I just saw a video of Khaled Mashal, the chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, in which he said something remarkably stupid. Either he’s a chronic gambler and has lost all sense of what he and his country has to lose, or he’s a moron. He said that the Israeli military ground troop buildup on the Israeli-Gaza border is a bluff! So, whenever you call a bluff, if you know anything about poker or common-sense, you have to consider what you have to gain and what you have to lose. What are Palestinians gaining by Khaled Mashal making this statement? Pride? That’s all I can see. What do the Palestinians have to lose? EVERYTHING. This is the worst gamble I’ve ever witnessed. Hopefully for Palestinians it is a bluff, but, I wouldn’t bet on it myself.
Israel is not America. Israel’s history has shaped a highly aggressive national policy. While placing military communication towers on buildings housing members of the media might dissuade a country like America from performing a missile strike, this will not dissuade Israel (this happened just recently). Nor will hiding terrorists in that same building dissuade Israel from missile strikes either (this also just happened recently). While a critical lifeblood of America is world opinion, and the trade that flows from that, this is not Israel’s primary concern. Israel’s primary concern is protecting their territory militarily. The highly immoral tricks that terrorists or immoral enemy combatants have used against the Americans very successfully (for example, planting military targets among or inside civilian targets, hiding behind innocent women while shooting, dressing suicide bombers in burkas, dressing soldiers in burkas, et cetera), will not work against the Israelis.
I am actually somewhat on the fence about the whole Palestinian-Israeli issue. What I am trying to demonstrate here is that the barbaric tactics used by terrorists and immoral military leaders in the past against America will only prove to be a useless tactic against Israel.
I recently saw this picture of a dead child on a site with a caption of, “Is this dead enough for you?” and I thought, is this an acceptable form of political attack? Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you’re on, using the image of a dead child to make a political statement seems like a low-blow, to say the least. The fact is, there is no evidence that America tries to kill children with drone strikes — this is childish, unnecessary demonizing of the Obama administration and America in general. So, what is this image really showing? That war is bad? I think we all know that.
But, of course, we all know that this isn’t the point of the picture and the caption. The point goes something like this:
1) See dead child
2) Be horrified
3) Wonder why the child died
4) Be told that Obama did this
5) Hate Obama
I hope people can think a little more deeply than this.
I have also seen similar pictures used for the Palestinian cause recently. I hope that these kinds of pictures and this form of reasoning doesn’t really affect people as much as I suspect it does, but I do know that the image of a dead child is something that is hard to push out of your mind. As a result, I presume that many people will allow their emotional reaction to overcome their logical thinking, unfortunately.