Sunday, January 4, 2009

Greenwald vs. Goldfarb

UPDATED & BUMPED: Ace of Spades weighs in:
The idiot Sullivan even calls Greenwald "fearless" for taking an anti-Israel position which not only won't lose him any readers, but is common wisdom among the liberal establishment.
Read the whole thing. I borrowed Ace's shtick today and got an Instalanche with it, so if you don't read the whole thing, the terrorists win.

UPDATED (AGAIN): Reliapundit delivers a barrage of facts with Black Hawk minigun ferocity.

PREVIOUSLY: Glenn Greenwald today accuses Michael Goldfarb of bloodthirstiness in the death of Nizar Ghayan (or Nizar Rayan, as some have it). Goldfarb's offending post was not a mindless advocacy of violence, but rather a reflection on the fundamental difficulty of fighting a fanatical enemy:
The fight against Islamic radicals always seems to come around to whether or not they can, in fact, be deterred, because it's not clear that they are rational, at least not like us. But to wipe out a man's entire family, it's hard to imagine that doesn't give his colleagues at least a moment's pause. Perhaps it will make the leadership of Hamas rethink the wisdom of sparking an open confrontation with Israel under the current conditions. Or maybe not, and the only way to stop Hamas is to eliminate its capacity for violence entirely. Or Israeli leaders can just try to find a diplomatic solution -- as a majority of Democrats apparently favor. It worked so well with the last cease fire.
The notion that the obliteration of Ghayan's entire family might "give his colleagues at least a moment's pause" is enough to inspire 1,500 words of Greenwaldian gibberish, including a shot at Glenn Reynolds for displaying a "wretched mindset" by suggesting that the Israelis are "civilized people and not barbarians." One mercifully brief slice of moonbat pie:
If you see Palestinians as something less than civilized human beings: as "barbarians" -- just as if you see Americans as infidels warring with God or Jews as sub-human rats -- then it naturally follows that civilian deaths are irrelevant, perhaps even something to cheer. For people who think that way, arguments about "proportionality" won't even begin to resonate -- such concepts can't even be understood -- because the core premise, that excessive civilian deaths are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, isn't accepted. Why should a superior, civilized, peaceful society allow the welfare of violent, hateful barbarians to interfere with its objectives? How can the deaths or suffering of thousands of barbarians ever be weighed against the death of even a single civilized person?
Wait a minute: Who is ultimately responsible for the plight of Gazans? Has it been non-stop misery since 1967? Or at some point over the past four decades, did the Palestinians in Gaza actually have a better life under Israeli occupation than they have had under Hamas rule?

This war was not caused by any genocidal ambition of the Israelis, but by the genocidal ambition of Hamas. Excuse me for repeating myself:
You cannot negotiate with a shark. To the extent that Hamas represents any coherent political philosophy, that philosophy can be summed up in two words: Kill Jews.
And, to further repeat myself, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas by a landslide majority. The Gazans fully intended that there should be consequences to their election of genocidal terrorist leaders and their only disappointment is that the consequences are not (yet) what they intended, namely the death of every Jew in Israel.

You will perhaps be surprised (or perhaps not) that Greenwald imagines it is supporters of Israel who need a lecture about "excessive tribalistic identification." Sending suicide bombers to obliterate Shiri Negari and 18 other passengers on bus 32A -- that's not "excessive," eh?

UPDATE: "Jihad to its maximum degree" -- Right. Like they haven't been trying hard enough to slaughter the infidels. There is kind of a "Black Knight" quality to this.

UPDATE II: Fausta Wertz has a post showing how the genocidal Hamas mentality has spread to the streets of America. "Death To All Juice!"

UPDATE III: At NRO, Gregory McNeal notes that IAF is delivering phone warnings to targets, compared to the 15 seconds of "Code Red" warnings for Israeli civilians targeted by Hamas:

Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom has related thoughts.

UPDATE IV: The Times of London:
Israeli troops fought heavy battles with Hamas fighters in two densely populated Gaza towns today as the Army sought to split the strip into three sections to cut off the Islamist group's supply lines. . . .
The Israeli strategy of splitting Gaza into north, central and southern sections mirrors a similar tactic employed when settlers used to come under attack in the strip.
It enables the military to stop Gaza City being supplied from the south, stops Hamas movements and gives troops distinct areas to clear.
Israeli troops also took up positions in the old Jewish settlement of Netzarim which controls the main north-south road.
Hmmm. It's almost as if the Times were suggesting that Israel's erstwhile policy of territorial settlement was vital to the embattled nation's self-defense. Nah, couldn't be . . .

UPDATE V: A pro-Israel rally . . in France? Somewhere, a French intellectual is muttering to himself, "If only we could have kept the Vichy for another few months . . ."

UPDATE VI: MK Ham: "The Guardian is now eulogizing terrorist leaders in official 'obituaries' chock-full of euphemisms and moral equivalence. Not news stories, but obituaries."


  1. I heard that the Israelis, lamentable liberals that they are, sent multiple cell-phone messages to members of the sheikh's family telling them that the house was to be hit very soon, because there were rockets in it and because the sheikh was a terrorist. Apparently this warning gave the sheikh the opportunity to gather all four wives and ten children to join him in being blown to bits. What a man!

  2. The calculus of dealing with Islamism is different from that of any other -ism and it is confounding. To take them at their word, and they are apparently sincere, martyrdom is accounted as great an objective as actual victory. This makes deterrence difficult, and in the ideal Islamist impossible. We know from human nature and prior Islamist example that completely ineffectual martyrdom will usually be rejected. We've seen this in Iraq and Afghanistan, when recruits found that their trucks were being blown up before they even had a chance to attack, they stopped coming.

    Among the Palestinians we might have that more perfect Islamist attitude. The one that considers it good to simply be blown up without effect on the enemy. There isn't much negotiation with that. There isn't any way to deter it even. There is only the usual and traditional practice of war, kill the enemies until the rest stop fighting. In this case that may require a far higher percentage than usual.

    It is sad what the Arab powers have made of their victims. Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon, all who refused to admit the Palestinians and instead of giving them a home kept them locked in the refugee camps fed on a diet of hatred and insanity should cry for shame at how they've corrupted their fellow man. Instead they'll blame Jews and more will die.