By Thomas Sowell
No phrase represents more of a triumph of hope over experience than the phrase "
Since everybody seems to be criticizing
Maybe a couple of generations of Palestinians in Gaza living in peace under Israeli occupation and a couple of generations of the occupation troops squelching the terrorists — "militants" for those of you who are squeamish — would set up conditions where the Palestinians would be free to vote on whether they would like to remain occupied or to have their own state — minus terrorists and their rockets.
Casualty totals alone should be enough to show that the Palestinian people are the biggest losers from the current situation, where the terrorists among them, firing rockets into
Why don't the Palestinians vote for some representatives who would make a lasting peace with
We don't know what the Palestinians really want — and won't know as long as they are ruled by Hamas, Hezbollah and the like.
Whatever the benefits of peace for the Palestinian population, what are the terrorists going to do in peacetime? Become librarians and furniture salesmen?
So-called "world opinion" has been a largely negative factor in this situation. Nothing is easier than for people living in peace and safety in
The time to cease fire was before the rockets were fired.
What do calls for "cease fire" and "negotiations" do? They lower the price of launching attacks. This is true not only in the
During the Vietnam war, when American clergymen were crying out "Stop the bombing!" they paid little attention to the fact that bombing pauses made it easier for North Vietnam to move more ammunition into South Vietnam to kill both South Vietnamese and Americans.
Go back a hundred years — before there was a United Nations and before "world opinion" was taken into account.
An Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands at that time would have risked not only a British counter-attack to retake the islands but also British attacks on
Anywhere in the world, attacks such as those on
Today, so-called "world opinion" not only limits the price to be paid for aggression or terrorism, it has even led to the self-indulgence of third parties talking pretty talk about limiting the response of those who are attacked to what is "proportionate."
By this reasoning, we should not have declared war on
Does anyone imagine that this would have led to
Or is the real agenda to engage in moral preening from a safe distance and at somebody else's expense?
Those who think "negotiations" are a magic answer seem not to understand that when A wants to annihilate B, this is not an "issue" that can be resolved amicably around a conference table.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.