Friday, June 30, 2006
Israel's measured response
I’m not following the story as closely as fellow MBA-blogger Soccer Dad but after reading SD’s Q & q with scott wilson (of the Washington Post), I admit to being more attuned to Mr. Wilson’s coverage of the Israeli foray into Gaza to rescue what’s rightfully theirs to rescue. Bringing us to today’s story: In Gaza, Seeking Shelter From Israeli Fire by the illustrious Mr. Wilson.
Let me begin with a rhetorical question: Has there ever been as murderous a group of thugs as found amongst the active elements of Fatah and Hamas that gets more benefit-of-the-doubt news coverage? We open with the perfunctory human interest element:
“Fatin Shabaat left home here Thursday with her three hip-high children, looking for safety from a slow-moving Israeli military assault launched to free a 19-year-old soldier being held by Palestinian gunmen.”
Apparenty Ms. Shabaat is a keen observer of the situation because Mr. Wilson dutifully records her educated insight:
"This is only going to get worse," said Shabaat, 25, who despite the impending clash favors keeping the Israeli soldier captive until at least some Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails. "We will not get anything otherwise. And they are going to invade anyway. This soldier is just an excuse."
He then goes on to casually throw off such lines as:
“…the creation of a future Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.”
We can argue at another time about the proper treatment of Jerusalem (originally intended in the post-WWII years to be an international city under no specific national control) but the 1948 conflict there kind of made such discussions academic. Thereafter, JORDAN occupied East Jerusalem until June of ’67 when they made the foolish error of hooking up with Nasser’s Egypt while he was openly threatening the annihilation of Israel. Such saber rattling didn’t work recently for Saddam and it didn’t work then for Jordan (or Egypt or Syria). Note to Mr. Wilson: If you’re going to give us an historical perspective, give us the whole perspective…or just shut up.
Mr. Wilson ends his hard-hitting news story with the observations of the noted Palestinian military leader “Hamada Abdullah Hamada, 31, a sergeant with the Palestinian national forces.” I don’t believe Mr. Wilson appreciates just how unwittingly his human interest focus on select Palestinians just goes to make the Israelis case:
“Pointing to the tank movements, Hamada said: "Even before the soldier was kidnapped, the Israelis were doing this. They will come in."
And what were the Israelis doing?
“The two rockets rose from behind a nearby agricultural school a quarter-mile from Hamada's concrete pillbox, and Israeli guns answered minutes later with steady, thumping fire.”
That’s right, the Palestinians were firing rockets from behind a school and it was only after these attacks that the Palestinians faced the wrath of the Israeli guns. No doubt, the UN shares the Palestinian outrage. It seems the Palestinians want it both ways here: not wanting the responsibility for the actions of a small faction within but at the same time expecting the Israelis to treat the demands of this small faction as worthy of consideration and respect. No nuance here – I fully support the Israeli actions in Gaza.
UPDATE: As part of the ongoing coverage of this story, the Post now has this AP article with the de rigueur slant of how this Israeli response could “backfire”: Israel's Hamas Tactics Could Backfire……Yeah, because things were right on track before.
Let me begin with a rhetorical question: Has there ever been as murderous a group of thugs as found amongst the active elements of Fatah and Hamas that gets more benefit-of-the-doubt news coverage? We open with the perfunctory human interest element:
“Fatin Shabaat left home here Thursday with her three hip-high children, looking for safety from a slow-moving Israeli military assault launched to free a 19-year-old soldier being held by Palestinian gunmen.”
Apparenty Ms. Shabaat is a keen observer of the situation because Mr. Wilson dutifully records her educated insight:
"This is only going to get worse," said Shabaat, 25, who despite the impending clash favors keeping the Israeli soldier captive until at least some Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails. "We will not get anything otherwise. And they are going to invade anyway. This soldier is just an excuse."
He then goes on to casually throw off such lines as:
“…the creation of a future Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.”
We can argue at another time about the proper treatment of Jerusalem (originally intended in the post-WWII years to be an international city under no specific national control) but the 1948 conflict there kind of made such discussions academic. Thereafter, JORDAN occupied East Jerusalem until June of ’67 when they made the foolish error of hooking up with Nasser’s Egypt while he was openly threatening the annihilation of Israel. Such saber rattling didn’t work recently for Saddam and it didn’t work then for Jordan (or Egypt or Syria). Note to Mr. Wilson: If you’re going to give us an historical perspective, give us the whole perspective…or just shut up.
Mr. Wilson ends his hard-hitting news story with the observations of the noted Palestinian military leader “Hamada Abdullah Hamada, 31, a sergeant with the Palestinian national forces.” I don’t believe Mr. Wilson appreciates just how unwittingly his human interest focus on select Palestinians just goes to make the Israelis case:
“Pointing to the tank movements, Hamada said: "Even before the soldier was kidnapped, the Israelis were doing this. They will come in."
And what were the Israelis doing?
“The two rockets rose from behind a nearby agricultural school a quarter-mile from Hamada's concrete pillbox, and Israeli guns answered minutes later with steady, thumping fire.”
That’s right, the Palestinians were firing rockets from behind a school and it was only after these attacks that the Palestinians faced the wrath of the Israeli guns. No doubt, the UN shares the Palestinian outrage. It seems the Palestinians want it both ways here: not wanting the responsibility for the actions of a small faction within but at the same time expecting the Israelis to treat the demands of this small faction as worthy of consideration and respect. No nuance here – I fully support the Israeli actions in Gaza.
UPDATE: As part of the ongoing coverage of this story, the Post now has this AP article with the de rigueur slant of how this Israeli response could “backfire”: Israel's Hamas Tactics Could Backfire……Yeah, because things were right on track before.
Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home
<< Home
