It’s easy to see the twisted strategy behind the fusillade of rockets directed at Israel: Militants in Gaza are trying to burnish their credentials as leaders of the resistance. They provoked Israeli retaliation. Civilians are paying the price. It’s a devastating, all-too-familiar pattern.
But this time, the rockets are more powerful, killing three Israeli civilians last Thursday. And there are signs that Hamas, the militant group that rules Gaza, feels confident that its allies who have taken power in the Arab Spring will rally to its side. In this battle, Hamas is the aggressor. Israel is the victim. But in the cruel logic of Mideast politics, Israel will be safer and more secure by exercising wisdom and restraint. The Israeli response should be tough enough to send a message to those involved in the rocket attacks, but proportionate enough to ensure that Hamas can’t claim the moral high ground. The deaths of nine members of a Palestinian family in an Israeli rocket attack on Sunday, which is being investigated by the Israeli military, is a sign of how quickly, and seemingly accidentally, the moral ground can shift in a violent exchange such as this one.
Comments
Jeff Jacoby serves up just what he abhors. He complains that the administration's approach is too boiler plate and it should be replaced with more boiler plate. An eye for eye response has what has kept this conflict heated since 1948. It is hard to see how more military hardware inside the borders of Gaza along with changing it to a giant retention facility will change hearts and minds. Mr. Jacoby's direction is not for peace it is for colonization, a concept abandoned many years ago. There are more people of good will than its opposite on both sides but they are frozen by political cowardice and energy to change things. Having Netanyahu as Prime Minister should be a strong indication they would rather just stick their heads in the sand.
Overall you present a cogent postulation. However, one point; and that is that very few positings specify is what a "proportional" or appropriate response from Israel should be. There's no doubt been some inadvertent civilian tragedies. However, no other country is more diligent in its targeting than Israel. If Israel fired missiles as indiscriminately as Hamas the casualties would be tenfold. So I ask, can you define, militarily speaking, thus far, what should Israel's military response be? if anything, I think they have showed great restraint, considering what they could impose.
"The Israeli response should be tough enough to send a message to those involved in the rocket attacks, but proportionate enough to ensure that Hamas can’t claim the moral high ground".."MORAL HIGH GROUND?" This is a typical LIBERAL view by the Globe. How about all of the people being killed in Syria? Globe FORGOT to say. Assad doesn't seem to be concerned about any morality. And worse, the Globe never mentions the REAL agressor here. IRAN. Iran supplies the weapons to Shiites everywhere. This is really an attack on Israel by Iran. Did the Globe just FORGET here? Or is it that the Globe really knows that our anti-military budget Commander in Chief Obama has been continually waving the WHITE FLAG of surrender with regard to Iran?