Dershowitz And The Case For Israel

Here's a piece by Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Professor, making the case for Israel's current and ongoing military action against Hamas.

It's difficult to argue against retaliating in great force against a foreign government which fires rockets at one's own citizens. If Mexico, still seething over the loss of Texas, were to do that I suspect the reaction from Washington would be swift and sure. Clearly, it wouldn't take decades of rocket fire and suicide bombings before decisive and effective action was taken.

The timing is interesting, only less than a month before we have a new seated president. The current occupant, as Garrison Keillor calls Bush, has pretty much abdicated, leaving us with, not one president at a time, but in actual effect, no president. Bush and Cheney are on the talk show circuit patting themselves on the back for their crimes against humanity.

Obama has been quite open in his assertions that Israel has a right to defend itself against deadly threats. I suspect that both Bush and Obama, who is supposed to have been briefed on such stuff, have essentially told Israel that if it wants to demolish Hamas buildings, 'go ahead, knock yourselves out, but get it done and over with before January 20, 2009. After that we'll get back to you'.

Speaking of timing, it should not be lost on anyone that Israeli elections are scheduled for February, 2009. The credentials of the well known contenders are pretty much hard line.

I can understand Dershowitz's observation that the UN, Europe and Russia opposition to Israel's actions only serve to encourage and enable Hamas, even though, at least from the point of view of the UN and Europe, their opposition might be motivated mostly out of humatarian concerns.

Watching the News Hour tonight I was struck by the significant face time given to the plight of the residents of Gaza, with emphasis on women and children in great distress. I'm personally not aware of significant face time given to the plight of residents of the towns on the receiving end of Hamas rockets.

What I can't stop thinking about is that Hamas decided to renew the rocket attacks against the civilian populations of towns within the range of its rockets, a range that has been extended significantly. Why did they choose action which can only be seen as a provocation? They must have done so with full expectation that Israel would react as they have, and that their people would be a grave risk. Perhaps they don't see those in harm's way as "their people". After all it seems pretty much acknowledged that the rockets are being fired from populated areas, making Hamas vulnerable to criticism that they are hiding behind the skirts and pants of their women and children.

I have been critical of Israeli politicians when they implemented policies which essentially resulted in a blockade of Gaza, creating scarcity of essential items like food and medicine.
Since Israel removed itself from Gaza I think this burden has shifted onto the backs of Hamas.