This morning’s Boston Globe has a column by H. D. S. Greenway on the current blowup between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and by some miracle he actually makes sense through most of it. But then, towards the end, the fact that he writes for the Glob sinks in, and he reverts to form.
Greenway succumbs to the classic tactic of moral relativism, equating the Palestinians and the Israelis, citing each of their misdeeds and trying to balance them out, saying that since they’ve both been bad, both should share an equal portion of the blame. Here’s the money paragraph:
When Hamas won the election, would it have been better not to withhold tax money collected from the Palestinians in the hopes of bankrupting the democratically elected government? Would it have been more productive, in the long run, for Israel and the West to have cut the new Hamas government a little slack to see if actually running a country would make them more pragmatic?
In a word, Mr. Greenway, no, it would not have been better.
Yes, Hamas was democratically elected. But they ran on a “war” platform, reaffirming their clearly-stated goal of the extermination of “the Zionist entity.” They pledged more violence, more death, more destruction on Israel. To then offer a hand of friendship to someone who just won election based on their commitment to Israel’s destruction would be suicidal.
I, personally, hoped that seeing just how much international support (read: charity) Hamas would get after taking the reins of power would make them more pragmatic, but that didn’t work out too well, either. Instead, we get the next-best thing: the distinct chance that the terror elements will erupt into a civil war, and try killing each other for a change.
Works for me…