By Beryl Wajsman
Wednesday, July 5, 2006For years western fellow travellers of Palestinian terror have held Israel to an egregiously offensive double standard. Condemnation after condemnation was showered on the lone democracy in the Muslim Middle Rim of this small planet after every military response to the thousands of murderous attacks launched against her citizens. after all it was argued, the terrorists were not acting in the name of any state. There was no sanction of governing authority. Therefore, in the contorted logic of the left, Israel had to accept the national body blows because the homicide bombers were not committing acts of international aggression. They were merely venting the frustrations of years of occupation fuelled by lack of political autonomy. Well, all that changed after the Kerem Shalom attack. and Hamas must now bear the bitter fruit of the betrayal of the responsibilities of political autonomy.
Put aside the fact that under international law Israel had every right to retaliate after each and every attack committed not only by Palestinian terrorists, but by Hamas, Hezbollah, the al-aqsa Martyrs brigade and half a dozen other gangs operating from southern Lebanon; from Syria; from Judea and Shomron; and from Gaza. Put aside the fact that Israel could have quite justifiably responded to any of the 1,000 Qassam rocket attacks it has been bombarded with since its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, particularly under the "responsibility to protect" injunction propagated by the Canadian sponsored International Commission on State Sovereignty and Intervention. What changes the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic after Kerem Shalom is that Hamas--the duly elected governing authority of the Palestinians--readily and immediately accepted responsibility for it.
The Palestinians say they are ready for "de jure" statehood? The Palestinians argue that their vote for Hamas was to clean out the corruption of the arafat and abbas' Fatah regimes? The Palestinians defend the notion that Hamas best represents their national aspirations? Well and good. Then it is time that the Palestinian people, and their duly elected Hamas administration, learn that it is not just about rights but just as much about responsibility.
Hamas, as the governing authority demanding Palestinian autonomy, in celebrating its authorship and execution of the Kerem Shalom attack and the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit must therefore be held accountable not just for a savage act of "stateless" terrorists, but for an act of international aggression on a par with arab state aggression against Israel in the 1967 and 1973 wars. and the Palestinian authority is now subject to the maximum retaliatory response that is the right of every nation, including Israel, under international law. Hamas has just hoisted itself on its own pétard.
It matters not, as some have suggested, that Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was not involved in the planning of this assault on Israel's national sovereignty. It matters not, as others have declared, that the father of this aggression was Hamas "political" director Khaled Meshaal, who has freely admitted being responsible for dozens of homicide bombings, and now operates out of Damascus under President assad's protection. It does not matter because they share the same goals and have demonstrated neither the capacity nor the desire to arrest the savage lust for the blood of the Jews that has been the hallmark of Hamas doctrine and deeds.
Those commentators who argue that we should draw a distinction between Haniyeh and Meshaal have about as much intellectual rigour as those who would debate how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. They are transparently shameful in their sophomoric sophistry and hateful hypocrisy.
These are the same voices that deny history and refuse to recognize that Israel was the only nation that accepted the arab state of Palestine after partition while its arab neighbours launched an aggressive attack and kept the West Bank and Gaza under occupation for 20 years. The same voices who have denied to Israel the same right under international law exercised by France, Russia and the United States--in the latter's case in its Pacific possessions--of holding territory acquired in non-aggressive self defense until peace is attained. The same voices who refuse to recognize that as unfortunate as occupation is, the Palestinians living under Israeli administration have lower infant mortality, better medical services and a greater percentage of educated young people than any of its frontline arab neighbours. The same voices who choose to forget that Israel has offered to end its occupation in return for recognition and peace beginning one week after the 1967 War and continuing through Oslo and Madrid and Camp David and been rebuffed by the Palestinians each and every time.
It has been said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Now they have lost the benefit of the doubt that Israel has stoically demonstrated through the months of Hamas governance and in the period following Gazan disengagement. Israel took the national body blows. One thousand fiery rocket blows. But after Kerem Shalom we have a new ballgame. The Palestinians will now have to take some blows as they deal with the consequences of Hamas' betrayal of the responsibilities of jurisdictional autonomy they have so long demanded.
The attack at Kerem Shalom was an act of international aggression by an independent governing authority against a sovereign state. Borders were crossed; blood was spilled; a "prisoner" was taken; and "credit" for the deed was proudly accepted by Hamas. These are all acts of war not peace. Israel has every right under international law to full retaliatory response as it had in 1967 and 1973. Kerem Shalom means "Vineyard of Peace". In the aftermath of this american independence day let us all remember that a place in the vineyard of independent and civilized nations comes with a price. Let's see if the Palestinians are prepared to pay it.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement