NoodleFoodlers (E-mail) | Recent Comments NoodleCaboodle (Info) | Archives | Blogroll RSS Feed (Via E-mail) | OList.com Coalition for Secular Government | FIRM
A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!

Monday, January 05, 2009 Hamas: The Big Bully on the Playground By Gina Liggett @ 12:03 AM Thirteen-year-old Gaza resident, Yousef Nakhala, called out the equivalent of "the Emperor has no clothes!" in reaction to Israel's retaliation against Hamas's rocket attacks from Gaza. He said: "I blame Hamas. It doesn't want to recognize Israel. If they did so, there could be peace. Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel, and nothing is happening to them." The kid clearly gets it. But not the civilized world, which has told Israel to hold back, like the platitudinous let's-just-all-hold-hands-and-get-along from the E.U. Foreign Policy chief, Javier Solana: "We are very concerned at the events in Gaza. We call for an immediate ceasefire and urge everybody to exert maximum restraint." Oh wow, what a clever suggestion. Not wanting to piss off anyone else on the playground, the U.S.'s policy is just as morally neutral: "Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people. The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza." (White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe) Just like a spoiled brat, Hamas is getting exactly what it wants -- more pity and attention from the Arab and Islamic world: "Iran strongly condemns the Zionist regime's [Israel's] wide-ranging attacks against the civilians in Gaza. The raids against innocent people are unforgivable and unacceptable." (Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi) "Egypt condemns the Israeli attacks." (Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak) "We are facing a continuing spectacle which has been carefully planned. We face a major humanitarian catastrophe." (Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa) Oh, give me a break. Hamas doesn't have anything to offer the world -- or the Palestinians for that matter -- except the perpetual state of hate and poverty of its population. But what else could you possibly expect from the efforts of an avowed terrorist organization? When Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, won the majority in the Palestinian Authority's parliamentary elections in 2006, the governing Fatah party and the world wondered what this would mean for future peace negotiations with Israel, a two-state solution called the "road map" which would create an independent Palestine alongside Israel. Hamas wants to kick Israel off the playground. It explicitly does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, and it has carried out terrorist attacks against Israel for decades. Even though the Middle East quartet's (U.N., E.U., Russia, U.S.) price for bankrolling the Palestinian government is peaceful behavior towards Israel, Hamas leaders couldn't care less. Hamas attacked Israel and forcibly seized control of Gaza in a very undemocratic fashion within a year after its election victory, leading to an economic blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt. A bully is still a bully if it behaves like one, even though he gets elected to student council. Now maybe Israel can put the bully in his place, having learned lessons from its anemic response to Hezbollah's repeated aggression in Lebanon in 2006 which only emboldened that Islamic fundamentalist organization. In the whole long-running and complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, why is it in America's best interest to condemn an organization like Hamas and support Israel? The principle is that the only moral government is one that upholds individual rights. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights applies this principle well: We recognize that those who attack Israel are not seeking to establish an even freer nation: they are seeking to wipe out the only outpost of freedom in the Middle East. We support Israel not for its failings but for its virtues, and we understand that those who threaten Israel's freedom also threaten America's. If they succeed in destroying Israel, they will turn their full attention to the United States. The bully Hamas has no intention of playing nice, and should be expelled. Israel ought to continue fighting hard and eliminate Hamas. And instead of cowardly giving in to intimidation from the U.N. and Arab/Islamic countries by calling for yet another cease-fire, the civilized world should give unqualified support for Israel in the face of this chronic Islamic threat. Hamas, and the civilian population who elects and supports it, should suffer the painful consequences of their ongoing war against freedom -- and peace. Labels: Foreign Policy   E-mail Gina Liggett    PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)

Comments on "Hamas: The Big Bully on the Playground"
	Monday, January 5, 2009 at 2:14:00 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Michael Labeit E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com Along with "moral" condemnation, the pro-Hamas protesters in Manhattan and around the world are appealing to the old Just War Theory arguments against Israel, most notably the proportionality and discrimination claims. It is, we are told, wrong for Israeli airmen and armoured crewmembers to inadvertantly kill civilians in the act of targeting known Hamas positions. What I think is missing is the principle discussed in Dr. Brook's JWT v. US self-defense essay: that the moral responsibility for all deaths, casualties, and destruction in conflict lies exclusively with the aggressor. If people recognized this, the anti-Israel statements cited by Ms. Liggett would not have been made.
	Monday, January 5, 2009 at 3:49:46 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Ted Coxhead E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk According to reports in the British media, Hamas was expecting some kind of response for breaching the cease-fire, but not THIS response. What seems to enrage the media most is that some Israeli politicians have come close to using the V ( for Victory )word that has been so carefully expunged from the military and ethical lexicon. It is to be hoped though that after the upcoming Israeli elections are decided, that the Israeli's will be able to resist the calls to soft peddle. I doubt it. Has Obama yet spoken? I think, not accidentally, the Israeli's have given him a testing inaugural gift. He comes to power with Israel IN ACTION against Islamic totalitarianism. This is quite different to Israel simply being the victim of a broken ceasefire on his accession. Also, of course, Israel has started to neutralize one of its borders that would need to be neutralized in the event of a strike against Iran. I have just finished "Personal Memoirs of U S Grant", in the Appendix to which is quoted his report of the United States Armies (1865). Speaking of the Rebellion, he says: "I therefore determined, first, to use the greatest number of troops practicable against the armed force of the enemy..........Second, to hammer continuously against the armed force of the enemy and his resources, until by mere attrition, if in no other way, there should be nothing left to him but an equal submission....." Obama will not find these words, but let us hope that Israel will be able to find them for him, because as the ARC says, quoted by Gina Ligget, "If they succeed in destroying Israel, they will turn their full attention to the United States."
	Monday, January 5, 2009 at 9:27:38 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Ted, Obama is playing the "we have one president at a time" line until he figures out a response (he only has two more weeks to use that excuse, but perhaps by then it will be clearer how serious Israel is about fighting this to a win, unlike last year's incursion into Lebanon). Apparently that isn't playing well with the pro-Hamas crowd: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-gaza-obama_slyja ...
	Monday, January 5, 2009 at 11:05:26 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Ted Coxhead E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk KPO'M, your link to the Chicago Tribune has this: "They suggest that his refusal to speak out on Gazaâ€"where at least 460 Palestinians have died, compared with four Israeli deaths from the rocketsâ€"implies indifference to the plight of Palestinians or even complicity with Israel." It puts it in a nutshell doesn't it? The outrage is about how "disproportionate" the Israeli response is. Like, if 4 Israeli's were killed then it would be legitimate to kill between 2 and 6 Palestinians, but 460 is totally unjustified! It needs a Grant or Sherman to explain that even if you kill or maim just one of us, then whatever our response is and how ever many of the enemy are killed, the moral responsibility is entirely theirs.
	Monday, January 5, 2009 at 12:40:21 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Elisheva Levin E-mail: elisheva(at)unm.edu URL: http://ragamuffinstudies.blogspot.com Thanks. I have noticed that of all the responses to Israel (finally!) getting fed up and doing something to protect her citizens, the first supportive ones were from Objectivists. I am one Jew that appreciates that!
	Monday, January 5, 2009 at 13:35:31 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net If anything, Israel is bending over backwards in its attempt to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza. Even when they bombed the home of wanted senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan (which was also used as command center and weapons storage) Israel warned him and his neighbours before the attack (he ignored the warning with his wives and children and was was killed).
	Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 11:56:08 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Grant Jones E-mail: capitalist1776(at)yahoo.com URL: http://www.kalapanapundit.blogspot.com What civilized world?
	Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 1:31:45 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Richard Watts E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net Elisheva, I was on John Lewis' website awhile back and saw this enormous, but non-comprehensive, list http://classicalideals.com/chronology.htm (copyrighted) of attacks by Islamists over the past few decades. It's obvious to me that those condemning Israel are insincere about why they condemn her. When Israel inadvertently kills some(not necessarily innocent)civilians by destroying military targets in self defense, she is condemned. The Islamists deliberately kill thousands of innocent civilians, and have the support of the U.N., the "mainstream" media, and others. Those who condemn Israel for defending herself have nothing against slaughtering innocents, or they would not support the Islamists. So there is some other reason they condemn Israel. I think it is because they hate Israel, (for the same reasons they hate America, which are the same reasons the Islamists hate Israel and America). They hate Israel because she is civilized; because she is a nation of competent, successful and relatively free people, with a government that has some respect for individual rights. They prefer murdering savages. I hope Israel obliterates the Hamas theocratic, terrorist "government" and its civilian network of support, and anyone else who attacks or threatens her.
	Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 22:33:28 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Cameron Reilly E-mail: cameron(at)thepodcastnetwork.com URL: http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/ I'd be interested in your opinion on why, if Israel is the victim here, there are so many UN resolutions condemning Israel's behaviour over the last 50 years but none, that I'm aware of, condemning Palestine? http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1372 Your post suggests that Hamas initiated the violence but I don't see you providing any evidence to support that accusation.
	Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 23:13:14 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: Andrew Dalton E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com "I'd be interested in your opinion on why, if Israel is the victim here, there are so many UN resolutions condemning Israel's behaviour over the last 50 years but none, that I'm aware of, condemning Palestine?" My answer is: Because the UN is a sham organization that mainly represents the interests of dictatorships. By the way, you're not going to get much traction here by posting a link to a troofer/conspiracy website.
	Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 0:44:14 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: Cameron Reilly E-mail: cameron(at)thepodcastnetwork.com URL: http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/ Andrew, if you can refute the information on the "troofer/conspiracy website" then go ahead. The UN represents the views of the world's governments. If it is a "sham organization", then I assume you also think the entire world, outside of the USA and Israel of course, are sham countries?
	Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 7:51:03 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: Andrew Dalton E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com Cameron, people who make allegations have the responsibility to prove them; it's not my burden to refute the arbitrary claims that other people conjure up. (Yes, we care about epistemology here, too!) And I've seen enough of the troofers' claims, such as incorrect statements about the properties of steel at high temperatures, to know that I shouldn't be wasting my time with them. As for the UN, it is a non-sequitur to say that if the UN is illegitimate, then so are all of its member nations. The UN is not a world government. It has no independent power of enforcement. Individual nations do not owe their existence, de jure or de facto, to the UN. If anyone thinks that "representation" in the UN is analogous to a real legislature, they are indulging in fantasy.
	Friday, January 9, 2009 at 13:36:14 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: Cameron Reilly E-mail: cameron(at)thepodcastnetwork.com URL: http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/ Andrew, well in this case all the "troofer" is stating it that the UN has repeatedly censured Israel for its military aggression over the past 40 years and it has not once censured Palestine. So let's just agree that this is FACT and you won't have to waste your precious intellect trying to refute it. You don't care though, because you declared the UN is "a sham organization that mainly represents the interests of dictatorships." Do you have the intellectual integrity to prove *that* claim?
	Friday, January 9, 2009 at 16:26:31 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: Ted Coxhead E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk Cameron Reilly: "The UN represents the views of the world's governments." Yes, it does. Government's like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria to name just three. In Iran, homosexuals may be hanged from cranes in public squares. In Saudi, apostasy and blasphemy may be punished by stoning or beheading. In Nigeria whole swathes of the country are under sharia law with the usual appalling consequences - especially for women. But these countries are part of the UN. Along with Lybia and China and Syria. Then there are the Western nations that like to cozy up to the likes of these to do deals. So why would we be surprised that the UN censures Israel? Why would we not be surprised that the UN does not censure the Islamic totalitarians and gynaephobes? The UN, largely financed by the USA and hosted in America, has no moral legitimacy, no government and no laws that govern nations. It does however, provide a forum for anti Americanism and anti capitalism and hatred of Israel and is given credence by western altruists and multiculturalists. (Does Lybia still chair the UN Human Rights Commission? I'm not sure). The only "sham" about the UN is that anyone should think its attitude to Israel is based on objective analysis or goodwill.
	Friday, January 9, 2009 at 18:54:19 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: Andrew Dalton E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com The reason why the United Nations is a travesty--and why membership by the United States or any other halfway sane nation is self-destructive--has been explained by Ted in the previous post. You're right that I don't give a damn what the UN thinks. I was actually surprised that your original post trumpeted the UN resolutions condemning Israel, as if the opinions of a bunch of chattering transnationalists were an iron law of the universe. But of course, they're not. (The fact that the website was a troofer/conspiracy den was just icing on the cake.) I might add, however, that there is one particular reason why "Palestine" could never be condemned by the UN or by anyone else--no such nation exists!
	Monday, January 12, 2009 at 1:20:29 mst Comment ID: #16 Name: Cameron Reilly E-mail: cameron(at)thepodcastnetwork.com URL: http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/ Ted, while I don't think many people who suggest that the UN is a perfect institution, since 1945 it has been the center of a historic attempt at civilized international relations. It attempts a democratic approach to resolving global issues, where each country has a vote (it isn't one person, one vote, unfortunately). Democracies always involve the voices of people whose values and opinions differ from ours. It has the same legitimacy as any democratic body - that which is given my its members. If you have an superior alternative to democracy, then let's hear it. Unilateral military actions by countries certainly isn't the way forward. Andrew, this "bunch of chattering transnationalists" represent the voices of the people on this planet. Ignore them if you will. Trash them if you will. But it says more about you than it does the UN. Do you want to do away with democracy in your own country as well? And as for Palestine, while it isn't yet officially recognized by the UN, it is referred to in many UN resolutions (mostly discussing the contemptible behaviour of Israel), which you can verify for yourself here (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/resolutions_new_qpal.htm) so there is no reason why it couldn't also be sanctioned by them.
	Monday, January 12, 2009 at 1:24:19 mst Comment ID: #17 Name: Cameron Reilly E-mail: cameron(at)thepodcastnetwork.com URL: http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/ And I might add that there isn't a single Muslim country as a permanent member of the UNSC. So when it comes to deciding about whether or not the UN should get involved in a region, it's hard for you to make a credible case about Muslim extremists running the show.
	Monday, January 12, 2009 at 10:19:02 mst Comment ID: #18 Name: Ted Coxhead E-mail: tedcoxhead(at)yahoo.co.uk "...while I don't think many people who suggest that the UN is a perfect institution, since 1945 it has been the center of a historic attempt at civilized international relations." Cameron, it is neither possible, nor desirable, to attempt civilized relations with nations that are not "civilized". Without by any means exhausting the list, just look at the 3 I mentioned up the thread. Why would anyone wish to have a dialogue with the theocratic thugs who run Iran? Far better to treat them the way Sherman and Grant treated the South in the American Civil War, or America treated Japan. Countries such as Iran, who Hamas are proxies for, should be warned to leave America and her allies alone. Failure to heed such warnings should lead to their destruction. No attempt should then be made at "nation building". They should simply be left with a warning that should they err again, they will face the same treatment. The clear moral responsibility for any civilan deaths or collateral destruction, belongs entirely with the perpetrators. I urge you to read "William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory", (in the Objective Standard, vol 1 number 2) and "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defence (Objective Standard, Vol 1, number 1). These will give you an exemplary explanation of what moral clarity is and what it can achieve. To say of the UN that "It attempts a democratic approach to resolving global issues," is nonsense, simply because the countries involved in "global issues" are not morally equivalent. When Islamic totalitarians and killers of homosexuals and women such as Ahmajinejad use the forum of the UN to say they can smell the sulphur of the devil in the Chamber when Bush is present, then it is not acceptable for you to say "Democracies always involve the voices of people whose values and opinions differ from ours." It's not like the Iranian thug is saying that he likes his eggs sunny-side up and we like ours over-easy, but hey, it's our differences that make the world go round. You see, what monsters like him are really saying is that they don't actually want YOUR world to go around at all. In so far as Iran's proxies are intent on stopping the Israeli world (and ours post 9/11) from going round, then Israel has every right to utterly defeat them. The tragedy is that the source of this evil, Iran, is only being fought by proxy. I think we know what Sherman would have done.
Post Your Comment on "Hamas: The Big Bully on the Playground"
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 5 plus 4 equals 764144931351919424