The Shotgun Blog
« Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper, Me and the NCC | Main | Take your money back »
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The antiwar right on Gaza
Of course, not everyone on the right is going to agree, but there have been some very strong statements by the antiwar right on Israel's bombing of Gaza. On the outset, let me say, that Hamas also attacked Gaza back in July 2007 and 90 Palestinian civilians were killed in one day. I don't subscribe to the Manichean dualism of some observers of the Arab-Israeli conflict, on both sides, which dehumanizes the other as the source of all evil and problems. I frequently condemn both sides. Yet this is a reason why the United States should step out of the entangling conflict which often does nothing but bring terrorism and anger to our shores, it is not in the American national interest. Nor do I believe it is in the Israeli national interest, as the pictures being displayed right now by Arab sattelite channels will only further enrage people and incite more terrorism against Israel. America's massive military and economic support to Israel only implicates us in the deed, and spreads terrorism to our shores, as grand strategy theorist, and realist, Barry Posen wrote this time last year.
Condemning an aggressive foreign policy and lauding noninterventionism is not alien to classical liberalism. One only has to glance at the natural law theory of John Locke, the intellectual forefather of American democracy, for instance who contrary to common belief, had a lot to say about foreign policy. Locke's just war theory was in the footsteps of Grotius, Augustine, and Aquinas, and Locke believed in nonaggression, noninterventionism, and war only in the defensive. A wonderful analysis of Locke's theory of the just war can be found in A. John Simmons' A Lockean Theory of Rights.
Conservatives and libertarians condemning Israel's onslaught of Gaza have been manifold including Patrick J. Buchanan, Congressman Ron Paul, Scott McConnell of the American Conservative, Justin Riamondo, and Phillip Giraldi. Even if you are one to disagree, check them out. Outrage at the pounding of Gaza comes not only from the left, but also from the right.
Posted by Omar Abu Hatem on December 30, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
Sure, it is possible to discuss whether Israels response to Hamas terrorism is sufficiently "proportional" or not. But does anyone deny Israel the right to self defense?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2008-12-30 3:40:01 PM
Outrage at the pounding of Gaza comes not only from the left, but also from the right.
Posted by Omar Abu Hatem on December 30, 2008
Though not much outrage when 3,000 or so rockets and mortars were indiscriminately fired into Israeli territory over the last year. The Israeli's are using precision guided munitions. They could have carpet bombed the place. You reap what you sow.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-12-30 4:07:04 PM
Omar
"I frequently condemn both sides."
Let me be the judge of that.
"Nor do I believe it is in the Israeli national interest, as the pictures being displayed right now by Arab sattelite channels will only further enrage people and incite more terrorism against Israel."
What the f***? Please explain what is and isn't Israel's national interest vis-a-vis self-defense.
The Israeli's could be lobbing marshmellows back at Hamas and we'd still hear no end of wailing and ghashing of teeth on Arab satellite channels about how those evil Jews were trying to fatten up Palestinian children for matza balls.
Who are you kidding feigning libertarian neutrality?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-12-30 6:08:27 PM
As a bit of a hawk, I must confess that I like Ron Paul's idea of halting aid to Israel along with the surrounding Arab and Persian proxy states. It won't change the dynamic much, just the sources of funding. It will probably do the same thing as Israel testing Palestinian interest in nation building when Israel withdrew from Gaza. The libertopians can then sleep easy knowing that they have done their little bit of isolationism in the increasingly dangerous and thoroughly integrated world of good (well, less bad), bad, and ugly nation states well seasoned with several hundred million (and growing) seventh century throw-back jihadists.
Oh, to be back in Eighteenth century America. (Sarc-off)
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-12-30 6:11:33 PM
This piece should be called the anti-self-defence right instead of the anti-war right. I am not familiar with the others named but I do know that Pat Buchanan oozes with anti-Semitism. Anyone who has followed his writings for a while cannot avoid noting it.
John Chittick, yes indeed if the Americans along with the Europeans and others stopped funding and ceased meddling in this area, Israel would be better off and the problem would be soon solved. As it is the Americans receive more from Israel than they give, especially in the way of vital information, but they are forever interfering in the internal matters (including elections) to say nothing of silence all the while Israeli civilians are being bombarded by mortars and rockets from Islamofascists. They suddenly come to life as soon as Israel shows any sign of defending herself to demand "restraint". Of course if they were experiencing this from across the Canadian or Mexican border, they would not show any such restraint, nor should they. I do not blame the Americans for being motivated by self-interest but I do blame them for their actions in the area. Please understand that by Americans I am referring to their government.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-12-30 6:25:39 PM
Palestinians blame Hamas, Abu. Guess the "blame the jews" memo hasn't gotten out to them yet. From MEMRI:
Editor of the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida Hafez Al-Barghouthi criticized Hamas for not prolonging the tahdiah, and for kidnapping Gilad Shalit: "Prolonging the tahdiah was a supreme national interest. Why hasn't [Hamas] prevented the aggression and the massacre? How many times have we written, and President Abu Mazen has declared, that these missiles [that Hamas is firing at Israel] as ineffective and contrary to the supreme national interest. Even Hamas saw them as contrary to the supreme national interest at the time of the tahdiah. We said, also, that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit cost us 500 casualties in one year."
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-12-30 7:03:05 PM
Omar Abu Hatem,
Your Ron Paul link does not point to a story in which he condemns Israel's onslaught of Gaza. In fact, the story indicates that Ron Paul would not condemn Israel's bombing of Iraq:
"Back in 1981 when the Israeli's attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq nearly every member of the U.S. legislative branch condemned the assault. Not Ron Paul. In fact he took the floor to defend Israel's right to act independently in the arena of foreign policy."
h2o273kk9 accurately describes Ron Paul's recommendation of halting financial and military aid to the Middle East including Israel.
Posted by: yoikes | 2008-12-30 8:40:11 PM
Simmon's is an incorrect use of the possessive. The Chicago Manual of Style recommends the additional 's' after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant. Simmons ends in a sibilant however, is disyllabic. The recommended us is Simmons's.
Re: Buchanan is an anti-Semite.
Derbyshire’s Law: ANYTHING WHATSOEVER said by a non-Jew about Jews will be perceived as antisemitic by someone, somewhere.
Re: J.S. Mill On Non-Intervention (1859)
"The sacred duties which civilized nations owe to the independence and nationality of each other, are not binding towards those to whom nationality and independence are either a certain evil, or at best a questionable good."
Posted by: DJ | 2008-12-30 9:31:17 PM
Should read;
The Chicago Manual of Style recommends the omission of an additional 's' only after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-12-30 9:33:12 PM
The Israelis are under threat and defending their country! It's amazing how when Arabs attack Israel most of the world is quiet. Dead jews doesn't seem to concern much of the world. However, every nut comes out of the woodwork and condemns Israel when it fights back. Israel is a democracy which even allows anti-israel arab parties to sit in their parliment. How tolerant have the Palestinians been of political opponents? Hamas violated a ceasefire(one of its many violations) and fired rockets at civilian targets. 80% of Israeli casualties have been civilian. 83% of Palestinian deaths have been Hamas members so who is really targeting civilians. I get the feeling from some supposedly non-Muslims that they would be more than happy to see Israel disappear. Maybe they think "Hey, we let the Muslims kill 6 million Jews, take the land, and then maybe that will calm them down". Guess what these jokers have targeted for execution converts to christianity in the West Bank and Gaza.
Also, I think Pat Buchanan does have anti-semitic sentiments. He comes from a family that were staunch supporters of Franco in Spain(an ally of Hitler). Since the end of the cold war, he has opposed Israel on every policy debate. Pat claims that the Israeli lobby controls American foreign policy. Buchanan is a fascinating guy. During the Cold War, he supported Vietnam and every other military engagement that the U.S. was involved in. He was for the American programs for Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Yet, he became an isolationist as soon as the Cold War ended. Then ,he started talking about an Israel lobby. An old joke about Buchanan goes like this " Pat Buchanan doesn't hate Jews. In fact, he lost a relative in the concentration camps. His uncle fell out of a guard tower!"
Posted by: Dan | 2008-12-30 10:09:50 PM
DJ, noted. Thanks.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-12-30 10:27:51 PM
Kalim,
While I agree with you that US should not be spending taxpayer money to support foreign nations, this does not in any way validate your point about Israel. Israelis are defending themselves against an enemy that wishes to destroy them. Hamas simply cannot accept Jews not being dhimmis in the middle east. Please note that I purposefully isolate Hamas here. I am hoping that most Palestinians (and Muslims in general) do not think this way ...
Posted by: Charles | 2008-12-31 8:26:06 AM
Look, this was an expected outcome by the Hamas when they started lobbing mizzles that sizzle. This is part of their media campaign to show the world something... talk about dead-enders...
If you want an effective media strategy to convert the anti-war segment into supporters of Israeli actions of self-defense, simply have the Hamas video feeds interspersed with video of Adam Sandler saying the word "poop". That should be enough for the cool kids to change their tune.
Posted by: Canucklehead | 2008-12-31 9:56:36 AM
Give me a fracking break Omar. It is pretty easy for you to criticize Israel dozing on your couch never having to wonder when a Kassam rocket might come through your livingroom window.
Giving moral support to the side that is in the right is not the same as being in an entangling alliance. Pat Buchanan has never had anything good to say about Israel and in fact is a huge apologist for the former Nazi regime. The man is freaking nuts.
Posted by: Faramir | 2008-12-31 11:46:40 AM
Great response Dan. It is fascinating how the mixed up anti-Israeli Ron Paul right does not perceive that it shares the same arguments as the Soros MoveOn.Org wacky pacifists, or even uber leftard Noam Chomsky. Disapportionate response? Notice the first time such a concept came into being was in reference to Israeli response to being attacked by its neighbours? Why wasn't the sinking of a warship that took hundreds of Argentinian lives in the Falklands War disapportionate?
Because it is war. There is no general thinking "OK, 2 dead Israelis, so lets see how we can make sure we kill 2 Palestinians, not 1, not 3, but only 2."
As for the idea that they hate us because of Israel, what crap. Quite early in the 20th Century the Wahhabis vocalized their disgust for American immoral society. Read some literature and watch some Al Queda tapes. They clearly call for a worldwide caliphate and the destruction of the West and Christianity.
Posted by: Faramir | 2008-12-31 11:54:31 AM
When will the West and Israel just lie down and let Islam stomp all over them? Some people seem to really get upset when they keep standing in the way of the light. The blame for this war, and many wars around the world, can be placed firmly at the tent flap of Islamist fascists.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-12-31 5:43:11 PM
If Pat is an anti-Semite, Franco is hardly the right guy to support.
"Despite repressive measures taken against Leftists and a substantial number of summary executions, Franco's Spain had no gulags. Nor did his government pursue a systematic genocide against any segment of the population. In fact, Spain was a safe haven for European Jews and went out of its way to rescue the Sephardim, European Jews of Spanish descent."
Hitler Stopped by Franco by Burt Boyer
Selected Quotations from columns by Patrick J, Buchanan
*On the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, 6/25/82
"Politically, mankind suffered no irreversible loss with the sweeping of the PLO from the international chess board. As virulently anti-American as it was anti-Israeli, the PLO
has been a Soviet cat's-paw, the linchpin of international terror, the base camp for the worst elements on earth, a friend to every enemy of the United States from the Sandinistas in Nicaragua to Idi Amin in Uganda."
*On the state of Israel, 1983
"Israel remains a tough, resourceful, energetic nation, an offspring of the West . . . whose current struggle merits sympathy and support."
*On the Israeli strike against Iraqi nuclear reactor,6/11/81
"From a security perspective, the Israelis' preemptive strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor outside Baghdad was timely and crucial.
..Given the implacable hatred of Baghdad for Israel-- the nation is referred to only as "The Zionist Entity" -- the prospect, indeed, the probability of atomic weapons in Iraqi hands, was one with which the Israelis literally could not live.
..righteous United States condemnation of Israel, a small sliver of land with three major cities, rings hollow. How, for example, would we expect President Reagan and Secretary of State Haig to act if weapons-grade material were being fed into a Soviet-built Cuban reactor, with Castro
declaring: 'This one is for the Yankees.
..what Israeli could go to sleep secure with revanchist Palestinians a few miles away nursing their hatred of the 'Zionist imperialists' who destroyed their homeland and drove their fathers and mothers into refugee camps?"
*On the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights, 12/17/85
"It would not be at all unreasonable if the Israelis came to the conclusion that their survival, more than ever, depends upon themselves alone. If a majority in that country have arrived at such a conclusion, it is natural to seek security in geography and guns, not treaties and
talk.
..The militants -- Syria, Libya, Iraq, the military wing of the PLO -- will settle for nothing less than eradication of the "Zionist entity" from the Arab world. Within Egypt,
Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, there are millions more for whom the humbling and destruction of the Jewish state is a nightly dream. Even the "moderate" governments in the region -- Egypt, for example -- could probably not survive
a permanent peace which left East Jerusalem under Israeli control."
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/buchanan.pat/ftp.py?people/b/buchanan.pat//buchanan-on-buchanan
The fundamental problem is that Jews like Alain and their philo-semitic allies, regardless of their ideological differences, share a tendency to attack conservatives like Buchanan for expressing thoughts and behavior they consider normal and defensible for Jews. The deception they share and promote, with very few exceptions, is that this is not happening.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-12-31 5:47:53 PM
DJ, ignore the truth all you want but it does not change a thing. As for Buchanan I see nothing conservative about him and I disagree with his take on issues for reasons other than his documented anti-Semitism.
As for trying to deny his anti-Semitism I recall watching him being interviewed on EWTN (a Catholic network no less) on the topic of Islamic terrorists who had barricaded themselves in a Catholic Church. They had stormed the church and taken a priest and a few nuns hostage and preceded to treat them in a less than humane way. The Israeli military had surrounded the church and refused to allow the terrorists to go free, yet they did not fire on the church. Buchanan could only blame Israel, which was not really surprising for anyone aware of him. He is at least consistent. It still remains that I dismiss him for his views in general, such as being an isolationist and anything but conservative. I can see how this would attract you of course.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-12-31 6:34:39 PM
God help us. Can you imagine this loud mouthed SOB Buchanan as POTUS. Even BO smells a lot better than this a-h-e.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-12-31 8:32:38 PM
DJ: I notice all the quotes you use for Buchanan are over 20 years old. He has certainly taken a much different stance since then.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-12-31 9:20:34 PM
PB wrote in 1999, "As for my views on Israel, they have changed. With the Intifada, I came to believe that Israel's survival now mandated a homeland, a flag, and a nation of their own for the Palestinian people. A friend I made in Israel at the end of the Six Day War, Yitzhak Rabin, reached the same conclusion at the same time. For attempting to negotiate peace with Arafat, Rabin, too, was called an anti-Semite and Nazi, and was murdered in that climate of hatred".
Posted by: DJ | 2008-12-31 11:24:09 PM
"Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said before the 1990 invasion of Iraq, Buchanan made "an appeal to anti-Semitic bigotry"[116] and "accused Israel's American supporters of goading the United States into the Persian Gulf War"[125] by writing in one column, '"The civilized world must win this fight,' the editors thunder. But, if it comes to war, it will not be the 'civilized world' humping up that bloody road to Baghdad; it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown." Buchanan doesn't see anything anti-Semitic about this statement, and he responded, "If it is the lack of Jewish names among those soldiers, why is my list not also anti-Italian, anti-Greek, and anti-Polish?"[116]
Posted by: DJ | 2008-12-31 11:28:16 PM
It never changes. If Americans like Buchanan say "The Israeli people are America’s friends and have a right to peace and secure borders. We should help them secure these rights, but U.S. and Israeli interests are not identical. They often collide, and when they do, U.S. interests must prevail", then they are anti-Semites. Americans arguing for American interests are demonised.
The isolationist Charles Lindbergh, and Buchanan's defence of Lindbergh are the subject of constant smear campaigns, in particular by the ADL.
Des Moines Speech: Delivered in Des Moines, Iowa, on September 11, 1941
"Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak."
Posted by: DJ | 2008-12-31 11:57:30 PM
Folks, seriously, all of you wacko jew-loving cocksuckers need to get a life. The non-jews who defend israel on these blogs have no idea of the hatred and contempt the jews have for them.
Jews live and breath hatred. Hatred of everyone else with the exception of other members of 'God's chosen people'. The extent of their blood-lust is substantiate by their ruthless killing of Christ. What kind of people collectively cheer on the murder of an individual like Christ?
Answer: the filthy blood-sucking jew. So think: do you honestly believe they give a rat's ass about us 'goyim'? 'Goyim' is a term rat-faced jews use in private to refer to non-jews ... it mean parasite or slime.
Anyway, get real folks, and stop whoring yourselves for Uncle Cohen and Rabbi Goldberg. The worst aspect of the jew is how he screams rapes, murders, pillages, and does some more raping and murdering, and when someone points this out, the jew starts yelling 'anti-semitism' O, how i wish the holo-hoax had actually occured!
Posted by: Ethan Davenport | 2009-01-01 12:50:52 AM
Wow there sure are some wild opinions here and a few sane ones. I personally endorse the idea of non intervention and neutrality especially in the Middle East. These folks have been going after each other for a very long time.
This is a bit long and dry but its (seems) an unbiased look at the situation in Israel by a group called "Stratfor" or "Strategic Forecast".
Check it out.
Geopolitical Diary: Israel's Strategy in Gaza
December 31, 2008
Five days after Israel launched Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, its war strategy is showing signs of unraveling.
On Tuesday, militants in Gaza launched some 40 rockets into the western Negev and even fired a couple of rockets that reached as far east as Beer Sheva, 25 miles away from Gaza -— twice the distance Hamas rockets previously were believed able to reach — and 25 miles from Dimona, where Israel’s nuclear facilities are located. In launching the military offensive, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had a mission to destroy Hamas’ command and control and military capabilities. The rocket barrages, however, not only are continuing, but are increasing in threat value.
So far, the Israelis have been fighting the war from the air, using tactical intelligence to target Hamas facilities, smuggling routes, tunnels and militant strongholds. Given the difficulties in destroying an entity like Hamas in a densely populated region like Gaza, any air campaign must rely on actionable intelligence concerning the location of weapons, personnel, tunnel networks and safe houses. This means Israel has only a very small window of time to get the job done and prepare ground forces to mop up any remaining targets.
But time favors Hamas. If the initial air assault fails to take out the bulk of Hamas’ military capabilities, the air campaign will get drawn out. The longer the air campaign, the more time Hamas has to shift its weapons and personnel and devolve command and control to the unit level, thereby gradually eroding the quality of Israel’s pre-war intelligence. All Hamas needs to do for now is focus on the survival of its core leadership and militant assets. If Israel can be convinced that the air campaign is not working, it will be pressured to resort to a ground war. And that is where things get really messy.
In a ground war, Hamas would not be simply fighting on its home terrain; it would be fighting in a city. The Gaza Strip is not a country. It is a densely packed refugee community that has existed in a legal no-man’s-land for more than a generation. This is not a refugee camp of tents, but a city with a population density comparable to that of New York City —- just without many multistory buildings. A war in such circumstances would play to every strength that irregular and numerous Hamas forces boast and every weakness of the technophile but manpower-limited Israeli forces. Hamas certainly wants to win this round, so it needs to drag out the air campaign and prepare its forces for a war of attrition against Israeli ground forces when they present themselves as targets. Hamas already is preparing militants for suicide attacks against the IDF when they enter Gaza, with the knowledge that the IDF has become increasingly casualty-averse in its military campaigns over the y ears.
So far, it looks like Hamas will get its wish for a ground campaign. Israel’s Channel 10 television issued a report Tuesday, citing Israeli military intelligence assessments that the air offensive in the Gaza Strip had destroyed one-third of Hamas’ rocket arsenal (or 1,000 out of 3,000 rockets), including several hundred long-range rockets capable of reaching deep inside Israel. Considering how difficult it is to gauge exactly how many rockets have actually been taken out when they are now lying in heaps of rubble, the accuracy of the report is highly dubious. But the image presented is sobering. While Hamas forces were caught somewhat by surprise, they lost only one-third of their highly mobile forces. The rest remain in play and are likely beyond the reach of anything but a sustained ground assault. While the veracity of the report is impossible to confirm in a time of war, Tuesday’s rocket barrage is a big sign that Israel’s air campaign failed to achieve decisi ve results in its first days.
Israel now has to shift to a less desirable strategy. On Tuesday evening, the defense minister asked the Cabinet to add 2,520 more reservists to the 7,000 called up in recent days. Israel appears to be preparing for a protracted ground assault on Gaza —- hostile territory it has no desire to occupy, and where Hamas is preparing to conduct a war of attrition against a casualty-averse army. The Israelis have attempted this strategy a number of times before, to little avail. The decisive results the Israelis had hoped to achieve with an air campaign will be that much harder to achieve in a ground war, but that is precisely where the situation seems to be heading.
Posted by: JC | 2009-01-01 10:01:58 AM
Stratfor is a great source, thanks JC. As for the saliva dripping anti-Israelis, well they deserve no response. I'd rather be a goyim, than an infidel. That is what this comes down to. Do you prefer the jihadists or the Israelis? I'll take the Israelis any day. They try to avoid civilian casualties, the jihadists seek out civilian casualties. Enough said!
Posted by: Markalta | 2009-01-01 1:30:23 PM
Alain and DJ, Pat is definately a blame Israel firster, and sometimes a blame American firster. The man is fixated on Hitler and American guilt in WWII.
And he is no conservative. He is a populist and protectionist.
As for Franco, DJ, I agree. Franco was not perfect but he was far more legitimate than the Comintern forces.
Posted by: Faramir | 2009-01-02 1:43:53 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.