What is being debated: the actions or the actor?

PM Netanyahu’s (post-facto) rationale for the commission of inquiry into the raid on the flotilla is:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened a cabinet meeting Monday called in order to approve the committee elected to investigate the IDF raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. All ministers voted in favor of the committee.

“I am convinced that exposing the facts will prove that our aim was to conduct a defense operation according to the highest standards,” Netanyahu said.

I don’t necessarily disagree, however, writing at Ynet’s opinion page, Gen. Yehuda Wegman argues that there’s a danger involved:

There is a very small distance, if at all, between an inquiry into a state’s right to safeguard its sovereignty and an inquiry into that state’s very right to even maintain this sovereignty. Agreeing to any kind of commission of inquiry as result of international pressure paves the way for an inquiry into Israel’s right to maintaining its sovereignty – that is, looking into Israel’s right to exist as a state.

Breath of the Beast elaborates on this:

It is a classic human tragedy, the injustice of “splitting the difference”. The Israelis are asking only for their half of the loaf- only that to which they are entitled. The Arabs are asking for the whole loaf- the destruction of Israel. To the orthodox peace-seeker who is both intimidated by violence and morally compromised by progressive ideologies such as the political realism I discussed in my last post, it seems “only fair” to split the difference and give the Arabs three quarters of the loaf. By insisting only on mere survival, the desire for peaceful coexistence and the right to protect her people while her enemies have been calling officially and working diligently for her destruction and elimination, Israel has allowed the prevailing sentiment in this debate to be pushed inexorably toward the side of her enemies.

This is the reason that Israel is the only country in the world whose “right to exist” is always in the debate. Friends constantly assert it as if it needed to be said and enemies often get away with behaving as if she doesn’t. While most people claim to believe that Israel has the right to exist and protect her citizens, more and more of them howl in protest at every attempt she makes to do so. More and more people around the world find it possible to rationalize each anti-Israel murder and terror attack as an expression of Arab passion and dedication while the bland logic and humble honesty of the Israelis are, increasingly, seen as stubbornness, bigotry and troublemaking.

PM Netanyahu seeks to defuse a bad diplomatic situation. Still there is little doubt that the inquiry will feed those who seek Israel’s destruction.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

About Soccerdad

I'm a government bureaucrat with delusions of literacy.
This entry was posted in Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to What is being debated: the actions or the actor?

  1. Herschel says:

    I wrote this comment for my local rag the Minneapolis Star/trib on Thursday, it really puts things into perspective. As of this morning, the news of the Kyrgyzstan massacres have completely evaporated from “media” attention, now its back to Israel front and center!

    I am amazed by the obsession of the media with all things Israel. We now have a catastrophic situation occurring in Kyrgyzstan, over 250 civilians have been brutally murdered by mobs, thousands injured, young girls raped by sadistic criminals, and almost a half million refugees on the move seeking safety. “OSH, Kyrgyzstan – An estimated 400,000 people — nearly one-twelfth the population — have fled their homes to escape Kyrgyzstan’s ethnic violence, the U.N. said.”
    Yet the coverage of this truly horrific event is minimal compared to the coverage of the “love” boat where 9 Turkish thugs lost their lives after brutally attacking Israeli troops initially armed with paint ball guns, trying to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza.
    Also, absolutely no mention of Turkey’s brutal suppression of the Kurds in their own area, or their theft of Cypress land, only a constant obsessive/compulsive attention to all things about Israel. Very strange “media” behavior indeed!

  2. Russ says:

    It is a classic human tragedy, the injustice of “splitting the difference”. The Israelis are asking only for their half of the loaf- only that to which they are entitled. The Arabs are asking for the whole loaf- the destruction of Israel. To the orthodox peace-seeker who is both intimidated by violence and morally compromised by progressive ideologies such as the political realism I discussed in my last post, it seems “only fair” to split the difference and give the Arabs three quarters of the loaf.

    Not only does it seem fair to such people, there is actually a statement from the beginning of Mishna Bava Metziah which cites almost exactly this case. The one difference – and one completely lost to most observers – is that the Mishna is referring to a case where the claimaints are speaking the truth. But the this mishna is well enough known that the Government of Israel, if it didn’t scorn Jewish learning, should be aware of the danger.

  3. Alex Bensky says:

    Back when I was in high school a certain number of years ago I recall my debate partner observing, “If you want to shoot me twice and I don’t want you to shoot me at all, it’s not much of a compromise to let you shoot me once.”

    I fully understand Israel’s position in the world and there are good reasons why the Israeli government doesn’t call me up to ask my advice, but I wish Jews still didn’t have this idea that we need to bargain for our existence. On the other hand, another piece of advice I’d give the Israeli government–again, it’s very good that they don’t ask me–is that I’d let it be known to the Arab governments that a nuclear attack on Israel will have a number of results, one of which is that it’s going to be difficult for the world’s Muslim’s to make the pilgrimage to Mecca when Mecca isn’t there anymore.

    I do like the idea that if Israel offers a dispassionate report on the truth with video illustrations to confirm that it is, in fact, the truth, the world will respond by a nod of understanding that it got it all wrong. It could happen. And it could happen that Lucy Lawless is about to knock on my door and ask if she can come in and get out of these wet clothes. In both cases it’s possible but not plausible.

Comments are closed.