Grenwald vs. Goldfarb on Israel

Gleen's up to his typical schtick.

As is Andrew Sullivan. (Both safe links to bloggers criticizing these elder statesmen.)

Gleen trots out his typical easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy concerns about "dehumanizing the enemy" and "Terrorism as a fear-mongering tool." La Sullivan, meanwhile, goes to the only thing he knows about war -- that is, religion -- and wonders about just war doctrine.

Once again, we heard nothing from Gleen about dehumanizing one's opponents as Hamas lobbed 3000 rockets into Jewish population centers. We heard not a peep from La Sullivan about just war theory as it applied to such attacks.

The only time that either of these two Mensa Chapter Presidents worry about such things is when Israel counterattacks.

Hamas attacks they take as normal, justified, and, it seems, good.

Over at Time Magazine, yet another call for ggetting tough with Israel. Once again, we must mau-mau Israel into making the hard choices for peace and all that.

How about mau-mauing the Palestinians into making the hard choices for peace? To wit: Their notion of expunging the Jewish state and reclaiming all that territory for Palestine is farcical. It's not going to happen, ever. No people has voluntarily agreed to exterminate itself as a discreet polity in the history of the world. American Indians may have moral claims to the people of the United States doing just that; but it's not going to happen. Australian Aboriginals may agree with Midnight Oil's insistence that it's time to "give it back," but it's not going to happen.

Israel will never agree to self-exterminate either. And yet Hamas continues pursuing a terrorist strategy with precisely this end game in mind.

Where are the calls for Hamas to make some "hard choices" of its own?

Hamas wishes to endlessly wage a war it cannot win militarily in order to achieve a result not only impossible, but unimaginable. Where are the so-called "realists" of the left to instruct Hamas on the realities of their situation, and to demand that -- however unpopular -- they finally agree to recognize Israel's right to exist and give up their absurd demands for a right to return and the destruction of the Israeli state?

Why are all such "hard choices" demanded of Israel and none at all from Hamas?

I should also note the false nobility of these, erm, thinkers. They present themselves as bravely waging peace. The idiot Sullivan even calls Greenwald "fearless" for taking an anti-Israel position which not only won't lose him any readers, but is common wisdom among the liberal establishment.

What "fearlessness" is being demonstrated by Greenwald? What nobility by Sullivan and Time?

All of these writers demonstrate that they are -- nobly and bravely -- willing to trade Israeli lives and security for peace. Well bully for fucking them. It is rather easy to propose that someone else give up his right to life and freedom for terror in the interests of peace, humanity, and just war.

This "fearlessness" costs Greenwald et al. nothing at all. I could make a proposal similar to theirs -- I fully support murdering Greenwald, Sullivan, and Time's Miller if that noble sacrifice of mine will help stabilize the Middle East.

Have I acted nobly or "fearlessly" for offering up the lives of others to achieve a result that pleases me?

Gleen of course returns to his pet insult "chickenhawk" by snidely noting that "Warrior Michael Goldfarb" is willing to let Palestinians die.

But what of the Warrior Gleen? He fearlessly offers up Israelis' lives, but, last I checked, didn't seem especially eager to offer up his own for any cause, including for a war he claims to wish to win (the War in Afghanistan).

Last time I checked, Gleen, a president you supported was about to take office, still promising to send additional brigades to Afghanistan.

Has the Warrior Gleen signed up yet at a recruiting station to take part in this grand adventure? If so, he's been spectacularly modest about this latest accomplishment on his blog.

More: Obama, of course, says nothing.

He has studiously avoided committing himself to just about any position beyond 1) Hope and 2) Change. You don't get to keep doing that as president.

While some give him the benefit of the doubt for keeping out of Bush's way, I refuse to. He is simply ducking yet another issue.

He could easily support Bush's position on Israel -- that wouldn't undermine Bush, of course. Quite the opposite.

It's nice and all that he's avoiding undermining Bush for the moment, but it's also quite clear he will join the Get Tough on Israel brigade when sworn in. Otherwise he would support Israel (and Bush in his support for Israel).

He's just hoping this problem will neatly go away for him by the time of his inauguration. It won't.

Procrastination is not a policy.

More: The UN's special envoy for the Palestinian situation says that Israel should just get over Hamas' "harmless" rocket attacks.

Harmless?

Is he perhaps dehumanizing the Israelis?

Will Gleen take him to task for such?

posted by Ace at 04:19 PM

| Access Comments