Right Wing Nut House

My latest article is up at FrontPage.com where I examine what it is Israel’s critics want the Jewish state to do to protect itself.

A sample:

In the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla incident, we have witnessed a tsunami of virulent, over-the-top criticism of the state of Israel for its actions in interdicting the so-called “peace activists” before they could dock at the port of Gaza.

Reasonable people can argue whether the decision on the methods used to stop the ships was the correct course for the Israeli government to take. Indeed, there is a healthy debate within Israel itself over this very issue, including questions about intelligence, tactics, and whether the propaganda victory handed to pro-Palestinian activists could have been avoided while still maintaining the blockade.

Even the efficacy of the blockade itself is being discussed in Israel, as it has been since the quarantine was intensified nearly 3 years ago. For these internal critics, and those elsewhere who do not wish to see the state of Israel or its people destroyed, it is much too glib to ascribe their opposition as anti-Semitic or even anti-Israeli. But we can certainly put a reasonable question to these critics that never seems to get answered amidst the bombast and posturing from both the Jew haters and genuine “peace” seekers alike.

What is it you would have the Israeli government do to protect itself?

Indeed, what marks the critic of Israeli policy is a disconnect between the perilous reality of Israel’s exposed position vis-a-vis the Palestinians and those nations that support them. They hold a pie-in-the-sky belief that if Israel would only remove the irritants the Palestinians suffer on a daily basis, that the animosity felt by Israel’s enemies would magically disappear.

You can certainly oppose the policies of the Israeli government without standing accused of being an anti-Semite. But at the same time, I believe that even these “peace” critics of Israel are hardpressed to come up with alternatives that would accomplish the same goal - namely, protecting Israel from enemies who wish to destroy her.

The Fence is no doubt a burden on Palestinians. But it has reduced attacks on Israel civilians to near zero. Are critics suggesting that the Israeli government do less than everything within their power to protect their citizens? As long as there are thousands of Palestinians willing to blow themselves up just so they can take a lot of innocent Israelis with them, I would posit the idea that it is a moral imperative for the government to construct a barrier between the fanatics and the innocent.

Since neither Hamas or Fatah have any intention of reining in suicide bombers and those who fire rockets into Israeli villages, what moral stricture should Israel follow to ease the blockade, or tear down the Fence? That it is better to die than allow your avowed enemy to suffer? I don’t follow the logic of these critics which makes me more convinced that the disconnect they suffer is a moral was well as a logic trap. They appear to me unable to make a leap beyond their obvious concern for the burdens under which Palestinians live and see the issues from the standpoint of Israel reacting to efforts to destroy her.

Why this singular fact should receive less moral weight than Palestinian suffering is a mystery to me. If someone could explain it, I’d be grateful.