Tom Smith’s Defense of Israel

This is very well done:

. . . The people fighting Israel now say, shamelessly, that their goal is the destruction of Israel, and you know, in their cups, they would avow they would love to see every last Jew dead. That is who they are. And wanting some place with a wall around it and plenty of guns to protect yourself from such people is a mistake?

If I ever would have thought it was, the smoking hole in Manhattan filled with human ashes convinced me otherwise. Israel was and is a collective act of self-defense by the Jewish people , perhaps the most well justified act of self-defense in the history of the planet, which Europe, in an untoward moment of decency, somehow let slip by. But if it was a mistake, it was of the best kind, and Europe and the Arabs should now have to live with it. If the existence of Israel bothers the Arab nations so much, they can distract themselves by trying to build even one country that is not a pit of tyranny and medieval barbarism. But of course, now the idea seems to be that the whole rest of the world should be brought down to that level, one planeful full of innocents at a time. Richard Cohen and the rest of us need to face it — we are all Israelis now.

Worth reading in full.

5 thoughts on “Tom Smith’s Defense of Israel”

  1. Just for kicks, I looked over a few of Richard Cohens opinion pieces to get a flavor for his ideas and ideology. Here’re a few illuminating excerpts:

    During the Jim Crow era, many American communists fiercely fought racism. This is a fact.

    ~ Opening line to his article “No, It’s Not Anti-Semtic.” No, seriously, I’m not kidding. At least we now know where his ideology lies and to whom he looks for inspiration and moral guidance; communists. Strike one Rich. Then there’s this:

    After he resigned as Israel’s prime minister in 1983, Menachem Begin became a recluse. Much had gone wrong in his life, including the death of his wife, but he was also being blamed for Israel’s invasion and occupation of southern Lebanon — a quagmire in the making. He sunk into a depression. In contrast, American leaders in similar circumstances issue chirpy statements and write nonsense op-ed articles about Iraq. It is enough to make everyone else depressed.

    ~ From “Our Leaders Depressing Optimism.” Classic defeatism of the hard-core lefty. I’ll bet he misses Jimmy Carter really badly right about now. Then there’re a series of articles which don’t even need to browsed, you already know what’s in them: A) Vietnam’s Forgotten Lessons B) Terror Alert: Severe Risk of Hype C) Culpability Deficit Disorder.

    I don’t think we’re dealing with an intellectual giant here. Or, if this is what passes for an intellectual giant on the left these days, it’s no wonder they’re out of ideas.

  2. Cohen’s column is poorly reasoned in a way that I think is typical for him. He makes some reasonable observations, but his central assumption — Muslims would not fight if Israel did not exist — is probably invalid. I suppose he is begging the question too. But never mind. I think Smith’s argument stands on its own.

  3. Jonathan, I’ve always found the “Muslims only fight because of Israel” line hard to swallow. It doesn’t explain Muslim on non-muslim violence in India, Thailand, the Philipines, the sudan, nigeria… I think there are a couple other indo-chinese countries we can add to the list as well, (indonesia?) And how about muslim terrorism in Chechnya and Bosnia/Albania? Those people may have valid gripes with Russia and the serbs, respectively, but does they still use the same terrorist style-tactics that almost unique to islamic terrorism. Oh, and how about Iraq? Was Al Kada blowing up muslims by the hundreds because of Israel?

    The use of Israel as an excuse is a red herring. On the bright side, the uptick in muslim terrorism worldwide is helping people figure this out.

  4. Obviously, this is not “state-sponsored” as were deaths in the concentration camps, the gulags, the killing fields. Nonetheless, muslim on muslim violence is clearly where the numbers of deaths are mounting. And, in a way, we always come back to that chart from the Nov 2003 Atlantic Monthly, with its pastels that compare “state-sponsored killings” with “battlefield deaths.” That we destroy our “own” may seem counterintuitive, but then most police would argue the most dangerous calls are domestic ones and families tend to be the first suspects.

Comments are closed.