Israel Stands Firm; Postulating

1. ISRAEL REFUSES TO SUSPEND BOMBING:

Various organizations (as well as black Moonbat Cynthia "Unsinkable Cindy Brown" McKinney) have lobbied heavily against Israel having the present ability to defend itself despite two constant years of Hamas launching rockets and lobbing mortar rounds from the Gaza Strip into Israel proper. It is estimated that roughly 10,000 to 11,000 rockets and rounds have hit Israel in that time, equating to 12 to 13 strikes per day.

Despite this international pressure (oddly enough, the US has been strangely silent on the issue both from Bush and the president-elect), Israel has decided not to suspend its own defense:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israel rejected international pressure to suspend its air offensive against Palestinian militants whose rocket barrages are striking close to the Israeli heartland, sending warplanes Wednesday to demolish smuggling tunnels that are the lifeline of Gaza's Islamic Hamas rulers.

Hamas has, in fact, stepped up its rocket attacks. Video of IDF targeting Grad missile launches here. Hamas rockets also struck a kindergarten in the Israeli city of Beersheba. The Israel Air Force has been bombing various Hamas-operated tunnels used for smuggling along the border of Gaza and Israel.

Major media coverage of Israel having the temerity to actually defend itself revolves around so-called "Israeli aggression" in concert with the "poor Palestinian people."

I should like to remind everyone, however, of this one very important and salient fact regarding the "poor Palestinian people" within the confines of Gaza: Hamas was elected, democratically, by "the people" in this area. They actively selected Hamas as the governance of choice therefore, of course, endorsing the utilization, by Hamas, of rockets and mortars against the people of Israel. Therefore, the choice was made and the options are simple:

1. Stop the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel or

2. Expect that Israel will continue to kill Hamas terrorists with resulting collateral civilian deaths

I should also like to remind everyone tending to "bleed" for the "Palestinians" that at no time has any other Middle Eastern or sympathetic state or nation offered to provide land, to host or embrace, arms outstretched, their fellow Arabian brethren and sistren.

And that brings me to the second major point:

2. Postulating On What US Reaction Would Be:

Whilst considering this situation I wondered, in reverse, what the reaction of the United States would be if, for example, Mexico began to lob similar rockets and mortars from Agua Prieta into the community of Bisbee, Arizona, resulting in deaths on US soil? My guess would be that America would not wait two years to send either an air strike against the town or troops on the ground. My guess is that the US would turn Agua Prieta to rubble.

With that in mind I managed to find, during my internet travels, a Belfast columnist who actually supports the idea of Israel defending itself -- and she poses the same question I do:

Israel — the only country in the world not permitted to defend its own civilian population against attack.

Not without the usual, predictable international outcry anyway. If, for the last six months the south coast of England had been daily bombarded with rockets fired by a terrorist outfit in control of, say, Germany ? if people in the region had been forced daily to flee to bomb shelters ? if men, women and children were being killed on a regular basis ... you’d imagine it would have made widespread global headlines. That there would be considerable sympathy for the civilians involved.

And if British forces were to retaliate against the terror group by launching air strikes against its bases — not primarily as a “revenge” operation but in a direct attempt to neuter those rocket attacks. . .

Would there be quite the same backlash in the British media against this as there has been this week against the Israeli response?

What else were the Israelis expected to do in this situation? Sit back and take it? And hope that the plight of its civilians might galvanise the rest of the world into putting pressure on the terrorist Hamas?

Imagine: a female columnist who has more balls, by herself, than all in the UK government. God bless her.

On the other hand, upon more reflection, would the US truly have the courage to mount a defensive attack? With either Bush or the president-elect in office?

I should like to think so. I remain not entirely convinced.

How sad is that?

Happy New Year.

BZ