The ‘Disproportionate’ Lie
Today’s No. 1 Israel-smear word is “disproportionate.” Just run the words in Google News and you’ll see what I mean — 3,500 hits! It’s a fave of such epitomes of moral authority as the European Union and French UN ambassador and the peace-loving, always restrained Russians and — well, you get the idea. Morality fans!
I’m still waiting for someone in the media to call these hypocrites for what they are, and point out the last time any military action Israel took was ever described as reasonable or “proportionate.” How about “never”? That is why the Israelis are wise to ignore such blather and strike out hard.
Meanwhile, in the “business as usual” front, the New York Times today was displaying its usual indifference to Israeli suffering and pro-Arab slant. With its house terrorism apologist, Hassan “Wrong Man” Fattah, on the job, The Times slathered on the sympathy for the poor, poor employees of the Beirut airport, none of whom actually got so much as a scrape. Contrast this with the grudging coverage of Hezbollah murder-rockets landing on northern Israel.
But the Times really outdid itself in its usual area of excellence, which is sophistry and simple-minded analysis. In a lead editorial, the Times opined that Israel risked “playing Hamas’s game” by — get ready for this, friends — blowing Hamas and Hezbollah to smithereens. You gotta love it. Of course, they could send those two groups rose pedals, thereby hurting them politically.
Even that tripe was outdone by a “news analysis” in which Helene Cooper suggested that Syria, now justifiably shunned by the U.S., may have a way of getting the U.S. back on speaking terms again. The path is for Syria to behave even worse than it does now. “Some Middle East watchers say that if things continue to spiral downward, American diplomats may have no choice but to reach out to Syria at least, even if it is through a back channel,” said Cooper. Thank heavens such geniuses are not running our government.
You know the Times is really pushing at its dreadful limits when it makes CNN look good. Last night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and other CNN correspondents provided surprisingly balanced, even compassionate coverage of the plight of Israeli civilians in the north of Israel. Cooper even spent some time with an Israeli artillery battery. The loathsome Christiane Amanpour was nowhere in sight, but a CNN press release says she threatens to return to Israel on Sunday. Get your barf bag ready.
——————
Cross-posted on Mediacrity.
You slit the throat of Jews and then hand out candy to your children.
You crash planes into our buildings and then pretend that it is not your problem and just an isolated incident.
You bomb tourists and innocent people all around the world by the thousands and then make out as if it is a jok–the fault of some precieved slight or land deficit as if 23 countries were not enough to satisfy you.
You come to America to convince others that Jews are pigs.
You look upon non-Muslims as dogs and inferiors.
You support terror organizations, invite them into your governments and political processes and then vote for them even though their raison d’etre is to destroy the countries of other people.
You support Hamas, Hezboullah, Al Aqsa, Al Qaeda the PA and all manner of horrific groups bent on the destruction of the West and Israel.
You fire upon the citizens of Israel and snatch their youth without any provocations.
You refuse to help your own people in order to keep the fuels of war and terror going forever for your own sick political ends and to hide your own evil intentions.
Now you ask us for a proportionate response to your war?
You are wrong. This is a mild rsponse to a global Jihad that is out of control and must be stopped whether you like it or not.
Comment by Gary Gerofsky
— July 15, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
I’d like to hear somebody’s idea of just exactly what a proportionate response is. It doesn’t matter what Israel does, it’s labeled as disproportionate. OK, lay out exactly what the proportionate response is.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 15, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Israpundit
The disproportionate response is a strategy Israel employs, and has for a long time. We should be clear about that. It is not a smear (or at least in the interest of free speech I trust you would not consider it so) for the word to be used in this context.
Israel is saying, simply: Hurt us, we will hurt you back, and worse. I think there is fertile ground for discussion of whether this strategy has been successful, or not.
Today 8 Lebanese Canadians were killed in South Lebanon. Not a good way to improve relations between Israel and Canada.
Comment by Johnny Maudlin
— July 16, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
DISPROPRTIONATE:
U.N. obsession with and resolutions against Israel in the light of far worse problems that they ignore.
Comment by greenmamba
— July 16, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
I suppose we should canvas an area ahead of time and check all passports for citizenship. Then all the citizens of friendly countries can be escorted away and all the others told to stay because it would be unfair if they ran away now that they know that we’re going to bomb the area. What a moronic thing to say.
If Israel was targeting Canadian citizens, then you might have a point. If Canada was still run by leftists, you might even have a point. But, alas, Canada’s government at long last is demonstrating some sense of levelheadedness and have come to recognize just who exactly the enemy is. If that were to impact Israeli-Canadian relations, then it would only reflect poorly on the Canucks.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 17, 2006 @ 3:31 am
Hello P.R.
And speaking of P.R. you may want to get yourself one. Is it possible for you to engage without the name calling? If not then I’ll look elsewhere for the discussion I’m interested in.
Do you think the loved ones of the dead Lebanese-Canadians will process the matter the way you have? And this notion about “leftists” no longer being in charge etc? Is that not just a little broad? It sounds like the non response of someone like Coulter.
Insert the insult in the play of the rational response and call that the rational response. I’m not talking about Israeli Canadian relations as parsed by the government. I’m talking about how Canadians feel, generally, about Israel.
You have a clear bias. Many Canadians don’t. Many Canadians see the thing in more complex terms. They believe there is, in fact, a cycle of violence. Now…see if you can respond to that minus the personal attack.
Comment by Johnny Maudlin
— July 17, 2006 @ 8:06 am
I almost failed to respond because I didn’t realize you were talking to me. When I saw “Is it possible for you to engage without the name calling?” I started to tune out, because I haven’t called any names nor have I launched a personal attack. So I was trying to figure out what “P.R.” referred to, since they are my initials, when I finally realized that you were indeed talking to me and that what you have labeled “name calling” and a “personal attack” is my statement of “What a moronic thing to say.”
So after I had a chuckle… I’m responding.
If one makes a moronic statement, calling the statement moronic does equate to name calling and personal attacks. And let’s face it, you made a moronic statement.
By direct implication, you are saying that Israel should have passed up on that particular target in Lebanon in order to avoid killing the 8 Lebanese Canadians. How could it have been avoided? How could it possibly be known that the 8 were there? It couldn’t have been known. So to imply that they should have skipped that particular target, by direct correlation, means that every target must be avoided out of fear of the hapless Canuck who just might be in the area. That is unless, of course, you are making the even far more moronic assertion, which I don’t think you are, that Israel knew they were there and intended to kill the 8 in that strike. The 8 were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It’s unfortunate, but shit happens, especially when you are hanging out around known Hizbollah targets even after leaflets were dropped hours in advance telling civilians to get out of the area. How do the loved ones feel? I’m sure that they’re sad. But truthfully, it doesn’t matter. They don’t set policy. When you say “relations between Israel and Canada” I understand you to be referring to diplomatic policy. If such an unavoidable, though tragic, event has any impact on the foreign policy of a country, then that country has really got a limp-noodled foreign policy. Do you know that there have been 27 Canadian Israelis murdered in terrorist attacks? Should that impact Canadian foreign policy? No, it shouldn’t, except to the extent that Canadian policy should be governed by what is good and moral and decent. By conclusion, it should side opposite from terrorists.
Cycle of violence? Find a new cliche. Defense against terrorism does not a cycle make. Israel is not the cause of terrorism - the terrorists are the cause of terrorism. This is not the Monteques and Capulets having a duel about some long forgotten fued. This is about the aboriginal Jewish people who are rebuilding their country in a hostile see of enemies that would like to see every single Jew six-feet under. This is about the survival of a country called Israel. It’s not complex. It’s simple.
And finally, the leftists are no longer running the country, much to the delight of every Canadian that I know. Martin and Chretien were a disgrace. And, of course I’m biased - biased towards justice and freedom. I take it your biases lean some different direction?
Oh, and I have no idea what “you may want to get yourself one” and “Insert the insult in the play of the rational response and call that the rational response” mean, so I have no idea what to respond to those lines.
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 17, 2006 @ 9:33 am
P.R.
A close look at what you’ve written reveals that the use of so-called “cliches” is next to impossible to avoid. All that is necessary to justify acts of military violence is to say the enemy is a “terrorist”.
This descriptor “terrorist” becomes meaningless with repetition, just as you have suggested “cycle of violence” is a cliche. If I write “cause and effect” is that more useful?
I doubt you will find it so. You have a clear bias. You are pro Israel and in favour of a sort of unilateral understanding of the conflict over there. So it would be silly to try and sell you any other perspective. I won’t waste your time with that.
This matter of what constitutes a legitimate “target”, as far as Israel (or their main national supporter the USA)is another we-say-it-is-so and so it’s so situation. How do YOU know, personally, that these are Hezbollah strongholds. You don’t. You accept Israel’s position, without question.
Not a particular enlightened position to take, but your inalienable right.
Comment by Johnny Maudlin
— July 17, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
I want to add, before signing off, P.R., that I hope (and I understand that’s it quite futile) a new generation of Palestinians would lead their people into a disengagement with Israel, and put their energies and resources into building their state.
Israel has already realized, or so it appears, that the good neighbour scenario is not going to happen. Hence the wall building.
It’s too bad that some in Israel rarely miss an opportunity to arbitrarily and unilaterally grab a little more land by pushing the wall through areas where Palestinians have been living and farming, but I guess the dream of Greater Israel will die a slow death, like it’s counterpoint, the dream of pushing Israel into the sea.
No matter. Israel will live. But only in relative peace.
Comment by Johnny Maudlin
— July 17, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
So what would you call those who intentionally target civilians? I don’t confuse terrorism with guerilla warfare. The attacks on the South and the North that resulted in dead and kidnapped soldiers weren’t terrorist attacks, they were well planned guerilla operations. Launching missiles into civilian centers where there are no military assets, or sending a suicide bomber to a felafel stand, all with the express purpose of killing civilians… well, that’s terrorism. But I don’t personally give a rat’s ass what you call them. Bottom line, they are the enemy of my country and they seek to kill every last one of us. I therefore advocate killing them first. You got a problem with that?
OK, if guerilla attacks and terrorism is the effect, what’s the cause? Go ahead, enlighten me.
Well, haven’t been there.. but I have developed some communications with Lebanese bloggers and they all confirm that that neighborhood is all Hizbollah. They don’t even go there because they don’t want anything to do with those people. You’ve made an assumption that I’m just some kind of blind sheep. If you have an argument to make - advance the argument. Don’t just toss canards then run for cover.
Maybe in a couple of generations. The last two have been brought up under Arafat and have been indoctrinated to kill Jews and blame Jews for everything that’s wrong in the world. You ever seen that show Barney? You know, with the purple dinosaur? They have a similar show over here and the little kids come on there wearing mock-suicide belts and singing about spilling their blood in martydom. Nice. Fat chance that those kids, and now young adults, are just going to wake up one day and say, “hey, let’s stop the blame game and start to build something.” All they know is “kill the Jews” and their actions are in perfect harmony with their sick worldview.
You don’t even have the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you get all your information from Arabs and their allies, then you would of course come to that conclusion. First of all, Israel is not obligated to give them anything at all, but that’s beside the point. If your assertion was true, why wouldn’t Israel build a nice straight fence and take what they want? No, we are so damn concerned about being nice to them that we destroy Jewish neighborhoods and the line looks like it was drawn by an epileptic.
OK, shove off then…
Comment by Peretz Rickett
— July 17, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
Apparently, there are upwards of 40,000 Lebanese Canadians in Lebanon (the US estimates there are only 25,000 Lebanese Americans in Lebanon). Pretty hard to miss them all. I want to know what they are all doing there especially since now they are all coming back.
As a Canadian, I find it humorous that Johnny Maudlin would wonder how Canadians feel about the deaths of eight Lebanese Canadians. Of course, it is a tragedy for the families but a real bonus for all the Israel haters in Canada. We’ll never hear the end of it. As for it affecting our Foreign Policy, I would bury my head in shame if it did. What is more likely to affect our Foreign Policy is the comprehension that Israel and Canada are fighting the same enemy: Islamic hatred.
Comment by Shelley
— July 18, 2006 @ 12:25 am
I only hope you are right.
Comment by Janice
— July 18, 2006 @ 4:23 am