Welp. New Year, time to get back into form.
Who would I be if you agreed with me, anyway?
In my blog, I have come out against:

1. Regulating schedule I drugs
2. Pulling out of Iraq
3. Barack Obama

And in favour of

1. Microsoft
2. Interventionist foreign policy
3. Furries

And most recently feeding coyotes to turn them into pets. The degree to which any of these oppositions or supports have been literally-minded, I leave up to you, my loyal reader, but as it's been awhile since I've said anything likely to get people upset with me let's open this second week of the new year with a bang. So to speak.

Fuck Hamas. To hell with them completely.

I had the opportunity to work in Ashkelon, which I did not pursue because I was busy trying to make money, and do regret since. I hope the people I know who were involved there are doing well, and that things haven't been screwed up too badly, though of course to a degree this is unavoidable. It is also true that I am an ardent Zionist--which a friend of mine says he finds "highly amusing coming from a goy". So be it. It's mostly this second part that motivates my initial declaration.

I've said before that I suspect many people who object to something in part do so because objecting to it in whole is intolerable. That many people who would prefer to see all drugs proscribed settle for getting rid of coke and pot because nobody wants to give up their martinis. That at least a fair number of gun control advocates would really like all firearms banned, but will settle for handguns. That the motion picture industry would actually like people to pay every time they watch a movie, but will settle for DRM. So it goes.

I suspect, deep in my heart of hearts, that many people, such as political leaders and spokesmen, who object to any given Israeli actions probably actually do not entirely accept the legitimary of Israel as a political entity to begin with. But in the absence of actually being able to say "get rid of the goddamned Jews already," they say "we strongly condemn this" or "the Israeli response is disproportionate".

What the fuck. Where was the UN saying the Israeli response was disproportionate when they unilaterally disengaged from Gaza, at great security cost to the Israeli state and in a move that was widely unpopular and seen by some as a Sharon betrayal? Disproportionate is being compelled to restrain yourself while a sectarian terrorist group (and this is what Hamas is; let's not grant them undue legitimacy) blindly fires rockets into your territory? Can anyone imagine the United States sitting idly by while being shelled from Ciudad Juarez (after all, there are plenty of people who consider parts of the United States to be illegitimately owned by Washington)?

Of course not.

A disproportionate Israeli response would be to take the IAF and begin carpet-bombing Gaza, which they have the capacity to do. A disproportionate Israeli response would be bulldozing every last damned building in the Strip, since Gazans themselves (to say nothing of the various UN organs) appear to be completely incompetent or unwilling to stop attacks on Israeli sovereign territory. A disproportionate Israeli response would be decimating Gazan "civilian" populations (67% of which support those rocket attacks) to flush out Hamas militants.

Israel, like most people, doesn't want dead children. But how the fuck are you supposed to deal with Hamas? How? How do you deal with an enemy that hides weapons in mosques and uses hospitals and international NGO buildings to screen its command infrastructure, whose own rocket attacks are blatantly anti-civilian (even their own civilians)? Whose leaders use their own goddamned families as human shields? How are you supposed to deal with that? Letting the UN continue to stick its thumb up its ass and work with Hamas because "oh heavens there are so many of them how can you possibly avoid it we're just doing our jobs here rockets what rockets oh yeah sometimes but hey you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs amirite"?

It is a tragedy when civilians are killed in any military conflict. But, of course, the IDF is not targetting civilians--Hamas is. The IDF is not publicly gunning for the extermination or removal of an entire group of people--though I (and many others I should fairly note) would shed no tears if every last member of Hamas were to leave this vale of tears the same way they occupied it--in explosions). In the past, we understood that civilian casualties--particularly in densely populated areas, particularly in areas where these civilians are tacitly or explicitly in support of one's enemy--are unavoidable, but should be mitigated wherever possible. I just wonder about those, who seem to think mitigation is not enough. Would anything be?

Mind you, I don't think that civilians should be compelled to suffer unnecessarily. Certainly, I would agree, even, that Israel has perhaps understated the scope of the humanitarian problems there--though it is hard to say, given how hard it is to find someone reporting objectively on Gaza, one way or the other. And I would prefer the situation resolve with what modicum of peace it is possible to resolve it with. Palestinians--as all people do--deserve to be able to live in peace. This statement is complicated only when the agents of destruction have received democratic sanction from those self-same innocents. In the ideal world, Gazans themselves would rise up against Hamas, but given Hamas's policy regarding the nebulously-worded "collaborators," I suppose this is unlikely.

What has happened to Gaza, before and during Hamas governance, is reprehensible, and redress should be attempted as soon as it is legitimately possible. But we have seen--Israel has seen, the West has seen, Gazans have seen--what happens when you negotiate cease fires and sign treaties with venomous snakes. Serpents can't read the paper it's written on. Sometimes, the only answer is to cut off their head and toss the body on the trash pile. Where Hamas belongs.

You can use this form to add a comment to this page!




You will be identified by the name you provide. Once posted, comments may not be edited. For markup, use 'bulletin board' code: [i][/i] for italic, [b][/b] for bold, [ind][/ind] to indent, [url=][/url] for URLs, and [quote=Author|Date][/quote] for quotes (you can leave the date blank but you need the pipe). HTML is not allowed. Neither is including your website :)