Israel v. Hamas - No Moral Equivalent

Israel v. Hamas – No Moral Equivalent

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

January 3, 2009

“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” – Golda Meir (1898-1978), former Israeli Prime Minister

For Israel, the axis of evil is Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran with the latter supporting the two terror groups. With all three entities hell-bent on the destruction and eradication of the Jewish state, aside from ignorance and jealousy, one must wonder why.

In the current conflagration pitting democracy against terrorist organization, as usual, Israel is criticized globally for, first, defending itself, then deigning to retaliate in an effort to defeat its enemy. This is an enemy that places martyrdom and the elimination of Israel above the betterment of its own people.

When given Gaza by Israel in 2005, a colossal mistake supported by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate for Prime Minister, the Palestinian Authority allowed its rule to be usurped by Hamas who did nothing to create a livable infrastructure, economy, educational system or employment prospects for its own Palestinian people. Instead, Hamas focused its energies on smuggling in weaponry and armament, digging tunnels from which to attack Israel and continuing to blame Israel for its further failures and shortcomings as an alleged society.

Israel, for all its initial restraint, not only has the right to defend itself, but must destroy an enemy emphasizing the extermination of Israel as priority one. If Israel loses a war, it ceases to exist. If Hamas is only defeated militarily, yet remains in existence, eventually they will reload and continue down their destructive path of terror and teaching their children to hate and kill Jews, Israelis, Americans and the United States.

President George W. Bush issued strong condemnation of Hamas for provoking Israel as well as Hamas’s willingness to violate the ceasefire that Egypt helped to arrange. “Another one-way ceasefire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable,” said Bush as part of his radio address on January 3, 2009.

That Israel should be criticized and condemned by so many for alleged disproportionate retaliation against Hamas demonstrates pure ignorance. This is especially true of American Jewish liberals who are so quick to call for land for peace agreements. Should the Nazis have been allowed to continue to exist in a diminished capacity? Of course not, and neither should any other entity whose primary goal is the elimination of any democratic nation. By the way, critics of Israel, what would the appropriate proportional response by Israel be to terrorist attacks? Join hands and sing Kumbaya?

The late, great Rabbi Meir Kahane (1932-90) was absolutely correct when he said that one does not cede land for peace nor does one return captured land in victory. When you lose, you lose, Kahane would frequently remind people. After all, was Panama returned to Colombia? Was the former Czechoslovakia returned to Germany? Is there a free and independent South Vietnam? Did the United States return the portions of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah won after defeating Mexico in 1848?

Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who hopefully will ascend to that office again this year, correctly opposed the ceding of Gaza, as land for peace is mere lip service. Once the land is gone, it is lost, while peace is fleeting or even mythical at best.

Don’t make the mistaken assumption that there is any moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. Not only does Hamas have no qualms targeting civilians – including, and especially, women and children, they enlist their own women and children as homicide bombers. Hamas also hides and stores their munitions in civilian-sensitive locales such as schools and mosques knowing that Israel would be faced with a Sophie’s Choice of either not striking those sites, or doing so as the risk of global political and media condemnation. And don’t forget that Hamas leaders also hide within the civilian population for the same reasons. Shrewd, maniacal cowards.

The questions to be asked are why should Israel give a rat’s tuchus about criticism in the pages of the London Times and the New York Times, on the airwaves of NPR and the hardly-viewed MSNBC or in the halls of the useless United Nations? They should not, especially as Israel warns civilians via fliers and leaflets, at their own peril, of pending retaliation. Israel fights a battle or a war first from a defensive tack, then from a position of attempting to limit civilian casualties.

“We don’t thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank G-d we are efficient.” – Golda Meir

Israel is not seeking to reestablish control of Gaza, but instead end Hamas control over the land that could be a Palestinian homeland. (I object to this strategy and believe Israel should never have ceded Gaza in the first place, but instead push out all of Israel’s enemies toward Jordan, which should be the Palestinian homeland.)

Palestinians should have a homeland in Jordan, but not as a reward for inciting violence and continued terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel has the right to exist and defend itself by whatever means necessary. Peace will occur when terrorists cease and desist and Palestinians begin to care more about their own people than do Israelis. Until that time Israel should forge ahead vigorously to ensure its survival for its own sake as well as for the moral betterment of civilized society.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.