Search  |  Login  |  Register

‘Reasonable’ Response to Hamas?

By David French1404939201000

As a terrorist organization is lobbing rocket after rocket at the Israeli civilian population, President Obama is urging Israel to act with “reasonableness and restraint.”

Let’s define “reasonable.”

When an enemy force consistently and deliberately does all that it can to terrorize and kill as many of your citizens as possible, with no regard for the difference between military and civilian targets, the “reasonable” thing to do is obliterate that enemy. Destroy it. There is nothing unreasonable about self-defense, and there is nothing unreasonable about destroying an armed enemy force. In fact, our own military has a long and proud history of destroying enemy armed forces, and our nation and the world tend to achieve far better outcomes when our military is given the free hand to do the truly reasonable thing: defeat the enemy.

But since we’re defining “reasonable,” let’s also define “unreasonable.”

It is unreasonable to expect Israel to exercise more restraint than the United States would under similar circumstances. It is unreasonable to demand that Israel abide by made-up rules of “proportionality” that we’ve rightly rejected for our own armed forces. It is unreasonable to assume that the so-called “honest broker” role requires this nation to blind itself to truth and violate its own laws by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars per year to a terrorist “unity” government. 

Between the United States, which has pledged to continue funding the Palestinian government, and Israel, which is now dropping bombs to protect itself from terrorist aggression, the only nation that is violating international norms and its own laws is the United States. It’s a violation of federal criminal law to provide support to a designated terrorist organization, like Hamas. Yet the Obama Administration has been unable to provide any meaningful reassurance that the money we send the Palestinian Authority won’t aid Hamas, a member of the PA’s government. Meanwhile, the right of national self-defense — which Israel is now exercising — is embedded in the U.N. Charter.

So, who’s truly reasonable?

This article is crossposted on National Review.

Latest in
Jihad

President Won’t Call ISIS ‘Muslim?’

By David French1424895473737

So, it turns out that at least some ISIS supporters believe that our government’s persistent refusal to understand or acknowledge their Islamic roots — instead preferring to rely on standard “legitimate grievances” or “root causes” explanations for jihad — actually grants ISIS a significant...

read more

It's a War Against Jihad Not Poverty

By Jay Sekulow1424378951298

Now we know why apocalyptic jihadists rule vast stretches of the Middle East, beheading and burning alive all who oppose them. Because it’s too hard to start a business in Syria. At least that’s the verdict of State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, who declared earlier this week that fighting...

read more

War on ISIS Is Still Ineffectual

By David French1424276789451

As Andrew noted , last night State Department spokesperson Marie Harf declared that we “cannot kill our way out of this war.” Instead, she supports — of course — dealing with “root causes,” like — you know — insufficient young entrepreneurs in the Middle East. Facing intense criticism, she took to...

read more

Bracing Truth about ISIS and Islam

By David French1424112898959

Over at The Atlantic , Graeme Wood has written the most important article I’ve yet read about ISIS and Islam, an excerpt: But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the group’s theology, told me, “embarrassed and...

read more