Israel Should Ignore the Protests to Fulfill Them

[fight4thefuture]

Around the world, Israel is being criticized for responding to Hamas’ rocket attacks with military force. There are protests against Israel in all of the major cities of the world, including the United States. Let’s take a look at what these protestors are saying.

The protestors say that they want peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is hard to believe that they want peace when they are only denouncing Israel. It was Hamas that broke the peace agreement by ending the ceasefire and barraging rockets into southern Israel. By defending Hamas, a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel, you can not be in favor of peace.

The protestors say that they want to free Palestine. That is a complete distortion of the facts. Palestine does need to be freed, but not from the Israelis. Israel is the freest country in the Middle East. Hamas is just as dictatorial as any. They may have been democratically elected because of U.S. pressure, but democracy is just a means to an end. Hamas’ party platform calls for the foundation of an Islamic dictatorship with the Qur’an as its Constitution. They call that freedom? If the protestors really wanted to free Palestine, they would try to persuade the Palestinians to lay down their arms and beg to become Israeli citizens, but the protestors will not, because they are not in favor of freedom.

The protestors say that they want to protect the lives of innocent civilians. They are asking for the impossible. They express outrage at the Israeli bombing of mosques, government buildings, and universities, but they are being used by Hamas to make, store, and deploy weapons to kill other innocent civilians. If Israel did not bomb these targets, innocent people would still die, just Israeli citizens instead. The only choice Israel has is to kill innocent Palestinian civilians or let innocent Israeli civilians be killed. There is no other option. Hamas has rigged the game to be death or death, our death or your death. The protestors can not protect innocent lives by having innocent Israeli lives killed in their place. That would only make them further into hypocrites.

The protestors say that they want to keep Israel safe. I find this claim particularly perplexing. They point to the 2006 war with Lebanon as an example of military force backfiring. Israel’s objective during that war was to destroy the terrorist group Hezbollah which was launching rockets into northern Israel, but they actually made Hezbollah stronger by caving into international pressure and standing by while they were democratically elected into the Lebanese government. In other words, Israel became less safe by giving into the protestors who now protest that they give into their protests right now.

The only way to achieve Middle East peace, Palestinian freedom, Israeli safety, and the protection of innocent lives, is for Israel to ignore these protestors, and thoroughly defeat Hamas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Julian,

Hamas certainly had a chance at doing it the civilized way, through elections and everything. It made its choices. It wanted to bomb civilians at will. It chose to do that nonstop for years. Now it will live with the results. This is as it should be.

What's funny is that I was outraged by the idea of bombing mosques and residences as preached by ARI. Israel has done both of these things in the last couple of days and all I can think is that it's about time. This is what Israel is supposed to do against a homicidal bully like Hamas.

This is such a delicate line, though. I totally support the laser targeted manner Israel did these bombings against specific targets where military intelligence identified actual military targets using innocents as a shield. So long as this standard continues, I am in full support. But I would still feel the same outrage as before if this were done in the indiscriminate blanket manner preached in ARI literature.

I also notice that Israel has undertaken a media campaign. I also believe that it's about time. Israel even has a YouTube channel to show the reality of the bombings and interviews with Israeli government officials are all over the news. Finally!

I was disappointed with a pro-Israel journalist's recent claim that Hamas legalized crucifixion over the Xmas holidays without providing any source. This is a Nazi-like propaganda technique (or a Hamas-like one, which is the same). I would hate to see the Israeli effort transform itself into the evil character of its enemies. A media campaign is not a Propaganda Ministry.

But overall, good on Israel. I wish the Israeli government success in thoroughly bringing Hamas to its knees and ending the terrorist madness promoted by that progeny of Nazism. Muslims deserve much better than those spiteful fanatics.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

Did anyone happen to see the FOX interview with the son of the Shiek [one of the top five HAMAS leadership]?

It was a stunning piece of reportage.

The son has apparently converted to evangelical Christianity - referred to the Muslim religion as a drug, asked for political asylum in the US and is living and surfing with his Christian church buds in California.

There was also a picture of him being baptized in the Pacific surf!

Oh, did I mention that there is a Fatwah allegedly on his life.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just received the following piece by Victor Davis Hanson. It is an excellent complement to the present discussion. Before I give his piece, I looked him up and I have a couple of comments.

To my mind, real change in public perception will not be made by pro-Israel propaganda (especially if it is grossly exaggerated), but by pro-Israel reporting. Just the facts. (That is why I am so happy Israel is doing a media campaign and so disappointed when I see propaganda seeping in.)

This was not true before the information revolution, but now the Internet is making it increasingly hard to lessen the impact of raw facts. Reasonable people are out there. They are all over the place. All they need is to see is brutal facts without all the yelling. Most of all, public perception will turn decisively when non-Jewish people in the middle start becoming outraged.

I read through a few things about Hanson, but the Wikipedia article (Victor Davis Hanson) suffices because it gives a thumbnail of his beliefs. Hanson is a conservative Democrat who supports Bush. But he is not just about Neocon stuff. Here is a blurb from the Wikipedia article:

Hanson is perhaps best known for his 2001 book Carnage and Culture, in which he argued that the military dominance of Western Civilization, beginning with the ancient Greeks, is the result of certain fundamental aspects of Western culture, such as consensual government and individualism. Hanson rejects racial explanations for this military preeminence, and disagrees as well with environmental or geographical explanations such as put forth by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel.

According to Hanson, Western values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare. Non-Western societies can win the occasional victory when warring against a society with these Western values, writes Hanson, but the "Western way of war" will prevail in the long run. Hanson emphasizes that Western warfare is not necessarily more (or less) moral than war as practiced by other cultures; his argument is simply that the "Western way of war" is unequalled in its devastation and decisiveness.

I need to read more about him to make any responsible conclusion, but one thing is clear from this excerpt. He is an original thinker. So I believe his following comments come from his best thinking and not from engaging in any propaganda effort to sway public opinion.

That, in my view, is the most effective public opinion influencing means of all. The following is published in National Review Online, "The Corner," on January 3, 2009. It is entitled Creepy Times.

There is something especially nauseating about the latest Middle East war — scenes of worldwide Islamic protests with photos of Jews as apes, protesters (in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida of all places!) screaming about nuking Israel and putting Jews in ovens, parades of children dressed up with suicide vests and fake rockets, near constant anti-Semitic vicious sloganeering, Gaza mosques stuffed with rockets to be used against civilians — all to be collated with creepy Hamas rhetoric about the annihilation of Israel. This is the world in which we now live.

Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.

Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world's craven reaction to all this.

Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien's Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised "international community," the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annhilation its aim and religous fascism its creed.

Michael

[Mike11]

Shouldn't this be in the Middle East board?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

Good idea.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "I also notice that Israel has undertaken a media campaign. I also believe that it's about time. Israel even has a YouTube channel to show the reality of the bombings and interviews with Israeli government officials are all over the news. Finally!"

Israel's media campain, like that of many pro-Israel organizations, has been going on for many years. The problem is that the mainstream media, here and abroad, refuses to publish such material. It's only since Youtube et al that it can appear without the permission of the media.

Journalism has died in this century. It's often impossible to tell the difference between supposed news stories and editorials. Example: The Los Angeles Times has been publishing front page photos of the carnage in Gaza, featuring dead babies and grieving mothers; there are no front page -- or any other page -- photos of Hamas rockets landing among Israeli civilians. However, along with the picture of a Hamas funeral, the Times included a photo of an Israeli man cowering on the ground in abject terror -- but the photo gave no indication of what, if anything, was threatening him. This is called objectivity.

Barbara

[Selene]

Yes indeed!

I suggest folks read Allan Drury - 1) Advise and Consent

2) A Shade of Difference

3) Capable of Honor

4) Preserve and Protect

5) The Promise of Joy

6) Come Ninevah Come Tyre

His portrayal of the increasingly politicized press/media and the Supreme Court are brilliant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Drury

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Yes indeed!

I suggest folks read Allan Drury - 1) Advise and Consent

2) A Shade of Difference

3) Capable of Honor

4) Preserve and Protect

5) The Promise of Joy

6) Come Ninevah Come Tyre

His portrayal of the increasingly politicized press/media and the Supreme Court are brilliant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Drury

Adam

Adam -

Agreed on reading (or rereading) Drury. I have recently engaged on rereading the series above, and only have The Promise of Joy still to go on the rereading list.

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

The Objectivist reviewed a couple of the books mentioned and did an interview with Drury. They also had an unfavorable review of one of his other books.

[fight4thefuture]

To my mind, real change in public perception will not be made by pro-Israel propaganda (especially if it is grossly exaggerated), but by pro-Israel reporting. Just that facts. (That is why I am so happy Israel is doing a media campaign and so disappointed when I see propaganda seeping in.)

Hi Michael,

I agree, but unfortunately to counter the current amount of anti-Israel propaganda, it is necessary.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Julian,

I hold that good people get turned off when a lie is perceived. They no longer trust the liar.

I believe this attitude of lying to the public because the enemy does ("because it is necessary") is one of the things that keeps much of the public from sympathizing with Israel. I know I personally don't trust much of the Jewish reporting I read. I always try to get corroboration from a different source.

Whatever happened to the idea that "the truth shall set you free"?

It certainly set the blacks free.

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

My suggestion is keep exposing the liars, not become a liar yourself.

I am reminded of Rand's observation (from "How Not to Fight Against Socialized Medicine" in The Voice of Reason):

In any issue, it is the most consistent of the adversaries who wins. One cannot win on the enemy's premises, because he is then the more consistent, and all of one's efforts serve only to propagate his principles.

Jews will always be pikers at lying compared to Hamas and other Islamist fanatics. They are light years more consistent. Israel will never beat Islamist fanatics at the game of telling whoppers in public and being taken seriously.

Michael

[Mike11]

In my 15 years online I have only had one discussion that mattered to me. I posted on www.allaboutpalestine.com (search for joelmac to see me get epically owned, btw) for about a year and had a series of interesting conversations via PM with a French Palestinian when the riots were happening. We shared similar political views but mostly it was interesting to learn about his identity as a Palestinian, how the 'issues' affected him and how he was treated by French society. On the same board I was able to gain empathy with other Palestinians - Secular and Muslim as well as a Jewish Settler.

This is the only kind of value I've gotten from the internet, not a new political outlook but a more basic understanding of who other people are. I have to ask, what values are being exchanged in this thread? How is anyone being made richer by these posts?

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

And a very, very large portion of Jews.

Edited January 4, 2009 by Joel Mac Donald

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

I learned movie-making from a Palestinian immigrant to Brazil (Fauzi Mansur) and I married into an Arabian culture family. I lived with them for about 5 years.

I learned to see the world from their eyes from discussing life with them. I mostly met good people.

Unfortunately, lying about everyday matters was an accepted habit, at least among the people I lived with. This was one of my culture shocks. I finally understood that this was the way they dealt with the rigid roles men and women are assigned in that culture. Let's say that it was the sugar that helped that particular bitter pill go down.

I did not meet one person in that environment who did not dream (at least at times) about living in a world where deception was not necessary. So although I do not condone lying, I judge it slightly differently for this culture than I would for our culture. This is a more superficial difference than essence, since deception is faking reality no matter who does it. But this approach helped. I needed to understand why many of the people lied all the time about such unimportant matters so I could communicate with them without staying in a constant state of being ticked off.

Once I understood that they were merely trying to get by as best they could in life because they had role models that acted like that and they didn't perceive any other alternative, I was able to nudge many people in that culture toward reason in my discussions with them. I gave them a different role model and a different alternative, but within their context, not mine. (Needless to say, I was not popular with the more orthodox people.)

My real beef is with fanatics. They try to make a virtue out of lying. That is a whole other kettle of fish.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

In my 15 years online I have only had one discussion that mattered to me. I posted on www.allaboutpalestine.com (search for joelmac to see me get epically owned, btw) for about a year and had a series of interesting conversations via PM with a French Palestinian when the riots were happening. We shared similar political views but mostly it was interesting to learn about his identity as a Palestinian, how the 'issues' affected him and how he was treated by French society. On the same board I was able to gain empathy with other Palestinians - Secular and Muslim as well as a Jewish Settler.

This is the only kind of value I've gotten from the internet, not a new political outlook but a more basic understanding of who other people are. I have to ask, what values are being exchanged in this thread? How is anyone being made richer by these posts?

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

And a very, very large portion of Jews.

Human beings are basically the same the world over. A lot of how they flourish depends on the soil in which they grow. The soil can be so bad you get suicide bombers and worshipers of death. Israel has a lot to do with the lousy soil Palistinians grow in, but religion much more, their being used as proxies for Arab war against Israel, oil revenues and the rule of force hardly tempered by law.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to add a thought to my last post.

The idea that lying to the public is necessary because others lie to the public has one drawback that will always come back to bite the person proposing it. He will not be credible to people of good will. Ever.

Let's take this to a personal level. After all, I am part of the public. If a person lies to me as a policy, why should that person bemoan the fact that I don't trust him anymore? I don't like being lied to and I don't respect people who lie to me.

Even with my family and all my understanding about cultural differences and why people do what they do, I took it for five years, but it got to me. I couldn't live like that so I walked out.

You lie to malicious liars. That's OK. But you don't lie to people of good will. I simply don't understand why someone would think, right at the outset, I am stupid enough or corrupt enough to fall for the following:

"I have to lie to you because other people lie to you. But please don't condemn me for my lies. I have good intent. Just condemn the others who lie to you."

In other words, this person is telling me—Michael—that he doesn't trust me with the truth, even though I—Michal—never gave him reason to feel that way. I find that enormously offensive and obnoxious.

If you lie to people of good will, they will categorize you as a liar, as they should.

Michael

[DavidMcK]

The reason there are more news reports about Palestinian casualties is because there are more of them. According to one web site there are 4 Israeli casulties and 430 Palestinians.

[Brant Gaede]

It is interesting how the extreme left is in bed with the extreme right--if one is communist and the other Nazi--in respect to Israel, even inside Israel itself respecting some Jews. Sort of reminding how they were forced together when Stalin signed that non-aggression pact with Hitler. The real idealists gave up on Stalinistic-Communism while the SOBs stayed. The Muslim war against the Jews is simply a continuation of the Holocaust by other means, only this time the Jews are well armed albeit outnumbered.

Ironically, the communists don't know they are communists and the Nazis don't know they are Nazis. But you know them by what they do. And the Muslims and Jews who really are neither don't know what to be, actually, except Muslims and Jews leaving them completely trapped in their irrational religious circumstances.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

The reason there are more news reports about Palestinian casualties is because there are more of them. According to one web site there are 4 Israeli casulties and 430 Palestinians.

Thank god for small favors. Remind me again why this should bother anyone? Who granted whom unconditional self-rule in that territory, and who continued lobbing unprovked missiles at civilian targets.

Thank god for small favors.

[fight4thefuture]

Julian,

I hold that good people get turned off when a lie is perceived. They no longer trust the liar.

I believe this attitude of lying to the public because the enemy does ("because it is necessary") is one of the things that keeps much of the public from sympathizing with Israel. I know I personally don't trust much of the Jewish reporting I read. I always try to get corroboration from a different source.

Whatever happened to the idea that "the truth shall set you free"?

It certainly set the blacks free.

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

My suggestion is keep exposing the liars, not become a liar yourself.

I am reminded of Rand's observation (from "How Not to Fight Against Socialized Medicine" in The Voice of Reason):

In any issue, it is the most consistent of the adversaries who wins. One cannot win on the enemy's premises, because he is then the more consistent, and all of one's efforts serve only to propagate his principles.

Jews will always be pikers at lying compared to Hamas and other Islamist fanatics. They are light years more consistent. Israel will never beat Islamist fanatics at the game of telling whoppers in public and being taken seriously.

Michael

Michael,

I misunderstood what you meant by propaganda. I never meant to expouse any of what you said, and I feel like you kind of jumped on me. By propaganda, I meant forgoing a neutral tone, and writing with an obvious emotional stake in the piece. Granted, one definition of propaganda according to Microsoft Encarta is "2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread," I understand your concern.

In The Art of Nonfiction, Applying Philosophy Without Preaching It (pg. 32), Mrs. Rand said, "I propagandize for Objectivism constantly, in various degrees." Obviously she did not mean that she lies for Objectivism.

Julian

Edited January 5, 2009 by Julian

[fight4thefuture]

In my 15 years online I have only had one discussion that mattered to me. I posted on www.allaboutpalestine.com (search for joelmac to see me get epically owned, btw) for about a year and had a series of interesting conversations via PM with a French Palestinian when the riots were happening. We shared similar political views but mostly it was interesting to learn about his identity as a Palestinian, how the 'issues' affected him and how he was treated by French society. On the same board I was able to gain empathy with other Palestinians - Secular and Muslim as well as a Jewish Settler.

This is the only kind of value I've gotten from the internet, not a new political outlook but a more basic understanding of who other people are. I have to ask, what values are being exchanged in this thread? How is anyone being made richer by these posts?

There's no guarantee that it is easy, but I don't see any other way to win the minds and hearts of the bulk of non-Jewish good people.

And a very, very large portion of Jews.

Joel,

I can relate. My father is Muslim, and sympathizes with the Palestinians, so I have plenty of dinner table arguments with him. I was a Muslim a few years ago myself and was more sympathetic towards the Palestine cause as well, so maybe I could write a piece explaining how I came to support the Israeli side.

I did not write this commentary for Objectivist Living, but I thought I'd share it here, anyway. I posted it in a place where we did not share similar values.

Julian

Edited January 5, 2009 by Julian

[DavidMcK]

"Thank god for small favors. Remind me again why this should bother anyone? Who granted whom unconditional self-rule in that territory, and who continued lobbing unprovked missiles at civilian targets.

Thank god for small favors. "

Ok I'll try to remind you why it should bother someone....25% of those 430 casulties are civilians about 107. These people aren't the same ones who launched the rockets into Israel. It is called being innocent of a crime and being killed.

Does that remind you?

[Barbara Branden]

Julian: "My father is Muslim, and sympathizes with the Palestinians, so I have plenty of dinner table arguments with him. I was a Muslim a few years ago myself and was more sympathetic towards the Palestine cause as well, so maybe I could write a piece explaining how I came to support the Israeli side."

Please do write it, Julian. I'd be very interested, and I'm sure others would be also.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

"Thank god for small favors. Remind me again why this should bother anyone? Who granted whom unconditional self-rule in that territory, and who continued lobbing unprovked missiles at civilian targets.

Thank god for small favors. "

Ok I'll try to remind you why it should bother someone....25% of those 430 casulties are civilians about 107. These people aren't the same ones who launched the rockets into Israel. It is called being innocent of a crime and being killed.

Does that remind you?

Hamas should be condemned for all that, not Israel.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Julian,

I believe we are on the same page. Sorry if it seemed like I jumped down your throat. I was lambasting the words, not the person. Of course it would have been far better if I had asked if my understanding of your meaning was correct.

I did make a distinction above between pro-Israeli propaganda and pro-Israeli reporting. I imagined this was clear, but I could have been clearer.

As to my reasoning in itself, I stand by it.

EDIT: My post crossed with several here. I second Barbara's interest.

Michael