeffrey Jeffery wrote:

        Nonsense. One can criticize the anti-Palestinian, Zionist movement without hating Jews.

        Yes, that is absolutely true, and that is what I wrote when I said, “it is intellectually possible to be opposed to Israeli policy and Zionism without being an anti-Semite”. However, I have also stated that I have never, ever met anyone actually accomplish that distinction in real life. I stand by that statement.

  2. Dana says:

    Yes, Israel does need a better response . . . and that better response should be to move in, and kill all of their fighting aged men, plus young boys who would otherwise reach fighting age within a few years. Israel needs to move in with such fire and fury that the ‘Palestinians’ are so thoroughly defeated and demoralized that they can no longer hope for a distant future victory, that there is no one left who would ever dream of picking up a gun against Israel.

    When Germany and Japan were finally defeated, they were defeated because there was no one left to keep fighting. They were down to old men and young boys in uniform, and their infrastructure for providing the means to continue the war bombed out and burned up.

    Four times Israel has kicked the Arabs’ asses, but all four times Israel let them off the hook with armistices which left the majority of the Arabs’ men and materiel intact, left them with the ability to dream about a future victory. You can time the Israeli ‘victories’: 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, and in each the boys who were too young to fight in the previous war but had been alive during it had grown up and reached fighting age; the surviving officer corps, commissioned and non-commissioned, survived and were training and ready for the next go at it.

    If someone tries to kill you, and you manage to whip him but still leave him alive and able to recover, you should not be terribly surprised if he tries again later.

    • Jeffery says:

      Perhaps YOU have the problem is your solution is genocide.

      The Brits and European Jews drove the Palestinians from their homeland after WWII.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        History and grammar are beyond your comprehension, nignorant angry ltitle black fella.

      • Dana says:

        The British certainly did not help the Jews, and in the aftermath of the war were actively trying to halt Jewish immigration into the Holy Land.

        The Jews did move in and reconquer their ancestral homelands. The problem is that they have proven to be poor conquerors, winning the battles but unwilling to take the actions necessary to secure their land from their enemies.

        Had the Israelis killed more of their enemies and expelled the survivors, they’d have shortened, more defensible borders today. The cost would have been horrible, but it would have been over and done with fifty years ago, with the ‘Palestinians’ going about their loves in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

  3. Dana says:

    As Bari Weiss of The New York Times pointed out this morning on Morning Joe, for many of the Palestinians Tel Aviv is a ‘settlement.’ For too many of them, the entire Levant must be Judenrein.

Pirate's Cove