Manny Macron has graciously recognised Israel’s right to defend herself – provided that no babies get killed in Gaza.
In fact, though he didn’t quite put it in so many words, Manny is unhappy with anyone being killed in Gaza, except perhaps Israeli soldiers. That’s why he called for an immediate ceasefire or, barring that, at least an end to Israeli bombing raids, for which, he says, there is “no justification”.
Now, a ceasefire in the middle of an unfolding military operation before its strategic objectives have been achieved is otherwise known as defeat. Hence in effect Manny calls for Israel’s defeat, which seems to be logically incompatible with her right to protect herself that Manny accepts so magnanimously.
The romantic in me likes to think that Manny is driven by noble emotions, if lamentably those not backed up with any sound thinking. Yet the cynic realises that the romantic is only half-right: Manny is indeed incapable of sound thought. However, the rest of it comes from demographic, rather than noble, considerations.
Manny’s country is blessed with a population 10 per cent of which are Muslims. And not just any old Muslims but those who love to riot, burn cars, loot shops, clash with policemen, cut people’s heads off, shoot up newspaper offices and in general make a nuisance of themselves. Moreover, they vote, usually as a bloc.
Thus no French politician who wishes to remain a politician can do without a sop to the Muslims, who are pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli and – if I’m being totally honest – anti-Semitic almost to a man (also woman, child and babe in arms). Hence, but for this realpolitik proviso, one would have to regard Manny’s statement as frankly imbecilic.
Indeed, if Manny seriously means what he says, one would have to diagnose serious mental deficiency or else a lamentable pedagogic failure on the part of his foster mother Brigitte. She really ought to instruct her charge on the basics of logic.
First, Israel’s right to defend herself has to include the right to respond militarily to one of the worst attacks in her history, with more Jews killed in a single day than at any time since the Second World War. Agreed, Manny?
Good. Then, since Israel possesses an effective air force, using it in support of a ground offensive makes sense. Doesn’t it?
Excellent. Now, the way an air force is used in conditions of air supremacy mainly involves bombing raids designed to degrade the enemy’s military capabilities and paralyse its command structure. True?
Splendid. However, it so happens that Hamas practises terror not only against Israelis but also against its own civilians. It’s happy to pay with their lives for any PR payoff to be derived.
To that end, Hamas command centres, ammunition stores and rocket sites are deliberately located in, underneath or next to hospitals, schools and residential buildings. That guarantees a large number of civilians, including babies so dear to Manny’s heart, will get killed.
This is an outcome that Hamas welcomes and Israel tries to avoid – by issuing advance warnings, telling people to evacuate and trying to aim away from civilian structures wherever possible. However, given the fact that Hamas actively wants to maximise its own civilian casualties, they are unavoidable. Sounds logical so far?
Superb. Yet Manny seems to think that no justification for bombing exists. He is wrong about that. For the only alternative to bombing is house-to-house fighting on the ground.
Manny would be well-advised to read up on the history of the 1942-1943 Battle of Stalingrad. He’ll find out that this type of urban warfare produces the highest number of casualties.
In numerical terms, instead of losing dozens of its soldiers, the IDF would be losing hundreds if not thousands. Yet no one with a modicum of moral sense would expect Israel to protect Gaza lives with those of her own soldiers. Is Manny endowed with that faculty, or has Brigitte failed in that area too? No? Well, in that case we’ve made an unbreakable logical chain.
First, Israel has a right to protect herself. Second, exercising that right involves military action designed to punish Hamas atrocities and deter any repeat performances. Third, no deterrence is possible as long as Hamas continues to exist. Fourth, hence it must be destroyed. Fifth, since, unlike Hamas, Israel hates losing her own people, the military objective has to be achieved with a minimum of Israeli casualties. Sixth, that can only be done by deploying overwhelming air power and as little urban fighting as possible.
Since this logic can’t escape even someone of Manny’s understated intellect, one has to believe he has been misinformed on the military technology currently available. His military advisers must have told him bombs exist that can hit a rocket site located underneath a residential building without damaging the building itself.
Well, Manny, they lied to you. Such precision bombing hasn’t yet been invented, and I doubt that even the Israelis will ever be able to fill this lacuna in military technology.
In the absence of such improbably smart projectiles, how does Manny propose to save Gaza babies without obliterating the logical chain above?
He doesn’t. Instead he mouths the usual bien pensant waffle about ceasefires and ends to bombing: “It’s extremely important for all of us because of our principles, because we are democracies. It’s important for the mid-to-long run as well as for the security of Israel itself, to recognise that all lives matter.”
I propose Brigitte offer this test to Manny: “Name one country in history that has ever fought for its survival on the premise that the lives of its enemies matter as much as its own people’s.” If he can’t, some corporal punishment will be in order (unless, of course, Manny may like it).
Yes, one would wish to regard France as a reliable, right-minded member of the Western European liberal-minded, democratic community. But it is possible to do so only if one overlooks much of its history leading up to 1940, between 1940 and 1945, and now, as highlighted by your percipient comments. France’s largely long-settled Jewish population was betrayed by the Vichy regime and deported to extermination, and she has since saddled herself with a large population of Moslem immigrants many of whom refuse to become well-integrated. The political results include the kind of nonsense now spouted by Macron, making France a weak link in the stresses sure to come in the near future.
Well, and has anybody been called to account in Israel for the carnage perpetrated by Hamas? Isn’t it also the fault of Netanyahu and his government who farted around on that vicious attack by Hamas that cost the dear lives of Israeli citizens and also some guests of the festival? Where was the Iron Dome? Where was the Mosssad? Somebody had to be in charge, because it’s unbelievable how easy it was for Hamas fighters to penetrate the territory of Israel, cause so many civilian deaths, take hostages and wreak havoc. Israel got warnings from Egypt that something was brewing in the Gaza Strip, and yet Israeli officials under Netanyahu exhibited unforgivable negligence and carelessness. The Israeli army failed miserably to stop that massacre perpetrated by Hamas and none of the Israeli top brass guilty of the deaths of hundreds of civilians has even resigned so far, to the best of my knowledge. How can people in Israel trust the government that cannot protect them from terrorists?
France will only find Macron’s stance will add to her troubles. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently wrote, “The Islamists use the freedoms of the West- freedom of speecht, freedom of religion, freedom of association-against the West”.
The political position in France has me wondering how the non-Muslim population will react when they are given their first Muslim president, prime minister, and parliament. Will they be able to regain control of their country once it is under sharia law?